# Why the lib-dems are shit



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.

Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2010)

Lib Dems in Tower Hamlets flirted with racism as a local vote winner in the late 80s.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Lib Dems in Tower Hamlets flirted with racism as a local vote winner in the late 80s.



That's right -they were taken to the ombudsman and found guilty as fuck -the BNP in the same area weren't. Which bring sup their homophobic campaign in the same area.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 19, 2010)

Because they are like the other political parties.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Apr 19, 2010)

More police on the streets? Is this an indirect bailout for dunkin' donuts?


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 19, 2010)

Nick Clegg is a slippery bastard who would quite happily run any political party no matter what their policies were. 

Which pisses me off as my local bloke is pretty decent and I'm on the verge of voting for him instead of the loonies.  (help me)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Because they propose and support contradictory policies in different areas - no central principle beyond gaining power.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Because the Orange Book on which current party policy is based is a classic example of _me-too _deranged neo-liberal _let the market run free_ thinking that betrays the legacy of a 150 years of liberal social thought.


----------



## chilango (Apr 19, 2010)

Wouldn't it be quicker to write a list of the reasons why they _aren't_ shit?


...though I can't think of any off hand.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 19, 2010)

Because the half who aren't C19th liberal free market fundamentalists are the judas scum of the SDP: Thatcher's useful idiots.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2010)

Because they are New Labour with sandals.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> the judas scum of the SDP


A trick too left wing for Blair, who decided just to be Thatcher.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 19, 2010)

were the council that tried to reduce pay and tighten conditions in leeds refuse department that led to the seven week strike by binworkers

cut elderly care in richmond upon thames

support privatisation of council housing

helped remove islington iwca members from a board of the new deal for communities

support part privatisation of post office (before full privatisaton?)

threw away or sold off 35,000 library books annually in camden council in coalition with the tories

privatised swansea council's it department leading to a strike

...

ad nauseam


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Because Lembit Opiks uncle Oscar was the Estonian Quisling.  And lembit himself played at being an anarchist whilst at Bristol University.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 19, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> A trick too left wing for Blair, who decided just to be Thatcher.



Yes, but this thread is about the Lib Dems. See threads passim for plenty of denunciation of the New Labour scum.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 19, 2010)

Clegg's wife's dad was a right wing Partido Popular MP and he hasn't repudiated this (or even felt a need to) same with his public school past in fact he returned to try and gain support there.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Because of Nick Clegg's thatcher worship and for their use of scab labour against the Leeds bin-men.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 19, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Lib Dems in Tower Hamlets flirted with racism as a local vote winner in the late 80s.



1) They flirted with racism at the last council elections HERE....!!

2) They said they would further privatise the post office, selling 49percent of it. Cunts


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> 1) They flirted with racism at the last council elections HERE....!!



Did they - any details?


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did they - any details?



i can't remember the exact crack, but it was something along the lines of whinging that Labour were soft on immigration, it basically sounded like a BNP leaflet


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And lembit himself played at being an anarchist whilst at Bristol University.



No he didn't? He was nowhere near them?

He was viewed the same then as he is now? Insincere, self-promoting, not to be be taken seriously..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> No he didn't? He was nowhere near them?
> 
> He was viewed the same then as he is now? Insincere, self-promoting, not to be be taken seriously..



He bloody did - through the anarcha-feminist group, i've seen their crappy mag (can't remember title - can check later) with his name in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

For the promise of 'savage cuts' to public spending.



> As the three main parties begin the conference season with competing proposals for how they would make spending cuts, Clegg used a Guardian interview to set out plans including a long-term freeze in the public sector pay bill, scaling back future public sector pensions, and withdrawing tax credits from the middle class. He is even prepared to examine means-testing universal child benefits, though he is cautious of destroying "middle-class solidarity" with the welfare state.


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He bloody did - through the anarcha-feminist group, i've seen their crappy mag (can't remember title - can check later) with his name in it.



Are you sure? I guess you must be.. 

Long time ago, but he was seen as an opportunist kiss arse? He was nowhere near any of the 'big' demonstrations (the ones that made the Sun) as he was President, and as President he definitely was not aligned with the left, although he may have been before and swung.. If I recall he got that for his ability to down pints and eat creme eggs..


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> withdrawing tax credits from the middle class



I wonder if, as with other conveniently vague definitions of 'middle class', this would turn out to mean anyone earning over about £20k.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> Are you sure? I guess you must be..
> 
> Long time ago, but he was seen as an opportunist kiss arse? He was nowhere near any of the 'big' demonstrations (the ones that made the Sun) as he was President, and as President he definitely was not aligned with the left, although he may have been before and swung.. If I recall he got that for his ability to down pints and eat creme eggs..



Creme eggs   a more useful line of work that he should have pursued further.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

...cutting the lighting budget in working class areas.


----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

'mansion tax'


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 19, 2010)

little_legs said:


> 'mansion tax'



Penniless little old ladies who have inherited mansions will presumably be exempt.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 19, 2010)

little_legs said:


> 'mansion tax'



??????????


----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Penniless little old ladies who have inherited mansions will presumably be exempt.



it'll never be implemented... that's what pisses me off about the notion of this tax and yet lib dems pretend to be honest/fair. 

when they initially announced it for £1mln properties, i've read that half of the lib dem party does not believe in this crap. and then they thought, oh ok... screw £1mln lets turn in to £2mln... what is this? a ridiculous election ploy.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He bloody did - through the anarcha-feminist group, i've seen their crappy mag (can't remember title - can check later) with his name in it.



were the Cheeky Girls in that?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.



They kept Labour in power in the late 70s. This led to the ruin of Britain with the IMF being called in. If they hadn't backed Labour, Thatcher would have got in much earlier, but would have lost the next election, before she could be saved by the Falklands.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2010)

Quartz said:


> They kept Labour in power in the late 70s. This led to the ruin of Britain with the IMF being called in. If they hadn't backed Labour, Thatcher would have got in much earlier, but would have lost the next election, before she could be saved by the Falklands.



Hang on, the IMF deal was '76, and the Lib-Lab pact '77 - 79?

That Andy Beckett book points out that the Tories went to the IMF no less than seven times during the period they were running post-war Britain.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

The IMF was called in 1976 - the lib-lab pact was in 1977. (And the loan was paid off sharpish)


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 19, 2010)

well i'm voting for them


----------



## Melinda (Apr 19, 2010)

When barrister John Taylor stood against them in Cheltenham, the Lib Dem candidate ran a race based campaign against him. 

"Local bloke for local people." Nigel Jones was the guy. Cuntitude of the first order.

Jones was later made a life peer (as was Taylor as it goes) largely as a result of getting skewered in a fatal incident in his constituency surgery.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The IMF was called in 1976 - the lib-lab pact was in 1977. (And the loan was paid off sharpish)


I had a boss who was son of a Labour MP (and also Tony Benn's godson). He got really huffy and defensive when I mentioned this to him.


----------



## Melinda (Apr 19, 2010)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> well i'm voting for them



You agree with Nick too?


----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

say... where is mark oaten?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 19, 2010)

Melinda said:


> You agree with Nick too?



I agree with Nick (NOT Griffin)... 
I've read the manifestos and the lib dem one definitely appeals to me the most...


----------



## JimW (Apr 19, 2010)

Quartz said:


> They kept Labour in power in the late 70s. This led to the ruin of Britain with the IMF being called in. If they hadn't backed Labour, Thatcher would have got in much earlier, but would have lost the next election, before she could be saved by the Falklands.



Of course, 'going cap in hand to the IMF' was due to Treasury incompetence or skullduggery, not any particular mishandling of the economy by the Labour government:





> Joking apart, the IMF visitation of 1976 is still reliably posted as the ultimate failure of a Labour government. In fact, the IMF-precipitating episode of 1976 was sparked by someone at the Treasury, never identified, selling pounds for dollars in the wake of the cuts imposed and recovery achieved in 1975 by the chancellor, Denis Healey. Derek Mitchell, then permanent secretary at the Treasury, would later tell me that the entire 1976 episode, IMF and all, had been ‘strictly a headline crisis’. Indeed as the crisis broke, the scarcely pinko Investors Chronicle had asked: ‘why now, when the real crisis was last year?’


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n17/letters


----------



## ska invita (Apr 19, 2010)

Introduced ID cards and the database state
Killed over a million civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and voted this country into two imperialist wars
Sucked off every last banker in The City, a trick that magically got rid of Boom and Bust and brought in a golden era of PFI
^^^when i read the socialist press saying Vote Lab to keep out Cons I really want to weep. Voting Labour under no illusions? Words fail me.


> Originally Posted by butchersapron
> withdrawing tax credits from the middle class


Tax is one of the strongest points I think: People like me on minimum wage would be paying a lot less tax: personal allowance up to £10k + scrapping of council tax (which breaks my bank, i dont know about you) in favour for local progressive income tax. If your on a low income you benefit greatly out of libdem tax proposals. Compare that to champion of the wroking class Brown scrapping the 10p tax band

EDIT; we all know mainstream parties are full of shit, the question which of the big 3 does most for social equality in the short term + creates an environment in which progressive politics can flourish?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Are the lib-dems your mooted 'anarchist party' then?

You tax cut is actually the poor funding the rich - see the detailed thread on it on this very board a few weeks back.

And yes, of course, if you attack the lib-dems you're calling for a labour vote. Only problem with that is that i'm not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2010)

because clegg is so close to having genuine political relevance that you could sence his erection from behind that cheapjack fucking podium.

And because the lib dems basically just say whatever they think people want to hear at any one time.


----------



## TAE (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why the lib-dems are shit


With all your recent frantic anti-LibDem posting, you sound like you are getting really worried they might get a decent vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

I hold the future of the nation in my hand  

Come on, i just hate the lib-dems...


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2010)

The fucking hypocrite that is Simon Hughes


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Simon Hughes, _the straight choice._


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 19, 2010)

Simon Hughes:


> We now operate in an open market for political ideas.
> 
> A socialist party born out of trade unions has no major place.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 19, 2010)

said it before on another thread, but 2009:


> Nick Clegg has launched an outspoken attack on life in Britain under Margaret Thatcher and blamed the former prime minister for sewing the seeds of the current economic crisis.
> 
> Speaking to Liberal Democrat activists last night, Mr Clegg, blamed Baroness Thatcher for creating a "brutal" and "soulless" Britain, and condemned the former leader for her brand of "cut-throat, sink-or-swim materialism".
> 
> In what many in Westminster will see as an attempt to brand the Tories as the wrong party to deal with the recession, the Liberal Democrat leader described Mrs Thatcher's Britain as a place where profit was worshipped above all else.



2010:


> The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg today praises Margaret Thatcher and says her desire to take on vested interests must be replicated in Britain.
> 
> In an interview with the Spectator, Clegg says he has come to view Thatcher's victory over the unions as "immensely significant" and goes further than the Conservative party in courting economic liberalism, by saying he would end the structural deficit with 100% spending cuts, as opposed to the 80% cuts the Conservatives have proposed...
> 
> ...Although Clegg's pitch is to attract Conservative voters away from what he describes as the "flakey" Cameron-Osborne leadership, it will also be seen as a declaration of the kind of economic liberalism that may inform him, should he have to negotiate with the Conservatives in a hung parliament.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2010)

As mentioned elsewhere, Vince 'I support green values' Cable... was that before or after you were the Chief economist for fucking Shell?!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2010)

My sister is voting for them to stop the tories getting in. I might have to send her this to reconsider!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2010)

all the political conviction of a Space Raider corn based snack. What do they stan for? Election. That and only that.


----------



## TAE (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> i just hate the lib-dems...


I've noticed!


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 19, 2010)

But they voted against Iraq.

I won't vote for anyone who refuses to admit that was a mistake.

And my Labour candidate is a full-on yes-woman who needs a proper kicking.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2010)

Fuck what if they get in? they dont know anything about being in power!!


----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

stephj said:


> The fucking hypocrite that is Simon Hughes





butchersapron said:


> Simon Hughes, _the straight choice._



he is the mp for my area... 

to be fair to him, hughes never married a woman, unlike mark oaten and brian paddick.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2010)

little_legs said:


> to be fair to him, hughes never married a woman, unlike mark oaten and brian paddick.



Tbf, Paddick went through a denial/'getting married might make me straight' thing which isn't entirely unusual for people struggling with either their sexuality or the pressures/expectations society places onto people... but as for Mark 'I had a mid-life crisis and losing my hair made me do it' Oaten though....


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Getting shat on by rent boys is a bit of a cry for help.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 19, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> all the political conviction of a Space Raider corn based snack. What do they stan for? Election. That and only that.



You're right of course, but the alternative round here is a tory called 'fabian ricter'.  _Fabian_.  _Ricter_.   Tory or not, I don't think I could live with that.

Plus the lib dem from here, old don foster, was one of the few who went to parliament and moaned about the DEB, which makes him ok in my book.

I was going to spoil or vote loony but now I think I'm gonna vote lib dem despite it all.  Oh how I've fallen.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 19, 2010)

To become a contender you have to lie and dissemble in order to capture swing voters. Every major party does this. Don't blame them - blame FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Nonsense - lying and dissembling is their very soul. They'd do it anyway.


----------



## lewislewis (Apr 19, 2010)

They do not support nuclear disarmament.

They won't replace Trident like-for-like, but are happy to downsize.

They supported the war in Afghanistan. Anyone MP who supported that has blood on their hands, surely.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 19, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> To become a contender you have to lie and dissemble in order to capture swing voters. Every major party does this. Don't blame them - blame FPTP.



rubbish


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

lewislewis said:


> They do not support nuclear disarmament.
> 
> They won't replace Trident like-for-like, but are happy to downsize.
> 
> They supported the war in Afghanistan. Anyone MP who supported that has blood on their hands, surely.



Every single MP who didn't walk out there and then has blood on their hands.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 19, 2010)




----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

stephj said:


> Tbf, Paddick went through a denial/'getting married might make me straight' thing which isn't entirely unusual for people struggling with either their sexuality or the pressures/expectations society places onto people... but as for Mark 'I had a mid-life crisis and losing my hair made me do it' Oaten though....



agree about paddick, he had the courage to come out and as far as i know paddick & his former wife remain on good terms. but he went on the 'i'm a celebrity get me out of here' and i think lost all if any credibility he had.


----------



## little_legs (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Getting shat on by rent boys is a bit of a cry for help.



a much enjoyed activity of lord boothby, mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Paddick's too busy attacking the unions  (RMT a lib-dem speciality) to bother about all that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2010)

and marching alongside that BNP bloke. Barnbrook.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> and marching alongside that BNP bloke. Barnbrook.



That's right - apparently he was unable to move to the side. (Insert centrist joke here)


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 19, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> rubbish


Not at all. Your idealism has no place in politics under FPTP - sorry.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's right - apparently he was unable to move to the side. (Insert centrist joke here)


----------



## fogbat (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Getting shat on by rent boys is a bit of a cry for help.



A sometimes muffled cry for help at times, but a cry for help nevertheless.


----------



## lewislewis (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Every single MP who didn't walk out there and then has blood on their hands.



Agreed.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 19, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> Not at all. Your idealism has no place in politics under FPTP - sorry.



lol


----------



## FreddyB (Apr 19, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Fuck what if they get in? they dont know anything about being in power!!


If you wake up on May 7th and the Libdems have won your biggest concern will be finding your way back from the alternative reality you've been sucked into


----------



## Quartz (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The IMF was called in 1976 - the lib-lab pact was in 1977. (And the loan was paid off sharpish)



 

You are, of course, correct. I got my dates reversed.  Still, they kept Labour in power when an early victory by Maggie would have seen an early departure by Maggie.


----------



## the button (Apr 19, 2010)

They support votes for paedos (according to one Labour candidate, anyway).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8630001.stm



> Leaflets distributed under Mr Godsiff's name asked: "Do you want convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles to be given the vote? The Lib Dems do".
> 
> The leaflets contained pictures of a number of high-profile criminals including Vanessa George and Steven Wright, convicted in 2008 for the murder of five women in the Ipswich area.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

That's fantastic


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2010)

the button said:


> They support votes for paedos (according to one Labour candidate, anyway).
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8630001.stm


----------



## the button (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That's fantastic



It's amazing, isn't it?



> Do you want to be shat on by rent boys? The Lib Dems do.
> 
> *standard Oaten image*


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

Butchers - I'm too busy atm to keep up but can you explain to me why you're so anti LibDem when this 'surge' in interest - and possibly support - is the best chance of a NL led hung Parliament?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

I don't want a NL led hung parliament.

I just hate the lib-dems...


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

Given the real world options, what do you want then?


----------



## the button (Apr 19, 2010)

More LibDem leaflet shennanigans, this time from Merseyside: -



> Michael Shields' parents have shown their support for Labour after the Liberal Democrats used their son as part of their election campaign.
> 
> Marie and Michael Shields Snr have sent letters, printed by the Labour Party, berating the Lib Dems for using their picture in a leaflet.
> 
> They said they did nothing for their son who was pardoned after being jailed for attempted murder in Bulgaria.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8628676.stm

They can't help themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

25% lib-dems, 30% labour 30% tories would do me.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2010)

What do you think is most likely butchers?


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2010)

A comment on Twitter that made me laugh (paraphrasing from memory):

Lib Dems propose to get rid of Trident. Britain will instead be protected by impenetrable wall of self-righteousness.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 25% lib-dems, 30% labour 30% tories would do me.



Which is a hung Parliament. If you don't want a NL led hung Parliament and you "hate" the LibDems . . .


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Which is a hung Parliament. If you don't want a NL led hung Parliament and you "hate" the LibDems . . .



Can't you comment on something happening without endorsing it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What do you think is most likely butchers?



I really don't know right now. Honestly.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

You can say that again.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> You can say that again.



What does the market say? That crucial £2 million?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> You can say that again.



You were crying about a tory landslide a few months back, i was saying a hung parliament - i think i'm on safe ground.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> For the promise of 'savage cuts' to public spending.






> As the three main parties begin the conference season with competing proposals for how they would make spending cuts, Clegg used a Guardian interview to set out plans including a long-term freeze in the public sector pay bill, scaling back future public sector pensions, and withdrawing tax credits from the middle class. He is even prepared to examine means-testing universal child benefits, though he is cautious of destroying "middle-class solidarity" with the welfare state.



According to someone who actually works in this area, means testing would actually cost more!!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because they propose and support contradictory policies in different areas - no central principle beyond gaining power.



This is why I utterly despise them.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You were crying about a tory landslide a few months back, i was saying a hung parliament - i think i'm on safe ground.



What ground is that? What is it you want?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Safe ground as regards ongoing comment.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

The lib-dem cult moves onwards and upwards:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/19/liberal-democrats-guardian-icm-poll


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

1. I never said or thought there would be a Tory landslide
2. I did think and say the likelihood of a hung Parliament would increase as the election drew near
3. Why not respond to the direct questions rather than deflect away?
4. And just in case you get around to it, I'll try again: If you don't want a hung Parliament but do want the distribution of votes that will result in a hung Parliament, and you don't want a NL led hung Parliament and also hate the LibDems, what do you want?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> 1. I never said or thought there would be a Tory landslide
> 2. I did think and say the likelihood of a hung Parliament would increase as the election drew near
> 3. Why not respond to the direct questions rather than deflect away?
> 4. And just in case you get around to it, I'll try again: If you don't want a hung Parliament but do want the distribution of votes that will result in a hung Parliament, and you don't want a NL led hung Parliament and also hate the LibDems, what do you want?



You were crying like a baby about the expense scandal helping the tories, Don't re-write history. I've told you what breakdown i'd 'like' to see - and guess what, its a hung parliament, so why you say that i don't want a HP i don't know. Concentrate on your work.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

> 4. And just in case you get around to it, I'll try again: If you don't want a hung Parliament but do want the distribution of votes that will result in a hung Parliament, and you don't want a NL led hung Parliament and also hate the LibDems, what do you want?



I do want a hung Parliament.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

Because Sandra "First Class" Gidley has made it her personal hobby to discredit and destroy my local NHS trusts.

Fortunately she's not my candidate.  So despite the above I'll be voting orangey-yellow.  Almost all the major partys' candidates are shit, but the tories fucked the country up for 18 years, labour have had 13 years to screw it up royally, it's time for someone else to betray the electorate, sell out, and bomb small brown countries.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

You're a bit daft them.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

I'm actually Paul Gascoigne.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

Okay, it was flippant.  I forgot to justify myself to U75's political elite.

The Lib Dem's are not much better than the other 2, if at all.

However.  They stood against the Iraq war.  This is important to me.
They were _less_ caught up in the expenses shit.  Admittedly, they have less MPs so it's all proportional, but I found this slightly encouraging (forever the optimist).
They'll scrap Trident.  I'm all for this.  I'm a pacifist, so sue me.
They want to scrap FPTP in favour of a form of PR.  This is probably the most attractive part of their policies, for me.

And they won't get into power, but a vote for them may contribute towards a hung parliament.  I want a more cooperative and less adversarial style to our government, so that's the most attractive result, for me.

I'm sure that's probably still 'daft' or 'drivel' or something to you butchers.  Never mind eh.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.
> 
> Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.



Because their Liberal Youth wing are behind some web campaign against Lukashenko's anti-IMF popular government in Belarus. Garnering support from wealthy exiles to usher in bourgeoise capitalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Corax said:


> And they won't get into power, but a vote for them may contribute towards a hung parliament.  I want a more cooperative and less adversarial style to our government, so that's the most attractive result, for me.



You want the scumbags to agree to fuck us allover more easily, free of tribal loyalty?


----------



## chazegee (Apr 19, 2010)

God dam, stop being such Anarchists.  I was thinking of polling my thumb out my arse and voting for the first time ever. You know, to stop Cameron and to stop Labour. And now, Urban, (where frankly I get some assistance for my weak political mind) is defaming the LD's! Fak!


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

You're unhealthily intent on swinging your dick at me butchers.



butchersapron said:


> You want the scumbags to agree to fuck us allover more easily, free of tribal loyalty?



Can you suggest a better option than a hung parliament that may realistically happen?

You'd prefer a majority tory/lab/lib government?

My ideal isn't anything that's likely to happen. Pragmatism has to come into play.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 19, 2010)

the worst, absolutely worst thing about the Lib Dems, is that people think it's radical to vote for them. 

This is turning into one of those daft Twitter campaigns where everyone thinks, oooh, wouldn't it be interesting/a laugh if we all voted DimLeb.


----------



## tbaldwin (Apr 19, 2010)

The Lib Dems are shit because they supported saddam hussein and want to give more money to the most educationally privelleged, eg HE students.....They also oppose ID cards and oppose bringing back hanging etc.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2010)

Corax said:


> I'm actually Paul Gascoigne.



I can hear you crying already.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Corax said:


> You're unhealthily intent on swinging your dick at me butchers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read your post i was responding to.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Read your post i was responding to.



I want a less adversarial style to government?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Now read my response to that. Bearing your wish in mind. It's not that bad - it's an argument that your wish becomes a nightmare.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 19, 2010)

Because they're cunts.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Now read my response to that. Bearing your wish in mind. It's not that bad - it's an argument that your wish becomes a nightmare.



Of course it could.  It's just the least worst option imo.  The system's fucked, we all know that.


----------



## TAE (Apr 19, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because they supported saddam hussein and want to give more money to the most educationally privelleged, eg HE students.....They also oppose ID cards and oppose bringing back hanging etc.



LOL, best post so far.

Oh and  I agree with much that Corax said.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2010)

What's the Lib dem policy on Northern Ireland? I know the Alliance is their sister party, but say the Lib Dems ended up in coalition with the Tories - would they sell out the GFA?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 19, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the Lib dem policy on Northern Ireland? I know the Alliance is their sister party, but say the Lib Dems ended up in coalition with the Tories - would they sell out the GFA?



they'd sell out anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the Lib dem policy on Northern Ireland? I know the Alliance is their sister party, but say the Lib Dems ended up in coalition with the Tories - would they sell out the GFA?



Yes/no/never!


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 19, 2010)

although they have the best defence policy (ie not to piss it up the wall on nuclear weapons) i could ever vote for a party that gloated about privatising stuff (the post office)


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I don't want a NL led hung parliament.
> 
> I just hate the lib-dems...





butchersapron said:


> I do want a hung Parliament.


Butchers some moments ago:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Spot the difference. Anyone?


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Spot the difference. Anyone?



Aye.


----------



## TAE (Apr 19, 2010)

Not wanting a Labour led hung parliament only leaves two realistic options though and we know you hate the LD, so do you want a Tory led hung parliament??


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

Clarify your position, rather than playing scooby-doo?


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2010)

Corax said:


> Clarify your position, rather than playing scooby-doo?



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10556837&postcount=88


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

TAE said:


> Not wanting a Labour led hung parliament only leaves two realistic options though and we know you hate the LD, so do you want a Tory led hung parliament??



Yes.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 19, 2010)

I don't think the Lib Dems are "shit", I just don't trust them due to their lack of clear ideology. At least you know where Labour and the Tories stand...


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

cesare said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10556837&postcount=88



Led by? That doesn't clarify at all.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes.



You want a tory led hung parliament.  Okay.  clarity at last.


Bullingdon front bench.  Okay.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Corax said:


> Led by? That doesn't clarify at all.



What is this juvenile attempt to trap me? It's an embarrassing lib-dem trick.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

This, this _oh you love the tories_ (whilst supporting  a leader who makes thatcherism his central ideological ref point) is why the lib-dems are shit.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What is this juvenile attempt to trap me? It's an embarrassing lib-dem trick.



Sorry Butchers, that was posted before post #132.

You want a tory led hung parliament.  You've made that clear now.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 19, 2010)

They are no where near radical enough on the environment and shifting Britain's industry and R&D in that direction for future success...

..and they've backtracked on their drug policies to become the same old bland "think of the children" purveyors of apathy and a fucked system which shits on personal freedom.

Would rather have them out of the lovely main three though.  Sorry idealists...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

_fairness you can feel_



> Meanwhile, the party has been allowed to keep £2.4m donated by the company of the convicted fraudster Michael Brown. It was given before the 2005 election when Charles Kennedy was leader.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2010)

You want a Bullingdon front bench though, yes? - for clarity.









			
				TAE said:
			
		

> Not wanting a Labour led hung parliament only leaves two realistic options though and we know you hate the LD, so do you want a Tory led hung parliament??





butchersapron said:


> Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2010)

Yes


----------



## Maggot (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because Lembit Opiks uncle Oscar was the Estonian Quisling.


That's my mind made up.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 19, 2010)

surprised no-ones mentioned Bermondsey, '81 yet. Their actions in that by-election were utterly despicable.
However - given that that was a long time ago - I'd say my dislike of the LibDems is that they always want to be all things to all men.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 19, 2010)

chilango said:


> Wouldn't it be quicker to write a list of the reasons why they _aren't_ shit?
> 
> 
> ...though I can't think of any off hand.



They have relatively few MPs and therefore as a party have ripped off less in parliamentary expenses overall.

Jack Straw and Norman Tebbit are not Liberal Democrats.

That's abou it.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 19, 2010)

My experience of the Lib Dems has been uniformly dire. I've yet to encounter any Lib Dem in a position of political power and influence who isn't a conniving lying hypocrite. That may just be South London Lib Dems, I wouldn't know. Though one of the two most disgusting fraudsters I encountered in student politics when I was at uni is a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. Hopefully he has changed. I'm not holding out any hope. The other, incidentally (also a Liberal) works for Barking council.

However it can't be said that I don't have a good word for them. In fact I have two good words for them. Fuck off!


----------



## FreddyB (Apr 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes



what do you reckon the outcome of a tory minority government will be?


----------



## tbaldwin (Apr 19, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> My experience of the Lib Dems has been uniformly dire. I've yet to encounter any Lib Dem in a position of political power and influence who isn't a conniving lying hypocrite. That may just be South London Lib Dems, I wouldn't know. Though one of the two most disgusting fraudsters I encountered in student politics when I was at uni is a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. Hopefully he has changed. I'm not holding out any hope. The other, incidentally (also a Liberal) works for Barking council.
> 
> However it can't be said that I don't have a good word for them. In fact I have two good words for them. Fuck off!



Yes but you like Lee Jasper......So your opinion is worthless.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2010)

Butch - what is your thinking re preferring a tory-led hung parliament?

Clegg benefited from not having a record in government to defend - but we should be looking at what they're upto in local government, often hand in hand with the Tories.


----------



## greenman (Apr 20, 2010)

I sometimes get depressed at the state of politics in this country.  Often.
However, the prospects opening up are ...interesting.
Possible results:

Labour led hung parliament = massive wrangling with Lib Dems, discrediting of both, (allowing possible advances for left/greens at subsequent election, made easier if Lib Dems actually do the only thing they are useful for - gain PR).

Tory led hung parliament = massive wrangling with Lib Dems, possible unrest if Tories get their way, weakening of some of their worst attempts, possible massive dissillusionment in rightist ranks if Cameron is "liberal" in practice rather than just rhetoric and possible early further election with chance for Left/Greens to regroup.

Tory Government = Probably on minority vote that all are now aware of - potential for massive opposition and unrest and demands for electoral and political reform.

All options entail major problems for the establishment and the ruling class and opportunities for radicals - never a bad thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Butch - what is your thinking re preferring a tory-led hung parliament?
> 
> Clegg benefited from not having a record in government to defend - but we should be looking at what they're upto in local government, often hand in hand with the Tories.



There's no thought beyond embracing the logic of those who think not liking the first of two options means you support the third - the same idiot logic would mean i actually supported the  lib-dems if tory or lab led minority govts had been presented to me first and rejected them. Or that commenting on things happening is an endorsement of them.

In terms of the potential best result a 30/30/25 split with the 3 main parties all equally weak and unable to push through aggressive policies, the system as a whole suffering a from of legitimation crisis with people getting ever more distant from the main parties and rejecting  the idea that they can deal with the problems rather than being part of the problem. It's telling that the best thing you can say about the lib-dems is that they may accidentally bring about a situation that they want as little as Brown or Cameron.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

Anyway, the lib-dems crash has started now anyway - look at these amazing figures from youguv's dail poll.

CON 33(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 31%(-2).


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of the potential best result a 30/30/25 split with the 3 main parties all equally weak and unable to push through aggressive policies, the system as a whole suffering a from of legitimation crisis with people getting ever more distant from the main parties and rejecting  the idea that they can deal with the problems rather than being part of the problem. It's telling that the best thing you can say about the lib-dems is that they may accidentally bring about a situation that they want as little as Brown or Cameron.


Broadly speaking, a minority gov governs - with the support of its coalition partner/s.

If and when that coalition breaks down and that minority gov can no longer pass manifesto grade legislation (or even lesser), it is legit to call for a vote of no confidence in that minority gov. If that vote is lost, a General Election must follow.

Would you generally agree with that?


----------



## TAE (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes.





butchersapron said:


> There's no thought beyond embracing the logic of those who think not liking the first of two options means you support the third




So your yes was a no?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

That's not what a minority govt is (at least in the UK) - that's a coalition govt. A minority govt is when a party with only minority support attempts to govern _alone_ - i.e Wilson in 74.

That is the current custom yes. (Now close the trap on me  )


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

TAE said:


> So your yes was a no?



It was a refusal to take seriously the question of whether i want a tory govt.


----------



## TAE (Apr 20, 2010)

Ah ok. 

So that's a yes, your yes was indeed a no, as in no comment.

Are you into politics by any chance?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2010)

It's the politics of oddbins.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Simon Hughes, _the straight choice._


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

Corax said:


> Okay, it was flippant.  I forgot to justify myself to U75's political elite.
> 
> The Lib Dem's are not much better than the other 2, if at all.
> 
> ...


I'm aftaid that as daft as it may be, this describes my position too.

Except to note that even proportionally speaking, their MPs were less involved in the expense scandal than the other parties.

Also, every time I see a Liberal MP -- with the exception of bloody Opek -- on the telly, they always seem to be considerably better than the other bunch.  I find them more willing to engage with the whole of an issue rather than bite at the edges of it, i.e. recognise that most subjects are more complicated than a soundbite would have it.  And I find them more thoughtful and worth listening to.  Sorry if that annoys people.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Also, every time I see a Liberal MP -- with the exception of bloody Opek -- on the telly, they always seem to be considerably better than the other bunch.  I find them more willing to engage with the whole of an issue rather than bite at the edges of it, i.e. recognise that most subjects are more complicated than a soundbite would have it.  And I find them more thoughtful and worth listening to.  Sorry if that annoys people.



You, sir, are worse than Hitler.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

I'd also note that my choices are as follows:

* Don't vote at all -- tempting but I personally don't think this helps
* Spoil the ballot -- very tempting, admittedly.
* Vote Green, who are the party that genuinely are closest to representing my views -- but this will REALLY achieve fuck-all.
* Vote Lib Dem, who I agree with on a lot of important issues, but disagree with on other ideological issues -- as discussed above
* Vote for somebody else -- but whom?

And I live in a constituency that is a finely balance Lib Dem/Tory marginal, so by voting Lib Dem I may actually help to deprive the Tories of a seat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2010)

I think we can boil lib dem political philosophy down to the equivalent of a bloke going 'weeeeeell' and doing that balancy hand gesture. You know the one.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I think we can boil lib dem political philosophy down to the equivalent of a bloke going 'weeeeeell' and doing that balancy hand gesture. You know the one.


You mean the gesture that I make several times on a daily basis?

Could be.  Never know.  On the other hand...


----------



## Diamond (Apr 20, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I think we can boil lib dem political philosophy down to the equivalent of a bloke going 'weeeeeell' and doing that balancy hand gesture. You know the one.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's no thought beyond embracing the logic of those who think not liking the first of two options means you support the third - the same idiot logic would mean i actually supported the  lib-dems if tory or lab led minority govts had been presented to me first and rejected them. Or that commenting on things happening is an endorsement of them..


Thats very condescending of british voters. if voters didnt like the message and the policy they wouldnt show support for them. its not just because they're not the other two. polices are distinct, as is the voting record.



butchersapron said:


> Anyway, the lib-dems crash has started now anyway - look at these amazing figures from youguv's dail poll.
> 
> CON 33(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 31%(-2).


amazing crash? If lib dems finish on 25% it would be a huge achievement for them. Lab are still last. anyhow its all about the tv debates now - the poll figures that count will be the ones after the next two showings.


kabbes said:


> I'd also note that my choices are as follows:
> 
> * Don't vote at all -- tempting but I personally don't think this helps
> * Spoil the ballot -- very tempting, admittedly.
> ...


agree with that - im in a lab seat with libs closing (no tory vote at all round here) but for me the big overriding thing is breaking the dichotomy of Lab Con - which results in a range of politics as broad as that in the US. what we need is more choice, a media that can handle more than one opposing position, and a democratic structure that allows those voices to be heard on an equal playing field. the lib dem surge begins to address that, if nothing else.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 20, 2010)

ska invita said:


> for me the big overriding thing is breaking the dichotomy of Lab Con - which results in a range of politics as broad as that in the US.


If you're going to draw an analogy with the US, it would be like a third party emerging, made up of the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.

Whoopee.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2010)

ska invita said:


> Thats very condescending of british voters. if voters didnt like the message and the policy they wouldnt show support for them. its not just because they're not the other two. polices are distinct, as is the voting record.
> 
> 
> amazing crash? If lib dems finish on 25% it would be a huge achievement for them. Lab are still last. anyhow its all about the tv debates now - the poll figures that count will be the ones after the next two showings.
> ...



The Lib Dems were on for 25%ish before the leaders debate.



> The polls published just before the election was called may have appeared to be all over the place, but were more consistent than they looked. Conservative support stands at around 38-39%, and Labour somewhere around 31%. The Lib Dems stand firmly on 20% of the vote.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



So,a lot of the bounce in the polls for the Lib Dems is exactly as expected based on pre-election-announcement polling. 25% is their baseline for a respectable performance (albeit a very good one for them, historically). The question is, how much of this Cleggmania will result in a bigger than usual bounce, and how will it affect the marginals? There are far more Lib/Con marginals than Lib/Labour, and the smaller-party vote might get squeezed in some seats if tactical voters pile in.

I think this one is very hard to call, and national percentages just aren't going to translate smoothly into seats - I think the swing is going to vary wildly in the marginals.


----------



## TAE (Apr 20, 2010)

kabbes said:


> * Vote Green, who are the party that genuinely are closest to representing my views -- but this will REALLY achieve fuck-all.



Except that the more people who vote for them, the better the chances of other people voting for them.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

Corax said:


> Okay, it was flippant.  I forgot to justify myself to U75's political elite.
> 
> The Lib Dem's are not much better than the other 2, if at all.
> 
> ...



I forgot one other reason I'll be voting for them:

Dr Evan Harris.  One of the only MPs I have a degree of genuine respect for.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

TAE said:


> Except that the more people who vote for them, the better the chances of other people voting for them.


It's a nice theory.  

In practice, the Greens stand a much better chance long term if the Lib Dems gain enough support to bring about Proportional Representation.


----------



## TAE (Apr 20, 2010)

I agree that we need PR, but again, the more people who vote for smaller parties the more a case can be made for PR.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 20, 2010)

Here we go again. Up comes the election and suddenly people who have been cynical about politicians for several years are saying "he/she seems to talk sense" and basing their voting intentions on it as if politicians that couldn't be trusted change into entirely homest people the moment an election is declared.

For God's sake, they are professionals. It's showtime. Now, of all times, is when you can least trust what a politician says, and when you have to look very carefully at what they have actually done. During an election campaign the one thing you can be sure of is that the worst of the sharks are trying harder than ever to seem cuddly. Yet during an election campaign seems to be when the electorate are at their most gullible.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Here we go again. Up comes the election and suddenly people who have been cynical about politicians for several years are saying "he/she seems to talk sense" and basing their voting intentions on it as if politicians that couldn't be trusted change into entirely homest people the moment an election is declared.
> 
> For God's sake, they are professionals. It's showtime. Now, of all times, is when you can least trust what a politician says, and when you have to look very carefully at what they have actually done. During an election campaign the one thing you can be sure of is that the worst of the sharks are trying harder than ever to seem cuddly. Yet during an election campaign seems to be when the electorate are at their most gullible.


Who here is basing any of this on what politicians have been saying recently?


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 20, 2010)

TAE said:


> I agree that we need PR, but again, the more people who vote for smaller parties the more a case can be made for PR.



We can make the _case _for political reform until the cows come home.  What really counts now is the political clout delivered by actually electing MPs who support it.  In reality probably under 30% of the UK electorate are actual Tory supporters and a reformed House of Commons could consign them to the margin where they belong, and thus free us from the need to tactically vote at nearly every election in order to keep them out.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 20, 2010)

Despite the headline, here's an interesting article from Peter Oborne in the Mail that explores the potential for reform that the Lib Dem surge offers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1267354/PETER-OBORNE-The-Great-Liberal-deception.html


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Who here is basing any of this on what politicians have been saying recently?


How long ago did they say what you are basing this on, then?


----------



## FaradayCaged (Apr 20, 2010)

I quite like the Lib Debs to be honest.

Id much rather have them in government than Labour or the Tories any day.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> How long ago did they say what you are basing this on, then?


At some point during the past 10 years or so, I guess.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Here we go again. Up comes the election and suddenly people who have been cynical about politicians for several years are saying "he/she seems to talk sense" and basing their voting intentions on it as if politicians that couldn't be trusted change into entirely homest people the moment an election is declared.
> 
> For God's sake, they are professionals. It's showtime. Now, of all times, is when you can least trust what a politician says, and when you have to look very carefully at what they have actually done. During an election campaign the one thing you can be sure of is that the worst of the sharks are trying harder than ever to seem cuddly. Yet during an election campaign seems to be when the electorate are at their most gullible.



Who's done that? My primary guide is an MP's voting record.


----------



## JHE (Apr 20, 2010)

Corax said:


> Dr Evan Harris.  One of the only MPs I have a degree of genuine respect for.



There is at least one very good thing about Evan Harris.  He is a principled secularist and member of the National Secular Society.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

JHE said:


> There is at least one very good thing about Evan Harris.  He is a principled secularist and member of the National Secular Society.



He's also a massive advocate of evidence-based decision making.  I like rational people.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 20, 2010)

kabbes said:


> And I live in a constituency that is a finely balance Lib Dem/Tory marginal, *so by voting Lib Dem I may actually help to deprive the Tories of a seat*.



The above is the only circumstance in which I'd even consider voting Lib Dem ---I'd only think about it as a specifically anti Tory, strictly tactical move.

(I'd probably vote for Evan Harris too if I was in Oxford West, but mainly to avoid the risk of a Tory unseating him)

But in all other circumstances I wouldn't touch the Lib Dems with a bargepole. For most of the reasons already posted. Clegg's free market economics (the Orange Book stuff), his cuts mania and his antipathy to the TUs being the main ones.

Also, I dislike the Lib Dem council here in Swansea, they're in coalition with a few Tory councillors who are deeply reactionary, the long serving and obnoxious Richard Lewis being one (imminent Mayor and old time Thatcherite for the last 20 years, so debbie tells me).


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 20, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> In reality probably under 30% of the UK electorate are actual Tory supporters and a reformed House of Commons could consign them to the margin where they belong, and thus free us from the need to tactically vote at nearly every election in order to keep them out.



Or, indeed, should a decent socialist movement emerge within the Labour Party or in place of it, we'd be guaranteed a permanent anti-working class, anti-trade union, free market 'national government' of Tories and Liberals determined to keep it out of power.


----------



## JHE (Apr 20, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Or, indeed, should a decent socialist movement emerge within the Labour Party or in place of it, we'd be guaranteed a permanent anti-working class, anti-trade union, free market 'national government' of Tories and Liberals determined to keep it out of power.



To stand any chance of achieving socialism, the socialist movement (a largely imaginary beast at the moment) would need at least a majority of the population to support its programme.  Arthur Scargill (before he joined the Labour Party, while in the Labour Party and after he left to found his sect) and others have been making this point for decades.

Perhaps you imagine you can get a left-wing Labour government elected on 40% of the vote and craftily transform society on the basis of a majority in the (poorly elected) House of Commons.  If that is your plan or you have any other plan to introduce socialism undemocratically, you are a silly sausage.

A decent electoral system would allow a serious socialist party to have some representation in parliament, in proportion to its vote.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> The above is the only circumstance in which I'd even consider voting Lib Dem ---I'd only think about it as a specifically anti Tory, strictly tactical move.
> 
> (I'd probably vote for Evan Harris too if I was in Oxford West, but mainly to avoid the risk of a Tory unseating him)
> 
> ...


Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 20, 2010)

JHE said:


> To stand any chance of achieving socialism, the socialist movement (a largely imaginary beast at the moment) would need at least a majority of the population to support its programme.  Arthur Scargill (before he joined the Labour Party, while in the Labour Party and after he left to found his sect) and others have been making this point for decades.


Yes, thanks, I know. Personally I couldn't care much either way about FPTP v PR, for that very reason.


> A decent electoral system would allow a serious socialist party to have some representation in parliament, in proportion to its vote.


Which gains us what, if its vote is less than 50%?

At the moment we probably have about 5% of Parliament are decent 'serious socialists'. What percentage do you think a 'serious socialist party' should be getting at the moment if there was such a thing in existence?


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.



Good.  He's got libel reform in his sights and he's not going to let it drop.


----------



## TAE (Apr 20, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> We can make the _case _for political reform until the cows come home.  What really counts now is the political clout delivered by actually electing MPs who support it.


That is true, of course.


----------



## JHE (Apr 20, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> At the moment we probably have about 5% of Parliament are decent 'serious socialists'. What percentage do you think a 'serious socialist party' should be getting at the moment?



Just a guess:  about 5%!

One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low.  The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

JHE said:


> Just a guess:  about 5%!
> 
> One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low.  The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.



Big obstacle.  Even the infighting between various shades of the left on _here_ is jaw-dropping, let alone meatspace.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

Interesting article from YouGov:

http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/commentaries/peter-kellner/could-lib-dems-win-outright

One snippet:



> One reason why the Lib Dems could, just possibly, achieve this is revealed by YouGov’s latest daily poll. We asked: “How would you vote on May 6 if you thought the Liberal Democrats had a significant chance of winning the election”. The responses: Lib Dem 49%, Conservative 25%, Labour 19%. On the – admittedly unrealistic – assumption of uniform national swing, there would be 548 Lib Dem MPs, 41 Labour MPs and just 25 Tories.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 20, 2010)

In answer to the OP:

Cos their logo thingy used to look like those 'Baby On Board' things you used to see in the rear windows of cars (and maybe still does)

Because I always associate yellow with piss-stained pants.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 20, 2010)

JHE said:


> Just a guess:  about 5%!
> 
> One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low.  The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.



So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?

Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 20, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?
> 
> Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.



If they are in the Labour party I doubt they'd do all that much voting along Socialist lines.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 20, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> If they are in the Labour party I doubt they'd do all that much voting along Socialist lines.



They do at the moment. That's the point.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.



Good. Didn't know the Tory threat had retreated so much.

But as it goes he's one of the very few LDs I might actually positively vote for in fact, probably the only one. But as I don't live in Oxford it was just an idle thought exercise.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

ska invita said:


> Thats very condescending of british voters. if voters didnt like the message and the policy they wouldnt show support for them. its not just because they're not the other two. polices are distinct, as is the voting record.



You've got the wrong end of the stick here.


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2010)

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 20, 2010)

gosub said:


> How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
> Party lists and party power surely.



Specify open list as the variant of PR that you want, then. If you are really worried about the prospect corrupt politicians, introduce a new law that says that a by-election for that seat must be called if a defined percentage of voters in that borough sign a petition of no-confidence or something.

Of course you will never be able to totally get rid of party power, but a good restriction on it is the fact that individuals with good ideas will in theory be able to set up alternative parties with a realistic chance of election.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 20, 2010)

gosub said:


> How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
> Party lists and party power surely.



Use Approval voting. Party lists are bad.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).

He was also _drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay_ C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).
> 
> He was also _drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay_ C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.



funnily enough if i didn't know who he was and saw a pic of him thats exactly what i woulda thought. What a wanker.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2010)

He's also a Russian aristocrat using his popularity to plan his revenge on the workers who denied him of his birthright.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2010)

Probably a closet homo too.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 20, 2010)

Lo Siento. said:


> the worst, absolutely worst thing about the Lib Dems, is that people think it's radical to vote for them.



This



Fedayn said:


> Because they're cunts.



and this.


----------



## JHE (Apr 20, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?
> 
> Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.



Try to set aside your dreary notion that the issue of electoral reform should be decided on the basis of whether or not it offers an immediate advantage to the remnants of the Labour left.

Instead, ask yourself:  Does democracy matter?  Is it a central feature of the sort of society I want?  Is proportionality important to a supposedly democratic system?  For me, the answer to those questions is YES!

What's more, if socialists got their act together and managed to form a party with a feasible account of a desirable socialist future (a crucial, but currently missing and difficult, factor in any socialist movement deserving the name) and were willing to take electoral politics seriously, a proportional electoral system would be more useful to it than the current crappy disproportional system.  At the moment, a party can have significant support but no parliamentary presence (Greens, UKIP, for example).  On the other hand, a party can have much less than half the vote and yet have a majority in the House of Commons (currently the Labour Party, but I guess you remember 1979-1997 too).  A socialist party in parliament could act on principle and have a distinct message to put to the electorate, instead of being a half-forgotten semi-loyal appendage to the (now plainly non-socialist) Labour Party.  It could grow or not, depending on how persuasive it was.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2010)

And also for fighting against free school meals for all under 11s in Islington.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).
> 
> He was also _drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay_ C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.



He also fagged (is that the right word?) Louis Theroux whilst at Westminster school as a boarder fees  today £29,000 annually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...-he-was-Nick-Cleggs-fag-at-public-school.html


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 20, 2010)

Another reason:



> There are claims of records showing he joined the Young Conservatives at university. Clegg says: " know there are [those claims] but I was very, very, leftwing. I was very influenced by Marxist thinkers."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/20/nick-clegg-profile-early-days


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2010)

Someone please dig up a record of him joining the young tories at uni and then sell it to the Sun or something. Please.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> Try to set aside your dreary notion that the issue of electoral reform should be decided on the basis of whether or not it offers an immediate advantage to the remnants of the Labour left.



You should try learning to read before replying to people's postings on here. Where have I phrased any point in relation to "the remnants of the Labour left"? I deliberately phrased to encompass either a socialist Labour Party or some other party.

The only point of being involved in politics that I can see is to further your views and interests. Only one question matters: does this idea further the cause of working class control of society? In this case, I don't think it would make a jot of difference. Therefore, I don't care.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 21, 2010)

sihhi said:


> He also fagged (is that the right word?) Louis Theroux whilst at Westminster school as a boarder fees  today £29,000 annually.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...-he-was-Nick-Cleggs-fag-at-public-school.html



Why is someone's schooling relevant? 

Lots of right wing scum bags went to state comps. What does it tell us? Bugger all in the big scheme.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

Of course it matters if they're a beneficiary of that privilege and have defended it and said they'd be willing to put transmit that privilege to their kids. It's utterly relevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Someone please dig up a record of him joining the young tories at uni and then sell it to the Sun or something. Please.



Nick Clegg, Cambridge University Conservative Association:







8th name down on the left.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 21, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why is someone's schooling relevant?
> 
> Lots of right wing scum bags went to state comps. What does it tell us? Bugger all in the big scheme.



So a potential front bench of Tory public school toffs has no relevancy?!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2010)

Given that there are MPs that have shifted loyalty whilst ACTUALLY BEING AN MP, I don't think people are going to care that much about which political views somebody held 20 years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

I care - and more to the point, he's lied about it, said it never happened, said he was almost a marxist at that time. He's a flat out liar. It also demonstrates to those that think the lib-dems share a natural affinity with labour or the left, that they don't. They'll support the tories if it's in their best interests (labour as well, but again with the lib-dems interests being the primary concern). Not a principled bone in the party.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Given that there are MPs that have shifted loyalty whilst ACTUALLY BEING AN MP



Like, well, Nick Clegg.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 21, 2010)

The MP's that shift their loyalty are the ones I trust least, frankly.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Like, well, Nick Clegg.


So which party did he used to be an MP for then?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> So which party did he used to be an MP for then?



Oh, you mean changed parties? I was talking in terms of "completely reversed position".


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh, you mean changed parties? I was talking in terms of "completely reversed position".


Yes, I mean changed parties.

If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I mean changed parties.
> 
> If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.



If it doesn't matter why has he lied about it?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kabbes (Apr 21, 2010)

Has he lied about it?  That scan is hardly convincing proof.

But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse.  He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I mean changed parties.
> 
> If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.



It might if they repeatedly lied about it. Shaun Woodward didn't pretend he was still a tory when he crossed the floor did he?

More to the point, it shows how despite the media-led attempts to get a Nick Clegg Tea Party ball rolling on the basis that he's different, that he's not part of the old gang he is in fact exactly the same - the same lies, the same self-serving careerism  - and he's been up to his eyeballs in this shit since he was a kid.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Has he lied about it?  That scan is hardly convincing proof.
> 
> But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse.  He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."



Yes he has.

Just to highlight his tory links even further, he used to be an advisor to Leon Brittain. I wonder why that could be?


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he has.
> 
> Just to highlight his tory links even further, he used to be an advisor to Leon Brittain. I wonder why that could be?



Because his step-daughter was in the same year at school as him?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 21, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Has he lied about it?  That scan is hardly convincing proof.
> 
> But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse.  He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."



Yes he has lied about it; google is your friend. So why should he bother? Perhaps he is concenred to build a credible political backstory that doesn't in reality exist. While you may not think that playing fast and loose with his own personal history is a big deal, part of his appeal is being a trustworthy change from the soiled and failed big two; his real political back story questions both that trustworthiness and his seperation from the big two.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. just saw BA's rather quicker and more succinct reply above.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 21, 2010)

Why are the names crossed out?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 21, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why are the names crossed out?



The shame.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Apr 21, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why are the names crossed out?



They all met... accidents.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 21, 2010)

He used to be a tory mp as well didn't he?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 21, 2010)

Santino said:


> They all met... accidents.



wishful thinking?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 21, 2010)

Santino said:


> They all met... accidents.



Yeah, well, that's what happens to people who cross me.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> He used to be a tory mp as well didn't he?



Nah.

A report from the lib-dems think tank Centreforum looking into the possibilitity of a tory/lib-dem coalition two years ago concluded that :



> to a much greater extent than is commonly understood, it is also the result of a significant congruence of opinion between leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg. These two declared liberals share a vision of a new, ‘post-bureaucratic’ politics in which power is devolved, not just from central to local government, but from government at all levels to individuals, families and communities.



and that



> the Liberal Democrats are today closer to the Conservative Party than they have been for many years.



This was at a point where it looked like Cameron was going to cruise it, so it can be seen as a desperate attempt to grab onto their coat tails. What do we find today? Well, as if to prove once more that they've not got a principled bone in their bodies the very same think tank now says:



> the two parties’ similarities are being wildly overstated, as are the chances of them working together in a formal coalition if the Tories are returned as the largest party in a hung parliament.



Shameless - absolutely shameless.


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> You should try learning to read before replying to people's postings on here. Where have I phrased any point in relation to "the remnants of the Labour left"? I deliberately phrased to encompass either a socialist Labour Party or some other party.
> 
> The only point of being involved in politics that I can see is to further your views and interests. Only one question matters: does this idea further the cause of working class control of society? In this case, I don't think it would make a jot of difference. Therefore, I don't care.



I didn't misread you at all, you silly sausage.  The only good or bad that you are capable of seeing in electoral reform is the advantage it gives or doesn't give to the remnants of the Labour left in the party or, having left, outside, fighting under their own (presumably socialist) flag.

You claim that your cause is "working class control of society", yet you are uninterested in democracy.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> I didn't misread you at all, you silly sausage.  The only good or bad that you are capable of seeing in electoral reform is the advantage it gives or doesn't give to the remnants of the Labour left in the party *or, having left, outside, fighting under their own (presumably socialist) flag*.
> 
> You claim that your cause is "working class control of society", yet you are uninterested in democracy.



Thanks for clarifying your earlier inaccurate statement. It's still not quite right, but near enough.

I am interested in how democracy can serve the cause of socialism, not in democracy per se as some sort of bizarre liberal fetish.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> Because his step-daughter was in the same year at school as him?



Is that right? I'd read it was because Lord Carrington, long term tory politician and family friend of the Cleggs got him the job. I expect both of these elite connections helped him.

(He again denies - _today_ - ever being in the Cambridge University Conservative Association in that linked article btw, and also tells a half truth about his employment under Brittain)


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Thanks for clarifying your earlier inaccurate statement. It's still not quite right, but near enough.
> 
> I am interested in how democracy can serve the cause of socialism, not in democracy per se as some sort of bizarre liberal fetish.



I'm sorry that you see democracy and socialism as only instrumentally related.  I suspect your sort of socialism would be a grim set-up run by bossy people with party-approved opinions.  Most people would have to do what they're told, but it'd be for their own good and in the name of the working clas or the people or something.

The socialism I want has democracy at its nub.  It is the extension of democracy over our common life and in particular over what and how and how much we produce and what we then do with and how we distribute our products.  Is that really a 'bizarre liberal fetish'?


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> I'm sorry that you see democracy and socialism as only instrumentally related.  I suspect your sort of socialism would be a grim set-up run by bossy people with party-approved opinions.  Most people would have to do what they're told, but it'd be for their own good and in the name of the working clas or the people or something.
> 
> The socialism I want has democracy at its nub.  It is the extension of democracy over our common life and in particular over what and how and how much we produce and what we then do with and how we distribute our products.  Is that really a 'bizarre liberal fetish'?



Well yes, obviously socialism is the "extension of democracy over our common life".

But the only question about the different forms of 'democracy' which we have in the meantime, under capitalism, is whether they get us nearer to socialism and whether they materially improve life for the working class. Anything else is a bizarre liberal fetish.


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd.  It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.

Is there in fact here only an apparent contradiction?  Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?

I can think of two reasons why someone might join a student political association other than support for the party concerned.

1.  When I was a student many years ago some student societies had trouble getting enough members to get their little dollop of student union dosh.  Sometimes members of two societies with that difficulty would become each other's paper members to help out with the numbers.  The Libertarian Socialists and the Hot Air Ballooners might join each other so that both got the money.  (The particular example is entirely invented.)

2.  I have read of some people - I think it was at Oxford or Cambridge - joining _all_ the main political societies in order to be able to go to any or all of the meetings with famous visiting politicians.

In the case of the Cambridge Conservatives, the second sounds more likely.


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Well yes, obviously socialism is the "of democracy over our common life".
> 
> But the only question about the different forms of 'democracy' which we have in the meantime, under capitalism, is whether they get us nearer to socialism and whether they materially improve life for the working class. Anything else is a bizarre liberal fetish.



Right.  It'll all be very democratic, but that will start only after the revolution?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd.  It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.
> 
> Is there if fact here only an apparent contradiction?  Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?
> 
> ...



He didn't join either the liberals or labour clubs though - only the tory one. The only wriggle room he has is that that CUCA is that membership below the level of officer doesn't require membership of the party.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> Right.  It'll all be very democratic, but that will start only after the revolution?



How on earth did you possibly read that from my previous posting?

Are you sure you're actually reading these before responding?


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> How on earth did you possibly read that from my previous posting?
> 
> Are you sure you're actually reading these before responding?



Are there any extensions of democracy that you support in the here and now (this side of the expropriation of the capitalists)?  You've made it clear that you are not bothered by whether we have a proportional or a crap disproportional (undemocratic) electoral system, but perhaps there are some other democratic reforms you want.


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Is that right? I'd read it was because Lord Carrington, long term tory politician and family friend of the Cleggs got him the job. I expect both of these elite connections helped him.
> 
> (He again denies - _today_ - ever being in the Cambridge University Conservative Association in that linked article btw, and also tells a half truth about his employment under Brittain)



I don't know the relevance other than another connection to Toad face but they were at school together. 



JHE said:


> The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd.  It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.
> 
> Is there in fact here only an apparent contradiction?  Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?
> 
> ...



There was one head of a University Conservative Association who used it as an opportunity to hone his debating skills (can't remember his name but he'd been in the Labour party up till then). 

Call it pre-internet trolling.. I doubt that's the case with Clegg though.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> Are there any extensions of democracy that you support in the here and now (this side of the expropriation of the capitalists)?  You've made it clear that you are not bothered by whether we have a proportional or a crap disproportional (undemocratic) electoral system, but perhaps there are some other democratic reforms you want.



Very possible. Maybe term limits? Right of recall? Something like that mightn't be a bad idea. Maybe AV or something.

Despite what you write, I have at no point expressed opposition to PR per se, merely that any changes to the current capitalist 'democracy' should be judged against the criteria of how they advance our class interests, rather than some nebulous bourgeois concept of 'fairness'. As if parliamentary elections can ever be fair in a capitalist society.


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Very possible. Maybe term limits? Right of recall? Something like that mightn't be a bad idea. Maybe AV or something.
> 
> Despite what you write, I have at no point expressed opposition to PR per se, merely that any changes to the current capitalist 'democracy' should be judged against the criteria of how they advance our class interests, rather than some nebulous bourgeois concept of 'fairness'. As if parliamentary elections can ever be fair in a capitalist society.



I know you haven't said you are against PR.  You have said you "don't care".

Why the hell you would think AV a good idea I can't imagine.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the  non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

JHE said:


> I know you haven't said you are against PR.  You have said you "don't care".
> 
> Why the hell you would think AV a good idea I can't imagine.



I "don't care" as I don't perceive that it would advance the cause as described above. It's not a blanket opposition to PR, just that I haven't been convinced it would be of any benefit to socialist politics.

As somebody wise pointed out above, we should be aiming to win over a majority of the population, in which case we would have power under pretty much any parliamentary system.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the  non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?



More likely because it's the only one I've heard much discussion of recently and I'm not very expert in different forms of PR.


----------



## JHE (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the  non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?



It would help parties that are least hated, rather than those that are most supported.  IIRC, Jenkins was explicit in designing an electoral reform proposal (AV+) that would help centre parties, like the Lib Dems and a Blairised Labour Party.  He wanted to keep nasty extremists like Glen out of parliament.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 21, 2010)

AV does not represent any kind of major reform though. As far as I understand it, it makes FPTP more efficient but doesn't address the situation of representation across the board. If anything it will just concentrate the power of the major parties and reinforce the duopoly.

That is not what the electorate appears to want.


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 21, 2010)

I've not read the Jenkins Report, in case you can't tell.


----------



## TAE (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg, Cambridge University Conservative Association:
> 
> http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1559/cucatory.jpg
> 
> 8th name down on the left.



An unreadable JPEG on imageshack, yeah that's totally convincing. 



gosub said:


> How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
> Party lists and party power surely.



The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

TAE said:


> An unreadable JPEG on imageshack, yeah that's totally convincing.



Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

TAE said:


> The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.



What sort of PR allows the whole electorate to get rid of MPs? Any system of PR we have will be tied to regional lists and constituencies in some way. It'll be those voters signing a recall petition or whatever mechanism is put in place, not everyone.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 21, 2010)

The Clegg stuff was originally posted on/broken by the ConservativeHome site if that's more convincing for you TAE. You'll find it through a google (I'm not linking!).


----------



## Corax (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.



I'm not totally convinced it's as big a deal as you say.

I read the article you linked in hard copy earlier today.



> Clegg's attendance at the John Locke society was more about the society and less about John Locke. Friends can't remember him having political affiliation and ridicule the idea that he was a Tory.
> 
> Instead Clegg's political activities at Cambridge, where he studied anthropology, stretched to organising a campaign for indigenous people.
> 
> ...



And the European job:



> He worked for Brittan by managing development projects abroad, not writing political speeches, and Brittan didn't press Clegg too hard to convert to Conservatism.
> 
> "I think he may have tried a bit, but not that much. But what he did do was that he saw that I had a lot of strong opinions and he said 'You've got to do something about it' and I said, 'What, me?' " Brittan confirmed the story today.
> 
> ...



None of this is a nailed on refutation, but I do see it as plausible.

I'm not a cheerleader for the orange party btw, I just see them as least worst.  I'm damn sure Clegg ain't perfect, and like most politicians he's almost certainly out for himself more than anything.  My major spar of respect for the lib dems is based around Harris, not Clegg.

You know your shit better than I do though, so if there's something you know that demonstrates that Clegg's responses in that article are bs, I'd be genuinely interested.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2010)

He ran together two jobs in the European parliament into one. First his job at Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States which he slaps himself on the back for above was not for Leon Britain, it was for the _for the european commission_. After completing that job he _then_ was taken on by Brittain as a political advisor in his personal office. He tries to pretend these were one and the same thing. It's habitual causal dishonesty typical of the old gang he claims that he's different from.

If you've been following the evolution of his CV today, you'll see he's also been forced to come clean about a later period of employment/partnership in GPlus political lobbyists - exactly the sort of people he's been attacking for bring the system into disrepute and putting the concerns of the powerful above those of the electorate. Clean hands? How about you come clean first 'Nick'?


----------



## Corax (Apr 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He ran together two jobs in the European parliament into one. First his job at Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States which he slaps himself on the back for above was not for Leon Britain, it was for the _for the european commission_. After completing that job he _then_ was taken on by Brittain as a political advisor in his personal office. He tries to pretend these were one and the same thing. It's habitual causal dishonesty typical of the old gang he claims that he's different from.
> 
> If you've been following the evolution of his CV today, you'll see he's also been forced to come clean about a later period of employment/partnership in GPlus political lobbyists - exactly the sort of people he's been attacking for bring the system into disrepute and putting the concerns of the powerful above those of the electorate. Clean hands? How about you come clean first 'Nick'?



Cheers.  Can't say I'm massively surprised.


----------



## TAE (Apr 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Perfectly readable, just zoom in.


It's 300×456 pixels - did you link to the wrong file?



butchersapron said:


> It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.


I'll have a look.



butchersapron said:


> What sort of PR allows the whole electorate to get rid of MPs?


Why not? Depends on the system of PR of course, but I see no reason why voters should not be able to call for it. How would it work in a constituency? Why should the same mechanism, in princilple, not work for a whole country?



butchersapron said:


> Any system of PR we have will be tied to regional lists and constituencies in some way. It'll be those voters signing a recall petition or whatever mechanism is put in place, not everyone.


If it is tied to a region/constituency then I see even less difference between recall of an MP under PR and FPTP.

MP is found to be corrupt, voters (be it in the constituency or whole country) demand a vote on removing him, votes takes place and MP is removed.

I don't see the difference - except maybe for how he is replaced.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2010)

TAE said:


> It's 300×456 pixels - did you link to the wrong file?



No i didn't it's perfectly readable if you zoom in.

As for the rest, the PR stuff - you've totally misread me and have in fact just repeated my exact point apparently under the impression that i was saying the opposite. My point was that recall of MPs would be tied to constituencies or regions and so _it wouldn't be the whole electorate voting on their recall _- as opposed to your :



> The same as under FPTP, _except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency._



I see clean hands clegg has found himself mired in yet another old corruption style financial scandal today - being funded by rich and powerful businessmen straight into his account. When he's giving that £2.4 million back as well? It's just more of the same isn't it?


----------



## the button (Apr 22, 2010)

> The businessmen paying the money to Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold-mining executive.



Full steam ahead to the New Politics.


----------



## Bailey (Apr 22, 2010)

Corax said:


> They'll scrap Trident.  I'm all for this.  I'm a pacifist, so sue me.
> They want to scrap FPTP in favour of a form of PR.  This is probably the most attractive part of their policies, for me.



Would they ..?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 22, 2010)

No, we need Trident because _North Korea_ could attack the UK at any moment!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2010)

Break up the NHS demands Clegg



> When his colleague David Laws MP, in an article in the now notorious Orange Book broached the question of reforming the NHS, he was almost lynched by his colleagues. But Nick Clegg isn't content to hide behind the safe prosaic rhetoric that surrounds most health service debates. *He rejects old platitudes and, in a refreshingly honest and outspoken intervention, declares bluntly the NHS should be "broken up".
> 
> "One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service." Then he goes further, even refusing to rule out the insurance-based models used in mainland Europe and Canada.*
> 
> "I don't think anything should be ruled out. I think it would be really, really daft to rule out any other model from Europe or elsewhere. I do think they deserve to be looked out because frankly the faults of the British health service compared to others still leave much to be desired."



Of course, he backed that up by going private himself. How much of this _break up the NHS _thinking appears in the manifesto? Nothing. What hard held principles!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 22, 2010)

Don't  you see?  This is the "graphite revolution", a "popular insurrection"...:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/our-graphite-revolution


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2010)

Invisible Insurrection of a Million Empty Minds


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Don't  you see?  This is the "graphite revolution", a "popular insurrection"...:
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/our-graphite-revolution



That piece is insulting frankly.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 22, 2010)

interesting how it conflates "normal" with (privately?-)educated and middle class, and how little interest he has in political content as opposed to the fact that they are changing the form of parliamentary arithmetic


----------



## TAE (Apr 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No i didn't it's perfectly readable if you zoom in.


Then we have a different understanding of "perfectly readable".



butchersapron said:


> you've totally misread me



I can see where the misunderstanding between us arose: 



gosub said:


> How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
> Party lists and party power surely.



If he was talking about a form of PR which still has constituencies, then I cannot see any change to the current proposal of a constituency recalling an MP. 

Therefore I thought he was talking about the simplest form of PR where a party that gets, say, 12% of the votes across the nation, then gets 12% of the seats in the nation's parliament. 

Hence I replied: 



TAE said:


> The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.



Of course that statement makes no sense if we are talking about PR with constituencies.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2010)

Have a check of the record on intimidating workers and strikers that Ian Wright's - secret payer into Nick Clegg's personal bank account  - company Diageo has:

Diageo boss 'in threat to staff if they go on strike'

Check out their board members and other connections as well - Baron Clive Hollick (labour peer), Margaret Beckett and Mandelson all in the mix. Clean hands. Fresh air. The lib-dems.


----------



## Bailey (Apr 23, 2010)

maybe its been pointed out already but I will say to remind you anyway:

they are the only major party opposing the Digital Economy Bill. 
This is a big issue for me and i'm sure many people here.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, we need Trident because _North Korea_ could attack the UK at any moment!



Workers' Bomb.


----------



## hipipol (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.
> 
> Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.



Still an idiot I see


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 23, 2010)

Heather Mills has fallen over.

It's nicked legs fault


Badoom-tish


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

Of the 3 major parties, all of which are firmly centrist, which is _most_ to the left?

I appreciate that the differences are down to Planck length, but still...


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> Of the 3 major parties, all of which are firmly centrist, which is _most_ to the left?
> 
> I appreciate that the differences are down to Planck length, but still...


Why restrict yourself to the economic axis though.  What about the civil liberties axis?  Or other metrics too, for that matter?


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Why restrict yourself to the economic axis though.  What about the civil liberties axis?  Or other metrics too, for that matter?



I'm thinking in more than just economic terms.

Left/right is simplistic I'll concede.

Out of the 3 though, the lib-dems appear to be the least worst, on various measures.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> I'm thinking in more than just economic terms.
> 
> Left/right is simplistic I'll concede.
> 
> Out of the 3 though, the lib-dems appear to be the least worst, on various measures.


Yes, I agree with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Derek Wall has some info as regards their clean hands over Iraq:



> 1) This ongoing myth about being against the Iraq War - the Lib Dems weren't against the war, they wanted to see a UN resolution _authorising_ the war. If Bush/Blair had secured that, through outright bribery and arm twisting at the UN Security Council, what would have happened then?


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 23, 2010)

Bailey said:


> maybe its been pointed out already but I will say to remind you anyway:
> 
> they are the only major party opposing the Digital Economy Bill.
> This is a big issue for me and i'm sure many people here.



Shame they were the ones who originally drafted all the things they went on to oppose.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

I think I probably despise Cameron and Brown about equally now, thought for entirely different reasons.

What also concerns me is that Brown will probably hang on even beyond the length of the hung Parliament. They are  literally going go have to prise his dead hand off the door of NL leaders office.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

> 1) This ongoing myth about being against the Iraq War - the Lib Dems weren't against the war, they wanted to see a UN resolution authorising the war. If Bush/Blair had secured that, through outright bribery and arm twisting at the UN Security Council, what would have happened then?


But that's the same thing as opposing the war because a second specific resolution was always impossible - it's opposition couched in realpolitik.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> But that's the same thing as opposing the war because a second specific resolution was always impossible - it's opposition couched in realpolitik.
> 
> Instead, Bush and Blair pursued the illegal option.



No, that's a very different thing from opposing the war - it's an acceptance of the case for invasion and occupation just done through the proper channels. 

If it was impossible why not just openly oppose the war then - authorised or not? Esp when the polls showed the vast majority of the population opposed the war outright. And no, a second resolution was not impossible. They've got you jumping through hoops to defend them.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If it was impossible why not just openly oppose the war then - authorised or not? Esp when the polls showed the vast majority of the population opposed the war outright. And no, a second resolution was not impossible. They've got you jumping through hoops to defend them.


Why oppose the war outright when you can look international and cooperative by saying you agree with the UN's judgement and the rules of international law? Strategic init. As I say, it was pretty simple realpolitik.

Re the second resolution:


> French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would *veto* any resolution which would automatically lead to war.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Why oppose the war outright when you can look international and cooperative by saying you agree with the UN's judgement and the rules of international law? Strategic init. As I say, it was pretty simple realpolitik.
> 
> Re the second resolution:



Why would that be any more beneficial to them then outright opposition - given the majority opposition to the war? Opportunistically jumping on that bandwagon would have been genuine realpolitik. I fail to see the advantage that the position  they adopted brought them. I think the far more likely case is that it was a genuine position (i.e that they weren't anti-war - as Kennedy made absolutely clear at the time) - and this is borne out by their position of offering "genuine support" once the war had started.

That chirac quote came not from the _start_ of the crisis but the very end days - 10 days before the invasion started in fact. Up to that point (and even after as the history of international diplomacy indicates) the 2nd resolution authorising an invasion which the lib-dems supported was a goer - their months of arguing for a 2nd resolution were based on just that expectation and basis.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

And of course, this is to let them off the hook for supporting then and now the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

It also winds you up.

Crirac spoke on the issue when necessary. That's what politicians do - as the LibDems did on Iraq. It doesn't mean you don't hold that view beforehand, or that it was diplomatically obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

There were 5 months before the first resolution and Chirac's statement - 10 days between that and the war. That this (support for war under properly drawn up procedures) was the lib-dems genuine position is backed up by 5 months of arguing the case, 5 months of speeches, 5 months of votes, their position once the war had started and their bloodthirsty support of the Afghan invasion and occupation - all against the advantages of what an all out genuine opposition to either or both wars would have brought them - which would certainly have outweighed that they recieved for this back-door support.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 23, 2010)

I remember that Chirac's "veto promise" was spun by the US/UK anyway - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/03/chirac-iraq-war-veto-chilcot


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

again, diplomatic speak:



> Chirac made very clear he was not against a second resolution, but such a resolution was not appropriate at that moment – and if presented would be vetoed by France.


Exactly. It means no, folks.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

That's rubbish spin London_Calling - it blows your position out of the water.

I think the letter needs posting:



> Emphasis needs to be given to the important points raised by Philippe Marlière (Comment, 29 January) regarding French president Jacques Chirac's crucial interview in the runup to the Iraq war. As the Financial Times bureau chief in Paris, I was well briefed on the Elysée's position in advance of the Chirac interview which came to be used as the justification by London and Washington, as evidence that France would block any new UN resolution. Chirac made very clear he was not against a second resolution, but such a resolution was not appropriate at that moment – and if presented would be vetoed by France.
> 
> I filed a story to this effect, but by the time it reached London, the news agencies had already hardened this vital proviso into an outright rejection of any fresh UN resolution. Downing Street and the White House jumped on the agencies' hard version as the proof they were looking for to say, in so many words: "France will never come on board, so we will have to go it alone." Faced with these official statements, my copy was altered to express an outright French rejection. Thus it was not so much a case of blaming the French as saying: "Thank you, Jacques, you have given us the rationale we have been looking for to go ahead with our plans." I think Chirac should have repeated better the French position, as it would have been much harder for Blair and Bush to go for regime change.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> again, diplomatic speak:
> 
> 
> Exactly. It means no, folks.



No it doesn't, it means he didn't want one at that specific stage in the process.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2010)

If this thing is true about Liberals winning seats translating into Labour having the most seats in total, there are some attractive bets on offer!  Lots of 4-1 bets around for Labour having the most seats.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

NL's vote is far more concentrated in particular areas/seats than the others.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Here's the article that outlines the outright lies told about Chirac's position on a 2nd resolution that Robert Graham mentioned above:



> At this point, Goldsmith drew the public's attention to one awkward episode in the run-up to the war: Britain's voluntary distortion of the French position. In short, Blair never obtained a second resolution because those shifty French would not concede it. Evidence of that was a much-quoted interview with President Chirac on French TV. Blair told the House of Commons: "France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances." In reality, Chirac said: "My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote no [to a US-British resolution authorising the use of force], because we presently consider that war is not the proper means to reach our objective, that is disarming Iraq." In other words, Chirac thought that the UN should let Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors get on with their job. Had they found any weapons, the French argued, the UN would have met to decide on the appropriate course of action. War would then have been an option


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Why is someone's *schooling * relevant?
> 
> Lots of right wing scum bags went to state comps. What does it tell us? Bugger all in the big scheme.



It's the failure to repudiate these things.

To take the private school in question

Shane MacGowan - repudiates Westminster school - OK
Nick Clegg - doesn't repudiate Westminster school, supports the idea of private education for his children to entrench elite privilege.

Couple it with the insistence on using private healthcare it's all there for anyone to see.

It was the same with Thatcher - private education for the children, and private healthcare - all before being PM.


----------



## Santino (Apr 23, 2010)

Look at this blatant bit of pro-Lib Dem advertising from Bill Gates:


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

Butchers - I don't understand how that supports your position:

Until B happens the answer is no, and when B does happen we will meet to discuss it.


It pretty well summarises diplomacy.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

because nick clegg is a man without spine

on his mep past on November 27, 2002



> Sometimes, as I have voted to make sweeping changes to swaths of EU legislation affecting the UK, I have felt a little squeamish that I am doing so on a shaky mandate from British voters - only one in four bothered to vote in the last Euro elections.



Shake his mandate to its core, persuade your friends and families to organise trade unions and not to vote for the lib dems.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

Good article by Hari in the Huffington Post.  Particularly liked this bit:



> To understand what these forces are, you have to start with a fact that is usually kept obscure: Britain is a country with a large liberal-left majority. Eighty-five per cent of us say the gap between rich and poor should be "much smaller", and a majority would get there by introducing a maximum wage that caps the incomes of the rich at £135,000 a year. Fifty-eight per cent support a dramatic increase in the minimum wage. Fifty-eight per cent want to ditch Trident - an act of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Seventy-seven per cent want to bring the troops home from Afghanistan now, or within a year at the latest. Fifty-three per cent say people come out of prison worse than they go in, and would rather spend money on more youth clubs than on more prison places.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-forces-blocking-briti_b_548800.html


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Butchers - I don't understand how that supports your position:
> 
> Until B happens the answer is no, and when B does happen we will meet to discuss it.
> 
> ...



It's simple - you said that the lib-dems opportunistically said they'd be prepared to support a war that went through the proper legal channels because they knew full well that this would never happen and offered Chirac's apparent statement that he'd flat out veto a 2nd resolution as evidence of this. Now, aside from the fact that this apparent statement appeared 5 months _after_ the lib-dems started using this argument it now now turns out that _this wasn't Chirac's position at all_, and what you've offered as evidence was in fact a distorted position that was cooked up those who wanted to use such a position to go to war.

Your argument has fallen apart - a 2nd resolution was not only possible during the 5 months before the crucial debate in which Chirac made his statement, but _was also possible after that._


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Shake his mandate to its core, persuade your friends and families to organise trade unions and not to vote for the lib dems.



Vote labour instead, or tory?  Or for someone with fuck all chance of any influence?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

The circumstances for a second resolution as laid out by Chirac were impossible - that was common knowledge to anyone familiar with Ritter and 7 years of UNSCOM reporting.

btw, I have to go now.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

It's a shit article it assumes that most lib dem voters are 'social democratic' which isn't defined and fails to register that a very significant amount of lib dem support comes from being the anti-labour (labour who are defined as 'social democratic') where tories vote lib dem against labour councils or labour national governments.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> because nick clegg is a man without spine
> 
> on his mep past on November 27, 2002



Sorry..how does Clegg expressing regret that not more than a quarter of the electorate bothered to vote in the Euro election mean that he lacks spine?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> Vote labour instead, or tory?  Or for someone with fuck all chance of any influence?



LibDem, Tory, Labour - all the same - politics is the shadow cast on society by business.
Defend in a sensible way, form trade unions where none exist, attack job closing managers from other workplaces just do things.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The circumstances for a second resolution as laid out by Chirac were impossible - that was common knowledge to anyone familiar with Ritter and 7 years of UNSCOM reporting.



Were they? What circumstances were these?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Sorry..how does Clegg expressing regret that not more than a quarter of the electorate bothered to vote in the Euro election mean that he lacks spine?



He would not have taken up his position as MEP if he was at all serious citing the lack of mandate from the people. 

Since he didn't and enforced new disgusting EU laws anyway he is a hypocrite - wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> LibDem, Tory, Labour - all the same - politics is the shadow cast on society by business.
> Defend in a sensible way, form trade unions where none exist, attack job closing managers from other workplaces just do things.



It's not worked though.  It's like the "War on Drugs" - at some point you have to accept that it's a lost battle.  The Lib Dems would push for a form of PR.  A shit form of PR, but at least it's a small step.  PR would allow the 'minority' parties a greater say.  It would be a _small_ step towards combating the very problem  (all the same) you're citing.

They've also got people like Evan Harris, who champions evidence-based decision making.  His star appears to be rising.  If people like him can gain influence, that can only be a good thing.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> He would not have taken up his position as MEP if he was at all serious citing the lack of mandate from the people.
> 
> Since he didn't and enforced new disgusting EU laws anyway he is a hypocrite - wouldn't you agree?



I don't think that sitting as an MEP precludes you from wishing that more people had got involved in the political process and voted.  

I must admit I know nothing about his voting record as an MEP.  Which was the most 'disgusting' law he voted in favour of?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Which was the most 'disgusting' law he voted in favour of?


isn't that a very personal question?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's not worked though.  It's like the "War on Drugs" - at some point you have to accept that it's a lost battle.  The Lib Dems would push for a form of PR.  A shit form of PR, but at least it's a small step.  PR would allow the 'minority' parties a greater say.  It would be a _small_ step towards combating the very problem  (all the same) you're citing.
> 
> They've also got people like Evan Harris, who champions evidence-based decision making.  His star appears to be rising.  If people like him can gain influence, that can only be a good thing.



Don't be joking his star in the media world might be rising, but in the real world of policies, his left wing ones such as cancelling university tuition fees etc have been utterly rejected by the lib dem leadership and its manifesto.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Don't be joking his star in the media world might be rising, but in the real world of policies, his left wing ones such as cancelling university tuition fees etc have been utterly rejected by the lib dem leadership and its manifesto.



But the alternatives?  You've not addressed the substance of my point, have you?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> But the alternatives?  You've not addressed the substance of my point, have you?



Make your own alternatives, evan harris is not an alternative, he tows the party line he now supports university fees, stop pretending that he is.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:


> I don't think that sitting as an MEP precludes you from wishing that more people had got involved in the political process and voted.
> 
> I must admit I know nothing about his voting record as an MEP.  Which was the most 'disgusting' law he voted in favour of?



Just about any one regarding business or industry:

There are over 15,000 professional lobbyists who for a living work to influence the MEPs in Brussels, their laws and directives basically support softening welfare spending to open up the path for privatisation.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Make your own alternatives, evan harris is not an alternative, he tows the party line he now supports university fees, stop pretending that he is.



So in terms of a vote, you'd prefer to posture and feel righteous?

You're not addressing the point at all.



> It's not worked though. It's like the "War on Drugs" - at some point you have to accept that it's a lost battle. The Lib Dems would push for a form of PR. A shit form of PR, but at least it's a small step. PR would allow the 'minority' parties a greater say. It would be a small step towards combating the very problem (all the same) you're citing.



My own ideal centres on Berkman's ideas - but it ain't gonna happen, not at the moment.  Do I write _You're All Cunts_ on my ballot paper or do I take a more pragmatic approach?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2010)

Wolfie Smith said:
			
		

> Sorry..how does Clegg expressing regret that not more than a quarter of the electorate bothered to vote in the Euro election mean that he lacks spine?





sihhi said:


> *He would not have taken up his position as MEP if he was at all serious citing the lack of mandate from the people. *
> Since he didn't and enforced new disgusting EU laws anyway he is a hypocrite - wouldn't you agree?



What makes you think Clegg's an MEP, or ever was??


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

His election to the European parliament.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> His election to the European parliament.



Priceless.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> My own ideal centres on Berkman's ideas - but it ain't gonna happen, not at the moment.  Do I write _You're All Cunts_ on my ballot paper or do I take a more pragmatic approach?



Bloody hell! I didn't see this! Berkman as in Berkman the anarcho-communist? 

I'll have to respond to this later.


----------



## ymu (Apr 23, 2010)

kabbes said:


> If this thing is true about Liberals winning seats translating into Labour having the most seats in total, there are some attractive bets on offer!  Lots of 4-1 bets around for Labour having the most seats.


I got 16.5-1 on a Labour majority the day Ashcroft was forced to come clean. The Tories are fucking this campaign up beautifully.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 23, 2010)

ymu said:


> I got 16.5-1 on a Labour majority the day Ashcroft was forced to come clean. The Tories are fucking this campaign up beautifully.


Overall majority or just the most seats?  If the latter then


----------



## Bailey (Apr 23, 2010)

The LibDem leaflets / letters delivered here so boring. Basically nothing on what the MP would do for us they just allways constantly repeat. "Labour don't stand a chance here so it's us or more of the current con cunt"


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Bloody hell! I didn't see this! Berkman as in Berkman the anarcho-communist?
> 
> I'll have to respond to this later.



That one, yes.  I'm not as politically learned as many on here seem to be, but Alex Berkman's stuff describes my idea of utopia.  I don't see it happening though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 23, 2010)

*Re Clegg being an MEP at one time*



butchersapron said:


> His election to the European parliament.



I failed to Google/check, so embarassment suitably felt. Apols to sihhi then ...    at self ...

Just that I don't remember him ever being an MEP -- I was only aware of him  him after he got to be an MP in Sheffield -- and I was only aware of his Euro background in terms of that time he worked for Leon Britton.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

ymu said:


> I got 16.5-1 on a Labour majority the day Ashcroft was forced to come clean. The Tories are fucking this campaign up beautifully.



They're currently 20.0 for an overall majority.
Hung: 1.7
Etonians: 2.84

Spot when the first debate happened:


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> But the alternatives?  You've not addressed the substance of my point, have you?



Make an alternative yourself. If you wait for the political class to make a world or even just a country or city you want to live in, you'll be waiting a while.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Make an alternative yourself. If you wait for the political class to make a world or even just a country or city you want to live in, you'll be waiting a while.



"you'll be waiting a while." - do you realistically think that your way's going to be quicker?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> "you'll be waiting a while." - do you realistically think that your way's going to be quicker?



If a quick fix is what you're after you're going to be even more disapointed than if the Libdems do well enough in this election to be able to influence government.

First of all, you don't know what my way is, secondly what has my way got to do with it? (that would be a quality mashup btw (the Noel Coward/Tina Turner versions of course)).

The point is that if we are actually building our own alternatives right now, we're hardly waiting around.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> "you'll be waiting a while." - do you realistically think that your way's going to be quicker?



Quicker then what? To achieve what?


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

The LibDems can be as shit as they want so long as they manage to deliver PR.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.


Greece is one of the few countries in the EU that doesn't have PR. Go figure. Still, nobody's advocating PR as a panacea, but if you ever want a government that ain't Lab/Con....


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If a quick fix is what you're after ...



No Spanky, it was you that posted 'you'll be waiting a while' - I quoted you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> No Spanky, it was you that posted 'you'll be waiting a while' - I quoted you.



It was the "waiting" bit that mattered, which you know - answer the substantive points of my second post.


----------



## elbows (Apr 23, 2010)

Even if I was silly enough to buy in to the Lib Dems, the local candidate here isnt local, lives nowhere near here, Ive never seen them and have received no election material from them at any point. I will try to learn something about them via the internet but it wont make any difference. The Lib Dems are amusingly useful in this election as far as Im concerned because of the spanner they are throwing in the Tory machine, but I cant imagine ever supporting them on anything but single issues from time to time.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> Greece is one of the few countries in the EU that doesn't have PR. Go figure. Still, nobody's advocating PR as a panacea, but if you ever want a government that ain't Lab/Con....



It has a system of 'reinforced' PR - 300 seats, 260 elected by PR, largest party gets the other 40 seats.

And PR is going to ensure a lab or con leading presence in every govt ever.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.



Any suggestions that may realistically happen in our lifetimes then?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> Any suggestions that may realistically happen in our lifetimes then?



Have you any?


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It has a system of 'reinforced' PR - 300 seats, 260 elected by PR, largest party gets the other 40 seats.


It ain't proper PR, whatever way you look at it. They have a system that's loaded against coalition government.



> And PR is going to ensure a lab or con presence in every govt ever.


A "presence" is fine. We're stuck with that anyway. What PR will change is that it will ensure other parties get a voice, and that new parties can actually grow because people can vote for them without feeling that their vote is wasted.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It was the "waiting" bit that mattered, which you know - answer the substantive points of my second post.



What, this one?



Spanky Longhorn said:


> If a quick fix is what you're after you're going to be even more disapointed than if the Libdems do well enough in this election to be able to influence government.
> 
> First of all, you don't know what my way is, secondly what has my way got to do with it? (that would be a quality mashup btw (the Noel Coward/Tina Turner versions of course)).
> 
> The point is that if we are actually building our own alternatives right now, we're hardly waiting around.



There's not much to answer there really is there?  To steal a phrase from Butchers (who will no doubt savage me now), it's drivel.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have you any?



You should go into politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> It ain't proper PR, whatever way you look at it. They have a system that's loaded against coalition government.



It's a form of PR - there are many different forms of PR. This is one of them, albeit one engineered to majoritarian outcomes.



> A "presence" is fine. We're stuck with that anyway. What PR will change is that it will ensure other parties get a voice, and that new parties can actually grow because people can vote for them without feeling that their vote is wasted.



It will ensure that lab or the conservatives are 'leading presences' in every single government from now on - exactly the same as we have now. Why you're sure it'll give other parties the opp to grow and that they'll have their voices heard rather than throwing over their principles when they are offered the chance of grabbing a little bit of power for themselves i don't know. What's the record on this in other countries?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> You should go into politics.



But you haven't offered anything except more of the same under the flag of change.


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's a form of PR - there are many different forms of PR. This is one of them, albeit one engineered to majoritarian outcomes.


It technically can be a swiss cheese for all I care. It ain't PR as commonly understood, and it ain't a form of PR being advocated in this country, so it ain't a suitable candidate for comparison.



> It will ensure that lab or the conservatives are 'leading presences' in every single government from now on - exactly the same as we have now.


It's not "exactly the same as we have now" if other parties have a voice. And frankly, most methods of PR give the LibDems a fair shot at becoming the largest single party. Many Lib/Con marginals would fall to the Lib Dems with Labour voters putting them down as second preference under, say, an STV system of PR. 



> Why you're sure it'll give other parties the opp to grow and that they'll have their voices heard rather than throwing over their principles when they are offered the chance of grabbing a little bit of power for themselves i don't know. What's the record on this in other countries?


Pretty good, actually. I'm sure you'll hold a different opinion, so I expect we'll have to agree to differ.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But you haven't offered anything except more of the same under the flag of change.



I'm not 'offering' anything.  I have 0.46 of a vote.

I'd rather a planck-length step towards PR than nothing at all.

The alternatives are labour or bullingdon.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

PR is both of them.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.



Have you looked out the window recently?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> It technically can be a swiss cheese for all I care. It ain't PR as commonly understood, and it ain't a form of PR being advocated in this country, so it ain't a suitable candidate for comparison.



Sorry, but even in this country there are a wide range of common understandisng of what PR entails - including majoritarian slanted systems like that of Greece - the option favoured for Labour's proposed referendum next year is STV for example. Pure PR is not the only model, it's one of many.



> It's not "exactly the same as we have now" if other parties have a voice. And frankly, most methods of PR give the LibDems a fair shot at becoming the largest single party. Many Lib/Con marginals would fall to the Lib Dems with Labour voters putting them down as second preference under, say, an STV system of PR.
> 
> Pretty good, actually. I'm sure you'll hold a different opinion, so I expect we'll have to agree to differ.



It's exactly the same if the political content of the outcome is exactly the same and administered by exactly the same parties. 

Where are the examples of PR allowing small parties to pull the larger ones leftwards? There must be many of them?


----------



## elbows (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why you're sure it'll give other parties the opp to grow and that they'll have their voices heard rather than throwing over their principles when they are offered the chance of grabbing a little bit of power for themselves i don't know. What's the record on this in other countries?



I dont know what the record is but it could be boiled down to whether you think politics is the art of compromise or not.

It doesnt seem like an either/or choice to me. You can grow the party, get your voice heard a little more than before, stick to some principals, abandon others, make bargains, or stand on the margins and shout, or all of the above. Im sure a lot of people have wrestled with their conscience in all sorts of ways when entering politics, PR or not, and it does stand to reason that the more power you get the more compromised you are likely to be. I doubt that can be fixed without changing the fundamental nature of political representation, and even then it merely shifts the compromise from being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals to being a burden placed on everyone. I can hardly get out of bed without making some compromises.


----------



## elbows (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Where are the examples of PR allowing small parties to pull the larger ones leftwards? There must be many of them?



I would expect there are no end of examples where specific legislation is modified in some way in order to get the support needed to pass. Again its far too much about compromise, far too imperfect and lacking ideological purity for everyone to be happy with such a state of affairs, but I broadly support anything that can moderate the worst excesses of the prevailing regime or ideology. Sure there are many many times when softening the corners of something is not enough to bring about just results to all humans, but Id still rather have the soft-cornered version than the sorts of hard edges that otherwise occur.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

elbows said:


> I dont know what the record is but it could be boiled down to whether you think politics is the art of compromise or not.
> 
> It doesnt seem like an either/or choice to me. You can grow the party, get your voice heard a little more than before, stick to some principals, abandon others, make bargains, or stand on the margins and shout, or all of the above. Im sure a lot of people have wrestled with their conscience in all sorts of ways when entering politics, PR or not, and it does stand to reason that the more power you get the more compromised you are likely to be. I doubt that can be fixed without changing the fundamental nature of political representation, and even then it merely shifts the compromise from being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals to being a burden placed on everyone. I can hardly get out of bed without making some compromises.



I'm supportive of the introduction of PR - and in as pure a form as possible. What i'm not supportive of is this complacency that PR will operate as a Panacea when the historical and regional examples show the opposite. I'm supportive of it as _potentially_ opening up space for groups like the IWCA or other similar initiatives to develop their own power bases though defending/imposing w/c interests rather than any use it may have in propping up the parties and the system or in 'working together' with neo-liberals. If it's reduced to opening up opportunities to dialogue with neo-liberals the better to put across common policies then...


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

What's your position on the election Butchers?

Vote Labour?
Vote Libdem?
Vote Bullingdon?
Vote minority?
Spoil?

You're producing plenty of bile, but I can't ascertain the purpose.


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, but even in this country there are a wide range of common understandisng of what PR entails - including majoritarian slanted systems like that of Greece - the option favoured for Labour's proposed referendum next year is STV for example. Pure PR is not the only model, it's one of many.


Pedantry. You offered Greece up as an example of bad governance under PR. Nobody is proposing a similar system for this country, so it's irrelevant. In fact, the Greek system is closer to first-past-the-post than to the PR systems used in most major European countries, since it delivers single-part governments. Argue the toss over what we call it if you like, but it was a bad example with which to illustrate your point. If anything, Greece highlights the problems with single-party government - which is what UK electoral reform is an attempt to move away from.



> It's exactly the same if the political content of the outcome is exactly the same and administered by exactly the same parties.
> 
> Where are the examples of PR allowing small parties to pull the larger ones leftwards? There must be many of them?


Off the top of my head, the greens are widely credited with having a significant influence on German politics thanks to PR.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What i'm not supportive of is this complacency that PR will operate as a Panacea when the historical and regional examples show the opposite.



Who's said that?  Both me and others have readily described the proposed form of PR as shit.  Baby steps.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> Pedantry. You offered Greece up as an example of bad governance under PR. Nobody is proposing a similar system for this country, so it's irrelevant. In fact, the Greek system is closer to first-past-the-post than to the PR systems used in most major European countries, since it delivers single-part governments. Argue the toss over what we call it if you like, but it was a bad example with which to illustrate your point. If anything, Greece highlights the problems with single-party government - which is what UK electoral reform is an attempt to move away from.



Well no, it's a model of PR, albeit one designed to be friendly to forming majorities - precisely as many people have suggested introducing to this country and a half-way house between pure PR and pure FPTP. It was an especially apt example. And the point was not about bad governance under pR at all, it was about the from of government taking secondary place to the needs of the capitalist system.



> Off the top of my head, the greens are widely credited with having a significant influence on German politics thanks to PR.



You mean where they supported cuts in social spending, pensions etc and roll back of the welfare state and supported foreign military interventions?


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have a check of the record on intimidating workers and strikers that Ian Wright's - secret payer into Nick Clegg's personal bank account  - company Diageo has:


Nice use of the word 'secret' there to make it sound sinister.



> According to the Lib Dems' figures, Mr Clegg paid £20,437.30 into party coffers between March 2006 and February 2008 for staffing costs. The figures appear to show Mr Clegg was left £747.30 out of pocket as a result of the arrangement.
> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Churchill-to-Nazi-in-a.6248368.jp


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What i'm not supportive of is this complacency that PR will operate as a Panacea


I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. 




			
				Beanburger said:
			
		

> nobody's advocating PR as a panacea


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> Who's said that?  Both me and others have readily described the proposed form of PR as shit.  Baby steps.



Baby step where and to what? How long will they take?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.



Or Slovakia where the Labour Party's allies govern in coalition with the equivelant of the BNP. For social democracy and no filthy gypsies.

Yeah PR would go a long way to readressing power imbalances in the UK. The Greens would be able to support a Liberal/Tory coalition (hello Leeds) or a violent warmongering and immigrant scapegoating Labour one (hello Germany).

The only good thing about PR is that Dave Nellist would get a good wage the majority of which he would donate to worker's movement causes. But that is not enough to justify support for the Trade Union attacking Clegg, as I'm sure Dave would be the first to agree.


----------



## Beanburger (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Well no, it's a model of PR, albeit one designed to be friendly to forming majorities


... which isn't a model that's on the table here.



> - precisely as many people have suggested introducing to this country


Who? Labour and the Lib Dems aren't advocating systems of PR that are likely to deliver clear single-party majorities. 



> You mean where they supported cuts in social spending, pensions etc and roll back of the welfare state and supported foreign military interventions?


Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

TAE said:


> Nice use of the word 'secret' there to make it sound sinister.



Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post - it wasn't at all about Nick Clegg being funded by executives of companies that threaten workers and strickers who protest the unjustified shutting down of their workplace at all. No, no.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.



To be fair on balance, they probably had the same sort of positive influence on government in Germany, that the remaining progressive wing of Labour had here, and the same sort of negative influence - IE providing a "left" cover for an anti working class government.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post



That seems to be a trend among the Libdem voting cowards.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Beanburger said:


> ... which isn't a model that's on the table here.
> 
> Who? Labour and the Lib Dems aren't advocating systems of PR that are likely to deliver clear single-party majorities.



_No_ models are on the table here yet - which means none of them are ruled out either thank you. Many supporters of both pure PR and pure FPTP have advocated a half-way house model as a compromise. 



> Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.



Is that not enough? I'd think doing that sort of stuff doesn't really demonstrate a small party being able to pull a large party left-wards but the large party pulling the small one rightwards (see also the Greens recent coalition in Tasmania)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> What, this one?
> 
> 
> 
> There's not much to answer there really is there?  To steal a phrase from Butchers (who will no doubt savage me now), it's drivel.



The bit about waitng - I'm still waiting for you to answer it. 

The problem is, if you do you'll be forced to admit that you're a lazy do-nothing who expects things to be handed to him on a plate presumably, at least judging by your posts so far. Fair enough if I'm wrong, I apologise.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Baby step where and to what? How long will they take?



I've got an answer for that, but first I'd like to see your alternative.  You've been asked this lots of times now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> I've got an answer for that, but first I'd like to see your alternative.  You've been asked this lots of times now.



To what FFS? Can you please ask a question with some content? We're back at the sort of idiocy encountered earlier in the thread that if you attack the lib-dems you must want the tories or labour to win. What is it that my alternative is supposed to be the alternative to?


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post - it wasn't at all about Nick Clegg being funded by executives of companies that threaten workers and strickers who protest the unjustified shutting down of their workplace at all. No, no.



I picked up on the fact that you want to make him look as bad as you can - we all know that - and posted an article which adds a bit of balance to the "personal bank account" accusation. 

Also "executives of companies [which have (another) executive(s)] that threaten workers" is a bit of a tenous link and sounds almost like "evidence of WMD related program activities".


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To what FFS? Can you please ask a question with some content? We're back at the sort of idiocy encountered earlier in the thread that if you attack the lib-dems you must want the tories or labour to win. What is it that my alternative is supposed to be the alternative to?





Corax said:


> What's your position on the election Butchers?
> 
> Vote Labour?
> Vote Libdem?
> ...


.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

TAE said:


> I picked up on the fact that you want to make him look as bad as you can - we all know that - and posted an article which adds a bit of balance to the "personal bank account" accusation.
> 
> Also "executives of companies [which have (another) executive(s)] that threaten workers" is a bit of a tenous link and sounds almost like "evidence of WMD related program activities".



Are you suggesting that he's not a chief executive of Diageo? He is you know - here's their executive committee including the man himself.

Did you find out what you needed about Nick Clegg's membership of the Cambridge tories yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> .



You mean my alternative to voting lib-dem? Don't vote.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You mean my alternative to voting lib-dem? Don't vote.



Okay. What's that going to achieve, realistically?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2010)

Corax said:


> Okay. What's that going to achieve, realistically?



It's not going to achieve anything.

However if your vote did mean something, and the Libdems got influence on government, then we would expect to see more attacks on the "overpowerful" trade unions, among various other goodies.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.



So what do you reckon ?

Are the Libdems in with a chance in our constituency ?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> So what do you reckon ?
> 
> Are the Libdems in with a chance in our constituency ?



They've got a much better chance then a few weeks back that's for sure - but i can't see them coming up with a 100% increase on their vote on a probably higher turnout, especially not when the tories are better placed to offer a challenge as well. And KM remains baffling popular locally. I think labour are still very strong favs.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 23, 2010)

because they are pro-war:



> "The threat of war now looms over us all. Increasingly it seems we shall see conflict very soon, perhaps next week and probably without a second UN resolution authorising the use of force. When war comes, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats will be backing our troops. We supported the deployment to the Gulf in support of UN Resolution 1441. If they are now asked to risk their lives for their country and for all of us, they will have our unqualified support. They are in the Gulf region to deal with a dangerous and brutal tyrant-Saddam Hussein. Iraq must be disarmed"


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that he's not a chief executive of Diageo?


Why would I ? 



butchersapron said:


> Did you find out what you needed about Nick Clegg's membership of the Cambridge tories yet?



No, been a bit busy, I'll have a look now.


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

The discussion tab on Wiki is always very interesting when looking at controvertial issues:


> Greg hands has alleged that Clegg was briefly a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. Theres a copy of a membership list on Hands blog and it's been mentioned in quite a few diary pieces in the print media, but these aren't really suitable for use as a reference. Has anyone seen anything anywhere that might corroborate this information?
> 
> I don't think that there are any, or that any reliable sources would print it, unless Nick confirms the story. I would support including that information iff such verification happened. RossEnglish 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N...hip_of_Conservative_Association_at_university



So it's the then chairman of this terrible group which is now making these accusations. It seems his hand written piece of paper is the only evidence there is. 

BTW, here's a much better scan of the alleged membership list:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/06/cuca_msp_list_amended.jpg


So I hit google and all the newspaper stories go back to this one person - a Tory MP - making an accusation against Nick Clegg based on this piece of paper:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/nick-cleggs-tor.html

I'm not saying he is lying, as I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I'm not necessarily going to trust the ex-Chairman of CUCA either.


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 23, 2010)

TAE said:


> I'm not saying he is lying, as I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I'm not necessarily going to trust the ex-Chairman of CUCA either.



There's a lot of doorstepping and cold contacting people by papers like the Mail trying to add flesh to any 'allegation' at the moment.. anyone on that list will have been contacted recently and asked to comment.


----------



## tbaldwin (Apr 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> because they are pro-war:



True i heard they want to give trident to North Korea and cut pensions so they can help Iran build more nuclear weapons.
Apparently they are going to cut child benefit so that they can give more money to illegal immigrants to stage cock fighting on tower bridge.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

TAE said:


> The discussion tab on Wiki is always very interesting when looking at controvertial issues:
> 
> 
> So it's the then chairman of this terrible group which is now making these accusations. It seems his hand written piece of paper is the only evidence there is.
> ...



I told you that it was him who'd provided the list days ago -and of course all the links to the evidence go back to him _as he's the one who provided it _ (how many other people do you think would have such records?) - after it being hinted at by one of Clegg's fellow Lib-dems during the leadership election campaign. I've posted all this already. If you think he's trying to smear Clegg with falsehoods he's not making much of an effort is he? He even goes to some lengths to play it down on the article from _2 years ago _ (yes, it's not a new attempt to get Clegg since the lib-dem surge) - and it hasn't been brought back up since.


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I told you that it was him who'd provided the list days ago


Indeed, you said:



butchersapron said:


> Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.



However, you saying "Seriously, google the story - it's kosher" lead me to expect that there might be lots of corroborating information on the web, but there isn't.



butchersapron said:


> If you think he's trying to smear Clegg with falsehoods he's not making much of an effort is he?


It's been in enough newspapers.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

What - recently? I can find one single passing mention.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 23, 2010)

TAE said:


> The discussion tab on Wiki is always very interesting when looking at controvertial issues:
> 
> 
> So it's the then chairman of this terrible group which is now making these accusations. It seems his hand written piece of paper is the only evidence there is.
> ...


I reckon the key to this would be finding out what the '(A)' bit is after N Clegg's name.

it's also after several other first years names, but not after anyone's names in any of the other years, and the (A)'s after 2 of the names have been crossed out and had something like GD handwritten after it.

My assumption would be that the (A) stood for associate member, or something like that, and refers to someone who signed up probably in freshers week, but hasn't paid any subs or attended any meetings or anything to make them into a full member.

That'd explain why there's no (A)'s in any of the other years, and also why Clegg's able to deny being a member at the same time as hands having a membership list with his name on it. 

Loads of people sign up for loads of random societies in freshers week for all sorts of reasons (eg fit girl on the stand, peer pressure, being pissed and not even realising what you're signing, wanting to get the annoying twunk with the clipboard out of your face etc), and that's their first and only contact with the society, and they're hardly likely to remember doing it several decades later.


----------



## TAE (Apr 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What - recently? I can find one single passing mention.


My apologies, you are quite right.

The stories *are* from mid-April ... but 2008 ... as is the blog. 


At the time, however, it was in enough newspapers:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...a-student-tory-at-university-115875-20384448/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559910/Did-30-lovers-Clegg-flirt-Tory-Party-student.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jonathanisaby/3669211/Nick_Cleggs_Conservative_credentials/


So ... it seems to be an old claim which never really got proven either way. 

For some reason I thought this was a new accusation, but then again there was no reason for me to make that asumption.



free spirit said:


> I reckon the key to this would be finding out what the '(A)' bit is after N Clegg's name.


It's explained in the blog I linked to:

The "A" after his name meant he had paid an annual subscription.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2010)

A if for having _paid_ an annual subscription.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 24, 2010)

Pro-war whilst pretending to be anti-war on Afghanistan Wed, 23 Sep 2009



> You cannot win a war on half horse power. We owe it to the young men and women serving in Helmand to give them all the political leadership and all the resources they need to do the job. We should either do this properly or we shouldn’t do it at all. So I say to the Prime Minister: time is running out.
> 
> Unless you change course, there will be no choice but *to withdraw, and that would be a betrayal of the servicemen and women who have already made such enormous sacrifices on our behalf*. I do not want British troops to come home defeated by political failure. _*I want them to come home, mission successfully completed, with their heads held high*_.


----------



## bankside (Apr 24, 2010)

The stuff about Nick Clegg int the Mail really didn't show them in a good light.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

Vince Cable wants to outlaw strikes in essential services like the railways and to introduce an even tougher industrial relations regime then the one we have at the minute in which strike after strike is being struck down by tendentious legal judgments.



> *Dimbleby*: Is it the policy of the Liberal Democrats, if you were to have a position in government, to say we should toughen industrial relations law in order to make it more difficult for these unions, rail, air, whatever it might be, to take strike actions?
> 
> *Cable*: Well, if we’re talking about essential public services like the railway system then we should be looking at it, certainly.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2010)

Anyone who votes Libdem is voting to smash the unions even more quickly than is going to happen over the next couple of years. That's what you idiots are voting for, not fucking PR so we can have a couple of nice Green MPs.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

What was the phrase the notoriously anti-union former chief economist of Shell Cable used - 'pinstriped Scargills'? That tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was the phrase the notoriously anti-union former chief economist of Shell Cable used - 'pinstriped Scargills'? That tells you all you need to know.



He was married to a black woman though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was the phrase the notoriously anti-union former chief economist of Shell Cable used - 'pinstriped Scargills'? That tells you all you need to know.



He was talking about Bankers though.



> Anyone who votes Libdem is voting to smash the unions even more quickly than is going to happen over the next couple of years


Quicker than the tories?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2010)

raising the ghost of scargill, as a slur, might suggest some anti union feelings IMO


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> He was talking about Bankers though.



He was comparing the bankers billions pounds rip offs with normal w/c people struggling to defend their families, their living conditions and their communities. Disgusting, and designed to appeal to right-wing anti-union sentiment. If you think that it's ok to use those people and their struggles to attack bankers to boost your own neo-liberal agenda then you're wrong and you're demonstrating as few principles as Cable did when he used that phrase. You can attack bankers and the rotten system without slurring those people.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> raising the ghost of scargill, as a slur, might suggest some anti union feelings IMO



It's amazing the ability that some people seem to have suddenly discovered to ignore a whole raft of issues isn't it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He was comparing the bankers billions pounds rip offs with normal w/c people struggling to defend their families


No, he was comparing them to Scargill.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2010)

Here's clegg expanding on it



> The banks, he said, have now become Britain's great contemporary vested interest. He said: "Bankers are Scargill in pin stripes. Scargill's stated aim was to challenge who runs the country. The bankers have behaved in the same arrogant way ... to benefit only themselves ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/12/nick-clegg-bank-tax-recession-lib-dems


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2010)

Anyone who thinks Scargill was only in it for himself is a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, he was comparing them to Scargill.



Oh please - he was doing his usual comparison of trade unions and bankers as both being 'vested interests' fucking up the country for the nice people. Now excuse me if i'm being naive, but i'm not sure that Scargill counts personally as a vested interest - which leads me to beleive that he was using him as a shorthand for the unions - and you damn well know this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2010)

Just an aside - I won't be voting at all in the election, let alone for the lib dems, but I find the level of opposition to them here interesting


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Here's clegg expanding on it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This was the preceding paragraph:



> Clegg said he remained, on balance, "a huge critic" of Margaret Thatcher, but admitted Britain needs to_ rediscover the zeal she showed when she tackled the unions._



..and now the equivalent 'vested interest', the one that followed on from the unions is the bankers. That's the whole bloody point. You've just demonstrated that he was directly comparing the unions to bankers. Not Scargill, not one man. Come on.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Just an aside - I won't be voting at all in the election, let alone for the lib dems, but I find the level of opposition to them here interesting



Is that right Mr Freud. Let's have your diagnosis then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing the ability that some people seem to have suddenly discovered to ignore a whole raft of issues isn't it?



Obama effect. Change!


----------



## mk12 (Apr 24, 2010)

His views on industrial relations definitely suggest the lib dems are "shit" from a left wing, socialist perspective. If that's what we're trying to do on this thread, then fair enough. But their views on potentially banning strikes on the railways is not going to affect their poll ratings, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Here's clegg expanding on it



Btw, that's not really Clegg expanding on it - that's Clegg _introducing_ it. That shit comes down from the very top.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh please - he was doing his usual comparison of trade unions and bankers as both being 'vested interests' fucking up the country for the nice people. Now excuse me if i'm being naive, but i'm not sure that Scargill counts personally as a vested interest - which leads me to beleive that he was using him as a shorthand for the unions - and you damn well know this.



Well labour have the union vote already and the tories have the banker vote so of course he's not going for them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2010)

mk12 said:


> His views on industrial relations definitely suggest the lib dems are "shit" from a left wing, socialist perspective. If that's what we're trying to do on this thread, then fair enough. But their views on potentially banning strikes on the railways is not going to affect their poll ratings, is it?



You're right on both points yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well labour have the union vote already and the tories have the banker vote so of course he's not going for them.



I don't care what his tactical reason for smearing people like that was - the fact that it was a tactical choice makes it even worse if anything. I'm glad you accept that's what he was doing now at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

mk12 said:


> His views on industrial relations definitely suggest the lib dems are "shit" from a left wing, socialist perspective. If that's what we're trying to do on this thread, then fair enough. But their views on potentially banning strikes on the railways is not going to affect their poll ratings, is it?



My mentioning it on here won't no.  This is just a thread to show how and why the lib-dems are shit. That's all.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

Ipsos MORI poll to be announced tmw:

CON 36%(+4), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 23%(-9)

Up your two arses.


----------



## creak (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Ipsos MORI poll to be announced tmw:
> 
> CON 36%(+4), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 23%(-9)
> 
> Up your two arses.



Where'd you get that from?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

Here


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

New idea  - lab/con coalition to keep the lib-dems out of national power.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Ipsos MORI poll to be announced tmw:
> 
> CON 36%(+4), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 23%(-9)
> 
> Up your two arses.



That looks like bollocks to me, do they weight their sample properly?

Average from last few polls is

CON 35
LIB 30
LAB 27

Which gives Labour majority of 38!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2010)

It almost definitely is bollocks and it was clearly cherry-picked by me from a bunch of polls to further my anti-LD agenda.


----------



## cogg (Apr 24, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> True i heard they want to give trident to North Korea and cut pensions so they can help Iran build more nuclear weapons.
> Apparently they are going to cut child benefit so that they can give more money to illegal immigrants to stage cock fighting on tower bridge.


They've got my vote then. I'd pay anything to see you fighting on tower hill.
Tower hill in Kirkby that is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2010)

£70 for a pair of pants.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2010)

Clegg's wife is a partner in DLA Piper who give advice on how to break strikes here



> Identify which employees are involved in the action and whether they are members of the union supporting the strike, members of a different union or non-union members.
> Collect all information and communications relevant to the dispute in order to consider legal steps to prevent the planned strike *and possible action against employees or the union *involved.


----------



## JHE (Apr 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> £70 for a pair of pants.



That little 'news' article is quite funny - sheer speculation about Clegg's rich lawyer wife buying expensive knickers.  It being in the Mail, the article comes across like someone droolingly saying, 'Oooh, wouldn't it be lovely to be rich and live in places like that and be able to get your underwear in places like that and spend loads of money and have posh relatives and go to expensive schools... and...'

The knickers non-story could have been better handled in the Sun.  They'd have some model wearing the expensive knickers and looking vaguely like Clegg's wife.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> £70 for a pair of pants.


the article says cleggs wife went shopping in a store that sells £70 knickers (well, bikini briefs whatever they are), not that she actually bought any.

not that it's any of our business what knickers she chooses to buy / wear IMO.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg's wife is a partner in DLA Piper who give advice on how to break strikes here



you're getting pretty desperate aren't you?

from what I can tell, she's got nothing to do with that side of the business, she's not listed on the rapid response site you linked to, and according to the main DLA Piper website, she's a specialist in EU and international trade law, so would likely have fuck all to do with giving advice on breaking strikes.




> Miriam is the head of Trade and is based in the London office. Her main areas of expertise are international and EU trade law and policy.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2010)

I couldn't care less if she personally directs these strike breaking operations or merely works for a company who makes them their specialty. It's rotten either way.

The true desperation is those who just shove everything mentioned on this thread and elsewhere under the carpet and pretend that they don't actually matter. The anti-union approach _doesn't matter_, the pro-private health care position _ doesn't matter_, the pro-private education position _doesn't matter_, the 'break up the nhs' position _doesn't matter, _the neo-liberalism  _doesn't matter_, the lies _don't matter_, the backhanders _don't matter_, the deceptions _don't matter_, the half-truths _don't matter_, the careful PR _doesn't matter_, the life of privilege _doesn't matter_ - none of them _matter_, - the politics, in brief, _don't matter _- because you're voting for  change.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Anyone who thinks Scargill was only in it for himself is a cunt.



Yup and they can fuck off if they think they're getting a tactical vote from us now.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 25, 2010)

I might change a 15 year policy of not voting and vote Liberal. I have no idea why. It'll be a chuckle.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 25, 2010)

Butchers quoting the Daily Hate ?

Well I suppose slebs buying posh pants is their one area of expertise ....


----------



## where to (Apr 25, 2010)

not read whole thread but i see we've done his "i don't remember that" on his Tory past, have we done his "i have no recollection of that" on being served breakfast in bed (with newspapers) by Louis Theroux at Westminster school?

or his "i burnt down a greenhouse full of Germany's best cactus collection" when according to his schoolteacher he only singed a few plants?  (quite why he'd want to lie about that is even more telling than his untruth).

i think he's got a screw loose tbh.

another story i remember about Clegg was, tbf, from a backbencher Labour MP who'd been abroad for a week with him on some Parliamentary visit somewhere.  his abiding memory of Clegg was his ongoing chat about how good looking he (Clegg) was......

i suspect this one has some serious issues up top.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I couldn't care less if she personally directs these strike breaking operations or merely works for a company who makes them their specialty. It's rotten either way.


it may be one area the company specialises in, but it's not their only specialism, and she doesn't work in that area of the company.

I doubt there'd be many specialist international corporate law firms that wouldn't have one branch of the firm dedicated to dealing with industrial action, so having a pop at her for joining this firm on this basis is irrational bollocks IMO.



> The true desperation is those who just shove everything mentioned on this thread and elsewhere under the carpet and pretend that they don't actually matter. The anti-union approach _doesn't matter_, the pro-private health care position _ doesn't matter_, the pro-private education position _doesn't matter_, the 'break up the nhs' position _doesn't matter, _the neo-liberalism  _doesn't matter_, the lies _don't matter_, the backhanders _don't matter_, the deceptions _don't matter_, the half-truths _don't matter_, the careful PR _doesn't matter_, the life of privilege _doesn't matter_ - none of them _matter_, - the politics, in brief, _don't matter _- because you're voting for  change.



so what's the alternative?

vote new labour?

vote conservative?

as I've said before, where I am, not voting lib dem would effectively be a vote for the conservative party (barring an unlikely resurgence from labour here), as it's a lib dem vs tory fight, with a lib dem mp defending who's been a good MP with a voting record I mostly agree with, a good attendance record, no outside interests, reasonable looking expenses etc.

I've read through the first 6 pages of this thread, and see little substantial in it, and lots of sub daily mail smearing. I don't expect to agree with 100% of what they stand for, I just agree with them more than  I do either labour or tory.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 25, 2010)

free spirit said:


> it may be one area the company specialises in, but it's not their only specialism, and she doesn't work in that area of the company.
> 
> I doubt there'd be many specialist international corporate law firms that wouldn't have one branch of the firm dedicated to dealing with industrial action, so having a pop at her for joining this firm on this basis is irrational bollocks IMO.



How about she stops being an international corporate lawyer?

She is vile as was her PP father.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 25, 2010)

sihhi said:


> How about she stops being an international corporate lawyer?
> 
> She is vile as was her PP father.


not that I particularly agree with you about her needing to quit, but in the unlikely event that clegg did become PM (yeah right), she's apparently said she would quit her job.





> Asked by a Spanish newspaper, Miriam González said that she would quit her job if her husband became Prime Minister.[12]


[wiki]

eta - no clue about her dad's exact politics, but judging a party on their leaders dead father in law's politics strikes me as being pretty stupid tbh


----------



## TAE (Apr 26, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/12/nick-clegg-bank-tax-recession-lib-dems






			
				guardian said:
			
		

> Clegg said he remained, on balance, "a huge critic" of Margaret Thatcher, but admitted Britain needs to rediscover the zeal she showed when she tackled the unions.


I'd really like to know what he actually said.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

TAE said:


> I'd really like to know what he actually said.



Well, here 's a thread that looks at Clegg's attitude to Thatcher and his support of her attacks on the unions and the miners in particular

Also noticeable from that article in his claim that it's not up tpo him to decide who'll be PM but up to the electorate. I wonder what made him change his mind so suddenly?

It's good isn't it, he can criticise the constitutional system and the old gang's use of it, yet he's prepared to cynically use it to get exactly what he wants.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Most of the arguments put forward for voting lib-dem on here (and let's be honest, there's only two - to stop the tories wining and to get PR) can, with minimal development, be used to support the lib-dems or labour for evermore. The idea that the political scene will inevitably fragment after some form of PR is brought in is a fantasy - politics will still be dominated by three parties and your vote at general elections will be dominated by the same themes as today - blocking one or another from forming a majority govt.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Most of the arguments put forward for voting lib-dem on here (and let's be honest, there's only two - to stop the tories wining and to get PR) can, with minimal development, be used to support the lib-dems or labour for evermore. The idea that the political scene will inevitably fragment after some form of PR is brought in is a fantasy - politics will still be dominated by three parties and your vote at general elections will be dominated by the same themes as today - blocking one or another from forming a majority govt.


All you have to do is look at other countries that have PR.  Has capitalism been overturned?  Has the neoliberal consensus been overturned?  Is the parliament full of decent, honest _actual_ representatives?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> All you have to do is look at other countries that have PR.  Has capitalism been overturned?  Has the neoliberal consensus been overturned?  Is the parliament full of decent, honest _actual_ representatives?



I was told yes they were - and directed to Germany where the Greens were in the national govt -only problem is, they were in social spending, pension cutting, workers sacking, NHS gutting, health and safety condition undermining, wage-cutting  foreign troops sending govt. They clearly had little influence on their larger partners and were dragged rightwards rather than the big party being dragged leftwards. That was the only example that was found -and no aregumenst were offered as to why the same dynamics would not be at work here.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I was told yes they  - and directed to Germany where the Greens were in the national govt -only problem is, they were in social spending, pension cutting, workers sacking, NHS gutting, health and safety condition undermining, wage-cutting  foreign troops sending govt. They clearly had little influence on their larger partners and were dragged rightwards rather than the big party being dragged leftwards. That was the only example that was found -and no aregumenst were offered as to why the same dynamics would not be at work here.



So much so that Joschka Fischer the German Green supported the NATO bombing of Kosovo, suppiorted stationing German troops in Afghanistan. 
He now works for the Albright Group a consulting group in the US led by Madeline Albright. Yup PR really helped him.....
Under the leadership of Joschka Fischer PR helped and 'forced' the Greens rtight in their quest for government and power.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Most of the arguments put forward for voting lib-dem on here (and let's be honest, there's only two - to stop the tories wining and to get PR) can, with minimal development, be used to support the lib-dems or labour for evermore. The idea that the political scene will inevitably fragment after some form of PR is brought in is a fantasy - politics will still be dominated by three parties and your vote at general elections will be dominated by the same themes as today - blocking one or another from forming a majority govt.



Of course PR will just be business as usual. But it start to scratch away at the fringes of the westminster club.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I was told yes they  - and directed to Germany where the Greens were in the national govt -only problem is, they were in social spending, pension cutting, workers sacking, NHS gutting, health and safety condition undermining, wage-cutting  foreign troops sending govt. They clearly had little influence on their larger partners and were dragged rightwards rather than the big party being dragged leftwards. That was the only example that was found -and no aregumenst were offered as to why the same dynamics would not be at work here.



You don't need to look to Germany to see what the Greens mean very often : - hypocrisy, privatisation of council housing, consumption taxes to 'save the environment', failing to support tubeworkers on strike - that's not to say there aren't good committed Green councillors activists aiming for something laudable.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Of course PR will just be business as usual. But it start to _scratch away at the fringes_ of the westminster club.



Why would you want to do that?

Politics is the shadow cast on society by business.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Of course PR will just be business as usual. But it start to scratch away at the fringes of the westminster club.



Or it'll just operate (on the level of national govt and parties anyway) as a form of sponsored mobility.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.



Wrong. I've never argued something so crude - in fact i'm currently having to point out the idiocies of a simplisitic reform or revolution position on another thread. Reforms are _a_ way to get get revolution -in the same way that strikes are 'schools of revolution'.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

Q: Who hates the idea of PR the most? 
A: The Tories

Surely that is reason enough to vote for the muppets?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.



Yes but even if you accept that a system can be reformable, a new system will be created for you to reform. 

Look at the new 'democratic' bodies that have been appearing over in recent years : the European Union, the Welsh & Scottish parliaments, 'democratic' managing committees for the NDC, directly elected mayorships in London and for local councils, 'Area Assemblies' 

Out of interest do you back the Greens?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.


Reforms take place at moments of crisis.  And they occur because of struggle.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Q: Who hates the idea of PR the most?
> A: The Tories
> 
> Surely that is reason enough to vote for the muppets?



Q. Who do you fear the most?
A. Tories

Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Reforms take place at moments of crisis.  And they occur because of struggle.



But what constitutes struggle? It seems, like much in the leftist dictionary, a word out of time.

I would suggest that governments have become quite sensitive over the centuries to when they need to bend a little. They know it's better (for them) to give a small amount, than have people take a big chunk. A majority of voters voting for a party which then gets 15% of the seats is political pressure. That creates change. Then smaller parties can get into politics. They can maybe focus on consituency work, rather than chasing govt jobs. They can use that as a platform to promote progressive ideas.

I think the problem with the left is that it's intellectually lazy. Stuck with the idea that change can only occur with the recreation of 1930's style trade unions and industrial relations.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Q. Who do you fear the most?
> A. Tories
> 
> Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.



Yeah but they are all Tories when in government. They are all ambitious, self serving, ruthless and in the pocket of whoever is backing them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Yeah but they are all Tories when in government. They are all ambitious, self serving, ruthless and in the pocket of whoever is backing them.



Well the argument offered is that the lib-dems are slightly better than nthe tories, and the tories the absolute worst - so tell me where the logic is in casting a vote for someone on the basis that they're the least worst when they've said they'll support the worst, when it helps to bring about the outcome that you believe is the worst?


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Well the argument offered is that the lib-dems are slightly better than nthe tories, and the tories the absolute worst - so tell me where the logic is in casting a vote for someone on the basis that they're the least worst when they've said they'll support the worst, when it helps to bring about the outcome that you believe is the worst?



Because I would propose voting liberal in order to give them a vote majority and seat minority. We would be voting to highlight how the system is fundamentally undemocratic - regardless of the muppets we are voting for.

Surely that's fundamental? How can we work toward democratic principles and a fair society whilst maintaining FPTP and the nonsense that cascades from it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Because I would propose voting liberal in order to give them a vote majority and seat minority. We would be voting to highlight how the system is fundamentally undemocratic - regardless of the muppets we are voting for.
> 
> Surely that's fundamental? How can we work toward democratic principles and a fair society whilst maintaining FPTP and the nonsense that cascades from it?



Why to highlight this situation do you need to take a path of action that brings about the worst possible outcome? A vote for _any of the parties_ would actually highlight the way that FPTP works just as well. Why must it be the lib-dems? (and if you think they lib-dems will even come close to getting a vote majority then you're insane).


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Q. Who do you fear the most?
> A. Tories
> 
> Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.



What about TORY-Liberal marginals?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2010)

vote bnp  

*that was a joke btw


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> vote bnp
> 
> *that was a joke btw



If they weren't full of paedos I would be tempted.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why to highlight this situation do you need to take a path of action that brings about the worst possible outcome? A vote for _any of the parties_ would actually highlight the way that FPTP works just as well. Why must it be the lib-dems? (and if you think they lib-dems will even come close to getting a vote majority then you're insane).



Because sometimes you need a big display of visible injustice to focus attention.

Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 26, 2010)

Clegg comes accross as a right cunt. Smug, public school, egostistical, patronising and smarmy. Tony Blair mk 2.

And now hes trying to bounce his own party into doing a deal with the fucking tories whilst seemingly telling labour to get a new leader before he condescends to talking to them. 

Shame the roly-poly ginger pisshead isn't still in charge.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> telling labour to get a new leader before he condescends to talking to them.



He has to say that. He can hardly say "Vote for me and you will get him". He has to campaign on a 'change' ticket.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.


Even though this is the exact opposite of what Clegg is saying?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Because sometimes you need a big display of visible injustice to focus attention.
> 
> Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.



Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

ymu said:


> Even though this is the exact opposite of what Clegg is saying?



Indeed, he's even had Paddy Ashdown having to slap him like a naughty child misbehaving in tescos  and stop getting too big for his boots. If he's already spinning out of control after just a few weeks good headlines what's he going to be like with some power in his hands?


----------



## the button (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.



..... enabling Labour to trot out the "Vote LibDem, get Tory" line they push at every election, and actually have a quote from Clegg to back it up this time. Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg, depending on who is the least unpopular of the two main parties.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 26, 2010)

the button said:


> .....Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg,



Definitely. Those Guardianistas who just last week suggested 'progressives' should vote Lib Dem might be changing their mind now...


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.



It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.

Although tbh - all I am interested in is things getting messy and different. I don't want a bog standard labour or con win with small/medium majority. I want to see something new. I want a hung parliament, weird pacts, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

the button said:


> ..... enabling Labour to trot out the "Vote LibDem, get Tory" line they push at every election, and actually have a quote from Clegg to back it up this time. Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg, depending on who is the least unpopular of the two main parties.



I think he's estimated the number of effective votes (i.e in marginals) they can pull in from traditional right side will outnumber those they can pull from labour/left - which looks to me like they think the labour vote is going to hold up in their traditional seats and so the lib-dems won't be making any inroads there.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.
> 
> Although tbh - all I am interested in is things getting messy and different. I don't want a bog standard labour or con win with small/medium majority. I want to see something new. I want a hung parliament, weird pacts, etc.



Well i'm glad that you're quite sure. Nick Clegg is equally sure and he's in rather a more influential position than you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.


Not really the point, though, is it?  The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with.  And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really the point, though, is it?  The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with.  And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.



I think he could still do a temporary coalition agreement with Labour if Labour come second: change your leader while the Tories change theirs, meanwhile let's put in PR and then have a new general election with a new PR system when the temporary coalition is finished.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think he's estimated the number of effective votes (i.e in marginals) they can pull in from traditional right side will outnumber those they can pull from labour/left - which looks to me like they think the labour vote is going to hold up in their traditional seats and so the lib-dems won't be making any inroads there.



Broadly,
Lib Dems have given up chasing Labour where they are behind

Tories have given up chasing Lib Dems where they are behind

The Lib Dems strategists have abandoned many London Labour constituencies to focus on the West London Tory seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Broadly,
> Lib Dems have given up chasing Labour where they are behind
> 
> Tories have given up chasing Lib Dems where they are behind
> ...



I can go along with most of that, except i'm not so sure the tories have given up on chasing the lib-dems across the country - certain areas sure. I trhink attracting lib-dems will be Cameron's key thing for the at least the first half of this week. They really need to get some lib-dems back in the key lab/con marginals (which everyone seems to have forgotten about over the last week). 

Peter Kellner had a piece in the Times yesterday which received baffling few comments, that showed how the lib-dem surge has done sever damage to the tories in those lab/con marginals, reducing the swing to 4% in line with the national swing which, if carried though to the election would make it impossible for the tories to form a govt on their own.

analysis



> Our sample of 2,220 in these target seats now puts Labour one point ahead. The swing since 2005 is down to 4% in the Labour marginals — the same as the national swing. Not only is the prospect of big Conservative gains from the Lib Dems slipping away; the bonus swing the Tories had been enjoying in the Labour marginals has also disappeared.
> 
> The Lib Dem surge has hurt the Tories with special force in Labour-Conservative marginals. The 10-point gain in Lib Dem support in these seats has been overwhelmingly at the Tories’ expense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

sihhi said:


> I think he could still do a temporary coalition agreement with Labour if Labour come second: change your leader while the Tories change theirs, meanwhile let's put in PR and then have a new general election with a new PR system when the temporary coalition is finished.


Yes, he hasn't said he won't deal with Labour; he said he won't prop up a party that's come third.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

> I trhink attracting lib-dems will be Cameron's key thing for the at least the first half of this week. They really need to get some lib-dems back in the key lab/con marginals (which everyone seems to have forgotten about over the last week).



Yes that's right I think. The Tories don't want an overall rising Lib Dem tide to steal the non-Labour vote, where the Conservatives are the main challengers to Labour. 

Their main idea of anti-LibDem-ism weak though. "Unless you vote Tory, you might get a Lib-Lab coalition", but Cameron hasn't ruled out doing a deal with the Lib Dems so a LibDem vote might also mean a LibDem-Tory coalition, it might not be as convincing as he thinks.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2010)

A Lab-Con coalition would be ... well ...


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> A Lab-Con coalition would be ... well ...



It happened for fourteen years in this country, it happened in Germany with its PR system.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2010)

When did it happen?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> When did it happen?



1931-1940 when it split the Labour Party into two, for a while the Liberals were in coalition too

then 1940-1945 as part of the war coalition


----------



## glenquagmire (Apr 26, 2010)

We had a Lab-Con coalition running Hackney Council not that long ago.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 26, 2010)

1931-1945 kind of.  Although from 1931-1940 it was only a minority of Labour MPs (led by the previous PM Ramsay Macdonald) who supported the government and split to form National Labour.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really the point, though, is it?  The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with.  And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.



Thinking about this, he _has_ to deal with the Tories really in this case. He is campaigning on a platform of PR, he can't then get into bed with the least popular party to form a government.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Peter Kellner had a piece in the Times yesterday which received baffling few comments, that showed how the lib-dem surge has done sever damage to the tories in those lab/con marginals, reducing the swing to 4% in line with the national swing which, if carried though to the election would make it impossible for the tories to form a govt on their own.
> analysis



A sample of 2, 200 across how many seats?  Doesn't sound awfully thorough.


----------



## paulhackett (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really the point, though, is it?  The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with.  And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.



I probably misunderstood but he said he wouldn't support labour if they came third but didn't exclude supporting them if they came 2nd? Isn't there something about not supporting Brown in any scenario? All of which goes against the 'not discussing the outcome' stance of last week?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Thinking about this, he _has_ to deal with the Tories really in this case. He is campaigning on a platform of PR, he can't then get into bed with the least popular party to form a government.


Why not? That's exactly what the sort of coalition building that PR brings is all about. It would be the perfect example of how it would work.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> I probably misunderstood but he said he wouldn't support labour if they came third but didn't exclude supporting them if they came 2nd? Isn't there something about not supporting Brown in any scenario? All of which goes against the 'not discussing the outcome' stance of last week?



He contradicted himself numerous times in just that 5 minute snippet on possible outcomes. Today he was asked what if labour were 2nd in the popular vote but the largest party and he refused to answer on the grounds that speculation was not helpful. The nerve of the bloke.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A sample of 2, 200 across how many seats?  Doesn't sound awfully thorough.



115.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2010)

Paddy Pantsdown said it would be unthinkable but I reckon clegg would just be all 'fuck you old man, I'm the man in the driving seat' if it came to it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Thinking about this, he _has_ to deal with the Tories really in this case. He is campaigning on a platform of PR, he can't then get into bed with the least popular party to form a government.


No he doesn't.  He could chose to do no deal at all.  Theoretically, he could create a coalition of all the minor parties, if their votes were enough to give a parliamentary majority. A 'rainbow coalition': it has happened in other countries, even if it won't happen here this time.

He's clearly making the rules up as he goes along, mind.  He says he won't prop up Labour if they're in front in seats but third in votes.  Someone quite correctly pointed out that might mean dealing with them if they're second in votes.  And it seems his party fixers have been briefing the media that he "only really meant _if Brown was still leader_".  So it's OK to prop up a party that's third in votes if it has a new leader.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2010)

so less than 20 per constituency?  And yougov seem more than usually reliant on things like internet polling which are less reliable.  And there won't be a uniform swing across those 115 seats - I think we might be looking at a sharp divide between the North and the Midlands/South Divide.  

FWIW I think Labour are being excessively complacent about what this could mean for them - strong LD showing might peel them down to the core, and the Tory core is much stronger.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Paddy Pantsdown said it would be unthinkable but I reckon clegg would just be all 'fuck you old man, I'm the man in the driving seat' if it came to it.



he's still got to be careful that the steering wheel doesn't just come off in his hands whilst the car splits down the middle.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> FWIW I think Labour are being excessively complacent about what this could mean for them - strong LD showing might peel them down to the core, and the Tory core is much stronger.


Third party votes help Labour. A strong vote for the Lib Dems is their best hope of getting the most seats, hence all the recent fuss over the possibility that Labour will come third in votes and first in seats. That is only possible if the Lib Dems do very well.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> so less than 20 per constituency?  And yougov seem more than usually reliant on things like internet polling which are less reliable.  And there won't be a uniform swing across those 115 seats - I think we might be looking at a sharp divide between the North and the Midlands/South Divide.
> 
> FWIW I think Labour are being excessively complacent about what this could mean for them - strong LD showing might peel them down to the core, and the Tory core is much stronger.



Well it's an improvemnt on the 13 per seat that the previous marginal polls were based on...still a lot of gap filling in being done though. I'm sure Then again, this is the same basis as for the national polls as well.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> He's clearly making the rules up as he goes along, mind.



Which is why I want them to get loads of votes. Aren't you all just slightly bored of the usual election results? Don't you crave something a bit more interesting?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Which is why I want them to get loads of votes. Aren't you all just slightly bored of the usual election results? Don't you crave something a bit more interesting?


You aren't going to get anything more interesting.  You're going to get a LibLab pact or a LibCon pact.  Or a minority government.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

I want a change in the electoral system though. FPTP is a relic of the 18th century.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> I want a change in the electoral system though. FPTP is a relic of the 18th century.


So is representative democracy.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> So is representative democracy.



Quite so. But you can't hoover the carpet until you have moved the elephant off it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Quite so. But you can't hoover the carpet until you have moved the elephant off it.


And you'd hoover a carpet that's had an elephant living on it for over 200 years?


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> And you'd hoover a carpet that's had an elephant living on it for over 200 years?



Alright - then you can't throw the fucking carpet out until you get the elephant off it. The metaphor remains unscathed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Have you measured the door frame?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> Quite so. But you can't hoover the carpet until you have moved the elephant off it.



You're not hoovering the carpet - you're hoovering the elephant.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're not hoovering the carpet - you're hoovering the elephant.



And you're just sat on the sofa telling everyone both that nothing can change, and everything _should_ change.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 26, 2010)

Idaho said:


> And you're just sat on the sofa telling everyone both that nothing can change, and everything _should_ change.



credit where credit is due - that *was* a an asute analogy


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

I dealt with this idiocy earlier in the day. 3 times now in a handful of days that i've had to point out to you that you your mad idea that i support a _revolution or nothing _position is nonsense - i'm sure you'll do it again. Bordering on dishonesty though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2010)

Why i'm being characterised as having an outside and against the elephant position  i don't know - my position is that we're inevitably inside and against the elephant.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

Can we change the metaphor now?  I like elephants; I don't want to be against elephants.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 26, 2010)

You certainly don't want to be inside an elephant.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I dealt with this idiocy earlier in the day. 3 times now in a handful of days that i've had to point out to you that you your mad idea that i support a _revolution or nothing _position is nonsense - i'm sure you'll do it again. Bordering on dishonesty though.



Ok - easy tiger. Having been on message boards for many, many years, I prefer to discuss rather than rant, and I don't recall me mentioning anything about revolution or nothing in the last three days.

Butchersapron - all I can ever go on about your opinions is what you _don't_ object to. You very rarely say what you think _should_ happen. This leads any reader with the impression that you are somewhat nihilistic.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Can we change the metaphor now?  I like elephants; I don't want to be against elephants.



It's too late now danny, the lines have been drawn. If you want to step over that line and be on the elephant's side then there's no going back


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2010)

OK, what was the elephant again?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 26, 2010)

The assumption seems to be that Clegg's strong preference will be to get into coalition with the Tories. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for that (especially over the w/e just gone), sure, but the Tories being more or less dead set against any kind of PR would surely be a dealbreaker.

Whereas if Labour come third, or second, but with a (disportortionately) large number of seats, they'd be much more amenable to conceding a PR referendum than would the Tories.

It'll all be about how the opinion polls go over the coming days .... very hard to call.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't think the elephant should be elevated to a moral issue, whether we should be outside the elephant pissing in, or inside pissing out is purely tactical.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 26, 2010)

mk12 said:


> You certainly don't want to be inside an elephant.



or have an elephant inside you

although shippy may have that manga


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2010)

Red Pepper Lib Dem Watch

post your experience of LDs in power at local level

Lib Dem watch:
http://election.redpepper.org.uk/lib-dem-watch/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Red Pepper Lib Dem Watch
> 
> post your experience of LDs in power at local level
> 
> ...



You needed that a few weeks back! Still, it's there now.

This today:



> 9.42am:
> 
> Clegg also said something potentially quite significant about cutting the deficit. Nicky Campbell suggested that Clegg could only cooperate with Labour in this area, because the Tories want to start cutting spending now while Labour and the Lib Dems believe that immediate cuts could damage the economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

The Daily Mail team of crack investigative journos have finally mastered Google news archive search and dug up a story from 2005 i'd been posting about ages ago:

Nick Clegg's demand for NHS to be broken up and replaced with European-style insurance system


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2010)

He's on the horns of a dilemma - in terms of preparedness to bring in "savage cuts" and his whole background of working for Leon Brittain etc. Clegg would go with the Tories.  But they obstinately rule out electoral reform, without which it will be difficult to the point of impossible to gets his troops to buy it.

I wonder whether it's too fanciful to imagine some kind of pro-EU national government, maybe with Cameron or Clegg fronting it but with Mandelson, Miliband and Ken Clark?  Normally, I'd have said no chance,  but these are funny times.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

I'll say it then. No chance.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2010)

Odds maybe still against, but I wouldn't be 100% sure - we're in a for a rocky ride


----------



## kabbes (Apr 27, 2010)

No, he's right.  There's no chance.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Can we change the metaphor now?  I like elephants; I don't want to be against elephants.



In most rooms, if there's an elephant in it then there's nowhere to be that isn't against the elephant.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 27, 2010)

*FAO danny la rouge*

Elephant, elephant,
Big and strong and gentle and intelligent, intelligent.
How could I feel blue? I’ve got my sister at my side,
And an elephant to ride.

Oh, elephant, elephant,
You’re sad and in a cage, but that’s irrelevant,
irrelevant.
‘Cause everyone is jealous when they see me
riding by,
On a friend of such of great size.

Other kids ride bikes, that’s true,
Or daddies pick them up from school,
But that won’t do for me you understand.
Other kids have horses, other kids have dogs,
Other kids have hamsters, other kids have frogs.
But the pet for me is something much more grand!
And benevolent, and elegant...

And I’ve got an elephant, elephant,
Riding on your back I’m in my element, element.
It’s true and it’s a fact that there is so much you can
learn,
When you’re on a pachyderm.
Oh, elephant, elephant,
Life’s not so bad, it’s swell of it to give me such a friend.
Oh, elephant, elephant, I’m with you to the end!

(Goodnight, elephant)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

Anything on Pope Clegg today. He seems to have been told to keep his yap zipped for a period rather than thinking/saying he gets to personally decide the outcome of the election.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

Does Clegg support entry into the euro?


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2010)

Sort of, recognises now is not the time, but more importantly was telling french media last week that it has to be done after a referendum (which is unwinnable)


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 27, 2010)

Dan U said:


> or have an elephant inside you
> 
> although shippy may have that manga


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

gosub said:


> Sort of, recognises now is not the time, but more importantly was telling french media last week that it has to be done after a referendum (which is unwinnable)



Which he can't deliver either - despite thinking he's the king of all he surveys.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> He's on the horns of a dilemma - in terms of preparedness to bring in "savage cuts" and his whole background of working for Leon Brittain etc. Clegg would go with the Tories.  But they obstinately rule out electoral reform, without which it will be difficult to the point of impossible to gets his troops to buy it.



Spot on summary of the hole that Clegg might be in come a hung Parliament. That quote from the Nicky Campbell prog that butchers put up offers yet more evidence of Clegg's apparant desparation to get in bed with the Tories.



> I wonder whether it's too fanciful to imagine some kind of pro-EU national government, maybe with Cameron or Clegg fronting it but with Mandelson, Miliband and Ken Clark?  Normally, I'd have said no chance,  but these are funny times.



But on the above -- yes, way too fanciful. No chance.


----------



## the button (Apr 27, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Clegg's apparant desparation to get in bed with the Tories.



Had his chance in Brussels, but he was way too old for Leon Brittan.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 27, 2010)

I like quite a few of the lib dem policies. I'm going to vote for them. 
BUT - could somebody explain to me their economic policy? I am a bit dim when it comes to this kinda stuff... what is the benefit of 'breaking up the banks?' 
TIA


----------



## ymu (Apr 27, 2010)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> BUT - could somebody explain to me their economic policy? I am a bit dim when it comes to this kinda stuff... what is the benefit of 'breaking up the banks?'


The banks got us to underwrite their risky casino banking activities by mixing it up with their essential retail banking business. Splitting them up would mean they had to pay for their own fuck-ups on the casino side, whilst retail banking (ordinary current and savings accounts) would remain protected. This was the norm until the 1990s, and changing that is part of the reason for this crisis.

If you google "glass-steagall" and "volcker rule" there's shed loads on it.



> For the second time in less than 80 years, the nation’s commercial banks are being told to stick to their knitting. Their knitting is taking deposits, handling checking accounts, lending money and managing the nation’s payment system. Twice now, they have ventured beyond these standard activities, gotten into trouble and almost brought down the financial system.
> 
> The solution in the 1930s, and once again now, is this: get out of the sideline businesses that caused so much trouble. Those sidelines were different in the 1930s than they are now. And while people talk of re-enacting the Glass-Steagall act — the solution that helped resolve the 1930s crisis — what President Obama proposed this week is a somewhat different animal, worthy of its own name.
> 
> http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/glass-steagall-vs-the-volcker-rule/


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 27, 2010)

thanks


----------



## ska invita (Apr 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Anything on Pope Clegg today. He seems to have been told to keep his yap zipped for a period rather than thinking/saying he gets to personally decide the outcome of the election.



having withdrawls butchers?  think you're right though!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2010)

the button said:


> Had his chance in Brussels, but he was way too old for Leon Brittan.



are you insinuating something?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 27, 2010)

I don't have anything intelligent or new to add to this thread but Nick Clegg is an annoying-as-phuk blair-cameron-miliband identikit automaton devoid of any discernable personality and he heads a party of boring, reactionary wankers who's tweeny weeny principles crumble like sand castles whenever they catch even the whiff of power.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 27, 2010)

Cos the fucking cunts are on newsnight saying that they will start means testing child benefit.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

Yep.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 27, 2010)

shameless innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

The tories even said they wouldn't.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 27, 2010)

i know. i'm really quite staggered by the swerve that these orange/yellow fuckers seem to have achieved. 

_vote for us, we're different, we're new blah blah fucking blah...._


----------



## the button (Apr 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> are you insinuating something?



Insinuating that Leon Brittan is a paedophile? That would be the very thing I would wish to avoid. I'm sure that the Fire Brigade investigators who had a good rummage through his personal affects after the housefire that took place shortly before he was suddenly and unexpectedly appointed to his EU post would be in a far better position to comment.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 27, 2010)

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that they're neo-liberal capitalists. 

Who else would get the required level of support from the people whose money and power matters? 

In Iran parties and policy are subject to veto by a bunch of nutters with beards, here they're subject to veto by Rupert Murdoch and a bunch of fucking investment bankers. 

We can't really claim to be any more democratic than Iran.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2010)

What a spoilt brat  -with your mighty 63 seats that might rise to 87

Nick Clegg: I want to be Prime Minister


----------



## free spirit (Apr 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What a spoilt brat  -with your mighty 63 seats that might rise to 87
> 
> Nick Clegg: I want to be Prime Minister


go back to your constituencies and erm yeah. not going to happen, or even close to happen, at least not at this election. The party machinery on the ground just isn't strong enough in enough seats to capitalise properly on this swing and turn it into seats in most places AFAIK.

their election game plan was based around consolidating the seats they've got, targeting other likely marginals via regional support, and making gradual gains without too much effort elsewhere. they may have upped their game a bit because of the polls, but this is still largely the gameplan from what I'm picking up (my brother's pretty actively involved locally)


----------



## little_legs (Apr 28, 2010)

this was in today's metro







http://www.metro.co.uk/news/823482-nick-clegg-s-schooldays-revealed-in-tennis-picture


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Cos the fucking cunts are on newsnight saying that they will start means testing child benefit.



What a bunch of wankers


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 28, 2010)

> the photo, showing mr clegg in the early 1980s, is reminiscent of mr cameron’s moody glare in the now-infamous photo of oxford university’s exclusive bullingdon club.





(((nick)))


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2010)

£28 grand a year! Is that more then Eton?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> £28 grand a year! Is that more then Eton?



No. Eton is more. 28,700 a year (+ 1,700 extra in the first year)


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 28, 2010)

No, but not by enough to make a difference. The choice is often a statement by the parents.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 28, 2010)

> Louis Theroux has claimed he was Mr Clegg’s ‘fag’ – a younger pupil assigned as a personal servant to an older student.



lol Theroux had to warm the bog seat for Clegg. And probably suck him off as well.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 28, 2010)

You been reading that Victorian melodrama again?


----------



## chilango (Apr 29, 2010)




----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2010)

Where's that pic from then?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I don't have anything intelligent or new to add to this thread but Nick Clegg is an annoying-as-phuk blair-cameron-miliband identikit automaton devoid of any discernable personality and he heads a party of boring, reactionary wankers who's tweeny weeny principles crumble like sand castles whenever they catch even the whiff of power.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

Cleggs lost his marbles:



> The question now is not 'do you want change?' Everyone wants change. It's 'what kind of change?' That's why this campaign is now boiling down to a simple choice, a two-horse race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. Who do you trust to deliver the change and fairness that you want?



Id there no end to the freaks arrogance mixed with unworldliness? He's got 63 seats, he's the leader of a minor party that will probably end up with 87 seats if it performs to its absolute best and the others to their worst. Is this the sort of fantasist people could trust at the best of times never mind in a crisis situation? What a loon.


----------



## fen_boy (Apr 30, 2010)

Return to your constituencies and prepare for government.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

Very reminiscent of that previous whig party madness yes.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2010)

Not that I'd wish to defend that public relations deisaster but techincally, if you are an MP, you ARE in government, are you not?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

No, the Queen's govt and the legislature are different things.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2010)

Is that right?  So you are in the legislature but not in the government?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Not that I'd wish to defend that public relations deisaster but techincally, if you are an MP, you ARE in government, are you not?


No, you are not necessarily so.  MPs are members of Commons.  The Opposition, by definition, are not in government.  (And not only them).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Is that right?  So you are in the legislature but not in the government?



Yep.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2010)

Well there you go.  You learn something new every day and other such trite sentiments along those lines.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 30, 2010)

chilango said:


>



Fucking Ace.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 30, 2010)

10 reasons not to vote Lib Dem
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/89771

(((Shevek)))


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

Good stuff:



> Clegg exemplifies this at the leaders' debates when he rebukes the other two as leaders of the "old parties."
> 
> This is simply annoying from the current leader of a party which took us into the first world war, presided over General Gordon's Sudan adventures and passed the despotic 1881 Irish Coercion Act.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 30, 2010)

The "Sudan adventures" and 1881 legislation? 

Right . . . . that's more than enough for me!


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 30, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Not that I'd wish to defend that public relations deisaster but techincally, if you are an MP, you ARE in government, are you not?



And you guys call Americans ignorant.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> And you guys call Americans ignorant.


Are Kabbes a multiple person?  I had no idea.  I suppose the plural was a give away, with hindsight.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Are Kabbes a multiple person?  I had no idea.  I suppose the plural was a give away, with hindsight.



It's not just her.  You snobby Brits in general.  At least Americans know what the gubmint is.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 30, 2010)

Awesome.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> It's not just her.  You snobby Brits in general.  At least Americans know what the gubmint is.


a) Don't call me a Brit.
b) I have never called Americans ignorant.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 30, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Awesome.



Don't start getting smug, missus


----------



## ymu (Apr 30, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Is that right?  So you are in the legislature but not in the government?


You're a member of the government if you have a ministerial post or similar role (whips etc). Otherwise you're a member of the legislature, regardless of whether your party is in government or not. Ministers can't vote on private members bills, for example.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

They can't introduce them - they can vote on them - if they're MPs.


----------



## Corax (Apr 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.



I know he's been a tad flaky about it for sure, but I hadn't twigged this one.  What's the score?

If you can't be arsed then I can google, but your take on it would be interesting.

Conventions are as binding as wet toffee of course.  We saw that when Irvine was made a minister.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2010)

Corax said:


> I know he's been a tad flaky about it for sure, but I hadn't twigged this one.  What's the score?
> 
> If you can't be arsed then I can google, but your take on it would be interesting.
> 
> Conventions are as binding as wet toffee of course.  We saw that when Irvine was made a minister.


The leader of the largest party - that's most seats, not (necessarily) most votes- is expected to be the one who becomes PM, although the monarch actually can decide "in the interests of the country".  (Read your Bagehot).


----------



## Corax (Apr 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> The leader of the largest party - that's most seats, not (necessarily) most votes- is expected to be the one who becomes PM, although the monarch actually can decide "in the interests of the country".  (Read your Bagehot).



Ta Danny.

I know that bit, but it's not the most solid of conventions is it?  Less concrete than the separation of legislative and judiciary for instance, which nu-lab have already cast down the shitter.  Butchers' comment led me to believe that there was something more that I was missing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 30, 2010)

Corax said:


> Ta Danny.
> 
> I know that bit, but it's not the most solid of conventions is it?  Less concrete than the separation of legislative and judiciary for instance, which nu-lab have already cast down the shitter.  Butchers' comment led me to believe that there was something more that I was missing.


The point is that it is currently expected, according to polls, that Labour will come third in votes, but top in seats, albeit short of a majority.  Clegg says he won't prop up a Lab govt that's 3rd in votes.  But that is irrelevant in our system.  It's seats that count.  We have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, and we have FPTP, (despite that the LibDems say they may introduce a referendum for PR, if the larger party of a coalition agrees, at some time during their time in office).

In those circumstances, the Queen would be within her rights to appoint Gordon Brown the PM of a minority Labour government.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 30, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> At least Americans know what the gubmint is.



It is the entity that wants to take their money and their guns. Fairly simple.


----------



## tastebud (Apr 30, 2010)

well this whole thread has made for most interesting reading.


----------



## Corax (Apr 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> The point is that it is currently expected, according to polls, that Labour will come third in votes, but top in seats, albeit short of a majority.  Clegg says he won't prop up a Lab govt that's 3rd in votes.  But that is irrelevant in our system.  It's seats that count.  We have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, and we have FPTP, (despite that the LibDems say they may introduce a referendum for PR, if the larger party of a coalition agrees, at some time during their time in office).
> 
> In those circumstances, the Queen would be within her rights to appoint Gordon Brown the PM of a minority Labour government.



Yep.

I still don't see what point Butchers was making about Clegg not having "the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament."

That was the question.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2010)

Nick Clegg: My hero Samuel Beckett

_Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. But fail nonetheless_


----------



## cogg (Apr 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.



I don't think he's ignorant as such. He has just decided he will try to do something, i.e. try to form a coalition with the party with highest number of votes rather than seats, that is different to british political tradition.

The interesting question is why has he set out this idea when he did.
Has he already done a deal of some sort with cameron or has he just become delusional as in the interview where he apparently said, "I want to be prime minister?"
I don't know to be honest but as my missus said him and cameron (together, clegaron?) are peas in a pod.
Not that brown is any better, of course.


----------



## little_legs (May 1, 2010)

vince cable was the interviewee of the q&a 'My London' column in the evening standard magazine on friday. 



> Q: What would you do as Mayor for the day?
> A: I would try the Dutch experiment of switching off the traffic lights.


----------



## speedstar (May 1, 2010)

> At the weekend Clegg made it very clear that he would not prop up a Labour government should it receive fewer votes than the Lib Dems or Tories yet still emerge as the biggest party in a hung parliament.



Now that I didn't know, but Cameron has refused to go into coalition with anyone so it is very confusing. Why can't they all just be *honest*!

It's Green or Socialist for me.


----------



## tastebud (May 2, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> But they voted against Iraq.
> 
> I won't vote for anyone who refuses to admit that was a mistake.
> 
> And my Labour candidate is a full-on yes-woman who needs a proper kicking.


True. But given that NC is so 'I want to please everyone at all times if it means that I get closer to being leader of something', and the party seem to contradict themselves with every single policy, I can't help but wonder what they actually would have said/done if they were in power at the time.
It's easy to look at something past and say that you would have done it differently, if it is passed.... their dodgy policies (as outlined above) all relate to things that will happen in the future.

That said, this is also the reason i voted for them. 

I certainly do not see them as any way 'radical' but I still cannot help but feel it might be a tiny bit better than NL or the Torys.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2010)

Hidden in a guardian Clegg puff piece on the cr figures



> Support for Nick Clegg being in government has fallen dramatically. In mid April 64% of respondents said Clegg should play some part in the next government and only 23% disagreed. But now only 47% think he should have a government role, while 42% disagree.



Guardian and BBC spinning a clear narrative here. How are they getting away with it?


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> Ministers can't vote on private members bills, for example.


they certainly can, in that if (say) there was a private members bill on hanging, and a Min of State declared his intent to vote, then there is buggerall anyone could do about it. We have no wriiten constitution, just a Patchwork of individual bills, protocols and "it's not cricket" conventions.
However, there would be huge peer-pressure.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

Colin Firth - need i say any more?


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2010)

You do need to say more, yes.  Like: why have you said "Colin Firth"?  Has he said that he is supporting them or something?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

Smug lib-dem face, coat and cafe


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

This is how suicide bombs happen



> Meanwhile Nick Clegg unveiled a list of Lib Dem celebrity supporters, including Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, actor Colin Firth, scientist Richard Dawkins, musician Brian Eno, campaigner Bianca Jagger and satirist Armando Iannucci - creator of the fictional political jungle of The Thick Of It.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2010)

That's not a photo that does anyone any favours, really.


----------



## cesare (May 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is how suicide bombs happen



Dawkins is a LibDem supporter


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

cesare said:


> Dawkins is a LibDem supporter



He's a PR supporter really - typical of the lib-dem voter. PR will shatter them into a thousand pieces.


----------



## cesare (May 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He's a PR supporter really - typical of the lib-dem voter. PR will shatter them into a thousand pieces.



You'd think he'd have more sense.


----------



## JimPage (May 4, 2010)

Vote Nick Clegg- get Nick Griffin under their PR plans.........


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

cesare said:


> You'd think he'd have more sense.



It's quite clever how he uses their own plans in order to destroy them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2010)

smudgy eyebrows


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2010)

I show healthy scepticism towards most (ie almost all  ) _Spiked_ articles, but that particular one's not half bad


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

cylons


----------



## Fedayn (May 5, 2010)

Running here


----------



## Sgt Howie (May 5, 2010)

Because they're going to prop up the Tories.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 5, 2010)

JimPage said:


> Vote Nick Clegg- get Nick Griffin under their PR plans.........



Good slogan, true as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Because they're going to prop up the Tories.



Not convinced they'll get the chance now.


----------



## _angel_ (May 5, 2010)

My sis said she's going to vote libdem cos it's 'sensible'!


----------



## greenman (May 5, 2010)

I see the Lib Dems are getting their betrayal in early - before the election - apparently PR is "not now a precondition of any agreement" with the other parties.  The only_ point _of the Lib Dems for many on the left who might vote for them is to force through the introduction of PR so that minority voices might get a platform on which to support extraparliamentary and workplace activity.
*Vote Green!* (And prepare for the big fights over jobs, services, pensions, railroading through of planning decisions etc etc)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2010)

The lib dems changing a basic position? I'm _shocked_ I tell you.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.


Sarah Teather. God she got on my goat on the radio this morning. And she's their only woman front bencher, that's progressive from the LD's eh?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

> Richard Reeves, John Kampfner, Professor Noreena Hertz, Susie Orbach, Shazia Mirza, Camilla Toulmin, Brian Eno, John le Carré, Henry Porter, Alex Layton, Gordon Roddick, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Philip Pullman, David Aukin, Nick Harkaway, Lisa Appignanesi, Francis Wheen, Alan Ryan, Raymond Tallis, Julian Baggini, Jeanette Winterson, Rodric Braithwaite, Richard Dawkins, George Monbiot, Ken Macdonald, Philippe Sands, Misha Glenny, Anthony Barnett, Richard Sennett, David Marquand



What a list - hertz has gallons of Russian blood on her hands, and that's a long way for Sennet to fall (_and _he's a yank).


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Sarah Teather. God she got on my goat on the radio this morning. And she's their only woman front bencher, that's progressive from the LD's eh?



No black or ethnic minority candidates selected for winnable seats either.


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What a list - hertz has gallons of Russian blood on her hands, and that's a long way for Sennet to fall (_and _he's a yank).



How so re: hertz (i take an interest in eastern european politics and ive never heard of her before now). Sorry if this sounds very ignorant of me.


----------



## twistedAM (May 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How so re: hertz (i take an interest in eastern european politics and ive never heard of her before now). Sorry if this sounds very ignorant of me.



Wiki is your friend



> she then went to Russia to work for the World Bank and played a role in setting up the Russian stock exchange and in advising the Russian government on its privatisation programmes



I was going to abstain but I'm even voting for Tessa fucking Jowell to keep these smug cunts off the gravy train.


----------



## Quartz (May 5, 2010)

I've just read that the Lib Dems support road pricing. 

Major negative for me. It may even force me to vote Tory.


----------



## twistedAM (May 5, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The lib dems changing a basic position? I'm _shocked_ I tell you.



Depends which Lib Dem you talk to and when.

Why don't they just say I'll suck your cock if you vote for me?


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2010)

Oh OK. Fucks sake


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2010)

Yeah, she was one of the architects of the neo-liberal shock therapy imposed on the former soviet states.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 5, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Sarah Teather. God she got on my goat on the radio this morning. And she's their only woman front bencher, that's progressive from the LD's eh?



Minor prediction : she'll lose her seat (close but no yellow banana). The boundaries at Brent Central have been changed a lot, and her patch now includes a lot of Dawn Butler's more Labourish territory.


----------



## trevhagl (May 5, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I've just read that the Lib Dems support road pricing.
> 
> Major negative for me. It may even force me to vote Tory.



funny how they can be green if there's money to be made innit?


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2010)

I hate lib dems and their fucking graphs. Labour/Tories cant win here! etc.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I hate lib dems and their fucking graphs. Labour/Tories cant win here! etc.



In almost all places and elections, perhaps especially local elections, the Lib Dems are absolutely unscrupulous at ultra 'selective' use of statistics like that. To the point of out and out lying in several past elections that I remember.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite clever how he uses their own plans in order to destroy them.


----------



## Quartz (May 5, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> funny how they can be green if there's money to be made innit?



Road pricing would be a disaster for the economy. Not to mention a huge Big Brother exercise.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Road pricing would be a disaster for the economy. Not to mention a huge Big Brother exercise.



Just be yet another tax wouldn't it, like ID cards - another way to bring in taxation unrelated to income to keep the rich happy, dressed up as progressive or green or a counter-terrorist measure or anti-immigration etc.

The only tax should be income tax.


----------



## gunneradt (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just be yet another tax wouldn't it, like ID cards - another way to bring in taxation unrelated to income to keep the rich happy, dressed up as progressive or green or a counter-terrorist measure or anti-immigration etc.
> 
> The only tax should be income tax.



Well now which party is it in  the last 13 years that has not had the guts to raise income for big earners?  I wonder.  We've had more stealth taxes than seemed humanly possible.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well now which party is it in  the last 13 years that has not had the guts to raise income for big earners?  I wonder.  We've had more stealth taxes than seemed humanly possible.



Labour. Why the well now?

I'm no Labour supporter you numpty. All three of them are in love with the snide taxes.


----------



## gunneradt (May 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Labour. Why the well now?
> 
> I'm no Labour supporter you numpty. All three of them are in love with the snide taxes.



nor am I as is well known.  It was a general one rather than one aimed at you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> nor am I as is well known.  It was a general one rather than one aimed at you.



Yet you quoted me


----------



## the button (May 7, 2010)

LibDem n00bs got pwned lol.

That is all.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 7, 2010)

Well that went well for them didn't it?


----------



## the button (May 7, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Well that went well for them didn't it?



There was an interesting little compendium of pro-Liberal/LibDem editorials from the papers going back to the 1980s in the most recent Private Eye. All variations on the breakthrough/transforming British politics theme, with the number of seats won underneath.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2010)

Well, clegg looks set to remain in position. Cameron too. Brown, well Brown will be doing the walk of shame soon IMHO


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

Hardy ha-ha. Two horse race eh Clegg you puffed up useless nag.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2010)

down the bookies for a pay up BA?


----------



## cesare (May 7, 2010)

the button said:


> LibDem n00bs got pwned lol.
> 
> That is all.




Innit


----------



## the button (May 7, 2010)

22.9% of the votes; 8% of the seats.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> down the bookies for a pay up BA?



Didn't have enough money to put a bet on - i could've cleaned up on the hung parliament too. Too late.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 7, 2010)

I reckon I vote LibDem as a token bit of martyrdom.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

...and very well done the Guardian!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hardy ha-ha. Two horse race eh Clegg you puffed up useless nag.



lol


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

Clegg blatantly lying on the news no that this is his parties highest ever vote. No, they got 7 million in 83 and 87.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2010)

hinting that he'll court the tories as well, the fuckwit.


----------



## keithy (May 7, 2010)

he always said he would though didn't he.


----------



## Sgt Howie (May 7, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Because they're going to prop up the Tories.



.


----------



## kabbes (May 7, 2010)

The facepalm sums up the whole thing, really.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 7, 2010)

Clegg has to be seen to at least try and form an alliance with the Tories. But, and I am hoping a lot, they tell him to go and fuck himself then he can say that at least he tried. 

Only real issue as I see it is whether Brown stays as PM. Given that the Lib-Dems lost seats I think their position on him having to stand down is weakened.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Clegg has to be seen to at least try and form an alliance with the Tories. But, and I am hoping a lot, they tell him to go and fuck himself then he can say that at least he tried.
> 
> Only real issue as I see it is whether Brown stays as PM. Given that the Lib-Dems lost seats I think their position on him having to stand down is weakened.



Clegg and Cameron have just released almost idntical statements with the same telling phrases 'national interest' - looks like a long planned stich up.


----------



## audiotech (May 7, 2010)

International market speak.


----------



## chazegee (May 7, 2010)

I'm with you guys.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg and Cameron have just released almost idntical statements with the same telling phrases 'national interest' - looks like a long planned stich up.



Lets see what happens. But I would have thought a phrase such as 'national interest' would be pretty much one that all parties will use over the coming hours. 

Really dont want a Con-Lib alliance. Think it has far more potential to back fire on the Conservatives mid to long term than a Lab-Lib one.


----------



## 100% masahiko (May 7, 2010)

Let's hope they can't make an agreement.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lets see what happens. But I would have thought a phrase such as 'national interest' would be pretty much one that all parties will use over the coming hours.
> 
> Really dont want a Con-Lib alliance. Think it has far more potential to back fire on the Conservatives mid to long term than a Lab-Lib one.



2 statements within 5 minutes of each other, Camerons following Clegg's and saying pretty much what Clegg said needed to be heard. That shit was written together ages ago.


----------



## audiotech (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> .. looks like a long planned stich up.



Doubt it, when Cameron was thinking he could win an overall conservative majority?


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 2 statements within 5 minutes of each other, Camerons following Clegg's and saying pretty much what Clegg said needed to be heard. That shit was written together ages ago.



Maybe it suits them both to seem as though they want the alliance ?

I am certainly allowing my own desires to influence this but I just dont see how the Tories can offer anything on the PR issue to the Lib-Dems. And I cannot see Clegg being able to survive without getting such a pledge. Labour will make the pledge, and happily break it, as they have done in the past but I just cannot see the Tories being willing to even put it on the table.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2010)

MC5 said:


> Doubt it, when Cameron was thinking he could win an overall conservative majority?



nothing to say he wasn't playing both balls mind. This being plan b so to speak


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg blatantly lying on the news no that this is his parties highest ever vote. No, they got 7 million in 83 and 87.



On a technicality the Liberal Democrats were only constituted in 1988.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

sihhi said:


> On a technicality the Liberal Democrats were only constituted in 1988.



He's been running his mouth off about his party being robbed in 83 and 87 though  - he can't have it both ways. He does seem to think he can on a whole range of issues.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 2 statements within 5 minutes of each other, Camerons following Clegg's and saying pretty much what Clegg said needed to be heard. That shit was written together ages ago.



On a tangent, I have to say I was worried when Clegg started using the word "broken" in connection with the electoral system ....


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He's been running his mouth off about his party being robbed in 83 and 87 though  - he can't have it both ways. He does seem to think he can on a whole range of issues.



Oh yeah for sure - just like the Euro debate - but he's a good wriggler.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Oh yeah for sure - just like the Euro debate - but he's a good wriggler.



He is isn't he, that's pretty much his full MO.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 7, 2010)

Lib Dem in two faced shocker. Hardly news is it ? They are despicable cunts at the best of times and as for now, well lets just hope they aint got any grannys who are sellable.


----------



## audiotech (May 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nothing to say he wasn't playing both balls mind. This being plan b so to speak



We'd have heard about it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2010)

I have to say I'm very surprised though. I never expected the polls to turn into actual votes but I did expect that they'd gain a *bit*. I don't think that the Tory campaign against clegg had much impact and I don't think stuff in this thread would have had much either tbh. I wonder whether their moves toward the mainstream just meant people ended up thinking "why would I vote for this clone party?"


----------



## editor (May 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg and Cameron have just released almost idntical statements with the same telling phrases 'national interest' - looks like a long planned stich up.


The Lib Dems are going to lose a load of support if they jump eagerly into bed with the Toffs.


----------



## the button (May 7, 2010)

editor said:


> The Lib Dems are going to lose a load of support if they jump eagerly into bed with the Toffs.



Five years before they have to worry about it, though.  Also, how "serious" are they going to look if they get a sniff of power and turn it down? (Always assuming that they're a set of unprincipled cunts, obviously ).


----------



## Teaboy (May 7, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lib Dem in two faced shocker. Hardly news is it ? They are despicable cunts at the best of times and as for now, well lets just hope they aint got any grannys who are sellable.



I think this ^^ is the reason there won't be any formal coalition or perhaps agreement.  Whilist Dave and Nick are essentuially the same person most of the tories (like Stoaty) hate the lib dems.

Cameron could never sell any sort of an arrangement with the lib dems to his party.  Nope, I reckon the tories will crack on with the Unionists and have an informal agreement with the lib dems so they abstein on queen's speech / emergency budget etc etc.

Just a quess mind.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 7, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Lib Dem in two faced shocker. Hardly news is it ? They are despicable cunts at the best of times and as for now, well lets just hope they aint got any grannys who are sellable.


Given the absence of PR, how else should a third party behave ?


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 7, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Given the absence of PR, how else should a third party behave ?



Like anybody who comes third in anything i.e just shutting the fuck up and learning to live with the fact that they are losers.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 7, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Like anybody who comes third in anything i.e just shutting the fuck up and learning to live with the fact that they are losers.



It will be the Tories who will be calling the shots.

Good to see they're pissing off the right as well as the left.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

How you felling now Cathcart?



> You failed. You out there, you voters: you disgraced yourselves. You were allowed off your lead for a moment to have a bit of fun, and what did you do? You ran up to the first stranger you saw and followed him out of the park. Shame on you.



Easily excitable these profs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

The libd-dem lead negoiator with the tories is not only an ex-head of JP Morgan but also believes in a private insurance based NHS. What can those principled thieves be cooking up?

Change you didn't want. Change you didn't vote for.


----------



## sihhi (May 9, 2010)

because they've never historically known what they are for...


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2010)

was the young liberal paper really called _libel_? very appropriate...


----------



## gentlegreen (May 9, 2010)

Oh well, looks like Clegg is a Tory stooge... 

Goodbye LibDem party ....

In the absence of a Labour party I can vote for, I'll have to find a new idealistic party with no hope of power.


----------



## little_legs (May 9, 2010)

.
.
this cartoon illustrates well why the lib dem are shit:
.
.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 9, 2010)

Clegg will be master Cameron's fag for the next five years. These public school boys know all about hierarchy and knowing one's place. Clegg will warm Cameron's toilet seat and toss him every mourning. Cameron will then go about the buisness of governing the country in the interests of plutocrats and oligarchs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2010)

Familiar Bedfellows



> Labour have done well in local elections, but Tories and Liberal Democrats have worked together well at council level



Vomits, 'well' - there's really nothing left of this paper is there?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Given the absence of PR, how else should a third party behave ?



For a start by developing some sort of policy they actually believe in that's a little more grown up than "everybody else is shit so we must be better than them no matter how much of a bunch of unscrupulous hypocrites we act like."


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> For a start by developing some sort of policy they actually believe in that's a little more grown up than "everybody else is shit so we must be better than them no matter how much of a bunch of unscrupulous hypocrites we act like."


"We represent and change from the Old Politics".  (c) The Whigs (founded 1678).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2010)

little_legs said:


> .
> .
> this cartoon illustrates well why the lib dem are shit:
> .
> .



Sums it up 



> In the absence of a Labour party I can vote for, I'll have to find a new idealistic party with no hope of power.



All those of you "useful" idiots who helped Cameron take power so he can destroy what's left of the good bits of the state and now feel a bit silly should probably switch to the Greens.

Vote Labour if you want to be fucked with care, Tory if you like it rough and hard with a bit of S&M bitch, and Libdem if you want to be spiked with Rohypnol and raped.


----------



## cesare (May 10, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Vote Labour if you want to be fucked with care, Tory if you like it rough and hard with a bit of S&M bitch, and Libdem if you want to be spiked with Rohypnol and raped.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 10, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sums it up
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol


----------



## Gravediggers (May 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I hold the future of the nation in my hand
> 
> Come on, i just hate the lib-dems...



You forgot to put the SPGB on your hate list.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> You forgot to put the SPGB on your hate list.



I don't hate the SPGB at all.


----------



## punkrockfaggot (May 10, 2010)

I can't believe I have to wait another year or however it takes for another election to be called before I get to point out to my liberal friends that parliament is the problem.


----------



## audiotech (May 10, 2010)

As were the SDP.

!


----------



## Gravediggers (May 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I don't hate the SPGB at all.



Glad to hear you don't hate us.   So what is it exactly you don't like about us?


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2010)

So, what did the liberals deliver in the end? 

Not PR. 
Agreement on £6 billion worth of attacks on us. 
And a tory Government. 

Well done. 

Very well done. Round of applause. 

*clap*
*clap*


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So, what did the liberals deliver in the end?
> 
> Not PR.
> Agreement on £6 billion worth of attacks on us.
> ...


got them all talking tho eh?


----------



## editor (May 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So, what did the liberals deliver in the end?
> 
> Not PR.
> Agreement on £6 billion worth of attacks on us.
> ...


Can't we make that:

*punch
*punch


----------



## cesare (May 11, 2010)

editor said:


> Can't we make that:
> 
> *punch
> *punch



Update your website to add him to the punches!


----------



## editor (May 11, 2010)

cesare said:


> Update your website to add him to the punches!


I think their might be a couple of new candidates for the punch gallery coming right up.


----------



## little_legs (May 11, 2010)

i can picture the reception of clegg in the house of commons, half of the house laughing and waiving papers at him...


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

_In the intense negotiations with the Lib Dems, the Tories agreed to drop their plans to raise the threshold for inheritance tax, *but the Lib Dems accepted that spending cuts will start this year as part of an accelerated deficit reduction plan.*_


----------



## cesare (May 12, 2010)

editor said:


> I think their might be a couple of new candidates for the punch gallery coming right up.



Good!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 12, 2010)

NI rise for workers but not for companies.

Capital gains tax for individuals but not for companies.

Bastards.


----------



## the button (May 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So, what did the liberals deliver in the end?
> 
> Not PR.
> Agreement on £6 billion worth of attacks on us.
> ...



.... and no opposition to replacing Trident. Well done indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

the button said:


> .... and no opposition to replacing Trident. Well done indeed.



Hey, they got an agreement to be able to abstain on it. Fantastic! Now is not the time for cynicism. 

That was before the election of course you mugs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

They are so fucked now:



> There’s a basic psephological point here. The Lib Dems benefit a lot from tactical voting, as we know. Since they failed to make the much-anticipated breakthrough against Labour in the northern cities, their MPs tend to sit for rural and suburban constituencies in the south. Their main rivals in those seats are the Tories; twice as many Lib Dem MPs have a Tory as their nearest challenger as a Labourite. They benefit rather a lot from squeezing Labour votes on the basis that they are the best-placed anti-Tory candidates. So, how easy will fighting elections on an anti-Tory basis be now? And that’s without considering Simon Hughes or Sarah Teather, who have held off Labour challenges on the basis of positioning themselves to Labour’s left. Hughes’ seat is safe, but I fear wee Sarah may be toast.
> 
> One thing about the maths. The Lib Dems hold 57 seats in the Commons. If we take majorities of less than 10% – which is to say seats that would be vulnerable on a 5% swing – as being marginal, that encompasses a full 27 of those 57, and some of those majorities are very small indeed. If pissed-off Lib Dem voters decamp to Labour or the Greens in any numbers – or if some choose to vote real Tory rather than ersatz Tory – then Cleggy had better hope that he gets PR as part of the deal. With PR, he could lose half his votes and come out ahead in terms of seats. Without PR, the Lib Dems could be Donald Ducked in a very serious way.
> 
> And oh yes, he’d better hope that law on fixed-term parliaments is rushed through quickly, for if I was Nick Clegg I wouldn’t want to be facing my voters any time soon.


----------



## the button (May 12, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10109965.stm

That was quick.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

What ho! Look at my purple tie!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What ho! Look at my purple tie!



"...and of course George ended up with the biscuit again, jolly good fun..."


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

Lib-dems manifesto commitment on the central question of the election: cuts next year, immediate cuts  would do irrevocable harm to the recovery putting jobs at risk
Lib-dems agreement today : immediate cuts


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (May 12, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> NI rise for workers but not for companies.
> 
> Capital gains tax for individuals but not for companies.
> 
> Bastards.



yeah i was pissed off about that


----------



## fractionMan (May 12, 2010)

looks like they're going in for the snog there


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2010)

I see the price of lib-dem mugs is now £4 plus 80p P&P.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2010)

Clegg:



> These are some of the early achievements of a government that had its first cabinet meeting just two days ago. A new government but, more important, a new kind of government: plural, diverse; a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition that defies the rules of old politics.



Is this the UK's first _vibrant_ govt?


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2010)

For planning to turn Northern Ireland into a Tax Haven.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2010)

For planning to force through their plans to privatise Royal Mail



> The government is preparing for another potentially explosive confrontation with the postal unions by attempting to privatise Royal Mail, the Guardian has learned.
> 
> Vince Cable, the business secretary, is determined to press ahead with a restructuring of the group, which could embroil the government in a dispute with the Communication Workers Union.
> 
> Cable has asked Ed Davey, his fellow Liberal Democrat and junior minister at the business department, to prepare the plan in detail.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2010)

Because in their rainbow Tory-Green-Lib Dem coalition in Leeds they cut weekend opening for pensioner day centres in 2004-05.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2010)

Multi-millionaire lib-dem MP tasked with aggressively cutting back public spending with the knock on effects likely to put tens of thousands out of work whilst worsening conditions and services for the rest of us caught red-handed ripping off the taxpayer for what would be peanuts to him:

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim



> The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.





> The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6 billion.
> 
> He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.
> 
> ...






			
				Thieving lib-dem David Laws said:
			
		

> “The era of plenty is over — there are going to be years of austerity ahead...


----------



## little_legs (May 28, 2010)

the economist from last week claims that the rifts are likely to be based on the home security matters. it makes an assertion that now that lib dems are in the government, they are more likely to become conservative. 



> An informal arrangement that gives Mr Clegg’s party great influence on economic policy but relatively little on matters of security may be enough to keep the coalition a happy ship. But some Tories go a step further, and privately predict that the Lib Dems will themselves become less libertarian in office. After all, they will be privy to disturbingly detailed intelligence about terrorist threats (an experience which affected their Labour predecessors deeply) and forced to participate in decisions, rather than mere parliamentary deliberations, about matters of life and death



http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16171311


----------



## bi0boy (May 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Multi-millionaire lib-dem MP tasked with aggressively cutting back public spending with the knock on effects likely to put tens of thousands out of work whilst worsening conditions and services for the rest of us caught red-handed ripping off the taxpayer for what would be peanuts to him:
> 
> MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim



Oh great we'll get Hammond instead.


----------



## little_legs (May 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Multi-millionaire lib-dem MP tasked with aggressively cutting back public spending with the knock on effects likely to put tens of thousands out of work whilst worsening conditions and services for the rest of us caught red-handed ripping off the taxpayer for what would be peanuts to him:
> 
> MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim



wonderful story for the weekend politicos, bring it on. radio 4 is already troubadoring about it.


----------



## bi0boy (May 28, 2010)

Now we know the real reason why Laws didn't go on Question Time yesterday.


----------



## OneStrike (May 28, 2010)

I don't see how Laws can survive this, in fact i can't believe he thought he would get away with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

Local leaflets, on the back of labour want the vote fore paedos wee now have this


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2010)

I just switched off Clegg talking on the BBC News channel.

I notice he has finally donned a blue tie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2010)

A pc plod out of 1976 on the leaflet too.


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2010)

Looked like a Tory, sounded like a Tory, offered the public policies that were Tory too...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Letter in the Guardian today that lays it all out - a left member of the federal policy committee arguing that they're 'ecstatic' at the content of the budget just unhappy they're _having_ to join with the tories to push them through.

There's also a claim elsewhere in the paper (unsubstantiated of course, which suggests it's Glover writing) that there's been a rise in lib-dem membership in recent weeks i.e lots of people who like their 'new' nasty neo-liberalism with a tory face have joined up. As predicted, rather than acting as some left-pull on the tories (if you want to put it in these terms) they're being pulled very firmly rightwards. 

Mugs.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> a *left* member of the federal policy committee


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Yes, should say she is self described as 'left'. A left mug.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2010)

she writes like a pompous deluded fool, coincidentally.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Expect rapid promotion then.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2010)

aye, i guess 'pompous deluded fool' and 'liberal democrat' are interchangable terms...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

It's on the membership card and everything.


----------



## killer b (Jun 26, 2010)

has to be said that - and this is just from a straw poll of lib dems i know - there's actually very few 'rifts' in the party - the membership seem to be overwhelmingly behind the party in government. there aren't very many rifts at all...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 26, 2010)

Are these the biggest joke/sell out outfit in politics? They opposed a cap on immigration in their campaign and now they've backed it 

I can't believe I voted for these cunts, I really, really can't.  I'm a fucking mug for voting for them, I only wanted to keep Labour out now I wish I hadn't bothered.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

*1)* Lib-dems 1997-2007 (the position _was_ abolished at that point): abolish position of Deputy Prime Minister as it's not needed and is just used to put people out to grass that you don't trust with full departments.

*2)* Lib-dems May 2010 onwards: Nick Clegg - yes please, i'll have that important and essential position.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 26, 2010)

killer b said:


> has to be said that - and this is just from a straw poll of lib dems i know - there's actually very few 'rifts' in the party - the membership seem to be overwhelmingly behind the party in government. there aren't very many rifts at all...



Not that surprising given their enthusiastic support for unpleasant rightwing acts carried out by scores of Libdem controlled local councils.

However in many areas the Libdem electorate in recent times has been distinctly to the left of the party - it is these they will be worrying about in five years time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Cameron on plans to speak at the lib-dem conference:

"The more they attack us, the more they drive us together"

Can't these mugs see what he's doing? It's cold cold genius


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 26, 2010)

Libdemlackystoogesockpuppets: 

http://www.dananddan.com/?p=73


----------



## treelover (Jun 26, 2010)

its the DS but

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/141503/LibDem-revolt-on-VAT/


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron on plans to speak at the lib-dem conference:
> 
> "The more they attack us, the more they drive us together"
> 
> Can't these mugs see what he's doing? It's cold cold genius



goodbye lib dems


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 27, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Are these the biggest joke/sell out outfit in politics? They opposed a cap on immigration in their campaign and now they've backed it
> 
> I can't believe I voted for these cunts, I really, really can't.  I'm a fucking mug for voting for them, I only wanted to keep Labour out now I wish I hadn't bothered.



I respect Lib Dem voters who say stuff like this. The remainging few Lib Dem voters who argue otherwise need to die, now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> goodbye lib dems



Or goodbye coalition? They'll have to usurp Clegg to get rid of the coalition, though, it would appear. Clegg seems to be fucking loving it at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2010)

*lib-dems*: England 1-4 Germany

*Labour*: Germany 1-5 England
England 4–2 Germany


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *lib-dems*: England 1-4 Germany
> 
> *Labour*: Germany 1-5 England
> England 4–2 Germany


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2010)

Vince Cable, the most popular politician in British history, publicly admitted today that the lib-dems are calculated liars:



> Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, the Cabinet minister dodged questions about whether he was embarrassed by the campaign poster warning of a "Tory VAT bombshell".
> 
> "We were trying to score a point against the Conservatives, if you like," he said.
> 
> "Okay, well that was in the election. We have now moved past the election."



I can sense the trust already flowing back to them.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 27, 2010)

They are _such_ a dead party now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 27, 2010)

> Half of Liberal Democrat voters ready to defect after VAT rise
> 
> Nick Clegg is suffering a fierce public backlash over the coalition's VAT rise, with almost half of Liberal Democrat supporters saying the tax U-turn makes them more likely to desert the party.
> 
> A YouGov/Brand Democracy survey, which will alarm already restive Lib Dem MPs, shows 48% of those who voted Lib Dem at the election are now less inclined to back them again as a direct result of the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%.



ha ha ha ha - thick filth. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/27/lib-dems-vat-rise-anger-poll


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 28, 2010)

Careerist twats. Still, it closes off another democratic pipe-dream. Nobody can credibly claim that the Lib Dems differ from the Tories in any meaningful way now we've seen their stuff. 

One day perhaps the people of this country will wake up to what we're being offered by the major parties.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 28, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One day perhaps the people of this country will wake up to what we're being offered by the major parties.



I get the impression most people are already aware, however there arent any practical and realistic alternatives outside of a few areas. 

Most people who vote seem to vote for the least worst option.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I get the impression most people are already aware, however there arent any practical and realistic alternatives outside of a few areas.
> 
> Most people who vote seem to vote for the least worst option.



I think that is important to recognise - It is exactly what people are doing. The resugence in the local labour vote in the election was also a sign of this for all of its limitations. People invariably look for and test what (at least seems to be...) the easiest options first - and that is perfectly understandable. 

But, if the present government and the kept media truly believes ordinary people are going to roll over and stick their legs in the air as they become increasingly aware that they are being pushed into a corner in which the only way out is to fight - then I think the government et al are going to be in for a shock.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2010)

They're racist now too.

(Or _again_, that would be more accurate)


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2010)

Or one of them, that would be even more accurate


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2010)

I think you mean at least one is, unless, of course, you can prove all the rest are not racist.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're racist now too.
> 
> (Or _again_, that would be more accurate)



Don't be fucking silly. Every good liberal knows that only white people can be racist.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think you mean at least one is, unless, of course, you can prove all the rest are not racist.



You seemed interested in "accuracy" is all, which is obviously novel for you.

Just helping you with developing that theme.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2010)

You would have helped more if you'd said something accurate. But then again, messing up your crap digs is not at all novel for you.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're racist now too.
> 
> (Or _again_, that would be more accurate)



ouch... jake knotts would be most proud of this lady.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're racist now too.
> 
> (Or _again_, that would be more accurate)




That's pretty mild by Lib Dem standards.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 29, 2010)

bump


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

Eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

You'll never see the ashes again



> Sports minister Hugh Robertson has warned that funding cuts to sport will further reduce chances of the Ashes returning to free-to-view television.


----------



## the button (Jun 30, 2010)

> *Budget will cost 1.3m jobs - Treasury*
> 
> George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/budget-job-losses-unemployment-austerity

Progressive budget ftw


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

1.3 million jobs 'at least'. This is an effective attack on the wage. Those people are going to be used to bring wages down.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 1.3 million jobs 'at least'. This is an effective attack on the wage. Those people are going to be used to bring wages down.



Yep, they will be forced to work for their benefits doing the very jobs that have been "lost".

Thanks Libdems for almost singlehandedly driving us into the dirt.

Scum.


----------



## the button (Jun 30, 2010)

From reserve army of labour to conscript army of labour.

Good work.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 30, 2010)

the button said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/budget-job-losses-unemployment-austerity



A bit of a problem really, as Osborne is actually increasing the budget by £60Bn over the next 5 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Have you been reading that lib-dem-voice propaganda model they put out the other day?


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 30, 2010)

According to disco dave employment will increase each year.Not if we have cable stopping help to the car industry.he plans to stop the grant for electric cars which was one of the reason that nissan choice sunderland for leaf electric car


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2010)

From the LRB blog, Clegg saying in run-up to election that anyone cutting public sector jobs would have no mandate in his constituency or any part of Yorkshire:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/07/02/jenny-diski/who-are-these-people/


----------



## Kaye (Jul 3, 2010)

Post on Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson's facebook page:

G*** **** F***** I'm afraid that it is my belief that the measures included to protect the poor will not deliver for any but the very very poorest few. £2bn into Tax Credits for example. 

My family income is £4k less than the median for the UK, which is currently £30k per year. In April my Tax Credits award was halved to £2k per year. From 2012, because my family ... See moreincome is above £25k per year, it will drop again. For a family with one child it'll drop by £85 per year (page 64 of the budget), so I assume you double that for me (I've two kids), which effectively wipes our the benefit of the Income Tax threshold rise of £200 per year.

Further to that, I'm employed within the public sector, meaning my pay will be frozen for two years, assuming that I still have a job after the cuts (education's not protected). My bills will still go up, even if my Council Tax doesn't. With RPI at 5.8% currently, my outgoings on bills will be up 11.9% by 2012 on my 2010 figures, yet my income will be static. I currently pay around £1.3k per month in bills. If this goes up by 11.9%, I'll be around £155 per month worse off.

To summarise, I'm currently around £170 per month worse off than I was before April. in 2012 I'll be a further £180 per month worse off. This means I'll be £350 per month worse off (but at least I'll have the extra £17 per month from reduced tax). 

I appreciate I'm not really that poor, but I can tell you I won't be helping pay for the banker's mistakes with my extra VAT as I'll be buying a hell of a lot less. 

This is going to hit a lot of families on below average incomes hard. We may not be the poorest, but we didn't make this mess!

Just for info, I'm a Lib-Dem party member and cllr, for as long as I can afford to be anyway.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 3, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Are these the biggest joke/sell out outfit in politics? They opposed a cap on immigration in their campaign and now they've backed it
> 
> I can't believe I voted for these cunts, I really, really can't.  I'm a fucking mug for voting for them, I only wanted to keep Labour out now I wish I hadn't bothered.



You wanted a TORY government (the only thing possible if you 'keep Labour out'), and you got one.

Why so sad?


----------



## killer b (Jul 3, 2010)

i presume some people voted lib dem hoping for a lab/lib coalition.

not sure what ever gave them the impression that was on the cards, but i can't think why else they'd have done it.


----------



## Edie (Jul 3, 2010)

I voted Lib Dem for our local MP (Greg Mullholland). He's proper ace, so on the one hand I don't regret voting for him. On the other... Clegg. Worst kind of career politician, all fucking best mates with Cameron. So depressing.

Shout out to Greg though, he's cool.


----------



## the button (Jul 3, 2010)

> Most government departments are being asked to produce "illustrative plans" for spending cuts of up to 40%.
> 
> The Treasury wants departmental heads to set out how they would cut spending by both 25% and 40% by the end of July.
> 
> But education and defence have been given some protection from the worst of the cuts, and will have to draw up plans for cuts of 10% and 20%.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500081.stm


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 4, 2010)

the button said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500081.stm





> Labour and the Liberal Democrats campaigned on the basis that to cut spending so deeply this year would threaten the economic recovery.
> 
> However, the Lib Dems - now in coalition with the Conservatives - have argued that since the election the markets' loss of confidence in Europe's economies calls for swifter action.



You can't trust the cunts!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2010)

Does anyone know where/when Nick Clegg described AV, the system he know _passionately_ supports as "a miserable little reform"  as claimed by Andrew Rawnsley today? I wonder if that will be one of the options on the ballot paper?


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone know where/when Nick Clegg described AV, the system he know _passionately_ supports as "a miserable little reform"  as claimed by Andrew Rawnsley today? I wonder if that will be one of the options on the ballot paper?



http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...+compromise+thrashed+out+by+the+Labour+Party”

But he's also said that whatever they said pre-election was just a tactic or something like that


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2010)

That wa vince cable, the most honest and therefore popular politician in britain. See earlier in thread


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 4, 2010)

Here you go Butchers .




			
				The Weasel said:
			
		

> "AV is a baby step in the right direction – only because nothing can be worse than the status quo. If we want to change British politics once and for all, we have got to have a quite simple system in which everyone's votes count. We think AV-plus is a feasible way to proceed. At least it is proportional – and it retains a constituency link.
> 
> "The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. *I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise* thrashed out by the Labour Party."



It's bizare really, even in the campaign he was weasel like.  He supported AV,  then thought it was a step in the right direction, then called it a "miserable little compromise" from the Labour party, he demanded it and now he passionately supports it.  What an absolute cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2010)

That's great, ta very much. Yes, even in a very short 104 words he's all over the shop - a mix of incoherence, dishonesty, confusion, posing and bullshit. Quite remarkable in its own way.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 4, 2010)

It also goes how much Clegg was preparing the ground in order to reject any overtures from Labour, and create any excuse to form a coalition with the Liberal's natural allies in the Conservative Party.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 5, 2010)

What Lib Dem members think of the Coalition Budget measures and that VAT increase

Yeah.... 'fairness' is at the heart of of Lib Dem policy....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Prescott reckons (whilst hiding behind the memory of Joe Hill!) that labour have had 10 000 lib-dems join them since the election. A 1/3 of their (claimed) new 30 000 members. The lib-dems only had about 30 000 to start with ( i think).


----------



## glenquagmire (Jul 7, 2010)

No the LDs had about 80,000 last I heard. Not that it means Two Jags is telling the truth, of course.

As a comparison, I think CAMRA have over 100,000 now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

60 000 according to their return to the electoral commission in 2009. They may well have picked some up in the election boosterism.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Prescott reckons (whilst hiding behind the memory of Joe Hill!) that labour have had 10 000 lib-dems join them since the election. A 1/3 of their (claimed) new 30 000 members. The lib-dems only had about 30 000 to start with ( i think).



Prescott often talks nonsense. I suspect it's people who voted Lib Dem for Billy Bragg reasons. Plus I think Lib Dems had 60,000 members in 2009. 

We might be getting carried away with anti-Lib Dem news. Their activists are usually "LibDems all the way", I can't see 10,000 defecting straight to Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Actually i misread lib-dem _supporters_ as lib-dem _members_.

I don't think it's possible to get too carried away with anti-lib-dem news


----------



## sihhi (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Actually i misread lib-dem _supporters_ as lib-dem _members_.
> 
> I don't think it's possible to get too carried away with anti-lib-dem news









voted Lib Dem.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> As a comparison, I think CAMRA have over 100,000 now.



Now there's a group I'd like to see as part of a coalition government.


----------



## glenquagmire (Jul 8, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Now there's a group I'd like to see as part of a coalition government.



I'm not sure. Going from the letters pages in the members' magazines I get, the political demographic seems to be predominantly UKIP with a healthy smattering of ageing trotskyists.


----------



## the button (Jul 10, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/09/nick-clegg-interview

Plenty of material there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Not sure i can face that, but fear i must. Meanwhile, the same paper revealed that 40% of lib-dem MPs attended private schools. The national figure is 7%.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure i can face that, but fear i must. Meanwhile, the same paper revealed that 40% of lib-dem MPs attended private schools. The national figure is 7%.



Name a political party that doesn't have over 10% from privileged backgrounds?

  


Every political ideology is filled with the cunts. 

All the same shit, just a different shine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

The tory figure is 54% and the labour one 15%.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The tory figure is 54% and the labour one 15%.



And Labour's leaders went to school where?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Sorry, what's your point here? Is it some inept defence of the fact that the lib-dems are dominated by private school boys and their classes interests and have proportionately far more private school educated MPs than labour or something?


----------



## the button (Jul 10, 2010)

> Hi, [button]
> 
> libdem_news (LibDem_News) is now following your tweets on Twitter.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, what's your point here? Is it some inept defence of the fact that the lib-dems are dominated by private school boys and their classes interests and have proportionately far more private school educated MPs than labour or something?



They are all cunts. 

Did you read my post? 795?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> They are all cunts.
> 
> Did you read my post? 795?



I read it and replied before you added in the last lines. Thanks for the insight, now, if you have some specific dirt or gripe about the lib-dems then please post it or them.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, what's your point here? Is it some inept defence of the fact that the lib-dems are dominated by private school boys and their classes interests and have proportionately far more private school educated MPs than labour or something?



Every leader from all parties in the UK will be from the elite. 

That is my point. 

All cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

Ye, now you've offered us this news once more. Have you anything on Nick Clegg?


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I read it and replied before you added in the last lines. Thanks for the insight, now, if you have some specific dirt or gripe about the lib-dems then please post it or them.



All parties are shit. 

The whole system needs to be changed, why are you bothering your time about this now? You seem to be happy sitting at home on the net arguing about nothing on Saturday afternoon. 

have fun.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Ye, now you've offered us this news once more. Have you anything on Nick Clegg?



Isn't David Cameron more dangerous?


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

They imported food from Ireland during the potato famine.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

That's not a reason why they're shit btw, just a reason why they should be strung from the lampposts.


----------



## Knotted (Jul 10, 2010)

The last Liberal pime minister said of Hitler:



> I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a Parliamentary country - there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will, and a dauntless heart.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

^ butchers will like that, he's partial to a nazi reference.


The great man speaks:


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 10, 2010)

Watch this Cloggoid fuckstain squirm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8802969.stm

The lib dems are a disease - they are a cancer that need to be removed from the body politic. The spineless stooge bastards would probably still be sucking up to Hitler if he were alive today. Like I said - cancer.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 11, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The great man speaks:




http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/09/coalition-government-politics-nick-clegg




			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> The Lib Dem leader, who says of himself "I am a revolutionary but I am also a pragmatist"



He obviously has a different concept of 'revolutionary' than me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2010)

...also 'pragmatist'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2010)

> That is a deep change in the way people regard politics psychologically."



28k PA to produce this crap?


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2010)

'Watch this Cloggoid fuckstain squirm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...me/8802969.stm'


Someone should put that on You Tube, it went right to the heart of the Condems policies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Apparently today the lib-dems are claiming that their four pre-election pledges have now all been met. 



> They claimed that in its first 10 weeks the Government had delivered on the Lib-Dems' four election priorities of fairer taxes, cleaning up politics, a fair start for children in life and a green, sustainable economy.




If there's a link for this please post it up.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 29, 2010)

Untruthworthy cunt!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts




			
				Gruaniad said:
			
		

> *Nick Clegg: I changed my mind on spending cuts before general election*
> 
> Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, has admitted that he changed his mind about the timing of spending cuts prior to the general election, despite publicly telling the electorate weeks before the poll that early deep cuts would be "economic masochism".
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2010)

Because they've degraded the concept of civil liberties - that is  pro-society collective universal rights - into cover for individualist greed and anti-society motivations, wedging open the door for the powerful to prey on those least able to to fend for themselves and introducing a significant element of social authoritarianism and naked compulsion into the lifes of millions.

You can stick your _civil liberties_ up your arse.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 16, 2010)

For being basically hypocritical

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.u...essure_on_NHS_to_halt_Horsney_clinic_closure/


----------



## little_legs (Aug 19, 2010)

.
there is a tax avoider in the government, guess who hired him? 



> *Clegg under fire over tax avoidance vow*
> Financial Times (London, England) - Thursday, August 19, 2010
> Author: Barker, Alex ; Pickard, Jim
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 19, 2010)

Cunts.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2010)

Some wishful thinking from campbell there...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

I see Samantha Clegg has foregone the private health-care this time:



> Mr Clegg will leave his own conference early to deputise for Mr Cameron, whose wife Samantha is due to give birth next month, at a United Nations meeting in New York.


----------



## elbows (Aug 25, 2010)

'fun' to see Clegg forced to defend the horrific budget against the think tank claims that it was regressive.

Cleggs argument that is wasnt a fair appraisal of the budget because it didnt take into account getting people off benefits and into work was quite the piece of shit, even by his standards.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2010)

Hoe dare they mock, ridicule and intellectually destroy his idea of (and this is a real quote) 'progressive austerity'. He was utterly reliant on IFS figures to attack labour record before the election - now they're a 'partial body.


----------



## elbows (Aug 25, 2010)

Progressive austerity lol. In theory I suppose you could have that, but it wouldnt resemble this budget or any aspect of their agenda.

Before the election one of the few bright sides I could think of was that the tories would push things too far and cause all sorts of harm to themselves and perhaps even reenergise the full spectrum of political debate & people power as a result. Its something of a bonus to now see that the Lib Dems will likely get taken down at the same time.

As the honeymoon period for this government comes to an end, its increasingly hard to imagine them going the full 5 year distance without imploding. Hell if they keep up the current level of aggressive ineptitude they might even be lucky to last a year. Wishful thinking Im sure, but hey.


----------



## ymu (Aug 25, 2010)

Has anyone got a link to the IFS report? Tried to find it on their website yesterday but failed miserably - although I did find a lot of other interesting stuff. None of the newspaper reports I looked at link to it, as per usual.


----------



## ymu (Aug 25, 2010)

OK - scrap that - it's up on the news section now.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5245


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2010)

Here (pdf)


----------



## Kaye (Aug 26, 2010)

Clegg's defence of the Tories in light of this really was disgusting. As if he needed to get any lower.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 26, 2010)

Although it is funny to watch the liberals commit collective suicide


----------



## Kaye (Aug 26, 2010)

I'd find it funny, in the way that I thought "they can't get worse so laugh" during the last government, but (at the risk of sounding po-faced) real people are suffering.
I sound like a liberal


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 26, 2010)

Kaye said:


> I'd find it funny, in the way that I thought "they can't get worse so laugh" during the last government, but (at the risk of sounding po-faced) real people are suffering.
> I sound like a liberal


 
Quite but I'm determined to at least enjoy the sliver of silver lining


----------



## rioted (Aug 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Although it is funny to watch the liberals commit collective suicide


 
not as funny as watching labour do it.


----------



## rioted (Aug 26, 2010)

Kaye said:


> I'd find it funny, in the way that I thought "they can't get worse so laugh" during the last government, but (at the risk of sounding po-faced) real people are suffering.


'Cos of course no real people suffered under the last government.


----------



## Kaye (Aug 26, 2010)

rioted said:


> 'Cos of course no real people suffered under the last government.


 
Please sod off with putting words in my mouth, and further fuck off with the rolleyes.


----------



## rioted (Aug 26, 2010)

I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of  labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 26, 2010)

rioted said:


> I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of  labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?


 
You're just a typical ponce-anarchist who will end up in the Lib-dems, like Shevek.


----------



## Santino (Aug 26, 2010)

I liked it when Clegg criticised the IFS report for not taking into consideration 'future plans', i.e. things that they haven't thought of yet.

I'm going to try that at work during my next appraisal. 'Ah, but you haven't taken into account work I might do later this year.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2010)

rioted said:


> I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of  labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?


 

so what? So a load of mugs who should know better bought Claggs 'new politics' line and now look like fucking mugs as Bum Face mrk 2 plays good cop for Bum Face mrk 1's bad cop. And his party have fallen in line with it- so long out of power they desided to play the 'stand for nothing but election' game and should be repeatedly called on it. We know the Tories are the bastards party, we know labour have been shit for the last 20 odd years but some dicks still think the lib dems are a third way rather than political whores who haven't tasted this sort of power since they fucked the poor up the arse in the 19th century.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm really disappointed with Clegg. When he bounced the Tories into agreeing to the coalition, I really thought he had the measure of Cameron and the Tories. He may well have the measure of Cameron - the jury's still out on that - but he certainly doesn't have the measure of the rest of the Tories. I imagine Cable's enjoying his taste of power as a swansong before toddling off to the Lords.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 26, 2010)

Going back to this partial or selective claim from Clegg- the treasury forecasts of effects of the budget deliberately left out a huge chunk of the benefit and tax changes as i pointed out at the time (2/3 of according to this) - di di hear Clegg class his own forecasts partial and selective then? No i didn't. I heard the exact opposite. Now the IFS issue a forecast which includes _all the changes the lib-dems and the tories left out _to present an entirely false picture and now _that's _ partial. What an upside down world the lib-dems live in. They're not only lying to us they're lying to each other now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 26, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I'm really disappointed with Clegg. When he bounced the Tories into agreeing to the coalition, I really thought he had the measure of Cameron and the Tories. He may well have the measure of Cameron - the jury's still out on that - but he certainly doesn't have the measure of the rest of the Tories. I imagine Cable's enjoying his taste of power as a swansong before toddling off to the Lords.


 
Clegg and cameron have far more in common with each other then they do with much of thier own party membership - economically neo-liberal but cool with people being gay and black and stuff. The coalition coup sidelined the 'lefty' elements of the libdems and frothing at the mouth tebbitite bigots on the tory backbenchers - to the mutual benefit of the two posh kids.

wrt to IFS report, whilst it clearly  and pretty much inarguably sets out that the austerity programme fucks the poor hardest and goes soft on the wealthy (and deliberately so) - it doesn't tell the whole picture; the effect of the public spending cuts. These will clearly drive up enemployment and hit the poorest areas hardest - so as well as the squeeze on income, the poorest will be most likely to become unemployed and bear the cost (which will incluide a financial cost) of reduced - or withdrawn - services. 

this makes the desperate whigservative bleatings about 'not taking into account our other measures' all the more laughable - lets have an audit of the rest of your programe then - it will be a pretty ugly picture for anyone earning less than £25K p/a.


----------



## the button (Aug 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Going back to this partial or selective claim from Clegg- the treasury forecasts of effects of the budget deliberately left out a huge chunk of the benefit and tax changes as i pointed out at the time (2/3 of according to this) - di di hear Clegg class his own forecasts partial and selective then? No i didn't. I heard the exact opposite. Now the IFS issue a forecast which includes _all the changes the lib-dems and the tories left out _to present an entirely false picture and now _that's _ partial. What an upside down world the lib-dems live in. They're not only lying to us they're lying to each other now.



Meanwhile, the EHRC joins in......



> Nick Clegg was tonight facing renewed pressure over the budget when Britain's equalities watchdog warned of action if ministers failed to carry out a statutory assessment of the impact of spending cuts on vulnerable people.
> 
> As the deputy prime minister insisted that fairness lay at the heart of the coalition programme, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it might censure the government unless ministers can prove they met a legal requirement to consider the impact of cuts on the poor.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/25/nick-clegg-budget-cuts-watchdog


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2010)

the button said:


> Meanwhile, the EHRC joins in......
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/25/nick-clegg-budget-cuts-watchdog



I wonder if the EHRC will have any effect here ... I wasn't aware of that statutory impact assessment requirement ... interesting.


----------



## elbows (Aug 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> it doesn't tell the whole picture; the effect of the public spending cuts. These will clearly drive up enemployment and hit the poorest areas hardest - so as well as the squeeze on income, the poorest will be most likely to become unemployed and bear the cost (which will incluide a financial cost) of reduced - or withdrawn - services.


 
Very true, but the public sector job losses will also affect people who are not the poorest, this is where a chunk of the pain for those somewhere in the middle will come from. Hard to say exactly how badly they will be hit as we dont know how many of their jobs will be moved to private companies rather than eliminated completely.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> I wonder if the EHRC will have any effect here ... I wasn't aware of that statutory impact assessment requirement ... interesting.


 
yes. i watching that one with interest. I can hear the torys grinding their teeth over this bit of 'PC' legasaltion from here.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> yes. i watching that one with interest. I can hear the torys grinding their teeth over this bit of 'PC' legasaltion from here.



I can't remember the EHRC making a huge fuss about it at the time though. Unless I missed it (distinct possibility )


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> I wonder if the EHRC will have any effect here ... I wasn't aware of that statutory impact assessment requirement ... interesting.


 
Yup, govt departments have to do equality impact assessments etc. Perfectly normal in the civil service. That they ignored it here is pretty farcical frankly.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Yup, govt departments have to do equality impact assessments etc. Perfectly normal in the civil service. That they ignored it here is pretty farcical frankly.


 
Aye. I didn't realised it applied to the budget though. I'm a bit confused as to whether the EHRC think that the impact assessments should have been done before announcing 'emergency' budget, or whether they think that they should be done asap afterwards and budget provisions amended accordingly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 26, 2010)

The C4 economics editor has picked up on something very important from this IFS report and other ongoing research by them. It appears that the main driver of the well off doing better under the tories and lib-dems is the rise in the income tax threshold - precisely the measure trumpeted by lib-dems nationally (and on here) as the element which gave the budget it's progressive tinge due to helping the poorest (see many other threads as to why this was always rubbish even in the lib-dems ideal model never mind the watered down version they settled for):



> It’s also worth noting that the likes of Nick Clegg repeatedly cited the IFS analysis in the hallowed leadership debates. More concerning for the DPM might be the work the IFS is doing on precisely why it is that middle high earners are the relative winners so far from the coalition. And it all boils down to the increase in the income tax threshold – ie precisely the policy that was brought to the coalition table by the Lib Dems to introduce “fairness” into the tax system.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> Aye. I didn't realised it applied to the budget though. I'm a bit confused as to whether the EHRC think that the impact assessments should have been done before announcing 'emergency' budget, or whether they think that they should be done asap afterwards and budget provisions amended accordingly.



I'd say it was applicable readin the EIA guidance

From the EIA website



> What is an equality impact
> assessment?
> An equality impact assessment (EIA) is a tool
> that helps public authorities (1) make sure
> ...


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'd say it was applicable readin the EIA guidance
> 
> From the EIA website



The EHRC certainly seem to think it applies at any rate (I just wasn't aware tbh). I wonder (a) what this 'enforcement action' consists of; and (b) what impact, if any, this will have on the scheduled implementation date of 1 Oct for main provisions of Equality Act- where  public bodies' Equality Duty is extended. (Already some speculation about whether the Govt will delay implementation - this might provide further excuse).


----------



## Quartz (Aug 27, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Clegg and cameron have far more in common with each other then they do with much of thier own party membership - economically neo-liberal but cool with people being gay and black and stuff.



Yes, I'd call both of them socially 'liberal' (note small 'l') but I'm not sure I'd call them both fiscally conservative. I had hoped that the Liberals would restrain the Tories from over-indulging in that latter regard, but it doesn't seem to be happening. The operative word is seem, though, as while Osborne has made the call for cuts, how much he actually gets remains to be seen. The less he gets, the greater the Liberal win, I think. Assuming the Liberals have the wit to claim it.  



> The coalition coup sidelined the 'lefty' elements of the libdems and frothing at the mouth tebbitite bigots on the tory backbenchers



A very good thing.



> - to the mutual benefit of the two posh kids.



But which two? Clegg and Cameron, or Clegg and Osborne? I'm not convinced about Cameron. I mean, what has he really *done* so far?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2010)

There's only cameron. It's not house of cards - it was done dusted and a dagger at out throat in june.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> A very good thing.



Well not at all. It gives them the polictical strength to push ahead with their slash and burn economics. Without clegg contribution, cameron would be weak and not strong enought to take on the nasty bloc on the backbencher - which would have furthe alientated a lot of voters.

I dont think clegg - or cable - are that far away from cameron and osbourne on economics - their both orange book lib-servatives. 





Quartz said:


> But which two? Clegg and Cameron, or Clegg and Osborne? I'm not convinced about Cameron. I mean, what has he really *done* so far?


 
Clegg and Cameron. Their all a public school cabal anyway. The shared class/cultural background is not the be all and end all but it often produces a similar (elitelist, arrogant, born to rule) mindset and worldview - and that is clearly the case here - okay yah?


----------



## ymu (Aug 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> A very good thing.


 
Why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2010)

> Osborne has made the call for cuts, how much he actually gets remains to be seen



What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice? He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash. You really have all the reasoning skill of a pork scratching.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice? He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash. You really have all the reasoning skill of a pork scratching.


 
lol. Indeed - this delusion the Clegg is in anyway idelogically opposed to the tories economic plans. His pre-election position was based on nothing more then expidiency - this isn't him 'selling out' its his true colours - not that they were particaulrly hidden before if one had the wit to look slightly beyond the "change" bullshit.


----------



## ymu (Aug 27, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> lib-servatives


See, I don't understand why the coalition/con-dems don't get called this, given Clegg's "lab-servatives" in the election campaign. It might be petty word-play, but this should be thrown back in his face as often as possible, IMO.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> Why?



Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?



DotCommunist said:


> What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice?



Lovely image. 



> He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash.



So? He's yet to put his words into action. Anyway, he hasn't. He's asked for spending cuts in many departments, but concrete plans have yet to emerge. These are due in late Sept (maybe October) IIRC. And so nothing has yet been implemented, not even the loss of the Audit Commission, which wasn't announced. Osborne and Cameron are going to have to fight on many fronts. All those little - and not-so-little - empires. They will try to delay, protect their staff, protect the services they provide. It remains to be seen if either has the determination of Thatcher, or will roll over like Heath. Make no mistake: I am deeply concerned about the levels of cuts; it's a least-worse scenario. I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2010)

rioted said:


> I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of  labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?


please, PLEASE, explain how butchers - or in fact - _anyone_ other than fullyplumped is a 'labour apologist', because I'd truly love to hear your reasoning on that one


----------



## ymu (Aug 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?


Sorry - thought you were pleased that the left of the Lib Dems (such as it is) had been neutralised. I don't agree though - the Lib Dems are giving them just enough cover - more of a 'national crisis needs a national government' sort than any actual influence. The raise in the tax allowance has benefitted the rich more than the poor - and that's about the only Lib Dem policy that has got through that wasn't already Tory policy.


Quartz said:


> So? He's yet to put his words into action. Anyway, he hasn't. He's asked for spending cuts in many departments, but concrete plans have yet to emerge. These are due in late Sept (maybe October) IIRC. And so nothing has yet been implemented, not even the loss of the Audit Commission, which wasn't announced. Osborne and Cameron are going to have to fight on many fronts. All those little - and not-so-little - empires. They will try to delay, protect their staff, protect the services they provide. It remains to be seen if either has the determination of Thatcher, or will roll over like Heath. Make no mistake: I am deeply concerned about the levels of cuts; it's a least-worse scenario. I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.


They will have to scrap a lot of this, but ...



> So they have brought this vision home. During the election campaign, Cameron promised that his cuts wouldn’t be “swingeing” – but in power he is ordering cuts of 25 to 40 percent in almost all departments. To give you a sense of how drastic this is: Margaret Thatcher actually increased public spending by 1.1 percent in real terms per year.
> 
> http://johannhari.com/2010/07/30/camerons-economic-policies-will-kill-not-cure



They are a fuck of a lot more determined than Thatcher. The only saving grace is that they've announced at least half a dozen policies that make the poll tax look populist, so they may not be in government long enough to pull this shit off.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.


what on earth makes you think that's on the agenda of clegg & co? The libdems are NOT the jiminy cricket or 'good fairy' of this govt, they are it's stooges. Clegg is an Orange Book liberal - on economic and fiscal policy, practically a Tory.
It _is_ true that there are still elements of the Liberal grassroots that are commendably progressive, not to say stroppily insubordinate (but god knows why they've stayed on board), but their ability to wag the dog is dubious. If they had that much strength - or desire - they'd have stopped the coalition at the start.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?


 
Well no - but that wont happen. Cameron relying on fractious backbenchers - rather then libdem stooges - to get stuff through would weaken his position and his abilty to inflict his shit on us . He would be less able to crack down when they start frothing at the mouth about europe or gay people - further weakening his position - think of the shit major had to deal with from these goons. Clegg has saved him from them.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2010)

Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach  His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach  His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.


 
Damm the ISF and their ridiculous 'fact based' world view!


----------



## Quartz (Aug 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> Sorry - thought you were pleased that the left of the Lib Dems (such as it is) had been neutralised. I don't agree though - the Lib Dems are giving them just enough cover - more of a 'national crisis needs a national government' sort than any actual influence.



Interesting view, and one that was touted early on, but I don't see it echoed anywhere important these days.



> The raise in the tax allowance has benefitted the rich more than the poor - and that's about the only Lib Dem policy that has got through that wasn't already Tory policy.



I don't actually mind that it helps the rich more because it also helps the poor (of which I am one, remember). I try to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.



> They are a fuck of a lot more determined than Thatcher.



They certainly talk the talk. But I've yet to see deeds, not words.



Streathamite said:


> what on earth makes you think that's on the agenda of clegg & co? The libdems are NOT the jiminy cricket or 'good fairy' of this govt, they are it's stooges. Clegg is an Orange Book liberal - on economic and fiscal policy, practically a Tory.
> It _is_ true that there are still elements of the Liberal grassroots that are commendably progressive, not to say stroppily insubordinate (but god knows why they've stayed on board), but their ability to wag the dog is dubious. If they had that much strength - or desire - they'd have stopped the coalition at the start.



Cameron needs to keep the Lib Dems onside. Therefore he has to pander to them. Their price has appeared to be disappointingly low so far. Of course, it's more sensible for both parties that such negotiations are kept secret, and only the results announced, so we're likely not hearing the whole story. Clegg has a lot of spinning to do, and he hasn't been doing it. 



Kaka Tim said:


> Well no - but that wont happen. Cameron relying on fractious backbenchers - rather then libdem stooges - to get stuff through would weaken his position and his abilty to inflict his shit on us .



If he could get them to vote his way, he'd appear a much stronger leader. It's if he has to pander to them overmuch without restraint from the Lib Dems that worries me.



> He would be less able to crack down when they start frothing at the mouth about europe or gay people - further weakening his position - think of the shit major had to deal with from these goons. Clegg has saved him from them.


 
Not so sure there: the coalition doesn't have that much of a majority. Cameron's in a very difficult position balancing all these factions. I hoped for more from Clegg. But Clegg does have the ultimate power to pull the Lib Dems out of the coalition. Then a vote of No Confidence will bring down the government.


----------



## yield (Aug 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach  His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.


 


> Fairness should never be a numbers game
> 
> By Nick Clegg
> 
> ...



"But imagine the government helps that couple find work." by firing Public Sector workers?


----------



## little_legs (Aug 27, 2010)

has it been mentioned that clegg tirelessly used the IFS data to argue against the labour government during his campaign? i think indy had an article about it y'day. and now clegg is calling the IFS liars. oh well.


----------



## ymu (Aug 28, 2010)

Where the fuck did he magic that £20k/year job from?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> Where the fuck did he magic that £20k/year job from?



He imagined it.


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 28, 2010)

as much as i despise the lib dems for making a pact with the conservatives, i'm willing to accept it as the lesser of 2 evils. the primary evil, of course, being a tory
majority and sole governance. a point from which nick clegg used to sell the coalition to his party.
new labour despite  all the good it did, did create a police state and involve the country in 2 costly wars. thankfully gordon brown got us out of iraq and david cameron
is desperately trying to do the same in afganistan. although through the very nature of his party he can't do so with any haste, for fear of being seen to be soft on national 
security. the lib dems have wrought concessions out of the tories and for that we should be grateful.


----------



## ymu (Aug 28, 2010)

What, grateful that they allowed the Tories into government instead of forcing a second election, by which time we'd all have had a chance to check out that nightmare of a budget? Yeah, thanks a bunch Lib Dems. That's really really helpful.


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> What, grateful that they allowed the Tories into government instead of forcing a second election, by which time we'd all have had a chance to check out that nightmare of a budget? Yeah, thanks a bunch Lib Dems. That's really really helpful.


 
second election = tory government.

would you prefer that?


----------



## Santino (Aug 28, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Interesting view, and one that was touted early on, but I don't see it echoed anywhere important these days.


What in the name of all that is holy is that supposed to mean? Don't see it 'echoed anywhere important'? WTF? Do you not give any credence to any opinion that hasn't been printed in a broadsheet editorial for the last seven days? Are the only views worth holding those that have been parroted on Question Time since the last full moon?



> I don't actually mind that it helps the rich more because it also helps the poor (of which I am one, remember). I try to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.


   Rich and poor are entirely relative terms. Anything that helps the rich stay rich BY DEFINITION makes the poor stay poor, because all that makes the rich who they are and the poor who they are is their relative buying power. 

I mean, honestly.


----------



## Santino (Aug 28, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> the lib dems have wrought concessions out of the tories and for that we should be grateful.



Please list the concessions.


----------



## ymu (Aug 28, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> second election = tory government.
> 
> would you prefer that?


Why would it have meant a Tory government?

Osborne's plan B was to present the emergency budget, let it get voted down and then call an election on the back of it. I cannot see any way that they'd have got an outright majority on the back of what they've announced, even if no other party could win outright either. He's an ignorant little twazzock, but most of the electorate are not that stupid.

Fuck it, my dad voted Tory for local reasons and even he was horrified when they actually formed a government. He thinks it's a fucking disaster for the economy. And he's right. There would have been a massive anti-Tory turnout and more accurate tactical voting going on to fuck them over if there was a second election. Lots of Labour voters who couldn't bring themselves to reward Brown would have held their noses and voted in a second ballot.

Still praying it happens sooner rather than later, of course.


----------



## ymu (Aug 28, 2010)

Santino said:


> Rich and poor are entirely relative terms. Anything that helps the rich stay rich BY DEFINITION makes the poor stay poor, because all that makes the rich who they are and the poor who they are is their relative buying power.


Not just that, but GDP is a fixed quantity and the debt is (intended) to go down not up (in truth the economy will be so fucked this won't actually happen, see Ireland). If the rich gain more than the poor then by definition the poor got screwed.

Guessing Quartz missed the IFS analysis. The poorest are losing more in absolute cash terms, let alone relative percentage terms.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2010)

Santino said:


> What in the name of all that is holy is that supposed to mean? Don't see it 'echoed anywhere important'? WTF? Do you not give any credence to any opinion that hasn't been printed in a broadsheet editorial for the last seven days?



I haven't seen that view expressed. I don't read all the papers. Mainly the Guardian and the Telegraph. I don't subscribe to Murdoch's paywall so I no longer read the Times. And I don't read 'cover to cover'. So it's quite possible I've missed it. But as I've said, I haven't seen it, and that fact remains.



> Anything that helps the rich stay rich BY DEFINITION makes the poor stay poor, because all that makes the rich who they are and the poor who they are is their relative buying power.



Umm... no. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Raising the tax-free allowance helps the poor. Yes it helps the rich more, but it still helps the poor. Take your blinkers off.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> Why would it have meant a Tory government?
> 
> Osborne's plan B was to present the emergency budget, let it get voted down and then call an election on the back of it. I cannot see any way that they'd have got an outright majority on the back of what they've announced, even if no other party could win outright either. He's an ignorant little twazzock, but most of the electorate are not that stupid.



I think you do yourself a disservice to dismiss Osborne so. I have grave doubts as to his ability to do the job, but he is neither ignorant nor stupid. Cupidious of power, however? Absolutely.



> Fuck it, my dad voted Tory for local reasons and even he was horrified when they actually formed a government. He thinks it's a fucking disaster for the economy. And he's right. There would have been a massive anti-Tory turnout and more accurate tactical voting going on to fuck them over if there was a second election. Lots of Labour voters who couldn't bring themselves to reward Brown would have held their noses and voted in a second ballot.



I both agree and disagree. I don't think Osborne would have presented the budget he did if he had that end in mind. He wants to stay in power. I also think that the tactical voting would have been in favour of the Lib Dems rather than Labour in England, and in favour of the Lib Dems and the SNP in Scotland. I don't know about Wales. Voting would be both anti-Labour and anti-Tory. For instance, here in Luton South, the Tory vote would have gone straight to the Lib Dems. We'd have ended up with a parliament with the three parties much more evenly matched, probably with Labour in 3rd place. Much then depends upon whether there had been a palace coup in the Labour Party. I can see Clegg forming an anti-Tory alliance with someone like (but not) Darling, for instance, but then the Tories might form an unholy alliance with the SNP and PC. Never underestimate a politician's desire for power: they're mostly a bunch of fuckers. 

Then again, I can also see the whole thing collapsing and there being a third general election.

The future would be very clouded.


----------



## ymu (Aug 28, 2010)

What the fuck has tactical voting for the Lib Dems got to do with it? In the scenario that they'd refused a coalition, this would screw the Tories.


----------



## Santino (Aug 28, 2010)

CUNT! 

CUNT! CUNT! CUNT!


Sorry, i just had to get that off my chest after reading an article about Clegg.

CUNT


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 29, 2010)

Amazing that there are fools who still can't see the LibDems for what they are


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 29, 2010)

a wolf in sheeps clothing. basically- they make all the right noises and then act like tories. Tories at least have the decency to admit that they are bastards.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 29, 2010)

Innit, to be fair to the tory vermin they made it perfectly clear in their election manifesto that they were going to completely destroy the fabric of social life in this country. Can't really blame them for sticking to their election pledges can we? It's the thick cunts that vote for and continue to appove them in opinion polls that are the problem - "we kneeded a god comikator unliekk that nasty mman gorden the jock sc0tch basterd clown. i couledn't evon undetestand his aksent". Filth, utter filth.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 30, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Innit, to be fair to the tory vermin...



I think you're missing something: politicians are pretty much all vermin. It's not a question of which is the best party but what is the least-worst.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2010)

Santino said:


> CUNT!
> 
> CUNT! CUNT! CUNT!
> 
> ...


 
You got a link to it?


----------



## Santino (Aug 30, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> You got a link to it?


 
There was nothing particularly revelatory about it, it was just about the latest question-and-answer session he did. They made him sound like a right dick. He's stopped being so deferential to voters and started to sound a bit annoyed that people aren't more grateful.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 30, 2010)

Santino said:


> There was nothing particularly revelatory about it, it was just about the latest question-and-answer session he did. They made him sound like a right dick. He's stopped being so deferential to voters and started to sound a bit annoyed that people aren't more grateful.


 
Aaah right, cunt indeed then.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I think you're missing something: politicians are pretty much all vermin. It's not a question of which is the best party but what is the least-worst.


 
Lot's of politicians work tirelessly for what they believe in, and don’t just spend their time on forum boards. Your lazy anti-politics will achieve nothing.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Sep 2, 2010)

We had the local lib-dems try to deliver us a "why we're great" pamphlet at the weekend. Had a quick look, it was basically a long list of "why we haven't just sold out to the tories". Bin.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lot's of politicians work tirelessly for what they believe in, and don’t just spend their time on forum boards. Your lazy anti-politics will achieve nothing.


 
So what? Achieving nothing is better than actively destroying the social fabric of this country like the lib dem vermin are doing. If you don't like forum boards why don't you fuck off - you lib dem vermin? Actually, just fuck off anyway.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm reasonably happy with the Coalition in so far as it allows Cameron to keep the right of his party in check and we have a watered down version of Conservatives with some good Liberal Democrat Polices coming in. I worry at the speed of Whitehall bureaucratic encroachment, that is already getting it's claws into Ministers. 

You only have to see Blair talking about his bloody book to realize what a relief it is not to have new-labour in power anymore. Sadly this government has been left with the ugly job of picking up the previous one’s spending tab that practically wrecked our country and is going to cost thousands of people their jobs. Hopefully it will succeed in getting the economy back on track and redefining British Society as being separate from the British State. In the meanwhile I’m very pleased ID cards are going, and ContactPoint has been scrapped.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm reasonably happy with the Coalition in so far as it allows Cameron to keep the right of his party in check and we have a watered down version of Conservatives with some good Liberal Democrat Polices coming in. I worry at the speed of Whitehall bureaucratic encroachment, that is already getting it's claws into Ministers.
> 
> You only have to see Blair talking about his bloody book to realize what a relief it is not to have new-labour in power anymore. Sadly this government has been left with the ugly job of picking up the previous one’s spending tab that practically wrecked our country and is going to cost thousands of people their jobs. Hopefully it will succeed in getting the economy back on track and redefining British Society as being separate from the British State. In the meanwhile I’m very pleased ID cards are going, and ContactPoint has been scrapped.


 
So you're a tory.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

That's coz you're a Tory, moon23.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So what? Achieving nothing is better than actively destroying the social fabric of this country like the lib dem vermin are doing. If you don't like forum boards why don't you fuck off - you lib dem vermin? Actually, just fuck off anyway.


 
How are the Lib Dems destroying the social fabric of the country? This is laughable hyperbole. Yes I am a Lib Dem.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

Santino got there first


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm reasonably happy with the Coalition in so far as it allows Cameron to keep the right of his party in check and we have a watered down version of Conservatives with some good Liberal Democrat Polices coming in. I worry at the speed of Whitehall bureaucratic encroachment, that is already getting it's claws into Ministers.
> 
> You only have to see Blair talking about his bloody book to realize what a relief it is not to have new-labour in power anymore. Sadly this government has been left with the ugly job of picking up the previous one’s spending tab that practically wrecked our country and is going to cost thousands of people their jobs. Hopefully it will succeed in getting the economy back on track and redefining British Society as being separate from the British State. In the meanwhile I’m very pleased ID cards are going, and ContactPoint has been scrapped.


 
fuck me, you sound just like some of my libdem voting friends


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2010)

"I can't admit I voted for a tory government, so I'm going to pretend my vote actually made a difference, la la la."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2010)

"Lib dem" and "tory" are basically synonyms for "politically correct thatcherite". The worst sort of political creature.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How are the Lib Dems destroying the social fabric of the country? This is laughable hyperbole. Yes I am a Lib Dem.


 
By propping up a viciously anti-poor government, and by giving it a false air of progressiveness, enabling even more radically right-wing policies than a minority Conservative government would be able to implement.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

stephj said:


> That's coz you're a Tory, moon23.


 
No i'm a Liberal, I don't share any of the Christian Conservative tradition that the Tory right has. For instance I’m very much against prohibition of drugs, and for LGBT equality.  I have some similarities with the Libertarian Tories when it comes to scaling back quangos and bureaucracies and agreeing with decentralization of power.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No i'm a Liberal, I don't share any of the Christian Conservative tradition that the Tory right has. For instance I’m very much against prohibition of drugs, and for LGBT equality.  I have some similarities with the Libertarian Tories when it comes to scaling back quangos and bureaucracies and agreeing with decentralization of power.


 
So you're slightly dissimilar to some Tories. Well done.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 2, 2010)

You're a Tory have the guts to admit it, you coward


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

The Lib Dems haven't even been that effective at softening Tory policies so far anyway - Clegg basically admitted that he had changed his mind on speed and ferocity of cuts even before the election, I don't see many Lib Dems ministers openly condemning and standing against the cuts in various areas or proposed changes to benefits, housing, etc, they've backtracked on their tax principles, they seem to stand unnopposed to Pickles various civil liberty proposals, etc.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2010)

decentralization of power = increasing the power of unaccountable private tyrannies. This in turn increases the need for more centralised state power to suppress protests against the social injustices caused through anti-poor measures and to bail out the private sector when they fuck shit up. Google the 1980s you thick cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> You're a Tory have the guts to admit it, you coward


 
It must be reassuring to be so certain of your enemies, and so ready to identify them.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> decentralization of power = increasing the power of unaccountable private tyrannies. This in turn increases the need for more centralised state power to suppress protests against the social injustices caused through anti-poor measures and to bail out the private sector when they fuck shit up. Google the 1980s you thick cunt.


 
Why would I listen to anyone who is so rude and hostile?  I think poverty is increased through the centralization of state power as it restricts people's abilty to produce and trade freely. Hence why attempts to create planned economies resulted in mass starvations, corruption and economic stagnation. Private companies can't help but be accountable to those who have the freedom to choose whether to purchase their products of services.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)




----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Why would I listen to anyone who is so rude and hostile?  I think poverty is increased through the centralization of state power as it restricts people's abilty to produce and trade freely. Hence why attempts to create planned economies resulted in mass starvations, corruption and economic stagnation. Private companies can't help but be accountable to those who have the freedom to choose whether to purchase their products of services.


 
Except, as neo-liberal private sector economies grow around the world, we find the gap between the rich and poor increasing.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

stephj said:


> Except, as neo-liberal private sector economies grow around the world, we find the gap between the rich and poor increasing.


 
Pfft, you can prove anything with 'facts'.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2010)

so you're a neo-liberal tory then


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2010)

Ha, just noticed your tagline Steph. That's gotta be my favourate line of the whole two seasons!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm reasonably happy with the Coalition in so far as it allows Cameron to keep the right of his party in check and we have a watered down version of Conservatives with some good Liberal Democrat Polices coming in. I worry at the speed of Whitehall bureaucratic encroachment, that is already getting it's claws into Ministers.
> 
> You only have to see Blair talking about his bloody book to realize what a relief it is not to have new-labour in power anymore. Sadly this government has been left with the ugly job of picking up the previous one’s spending tab that practically wrecked our country and is going to cost thousands of people their jobs. Hopefully it will succeed in getting the economy back on track and redefining British Society as being separate from the British State. In the meanwhile I’m very pleased ID cards are going, and ContactPoint has been scrapped.



you're happy with people losing their jobs, nice one


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How are the Lib Dems destroying the social fabric of the country? This is laughable hyperbole. Yes I am a Lib Dem.


 
Closure of nurserys, closure of social services, people losing jobs, pay and conditions being further eroded (my occupational sick pay is at risk for example), having to do more work for less money, library closures, leisure centre sell offs and that's just Birmingham.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No i'm a Liberal, I don't share any of the Christian Conservative tradition that the Tory right has. For instance I’m very much against prohibition of drugs, and for LGBT equality.  I have some similarities with the Libertarian Tories when it comes to scaling back quangos and bureaucracies and agreeing with decentralization of power.


 
You're a Thatcherite tory.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Why would I listen to anyone who is so rude and hostile?  I think poverty is increased through the centralization of state power as it restricts people's abilty to produce and trade freely. Hence why attempts to create planned economies resulted in mass starvations, corruption and economic stagnation. Private companies can't help but be accountable to those who have the freedom to choose whether to purchase their products of services.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Ha, just noticed your tagline Steph. That's gotta be my favourate line of the whole two seasons!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Why would I listen to anyone who is so rude and hostile?  I think poverty is increased through the centralization of state power as it restricts people's abilty to produce and trade freely. Hence why attempts to create planned economies resulted in mass starvations, corruption and economic stagnation. Private companies can't help but be accountable to those who have the freedom to choose whether to purchase their products of services.


 
You thick deranged brainwashed fucker. The only people private companies are accountable to are their shareholders.

What was Chile like? Poland and Russia in the 90's? Argentina under the junta? Iraq? Were these free libertarian utopias? You idiot cunt.

"Neo-liberals are just fascists with self-help books"


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You thick deranged brainwashed fucker. The only people private companies are accountable to are their shareholders.
> 
> What was Chile like? Poland and Russia in the 90's? Argentina under the junta? Iraq? Were these free libertarian utopias? You idiot cunt.
> 
> "Neo-liberals are just fascists with self-help books"


 
No in all those countries you had a centralisation of state power, that was wielded against people.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

stephj said:


> Except, as neo-liberal private sector economies grow around the world, we find the gap between the rich and poor increasing.


 
Even if you can show that statement to be true then it doesn't follow the wealth of the poor hasn't increased. You also have to consider how the poor living in countries with planned economies are faring, but a comparison is almost impossible due to variable factors of resources.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

No, i'm very unhappy that Labour ran up such a massive debt that people are now going to lose their jobs.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2010)

Yes, people getting poorer is actually them getting richer.  You're right.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Even if you can show that statement to be true then it doesn't follow the wealth of the poor hasn't increased. You also have to consider how the poor living in countries with planned economies are faring, but a comparison is almost impossible due to variable factors of resources.


 
You mean it's complicated?

But you made it sound so simple earlier.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Yes, people getting poorer is actually them getting richer.  You're right.


 
No that's not what I said. What I said is that an increased gap between rich and poor may not be an indicator of increased poverty, but rather of increased wealth. 

If you have 10 people and each has one coin then there is 0 gap between the rich and the poor. If you give 9 of these people another 2 coins and one person 20 coins then the gap between the rich and the poor increases, but so does the wealth of the poor.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No that's not what I said. What I said is that an increased gap between rich and poor may not be an indicator of increased poverty, but rather of increased wealth.
> 
> If you have 10 people and each has one coin then there is 0 gap between the rich and the poor. If you give 9 of these people another 2 coins and one person 20 coins then the gap between the rich and the poor increases, but so does the wealth of the poor.


 
And if there is the same amount of things to buy with this 'wealth', then they are poorer than before, because the only measurement of wealth in this sense is its ability to purchase goods and services, which has diminished due to the increased difference between their respective amounts.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, i'm very unhappy that Labour ran up such a massive debt that people are now going to lose their jobs.


 
Nasty public sector employing people - let's get rid of it and transfer it to the private sector instead. Oh but wait, we've had a global recession and private firms aren't hiring. Oh, and the private sector will only want to get involved where there are profits to be made. Ok, let's get people volunteering instead. Great. Oh hang on, we can't survive as no one is donating any money to support such ventures because they're out of work and we're in a recession. Help! Government!


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2010)

Santino said:


> And if there is the same amount of things to buy with this 'wealth', then they are poorer than before, because the only measurement of wealth in this sense is its ability to purchase goods and services, which has diminished due to the increased difference between their respective amounts.


 
Exactly. Osborne came up with a great soundbite about measuring poverty relative to the median making no sense if we were getting richer, but it misses the point completely. Absolute poverty is defined as <$2/day/person, but this is a fuck of a lot more serious in the UK than it is in the developing world where monthly rents might be $10 and locally produced goods are priced according to local wages. If the general level of incomes goes up, so does the cost of living. It's nonsensical to claim that the poor person has got richer because they have more money, when their cost of living has risen faster than their income, thanks to most of the rise in productivity getting siphoned off to the richest.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No that's not what I said. What I said is that an increased gap between rich and poor may not be an indicator of increased poverty, but rather of increased wealth.



_may_

But it's not, is it Mr trickledown?



> If you have 10 people and each has one coin then there is 0 gap between the rich and the poor. If you give 9 of these people another 2 coins and one person 20 coins then the gap between the rich and the poor increases, but so does the wealth of the poor.



oh, lol.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 2, 2010)

Ther poor are richer now in the UK then they were in the 30s 40s or 50s. People have far more consumer goods these days.


----------



## ymu (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ther poor are richer now in the UK then they were in the 30s 40s or 50s. People have far more consumer goods these days.


 
Partly because we have a lot more consumer goods these days, and because consumer goods have got cheaper because the jobs producing them have been exported to countries with lower wages, leaving people in the UK in lower paid service sector work, or with no work at all. People on low incomes are still having to choose between heat and food because their income doesn't stretch far enough. You can't seriously be claiming that there isn't a problem? And if you are, you're part if it.



> [Dorling] identifies five sets of beliefs – elitism, exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair – that he claims are replacing Beveridge's five social evils at the dawn of the welfare state (ignorance, want, idleness, squalor and disease), and have become so entrenched in Britain and some other affluent countries that they uphold an unjust system that perpetuates extreme inequality.
> 
> He makes a case for why each set of beliefs is propagated, how each contributes to a growing gap between rich and poor, and why they endure. He says: "The beliefs are supported by the media where stories often imply that some people are less deserving, where great City businessmen (and a few businesswomen) are lauded as superheroes, and where immigrants looking to work for a crumb of the City's bonuses are seen as scroungers."
> 
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No in all those countries you had a centralisation of state power, that was wielded against people.


 
You stupid cultist. Each of those states hired the services of either Friedman, Hayek or one of the other Chicago Boys. Chile followed Friedman's advice to a tee. China, for example, was at its most authoritarian at the time when they had Friedman as a consultant. You cannot hollow out the state, hollow out government, under a fair democratic process. The only way the neo-liberals can do it is by force, either military or economic. An absolute free market leads to wholesale poverty, repression and vast inequality. You turd.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 2, 2010)

.

lib dem _massive achievements_ 










> *Speak up, Nick, or we'll think the worst*
> Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, August 29, 2010
> Author: JENNI RUSSELL
> 
> ...


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You stupid cultist. Each of those states hired the services of either Friedman, Hayek or one of the other Chicago Boys. Chile followed Friedman's advice to a tee. China, for example, was at its most authoritarian at the time when they had Friedman as a consultant. You cannot hollow out the state, hollow out government, under a fair democratic process. The only way the neo-liberals can do it is by force, either military or economic. An absolute free market leads to wholesale poverty, repression and vast inequality. You turd.



Oh so you've read Naomi Klien's conspiracy theory then.  China was far more authoritarian under Chairman Mao, are you aware of Prof Dikotter’s new historical work on the mass starvations?  Or how the communist regime murdered 45 Million people, and used starvation and the lack of food as a weapon for social control? Compared to the background of China from the 50s - 60s then the period when Friedman was a consultant was a walk in the park. 

Other great planned economy experiments include the Stasi in Eastern Germany, Collective farming in the USSR, North Korea, Gulags & Killing fields in Cambodia.

I'm *NOT* saying that a liberal economic policy will always equate to a liberal social policy, but I do think if you give individuals or state institutions power to plan economic activity then it's a very short hop over into planning social activity and controlling people.

The past new-labour was obsessed with social control, from ID cards, surveillance to the nanny state. To such an extent that people like Burnham  said “ Proving who you are, day-in, day-out, is part of being a good citizen". 

Labour  allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people, that has damaged the public finances. Something now needs to be done about it otherwise we will be in a dire economic situation, and if our currency goes tits up and we can’t repay our debts then far more people will lose their jobs.

It’s deeply unfair to say I don’t care about people losing their jobs because I do, it’s just I also have a different economic understanding of the situation. Personally I think some people on this board have a rather naive and simplistic view of economics and politics, which is reinforced by what is frankly childish name-calling towards someone who is here to have an mature debate.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Oh so you've read Naomi Klien's conspiracy theory then.  China was far more authoritarian under Chairman Mao, are you aware of Prof Dikotter’s new historical work on the mass starvations?  Or how the communist regime murdered 45 Million people, and used starvation and the lack of food as a weapon for social control? Compared to the background of China from the 50s - 60s then the period when Friedman was a consultant was a walk in the park.
> 
> Other great planned economy experiments include the Stasi in Eastern Germany, Collective farming in the USSR, North Korea, Gulags & Killing fields in Cambodia.
> 
> ...



ironic


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

It isn't a conspiracy theory, and Klein isn't the only one to have written about it. None of your examples demonstrate anything about a planned economy; they merely demonstrate the repressive nature of Stalinism and socialism in one country.



> I'm *NOT* saying that a liberal economic policy will always equate to a liberal social policy, but I do think if you give individuals or state institutions power to plan economic activity then it's a very short hop over into planning social activity and controlling people.



Whereas placing the power to drive economic activity into the hands of a small number of capitalists is a much better idea - such people, of course, would never seek to control the population via strict restrictions on civil liberties and often human rights. Markets are not answerable to the people but to those with sufficient capital, a small minority.  

Markets are man-made, they are not a natural phenomena; they are not impartial. The destruction of the state is a laudable aim, but without first ensuring power is evenly distributed and economic exploitation is curtailed then the end result will be the entrenchment and furthering of the grossly inequal society we already live in.

You can cite civil liberties as much as you like, but the fact remains that every attempt at creating the neo-liberal wank-fest you lust after has resulted in the repression of the population. Your free market dream is simply that - hopelessly utopian at best, but more likely motivated by self-interest and greed.



> Labour allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people, that has damaged the public finances. Something now needs to be done about it otherwise we will be in a dire economic situation, and if our currency goes tits up and we can’t repay our debts then far more people will lose their jobs.
> 
> It’s deeply unfair to say I don’t care about people losing their jobs because I do, it’s just I also have a different economic understanding of the situation. Personally I think some people on this board have a rather naive and simplistic view of economics and politics, which is reinforced by what is frankly childish name-calling towards someone who is here to have an mature debate.



This is bollocks. The public debt is manageable; public spending throughout the New Labour years was significantly below what was necessary during a time of significant economic growth. Even if we accept the dodgy premise that the deficit needs to be cleared asap, it doesn't follow that the way to do this is by hammering the poor and creating vast unemployment. The tax gap alone would clear most if not all of the deficit, without even considering reforms to corporation and income tax; and those workers laid off will be forced into reliance upon the state, and will obviously not be of any productive economic benefit on the dole queue. This crisis was created on trading floors not shop floors - the crisis is a product of the free market, not of state intervention - yet it is the working class who are being made to pay; the poorest will be a massive 5% worse off thanks to your beloved Liberals' 'progressive' cuts programme. You can bleat on about how you do care about people losing their jobs as much as you like, but it is a cunts trick. You are cheer-leading a programme which has the primary motive not of reducing the deficit, but of stripping away the vestiges of social democracy conceded to the working class in the face of potential revolution in the post-war period.

You forget that we have had an absolute free market before, during the era of industrialisation in the 19th and early 20th century. A utopia it was not.


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

I would love to know where "Labour allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people". Some examples maybe? Does this credulous idiot really believe that the government splashed billions on the "diversity consultants" etc which the rightwing papers love splashing all over the place from time to time?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> I would love to know where "Labour allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people". Some examples maybe? Does this credulous idiot really believe that the government splashed billions on the "diversity consultants" etc which the rightwing papers love splashing all over the place from time to time?


 
Iraq War, ID cards, pointless  Quangoes, Advertising, Consultancy, Pay Checks of senior civil servants. Lots of things where money was wasted.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It isn't a conspiracy theory, and Klein isn't the only one to have written about it. None of your examples demonstrate anything about a planned economy; they merely demonstrate the repressive nature of Stalinism and socialism in one country.


 
I find it incredulous that you can simultaneously claim all the problems in Chile, China Etc. Are the result of the Chicago boys whilst denying the problems with Russia, China, North Korea have anything to do with planned economies.

When planned economies go wrong it’s down to individual dictators and leaders, when countries following economically liberal polices go wrong it’s down to the economic theory. 
It’s not a very convincing line of reasoning you are putting forth here.


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Iraq War, ID cards, pointless  Quangoes, Advertising, Consultancy, Pay Checks of senior civil servants. Lots of things where money was wasted.


 
Be more specific. How much of that pointless spending was on each of those? With the exception of the Iraq War, which the members of your beloved coalition all supported once it kicked off anyway, I don't think you'll find the billions you're looking for on that list. "Consultancy" is another thing beloved of your liberal economic gurus.

Let's have a list of quangoes, specifically how much they cost and how this could be got rid of without affecting anything which "actually helps people".

Otherwise you're just full of hot air and wild generalisations.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I find it incredulous that you can simultaneously claim all the problems in Chile, China Etc. Are the result of the Chicago boys whilst denying the problems with Russia, China, North Korea have anything to do with planned economies.
> 
> When planned economies go wrong it’s down to individual dictators and leaders, when countries following economically liberal polices go wrong it’s down to the economic theory.
> It’s not a very convincing line of reasoning you are putting forth here.


 
But the repression in nominally Communist states has not been in order to force through economic reforms; rather, it has been the process of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, and the necessity, if pursuing the flawed Stalinist doctrine of socialism in one state (as they all have), of creating an insular fortress nation, and often creating client states, to protect the 'island of socialism' from its capitalist rivals.

However, the repression in Chile, Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Poland, Russia, China, etc - even the UK - has been directly related to neo-liberal reforms; the repression is a necessity of neo-liberalism.

I am not for one moment defending Stalinism, but to attribute its tyranny to planned economics is beyond dumb. If you focussed on how they delivered and administered that planned economy you might be closer to the mark.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

I could conversely say the burden of proof lies on those arguing for their contiuned existence to justify the cost in terms of the benefit to people. 

Perhaps then you could start putting the case for why the British Film Council should be kept given that people may have to choose between warmth and food on the poverty line.


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I could conversely say the burden of proof lies on those arguing for their contiuned existence to justify the cost in terms of the benefit to people.
> 
> Perhaps then you could start putting the case for why the British Film Council should be kept given that people may have to choose between warmth and food on the poverty line.



Because it generated more money for the economy than it cost to run. Next question.


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I could conversely say the burden of proof lies on those arguing for their contiuned existence to justify the cost in terms of the benefit to people.
> 
> Perhaps then you could start putting the case for why the British Film Council should be kept given that people may have to choose between warmth and food on the poverty line.



Here's a couple of reasons off the top of my head. Because jobs depend on it. Because the film industry shouldn't have to rely on the whims and preferences of wealthy individuals if they are to produce valuable work for the rest of us to enjoy. EDIT: or, indeed, the point Santino just made above! But actually no: as it was you who made the claim that "Labour allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people" it's incumbent on *you *to back that up, not me to prove it wrong.

And as for positing the false choice between film funding and keeping people above the poverty line, that shows what unbelievably despicable people you economic liberals are when push comes to shove. You're happy for either of those to get shafted while others bowl around in unimaginable luxury barely a hundred yards away in one of the richest economies in the world.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 3, 2010)

Apropos of not very much, I was hugely relieved to hear Cleggy tell Croydon last week he was determined to help people "get off benefits".

Slight suggestion - in the absence of  2.5 million jobs and 20% cuts in the civil service - of cart before horse but Gawd bless yer, Mr Clegg sir, for finking about the people sir, and for being willing to help them out like this.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But the repression in nominally Communist states has not been in order to force through economic reforms; rather, it has been the process of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, and the necessity, if pursuing the flawed Stalinist doctrine of socialism in one state (as they all have), of creating an insular fortress nation, and often creating client states, to protect the 'island of socialism' from its capitalist rivals.
> 
> However, the repression in Chile, Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Poland, Russia, China, etc - even the UK - has been directly related to neo-liberal reforms; the repression is a necessity of neo-liberalism.
> 
> I am not for one moment defending Stalinism, but to attribute its tyranny to planned economics is beyond dumb. If you focussed on how they delivered and administered that planned economy you might be closer to the mark.


 
The farm collectivisation program resulted in repression to force through an economic reform.  It's dumb to simply state that a planned economy will always result in tyranny, what I’m attempting to get across though is that once you establish the theory that you need a planned economy then it gives an administrative state organization a grounds for legitimately wielding power over the population. Once this power is given legitimacy then there is the potential for it to be misused on a mass scale to hideous affect. 

Whilst the intentions to which this power are initially wielded start of well meaning in terms of redistributing wealth, it is all too easily corrupted. Once you start to examine the functioning of how bureaucracies operate such as Max Weber did then you realize that such power is not even wielded through the bad intention of individuals, but through the system of organization. Arbitrary rules and definitions are created to try and order and structure the means by which wealth is distributed.

State power is sadly wielded through a variety of means, it’s perfectly possible to adopt an economic liberal policy within a repressive state that deploys military, religious or fear against each people. The benefit of a liberal economic policy is not just that it frees people to trade freely amongst themselves to mutual benefit of enrichment, but also that it gives an incentive towards economically productive activity. Another major benefit is that it removes one possible justification and means of social control because goods and services are not provided by the state.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Santino said:


> Because it generated more money for the economy than it cost to run. Next question.


 
Did it? Can you prove this? I suspect it gave people's hard owned taxes and placed them in the hands of an artistic elite who dished out funding for their old university chums to undertake their latest project.


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The farm collectivisation program resulted in repression to force through an economic reform.  It's dumb to simply state that a planned economy will always result in tyranny, what I’m attempting to get across though is that once you establish the theory that you need a planned economy then it gives an administrative state organization a grounds for legitimately wielding power over the population. Once this power is given legitimacy then there is the potential for it to be misused on a mass scale to hideous affect.
> 
> Whilst the intentions to which this power are initially wielded start of well meaning in terms of redistributing wealth, it is all too easily corrupted. Once you start to examine the functioning of how bureaucracies operate such as Max Weber did then you realize that such power is not even wielded through the bad intention of individuals, but through the system of organization. Arbitrary rules and definitions are created to try and order and structure the means by which wealth is distributed.
> 
> State power is sadly wielded through a variety of means, it’s perfectly possible to adopt an economic liberal policy within a repressive state that deploys military, religious or fear against each people. The benefit of a liberal economic policy is not just that it frees people to trade freely amongst themselves to mutual benefit of enrichment, but also that it gives an incentive towards economically productive activity. Another major benefit is that it removes one possible justification and means of social control because goods and services are not provided by the state.


 
And that's why you vote Lib Dem?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Here's a couple of reasons off the top of my head. Because jobs depend on it. Because the film industry shouldn't have to rely on the whims and preferences of wealthy individuals if they are to produce valuable work for the rest of us to enjoy. EDIT: or, indeed, the point Santino just made above! But actually no: as it was you who made the claim that "Labour allowed public spending to spiral out of control in areas that didn’t actually help people" it's incumbent on *you *to back that up, not me to prove it wrong.
> 
> And as for positing the false choice between film funding and keeping people above the poverty line, that shows what unbelievably despicable people you economic liberals are when push comes to shove. You're happy for either of those to get shafted while others bowl around in unimaginable luxury barely a hundred yards away in one of the richest economies in the world.


 
That it would cost jobs is not an argument of itself. Scrapping the Nazi death machine would have 'cost jobs', that poor Fritz who pulled the gas chamber leaver. The point is rather are the jobs of use to people and could the money be used to undertake even more economically productive activity that provided more job or helped the poorest in society. 

It's not a false dichotomy to look at spending and consider if it could be better spent on something else.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

fuck me, is your argument really "it's better than stalinism" 



moon23 said:


> It's not a false dichotomy to look at spending and consider if it could be better spent on something else.



Like tax cuts for the rich


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Santino said:


> And that's why you vote Lib Dem?


 
That's a Non sequitur, becuase i'm not answering a question about why I vote Lib Dem.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

No, you were trying to justify neo-liberal economics, as applied by the libdems.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> fuck me, is your argument really "it's better than stalinism"
> 
> 
> 
> Like tax cuts for the rich



No my argument is that wasting public spending on creating a bueracracy to support a private film industry that dishes out funding to those within the artisitic elite is not a good use of people's taxes.

Rich people pay the most taxes.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rich people pay the most taxes.



And there we have it!!!!!

Awwww fucking diddums......


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No my argument is that wasting public spending on creating a bueracracy to support a private film industry that dishes out funding to those within the artisitic elite is not a good use of people's taxes.
> 
> Rich people pay the most taxes.


 
I expect you think cutting corporation tax will make everyone else more wealthy too.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I expect you think cutting corporation tax will make everyone else more wealthy too.


 
A high corporation tax is not economically efficient and would be economic suicide in a global economy.  The law of comparative advantage shows it’s better to allow corporations to trade than to tax them and use the funds for populist short-term protectionist measures.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

Is that a script you've got?

You're a lost cause mate.  Just vote tory and be done with it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I could conversely say the burden of proof lies on those arguing for their contiuned existence to justify the cost in terms of the benefit to people.
> 
> Perhaps then you could start putting the case for why the British Film Council should be kept given that people may have to choose between warmth and food on the poverty line.



Why do you persist with this myth that we need to make drastic cuts? We don't. This was a crisis of the capitalist class, wholly and completely, and the means with which to repay the deficit also lies with the capitalist class. If the UK just collected its taxes properly - not even introduce new taxes - the deficit could be repaid within a short period. But more to the point, cuts aren't necessary at all; it is simply the justification for planned neo-liberal reforms.

Quite why you far right loons have such a been in your bonnet about public funding, I don't know. Public sector performs better than private sector across the board, and furthermore provides better value for money; it also ensures such services are universal. Give me one, just one, example of a privatisation that has delivered.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rich people pay the most taxes.


 
Slippery comment really.  Per capita yes, as a gross total probably not, as a % of income certainly not.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A high corporation tax is not economically efficient and would be economic suicide in a global economy.  The law of comparative advantage shows it’s better to allow corporations to trade than to tax them and use the funds for populist short-term protectionist measures.


 
What the hell happened to you?  You've become a tory robot.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The farm collectivisation program resulted in repression to force through an economic reform.  It's dumb to simply state that a planned economy will always result in tyranny, what I’m attempting to get across though is that once you establish the theory that you need a planned economy then it gives an administrative state organization a grounds for legitimately wielding power over the population. Once this power is given legitimacy then there is the potential for it to be misused on a mass scale to hideous affect.
> 
> Whilst the intentions to which this power are initially wielded start of well meaning in terms of redistributing wealth, it is all too easily corrupted. Once you start to examine the functioning of how bureaucracies operate such as Max Weber did then you realize that such power is not even wielded through the bad intention of individuals, but through the system of organization. Arbitrary rules and definitions are created to try and order and structure the means by which wealth is distributed.
> 
> State power is sadly wielded through a variety of means, it’s perfectly possible to adopt an economic liberal policy within a repressive state that deploys military, religious or fear against each people. The benefit of a liberal economic policy is not just that it frees people to trade freely amongst themselves to mutual benefit of enrichment, but also that it gives an incentive towards economically productive activity. Another major benefit is that it removes one possible justification and means of social control because goods and services are not provided by the state.


 
How is corporate power - wholly unaccountable to the public - better than state power, which at least offers a degree of accountability? In fact, I'll make it easier - how is it not much, much worse?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Did it? Can you prove this? I suspect it gave people's hard owned taxes and placed them in the hands of an artistic elite who dished out funding for their old university chums to undertake their latest project.


 
The irony of a thatcherite talking about putting money in the pockets of an elite...


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That it would cost jobs is not an argument of itself. Scrapping the Nazi death machine would have 'cost jobs', that poor Fritz who pulled the gas chamber leaver. The point is rather are the jobs of use to people and could the money be used to undertake even more economically productive activity that provided more job or helped the poorest in society.
> 
> It's not a false dichotomy to look at spending and consider if it could be better spent on something else.


Fuck me, you really are economically illiterate. 

Socialists don't favour dumping anyone on the unemployment statistics. In the rare cases where a job really isn't needed or wanted any more then it is incumbent on those with their hands on the levers of economic power to find alternatives. I haven't heard you come up with any. Are you still crossing your fingers and hoping that corporation tax cut will provide millions of new jobs as if by magic? Or do you not give a shit about people being unemployed?

It is a false dichotomy to force choosing between one area of public spending and another when there is plenty of money in the economy for both.

So anyway, the deficit is the fault of the British Film Council is it? Got any more daft examples?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rich people pay the most taxes.


 
That is because rich people benefit the most from our economy. They don't create wealth; they take wealth from society, either directly in the form of money or through exploited labour. They do very well out of society, so I'll be fucked if I'll ever be grateful that they pay a fair whack of tax - that tax is just a fraction of the value they are taking from the pockets of the rest of us, and they rarely pay what they owe and then expect us to be grateful that they paid anything at all. Fuck the rich.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 3, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> It is a false dichotomy to force choosing between one area of public spending and another when there is plenty of money in the economy for both.


 
I dont agree with that. Who was it who said that Socialism is all about priorities?.

Socialists IMV should be about arguing for well funded and well run public services but should not defend wasteful public spending or massive salaries for useless bosses.
Unlike proper tidy etc who claims to be a Socialist.....I would be very much in favour of some cuts in public spending. There is loads of incompetence and corruption in public spending and it needs to be addressed. The condems wont do it though. But there should be cuts in some bureacracy and pay for bosses.


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I dont agree with that. Who was it who said that Socialism is all about priorities?.
> 
> Socialists IMV should be about arguing for well funded and well run public services but should not defend wasteful public spending or massive salaries for useless bosses.
> Unlike proper tidy etc who claims to be a Socialist.....I would be very much in favour of some cuts in public spending. There is loads of incompetence and corruption in public spending and it needs to be addressed. The condems wont do it though. But there should be cuts in some bureacracy and pay for bosses.


 
Yes, this has been done to death on here time after time (mainly at your instigation).

If you think that spending is wrong or wasteful then by all means argue against it. But it is not a zero sum game where any extra spending in one area necessarily means cuts in another area.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Unlike proper tidy etc who claims to be a Socialist....


 
Piss off balders, you don't even know what socialism means. At best you're a fucking social democrat.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why do you persist with this myth that we need to make drastic cuts? We don't. This was a crisis of the capitalist class, wholly and completely, and the means with which to repay the deficit also lies with the capitalist class. If the UK just collected its taxes properly - not even introduce new taxes - the deficit could be repaid within a short period. But more to the point, cuts aren't necessary at all; it is simply the justification for planned neo-liberal reforms.
> 
> Quite why you far right loons have such a been in your bonnet about public funding, I don't know. Public sector performs better than private sector across the board, and furthermore provides better value for money; it also ensures such services are universal. Give me one, just one, example of a privatisation that has delivered.



I don't have a bee in my bonnet about *all* public funding, there are problems with some markets failing and natural monopolies occurring. Although many problems occur when you have state introduce monopolies as with say rail track.

Private industry is directly accountable to its customers and share-holders, unlike state bureaucracies that can only be influenced through elected members that have no real power over their departments.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I dont agree with that. Who was it who said that Socialism is all about priorities?.
> 
> Socialists IMV should be about arguing for well funded and well run public services but should not defend wasteful public spending or massive salaries for useless bosses.
> Unlike proper tidy etc who claims to be a Socialist.....I would be very much in favour of some cuts in public spending. There is loads of incompetence and corruption in public spending and it needs to be addressed. The condems wont do it though. But there should be cuts in some bureacracy and pay for bosses.


 
I must have missed that thread where Proper Tidy argued for high wages for useless bosses.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't have a bee in my bonnet about *all* public funding, there are problems with some markets failing and natural monopolies occurring. Although many problems occur when you have state introduce monopolies as with say rail track.
> 
> Private industry is directly accountable to its customers and share-holders, unlike state bureaucracies that can only be influenced through elected members that have no real power over their departments.


 
Where is the example of one single privatisation that has delivered?

I'd rather essential services were administered by a body that is ultimately answerable to the electorate than to a cabal of shareholders, thanks.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> Yes, this has been done to death on here time after time (mainly at your instigation).
> 
> If you think that spending is wrong or wasteful then by all means argue against it. But it is not a zero sum game where any extra spending in one area necessarily means cuts in another area.


 
I agree it's not a zero sum game, as a Liberal Democrat I would attempt to see wasteful spending cut and redirected. I don't have faith the coalition will acheive this due to the dominance of Tory control within it.


----------



## creak (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Give me one, just one, example of a privatisation that has delivered.


 
Telephones. But that's all I can think of...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I must have missed that thread where Proper Tidy argued for high wages for useless bosses.


 
Me too


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

creak said:


> Telephones. But that's all I can think of...


 
Did the privatisation of BT improve the service in your opinion?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Where is the example of one single privatisation that has delivered?
> 
> I'd rather essential services were administered by a body that is ultimately answerable to the electorate than to a cabal of shareholders, thanks.


 
Farming is much better now it's not undertaken by a Feudal Lord deploying peasents to work his land. That is an example of a succesfull privatisation.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

creak said:


> Telephones. But that's all I can think of...


 
BT still have a virtual monopoly on landlines.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Did the privatisation of BT improve the service in your opinion?


 
It's much cheaper now, you often get free weekend or evening calls. I can remember when it was just BT having a phone bill of £140 a quarter, now you could get an inclusive calls package for £20-£30 and have unlimited calls for £90 a quarter.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

creak said:


> Telephones. But that's all I can think of...


 
Actually thats sort of not a bad shout, except of course technology has been the greater driver rather then good old fashioned competition.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> BT still have a virtual monopoly on landlines.


 
Yes sadly they still control much of the infrastructure which is why it takes a long time to get a phone-line setup as you have to go through BT open reach. They are also developing a monopoly on fibre optic broadband in my area. This is the historic artefact of their previous monopoly.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Private industry is directly accountable to its customers and share-holders,


 
Of course this is really only a half truth, the reality in many cases is that any wealth the company may have is moved rapidly into private bank accounts, a good example being our friendly bank managers.

Look at how what was left of Rover was raped and pillaged by a handful of exceedingly greedy cunts.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is the historic artefact of their previous monopoly.


 
It's because privatisation is a con.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes sadly they still control much of the infrastructure which is why it takes a long time to get a phone-line setup as you have to go through BT open reach. They are also developing a monopoly on fibre optic broadband in my area. This is the historic artefact of their previous monopoly.


 
How on earth do you propose introducing competition?  Let other companies build their own networks?  What a waste!


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Me too


 
So are you for a maximum wage in the public sector now? I hope so.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Farming is much better now it's not undertaken by a Feudal Lord deploying peasents to work his land. That is an example of a succesfull privatisation.



Piss off you dick, that isn't an example of privatisation.

'Capitalism - better than serfdom'. You twat.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's much cheaper now, you often get free weekend or evening calls. I can remember when it was just BT having a phone bill of £140 a quarter, now you could get an inclusive calls package for £20-£30 and have unlimited calls for £90 a quarter.


 
But surely that is down to improved technology?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's much cheaper now, you often get free weekend or evening calls. I can remember when it was just BT having a phone bill of £140 a quarter, now you could get an inclusive calls package for £20-£30 and have unlimited calls for £90 a quarter.


 
Mobiles are the reason for that not privatising, however instead of concentrating on the one partial success shall we name all the disasters:

Rail
Gas
Electric
Water
BA
BAA
NOMS

etc etc

Oh look out for future fuck ups Royal Mail and NHS.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

Brilliant stuff moon.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you propose introducing competition?  Let other companies build their own networks?  What a waste!


 
Not a waste the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, were enacted in 1984 and enabled the establishment of the Cable TV network which now used for telephony and internet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> So are you for a maximum wage in the public sector now? I hope so.


 
When have I ever argued against a maximum wage, in public or private sector? The wages of bosses should be closely tied to the wage of the workforce.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not a waste the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, were enacted in 1984 and enabled the establishment of the Cable TV network which now used for telephony and internet.


 
You're flapping. Give us one example of a succesful privatisation? Preferably not where you have to go back to feudalism.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 3, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> So are you for a maximum wage in the public sector now? I hope so.



What type of extra benefits in kind do you want mangers to be given?

Fewer days per week, more multiple jobs, cars, better pensions, earlier retirements.

==

You dish it out, but failed to answer Proper Tidy or Teaboy.

Don't dishonour your FA-cup winning namesake - be honest, please.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But surely that is down to improved technology?


 
There hasn't been a major technological leap in basic land phone use, with digital exchanges being around in the time of when it was just BT. Also one argument for economic liberalisation is that it leads to technological advances as competitors develop their systems to gain an edge over each other.  One reason why it’s said Russia lost the cold war is that it couldn’t keep up with the technological advancement of the economically liberal west.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

The internet is also another example of a very successful private industry that started life as a state run enterprise, mobile phones are hugely successful with their private networks too.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not a waste the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act, were enacted in 1984 and enabled the establishment of the Cable TV network which now used for telephony and internet.


 
Hurrah, we now have 2 companies!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're flapping. Give us one example of a succesful privatisation? Preferably not where you have to go back to feudalism.


 
The Japanese Train system.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The internet is also another example of a very successful private industry that started life as a state run enterprise, mobile phones are hugely successful with their private networks too.


 
The internet, as a service available to the public, has never been a nationalised industry. Neither have mobiles.

Come on Mr Neo Liberal, give us one single example!


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There hasn't been a major technological leap in basic land phone use, with digital exchanges being around in the time of when it was just BT. Also one argument for economic liberalisation is that it leads to technological advances as competitors develop their systems to gain an edge over each other.  One reason why it’s said Russia lost the cold war is that it couldn’t keep up with the technological advancement of the economically liberal west.



Russia went from a peasant agrarian economy to fully industrial in 50 years.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Japanese Train system.


 
Yeah, they're massive in the UK you tit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 3, 2010)

The internet isn't privatised. The internet is *open*.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There hasn't been a major technological leap in basic land phone use, with digital exchanges being around in the time of when it was just BT


 
Arghhh, mobile fucking phones.  They may not be land lines but they have completly taken a massive chunk of the market share.  Of course land lines are much cheaper now, they're hardly used outside of business.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The internet is also another example of a very successful private industry that started life as a state run enterprise, mobile phones are hugely successful with their private networks too.


 
Interesting point here.  So many technologies are actually developed by state industry.  Without initial state investment, we wouldn't have the internet.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 3, 2010)

sihhi said:


> What type of extra benefits in kind do you want mangers to be given?
> 
> Fewer days per week, more multiple jobs, cars, better pensions, earlier retirements.
> 
> ...



er fewer days a week might be OK as long as it was for everyone. 
What questions didnt i answer/miss ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There hasn't been a major technological leap in basic land phone use, with digital exchanges being around in the time of when it was just BT. Also one argument for economic liberalisation is that it leads to technological advances as competitors develop their systems to gain an edge over each other.  One reason why it’s said Russia lost the cold war is that it couldn’t keep up with the technological advancement of the economically liberal west.


 
It may be one argument but it is a bollocks one. The private sector does not seek to pursue new or improved technology per se; rather, they seek profit, which means the vast bulk of private enterprise is bringing socially useless products or services to market to compete against already existing products and services. It is a shite argument. In fact, it is a strong argument for a planned economy - for socially useful work for all and for the development of new technology on its own merit and not in the pursuit of profits.

You are shit at this.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Interesting point here.  So many technologies are actually developed by state industry.  Without initial state investment, we wouldn't have the internet.


 
Get state to pay for intial expense and then when profitable sell off to rich mates on the cheap.  Its funny that Moon should mention cable because as we know it was a disaster at first with all the companies going bust and it being sold off for a peppercorn to Richard Branson.

Nah, capital made that mistake once it won't again, which is why we are all going to have to pay for the braodband upgrades through our taxes.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The internet isn't privatised. The internet is *open*.


 
Almost all of the network that makes up the internet is privatley owned.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Get state to pay for intial expense and then when profitable sell off to rich mates on the cheap.  Its funny that Moon should mention cable because as we know it was a disaster at first with all the companies going bust and it being sold off for a peppercorn to Richard Branson.
> 
> Nah, capital made that mistake once it won't again, which is why we are all going to have to pay for the braodband upgrades through our taxes.



It was a disaster due to the absurd franchise system setup. The manner in which privatization occurs is relevant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It was a disaster due to the absurd franchise system setup. The manner in which privatization occurs is relevant.


 
Oh, but don't the markets manage themselves?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It may be one argument but it is a bollocks one. The private sector does not seek to pursue new or improved technology per se; rather, they seek profit, which means the vast bulk of private enterprise is bringing socially useless products or services to market to compete against already existing products and services. It is a shite argument. In fact, it is a strong argument for a planned economy - for socially useful work for all and for the development of new technology on its own merit and not in the pursuit of profits.
> 
> You are shit at this.


 
Yes but profit arises from useful economic activity, for instance new green technology is developed becuase people want to be more green and thus it becomes profitable to research and produce green technology.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh, but don't the markets manage themselves?


 
In most cases they should manage themselves, in this instance the state attempted to manage the market which led to problems. Communications companies should be free to develop their own networks.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Russia went from a peasant agrarian economy to fully industrial in 50 years.


 
Given that the technology was widely available then this was a slow period of transition.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but profit arises from useful economic activity, for instance new green technology is developed becuase people want to be more green and thus it becomes profitable to research and produce green technology.


 
But, what about all the socially useless economic activity? You know, the stuff that makes up almost all economic activity? What about the huge investment that goes into cosmetics, whilst hundreds of thousands die every year of easily curable diseases, because there is more money in make up than in third world health?

"Even stopped clocks are right twice a day"


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yeah, they're massive in the UK you tit.


 
You didn't specifiy you wanted examples of succesfull privatisation in the UK, you said just one example and I gave you one.
Stop trying to change the paramenters of what you asked just becuase I proved you wrong.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In most cases they should manage themselves, in this instance the state attempted to manage the market which led to problems. Communications companies should be free to develop their own networks.


 
Why are markets able to regulate themselves so effectively? Are they magic?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It was a disaster due to the absurd franchise system setup. The manner in which privatization occurs is relevant.


 
No, it was a disaster because there was a massive outlay in capital to put the cables down which burdoned them with hugue debts, and then they never really attracted anything close to the amount of customers needed, mostly because of Sky.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Given that the technology was widely available then this was a slow period of transition.



Yes, very slow, especially when compared with India 300 years and still counting...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You didn't specifiy you wanted examples of succesfull privatisation in the UK, you said just one example and I gave you one.
> Stop trying to change the paramenters of what you asked just becuase I proved you wrong.


 
We were talking about the UK you tool. The only examples you can give me of a succesful privatisations are a Japanese rail network and the improvements in farming since fuedalism? Do me a favour. What does this tell you? It quite clearly says to me that privatisation is always an abject failure.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> We were talking about the UK you tool. The only examples you can give me of a succesful privatisations are a Japanese rail network and the improvements in farming since fuedalism? Do me a favour. What does this tell you? It quite clearly says to me that privatisation is always an abject failure.


 
Wait, StOP PropER TIDy, 

MOON"£ will explain that Britain was better off with privatised food and the end of rationing after the war


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Wait, StOP PropER TIDy,
> 
> MOON"£ will explain that Britain was better off with privatised food and the end of rationing after the war


 
lol


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Given that the technology was widely available then this was a slow period of transition.


 
What?  To do in 50 years what took the the UK over 200 years?  You're not serious.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Given that the technology was widely available then this was a slow period of transition.


 
You are genuinely mental


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What?  To do in 50 years what took the the UK over 200 years?  You're not serious.


 
Yes but the UK was developing the technology when it developed, Russia did not have to invent steam power along the way for instance. It's stupid of you to compare the two, what you should compare is another countries that have industrialised since the industrial revolution. Also millions of people died during Russia's transition! People were shipped off to Siberia FFS!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> We were talking about the UK you tool. The only examples you can give me of a succesful privatisations are a Japanese rail network and the improvements in farming since fuedalism? Do me a favour. What does this tell you? It quite clearly says to me that privatisation is always an abject failure.



No the only examples I have given you thus far! You asked for only one example, you can't then claim becuase I gave you just one example this is evidence that there are no other examples.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but the UK was developing the technology when it developed, Russia did not have to invent steam power along the way for instance. It's stupid of you to compare the two, what you should compare is another countries that have industrialised since the industrial revolution. Also millions of people died during Russia's transition! People were shipped off to Siberia FFS!


 
What other examples of such rapid transition can you provide? Here's a clue - China won't support your case...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No the only examples I have given you thus far! You asked for only one example, you can't then claim becuase I gave you just one example this is evidence that there are no other examples.


 
So you can't think of any UK examples then?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No the only examples I have given you thus far! You asked for only one example, you can't then claim becuase I gave you just one example this is evidence that there are no other examples.


 
Earlier I provided a list of privitised industries from this country which I percieve to be total failures.  Can you think of any (from this country) that have been a success?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but the UK was developing the technology when it developed, Russia did not have to invent steam power along the way for instance. It's stupid of you to compare the two, what you should compare is another countries that have industrialised since the industrial revolution. Also millions of people died during Russia's transition! People were shipped off to Siberia FFS!



Russia was not able to access most of the world's economy.  Yet you think 50 years was slow.


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

Can we go back to calling Clegg a spineless, unprincipled, shit-eating cunt?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

oh alright then


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

Clegg is a spineless, unprincipled, shit-eating cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2010)

bum faced tory in a liberal dress. I'm sure he feels very important being wheeled out to soft soap us everytime Satan announces another method he has found to fuck us.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

every time my (nearly) 3 year old daughter sees Cameron on the telly she shouts out "bumface! bumface! bumface!"


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Russia was not able to access most of the world's economy.  Yet you think 50 years was slow.


 
Russia was not able to accfess most of the world's economy - There lies the problem with protectionism and planned economies.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Earlier I provided a list of privitised industries from this country which I percieve to be total failures.  Can you think of any (from this country) that have been a success?


 


Teaboy said:


> Earlier I provided a list of privitised industries from this country which I percieve to be total failures.  Can you think of any (from this country) that have been a success?


 
Telecommunications
Utlitites
Travel


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 3, 2010)

LOL

seriously?  you posted that with a straight face?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Telecommunications
> Utlitites
> Travel


 
Are you for real?  Seriously are you on a wind up?

You believe the privitisation of the utilities and travel (by which I assume you mean rail, BA and BAA) has been a success?

My god, I'm going to have to duck out of this conversation due to the possibility of having a seizure through incredulity.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What other examples of such rapid transition can you provide? Here's a clue - China won't support your case...


 
Korea, Singapore, Taiwan  and Hong Kong. Since the 1960s Korea has developed from one of Asia's poorest countries to one of the world's richest.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Russia was not able to accfess most of the world's economy - There lies the problem with protectionism and planned economies.


 
That is a circular argument. Surely it is just as easy to say the fault lies with the hostility of capitalist nations towards societies attempting to put people before profit?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Are you for real?  Seriously are you on a wind up?
> 
> You believe the privitisation of the utilities and travel (by which I assume you mean rail, BA and BAA) has been a success?
> 
> My god, I'm going to have to duck out of this conversation due to the possibility of having a seizure through incredulity.


 
From a perspective of the actual industry, yes they have all been a success. Some of the actual companies that were previous state owned have not so fared as well as the new competitors who are better able to operate in the market. For instance Vodaphone has risen and now has a huge market share. There are thriving private companies in all these industries now, whilst in the 70s there were inefficient state run public companies.  This has resulted in much cheaper products for consumers and available consumer goods.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Telecommunications
> Utlitites
> Travel


 
Utilities? Lol.

Travel was never nationalised unless you mean public transport, which is a shambles.. Telecommunications has developed due to new technologies, largely funded by public monies, not because of privatisation.


----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 3, 2010)

This guy is great comedy. I must have missed all the utilities and travel (do you mean rail?) costs plummeting since privatisation.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Russia was not able to accfess most of the world's economy - There lies the problem with protectionism and planned economies.


 
What?  Are you even following the discussion we're having?  You seem to be just bashing random keys while flailing about wildly.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Telecommunications
> Utlitites
> Travel


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

Is this really happening?  Am I just having another lib dem nightmare?

Is this guy really arguing that the privitisation of travel and utilities has been good for consumers?  Nope I think I must be going mad, time to review the meds.

Nurse nurse!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That is a circular argument. Surely it is just as easy to say the fault lies with the hostility of capitalist nations towards societies attempting to put people before profit?



No it's not just as easy as capitalist nations support free trade with each other for mutual benifet, whereas protectionist socieities like the USSR shut themselves off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Korea, Singapore, Taiwan  and Hong Kong. Since the 1960s Korea has developed from one of Asia's poorest countries to one of the world's richest.


 
South Korea lol.

What is even sadder is that you have clearly just copied this from some random website...

You do realise none of these come close to the rapid transformation of either russia or china?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No it's not just as easy as capitalist nations support free trade with each other for mutual benifet, whereas protectionist socieities like the USSR shut themselves off.


 
lol


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No it's not just as easy as capitalist nations support free trade with each other for mutual benifet, whereas protectionist socieities like the USSR shut themselves off.


 
Did the USSR shut itself off? No, it didn't.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Is this really happening?  Am I just having another lib dem nightmare?
> 
> Is this guy really arguing that the privitisation of travel and utilities has been good for consumers?  Nope I think I must be going mad, time to review the meds.


 
There were strikes, blackouts and piles of rotting rubbish in the 70s when public companies ran most of these things. Now it is much better


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> From a perspective of the actual industry, yes they have all been a success. Some of the actual companies that were previous state owned have not so fared as well as the new competitors who are better able to operate in the market. For instance Vodaphone has risen and now has a huge market share. There are thriving private companies in all these industries now, whilst in the 70s there were inefficient state run public companies.  This has resulted in much cheaper products for consumers and available consumer goods.


 

Oh mate, I liked some of the stuff you wrote on civil liberties and the id cards, but I just can no longer take you seriously.  On that, I'll have to leave.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There were strikes, blackouts and piles of rotting rubbish in the 70s when public companies ran most of these things. Now it is much better


 
you weren't even born then


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Is this really happening?  Am I just having another lib dem nightmare?
> 
> Is this guy really arguing that the privitisation of travel and utilities has been good for consumers?  Nope I think I must be going mad, time to review the meds.
> 
> Nurse nurse!


 
It is bizarre


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There were strikes, blackouts and piles of rotting rubbish in the 70s when public companies ran most of these things. Now it is much better


 
Somebody did a proper job on you. Was it the moonies?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There were strikes, blackouts and piles of rotting rubbish in the 70s when public companies ran most of these things. *Now it is much better*


 certainly not better for the employees


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Russia was not able to accfess most of the world's economy - There lies the problem with protectionism and planned economies.


 
still managed to defeat the Nazis and put the first man in space though eh? eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Somebody did a proper job on you. Was it the moonies?


 
probably caught something from all that rotting rubbish, or unburied bodies or scargill was in stalins pocket etc etc


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> still managed to defeat the Nazis and put the first man in space though eh? eh?


 
Yeah but South Korea... errr...


----------



## sihhi (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> South Korea lol.
> 
> What is even sadder is that you have clearly just copied this from some random website...
> 
> You do realise none of these come close to the rapid transformation of either russia or china?



It's a doubly weak argument because Southern Korea's privatised railway companies were nationalised by the US Military Government in 1946 - and run for good, or for ill -as a state-owned national industry - until the early 1990s. It was in this period that the ROK sustained growth, as privatisation was deepened the Asian crisis took over. 
The ROK also massively protected its infant industries as the Soviet Union did... .

In fact I don't even know what I'm arguing against  
It's as if random lists of three have been plucked out of Moon23's ears: Korea, Singapore, Taiwan STOP Telecommunications, utilities, travel STOP Strikes, blackouts, rotting rubbish STOP Nationalisation, State ownership, protectionism


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

sihhi said:


> It's a doubly weak argument because Southern Korea's privatised railway companies were nationalised by the US Military Government in 1946 - and run for good, or for ill -as a state-owned national industry - until the early 1990s. It was in this period that the ROK sustained growth, as privatisation was deepened the Asian crisis took over.
> The ROK also massively protected its infant industries as the Soviet Union did... .
> 
> In fact I don't even know what I'm arguing against
> It's as if random lists of three have been plucked out of Moon23's ears: Korea, Singapore, Taiwan STOP Telecommunications, utilities, travel STOP Strikes, blackouts, rotting rubbish STOP Nationalisation, State ownership, protectionism


 
I didn't know that.

Tbh, I think Moon is getting fed this shit somewhere else and is just repeating it.


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

Privatisation of the buses has been fucking brilliant, of course. So much better since they closed down all the less profitable routes, and I love not being able to buy a single ticket for a multi-bus journey without paying double, and waiting three times as long for a bus because of all those wonderful companies running the same routes. It's just marvellous.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> Privatisation of the buses has been fucking brilliant, of course. So much better since they closed down all the less profitable routes, and I love not being able to buy a single ticket for a multi-bus journey without paying double, and waiting three times as long for a bus because of all those wonderful companies running the same routes. It's just marvellous.


 
first or stagecoach. It's not even a competition- In my area it's an agreed fucking stitch up where there are barely even a handfull of routes run by both- just enough to satisfy the illusion that 'oh no guv, we haven't just divvied up the profitable routes between us'.

Oh, privitisation works- it works if the intent to make loads of cash is the aim, rather than providing a service and making modest but above inflationary growth. But the latter doesn't make anyone richer so fuck it, fuck _us_ is the logic. How's jack doing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 3, 2010)

It is solely Arriva around here. Ah, choice...

Arriva are really crap


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> you weren't even born then


 
So? You weren't born during the Spanish civil war but you know lots about it.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

sihhi said:


> It's a doubly weak argument because Southern Korea's privatised railway companies were nationalised by the US Military Government in 1946 - and run for good, or for ill -as a state-owned national industry - until the early 1990s. It was in this period that the ROK sustained growth, as privatisation was deepened the Asian crisis took over.
> The ROK also massively protected its infant industries as the Soviet Union did... .
> 
> In fact I don't even know what I'm arguing against
> It's as if random lists of three have been plucked out of Moon23's ears: Korea, Singapore, Taiwan STOP Telecommunications, utilities, travel STOP Strikes, blackouts, rotting rubbish STOP Nationalisation, State ownership, protectionism


 
Yes it's all over the place as people keep asking my lot's of questions about different things! You try having a debate against about 10 people all asking you different threads at the same time


----------



## moon23 (Sep 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> still managed to defeat the Nazis and put the first man in space though eh? eh?


 
Yes at the cost of Million of lives, granted i'll give them the T-34


----------



## Quartz (Sep 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is solely Arriva around here. Ah, choice...
> 
> Arriva are really crap



Yes. I have a bus stop right outside. For a job commuting to London, it's useless: I have to leave before the first bus and I get back after the last bus.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes at the cost of Million of lives, granted i'll give them the T-34


 
millions of lives were lost by the western allies as well. The Industrial Revolution in britain took about a century to be stabilised and killed countless numbers- capitalism doesn't count its dead. It engineers circumstances where lives are lost and then says 'what? don't blame me. I only used cheap metal for the reactor core- the shareholders need dividends!'

The transition from agrarian to technological/industrial took 20 odd years in russia and that carried out against the backdrop of devastation of wars and revolution.


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Yes. I have a bus stop right outside. For a job commuting to London, it's useless: I have to leave before the first bus and I get back after the last bus.


 
Yep. When I was in Brum I could take the bus in to work but there were no buses home. In Oxford, it takes an hour and a quarter to get 8 miles, by any one of three different methods (two of them involving a park & ride despite the availability of bus stops close by, and the other taking even longer if I don't fork out double for an all companies bus ticket). And that's starting from a major affordable housing suburb to a major employment suburb, and the destination is a big hospital on the same site as all the other big hospitals in town. It's fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 4, 2010)

moon you've turned into a massive dickhead


----------



## Mr Blob (Sep 4, 2010)

I hate the Libdems- they went to bed with Tory arseholes


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2010)

Here we go  - Royal Mail to be privatised. This one is Cable's baby. Weaselry won't save you on this one.


----------



## trabant (Sep 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go  - Royal Mail to be privatised. This one is Cable's baby. Weaselry won't save you on this one.


 
 How are the primmies going to get their moon cups delivered?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but profit arises from useful economic activity, for instance new green technology is developed becuase people want to be more green and thus it becomes profitable to research and produce green technology.


actually, the single bigest reason for the growth in 'new green technology' and the sunrise industry we have developing in that  sector (especially renewables) has been the far-sighted support given to this sector by the recently-departed Labour govt. Support, moreover, the condems are cutting, thus potentially killing what looked like a very promising new industry


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Telecommunications
> Utlitites
> Travel


BT? Centrica? THe Rail Network? All these organisations notorious for shit customer service, being run by fatcats who rip us off, lousy labour relations and exploiting monopoly positions?
Jesus holy cow, PLEASE tell me you're not serious.
e2a; apols for arriving on thread late and not realising half of U75 had already had a seizure at such olympiad-standard imbecility and complete denial of reality.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 10, 2010)

The postal workers are fucked. Striking will cause more people to shift to means other than post; fax got its big break during one of the strikes in the 1980s, now there's email. And if the postmen don't strike, they'll get walked over.

So much official government business is conducted by post that retaining the Royal Mail in state ownership is absolutely necessary.

But really, if the main problem is the universal service, would it really cause hardship if post were only delivered twice a week - or even once a week? Despite the job losses  and the loss of services involved, that would be a far better way of dealing with the issue than privatising the Royal Mail.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 10, 2010)

Problem with faxes and emails is that it isn't much use for delivering goods, see.


----------



## ymu (Sep 10, 2010)

And the private delivery companies who get Royal Mail to do the expensive bit at the end won't like it one bit. They might actually have to earn their money.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


>


 
Are the Utilitites some tribe in the bible which we exterminated? Maybe that's why Moron23 is so obsessed with conspiracies.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is solely Arriva around here. Ah, choice...
> 
> Arriva are really crap


 
I agree, jesus they are shit


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Problem with faxes and emails is that it isn't much use for delivering goods, see.


 
Very true. But for letters, the original purpose of the Royal Mail, it's a very different question. Who needs a written bill or statement when it can be emailed? And there's plenty of competition in the parcel delivery sector.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 11, 2010)

lots of people don't use email


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Very true. But for letters, the original purpose of the Royal Mail, it's a very different question. Who needs a written bill or statement when it can be emailed? And there's plenty of competition in the parcel delivery sector.


 
What the fuck does the original purpose of the Royal Mail have to do with anything? 

Parcel delivery is mostly done by RM, even if private couriers collected it and got it to their depot. It's a large part of the problem - they're creaming off the profit whilst RM does the work.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> lots of people don't use email



But sufficient do to make a difference.



ymu said:


> Parcel delivery is mostly done by RM, even if private couriers collected it and got it to their depot. It's a large part of the problem - they're creaming off the profit whilst RM does the work.



Ah. I wasn't aware of that. But that leads to the question that if it's not profitable for the RM to do this work, why aren't they charging a profitable price? Unless, of course, they want to be privatised... But the Tories and Lib Dems haven't been in power that long, so it must be RM upper management looking for huge bonuses / share options / other payoff from their new masters.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2010)

They legally have to deliver parcels and post from third parties at a price that undercuts themselves. The market was rigged against them. Removal of downstream access rights should be the immediate first step. Not privatisation. To see just how weak the lib-dems case for privatisation is, and how ideologically driven do have a quick look at the Compass counter-report to the Hooper report: Case Not Made. (pdf warning).


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

@ Quartz

Yes, the plan has long been to farm out the profitable bits to the private sector and weaken RM so badly that full privatisation would be easy. Please don't say this surprises you. Adam Crozier was brought in for precisely this purpose.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yep. When I was in Brum I could take the bus in to work but there were no buses home. In Oxford, it takes an hour and a quarter to get 8 miles, by any one of three different methods (two of them involving a park & ride despite the availability of bus stops close by, and the other taking even longer if I don't fork out double for an all companies bus ticket). And that's starting from a major affordable housing suburb to a major employment suburb, and the destination is a big hospital on the same site as all the other big hospitals in town. It's fucking ridiculous.



Oxford was considerably better than other places I've lived too!!! You should try bus commuting in Leeds (don't)


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Oxford was considerably better than other places I've lived too!!! You should try bus commuting in Leeds (don't)


Oxford buses are brilliant for students and anyone who lives or works right in the centre. Shit for everyone else.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes, the plan has long been to farm out the profitable bits to the private sector and weaken RM so badly that full privatisation would be easy. Please don't say this surprises you.



It does, alas, surprise me. But that's because I haven't been paying attention to the goings on in the Royal Mail. It also surprises me in general because we've had a Labour government for the past 13 years.


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

You don't pay attention at all do you? What the fuck does having a Labour government have to do with anything?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oxford buses are brilliant for students and anyone who lives or works right in the centre. Shit for everyone else.


 
Did you mean getting buses out of Oxford into Oxford_shire_?
Tbh I found walking quicker than waiting for the two-bus-nightmare. 
Leeds is still about a million times worse for buses, anyway, they don't even have the pretence of competition (ie more than one bus firm running each line).


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Did you mean getting buses out of Oxford into Oxford_shire_?
> Tbh I found walking quicker than waiting for the two-bus-nightmare.
> Leeds is still about a million times worse for buses, anyway, they don't even have the pretence of competition (ie more than one bus firm running each line).


 
No. I mean it is quick to get from Kidlington to town, and from town to Headington. But to get from Kidlington to Headington (8 miles) is a nightmare. The buses don't use the ring road - they go into town and stop, and the bus-stops are a few minutes walk apart since they pedestrianised the corn market. And if you don't buy a more expensive all-companies ticket, it's a fair old wait for the right bus to Headington to come along.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> You don't pay attention at all do you? What the fuck does having a Labour government have to do with anything?



Because it was under them that these unfair practices were going on. They could have corrected it but didn't.


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Because it was under them that these unfair practices were going on. They could have corrected it but didn't.


 
Wut? Why would they do that? They planned it. Crozier was their man.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 11, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Because it was under them that these unfair practices were going on. They could have corrected it but didn't.


did you honestly - I mean, _really?_- hope for that from a govt headed up by _Blair?_
I'm simply _staggered_.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> did you honestly - I mean, _really?_- hope for that from a govt headed up by _Blair?_
> I'm simply _staggered_.


 
Perhaps you shouldn't be drinking so much? 

I wasn't looking into it at the time. My knowledge is still perforce limited, but given that it was happening then, to turn around and blame it on the Lib Dems and Tories is a bit rich. Now, I happen to think that they're idiots for not stopping it, but to blame them for it in the first place is not right. A public postal service is something that benefits this country greatly. The Royal Mail is needed to ensure delivery of HMG communications like tax returns, census forms, polling cards, etc. And since the postal network needs to be in place for that, it makes sense for it to be open to all. So I'm against privatisation. To whom do I write?


----------



## ymu (Sep 11, 2010)

Write to all the rich people who control government and tell them that they've made a terrible mistake. You could copy it to Vince Cable, even. They probably weren't aware of the issues when they decided policy. If you tell them, it'll make a world of difference.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Write to all ...



Hear that whooshing sound?


----------



## the button (Sep 13, 2010)

> A leading union was today organising a mass meeting after Birmingham city council told almost 26,000 staff they could lose their jobs under plans to slash spending.
> 
> Stephen Hughes, the chief executive of the country's largest local authority, sent legal notices to the council's entire non-schools staff – covering everyone from street sweepers to clerks, carers, and cleaners – warning them that they will receive new contracts imposing cuts in pay and conditions.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/13/birmingham-council-staff-notice-contracts


----------



## moon23 (Sep 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Are the Utilitites some tribe in the bible which we exterminated? Maybe that's why Moron23 is so obsessed with conspiracies.


 
I dislike conspiracy theories.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 13, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Perhaps you shouldn't be drinking so much?
> 
> I wasn't looking into it at the time. My knowledge is still perforce limited, but given that it was happening then, to turn around and blame it on the Lib Dems and Tories is a bit rich. Now, I happen to think that they're idiots for not stopping it, but to blame them for it in the first place is not right. A public postal service is something that benefits this country greatly. The Royal Mail is needed to ensure delivery of HMG communications like tax returns, census forms, polling cards, etc. And since the postal network needs to be in place for that, it makes sense for it to be open to all. So I'm against privatisation. To whom do I write?



The Royal Mail has had problems for years, a huge pensions defecit and failure to make a profit. It's the least profitable mail company out of all of it's western counterparts, Deutsche Post (Germany) and TNT (Netherlands) achieved profit margins of 13% and 15% from their mail operations. Something needs to be done about it and Labour didn't solve this problem with their 13 years in power so perhaps the Coaliton will make a better go of it.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 13, 2010)

by selling it off.  brilliant moon, brilliant.


----------



## Open Sauce (Sep 13, 2010)

the button said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/13/birmingham-council-staff-notice-contracts


 


> Stephen Hughes, the chief executive of the country's largest local authority, sent legal notices to the council's entire non-schools staff – covering everyone from street sweepers to clerks, carers, and cleaners – warning them that they will receive new contracts imposing cuts in pay and conditions.



Everyone?

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...cil-chief-executive-to-resign-65233-27254725/



> Mr Hughes who, on a salary of about £220,000, is one of the country’s highest paid local government officials.



He'll probably get a bonus


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Royal Mail has had problems for years, a huge pensions defecit and failure to make a profit. It's the least profitable mail company out of all of it's western counterparts, Deutsche Post (Germany) and TNT (Netherlands) achieved profit margins of 13% and 15% from their mail operations. Something needs to be done about it and Labour didn't solve this problem with their 13 years in power so perhaps the Coaliton will make a better go of it.


 
Every word of this post is an ill-informed lie. Let's see your workings moon.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2010)

Have I missed 'held the country to ransom' and 'bodies lying unburied in the streets'?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2010)

He actually did use those last week. I kid you not.


----------



## Sue (Sep 13, 2010)

I'd expect nothing less...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2010)

Coalition -8% tonight. 37% approve and 45% disapprove


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 14, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Royal Mail has had problems for years, a huge pensions defecit and failure to make a profit. It's the least profitable mail company out of all of it's western counterparts, Deutsche Post (Germany) and TNT (Netherlands) achieved profit margins of 13% and 15% from their mail operations. Something needs to be done about it and Labour didn't solve this problem with their 13 years in power so perhaps the Coaliton will make a better go of it.


 
As I understand it, the Royal Mail is required to do things that cannot and will never be profitable, such as delivering to remote rural areas, having postboxes in small villages etc. The things that are very profitable, such as parcel post, have already been opened to competition, cutting the Royal Mails profits on them and thus their ability to cross-subsidise the services that can never make a profit. So they are a public service organisation who in their most profitable parts are required to compete with private companies that do not have to do anything at all that is unprofitable (i.e provide certain necessary public services). That is why they look 'inefficient' to people who don't know what they're talking about. 

If they are privatised, the company that runs it will hold the taxpayer to ransom by saying 'either we cut these unprofitable services that keep communities afloat, or you give us more money'. To save face and because their friends will be running the private company, the government will hand over the money, and we'll end up with another privatised service as brilliantly 'efficient' as the railways.


----------



## slake (Sep 14, 2010)

Logically the only people who should support privatisation of the Royal Mail should be those who will somehow gain from it - such as shareholders of the companies that will feast on the carve up. Anyone who thinks service will improve in any way what so ever is an idiot. I work for a business to business parcel deliver company and if the cowboys who are running us into the ground get a hold of any part of Royal Mail / Parcelforce then god help us all.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Every word of this post is an ill-informed lie. Let's see your workings moon.


 
The stats and facts I got from the Independant Hooper report. Is this information incorrect? Can you show me why?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2010)

Well for a start Royal Mail does make a profit, so that's point #1 gone straightaway. Secondly the basis of the Hooper Report (which i don't for a second believe you're read) comparisons with DP and TNT is fatally flawed as it fails to take into account factors such as pricing (RM delivers more from more post boxes cheaper than either DP or TNT -and 88% of these delivery's are price-regulated for example). The Compass report Case Not Made (pdf) makes clear Hooper's failure to make a like for like comparison (size, employment, legacy issues and so on). The CWU's response does the same - as does the Neal Lawson report Modernisation by Consent. 

Each of these counter-reports also makes clear that profit margins are not the correct way in which to judge the social utility of services such as Royal Mail. This will, i know, be lost on you. Read these - not just a paper with an agendas cherry picked 'fact' - then come back. 

If you have an ounce of seriousness or concern for public welfare in you you will read at least one of these reports (the CWU one is best) with an open mind and not the dogmatic utopian perspective that has taken hold of you over the last year.


----------



## Santino (Sep 18, 2010)

> What I have found going round the country is a widespread degree of acceptance and support. So don't be misled by the politically motivated comments of union leaders. Don't be misled by them doing the wrong thing for the country. My attitude is 'we don't want to take you on, we want to take you with us'.



What a solid gold cunt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/17/danny-alexander-public-finances-interview


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 18, 2010)

He's another one of those vaguely larval-looking Tories who won't have ever had to copper up for a pint of milk.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 18, 2010)

Clegg: 



> There were some people, particularly around the height of the Iraq war, who gave up on the Labour party and turned to the Liberal Democrats as a sort of left-wing conscience of the Labour party.
> 
> I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for leftwing dissatisfaction with the Labour party. There is no future for that; there never was.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2010)

Yes there was. They actively recruited on that basis and that happened at my uni and in my local area but at many other places across the country. I remember my last year of uni when I went to a debate organised by the LGBT between political parties and the lib dems protrayed themselves as the most left wing. One of them asked if I wanted to join and I said that I preferred something a bit more left wing, they looked at me as if I was an alien. 

the lib dem organised themselves as the party of students, the "mainstream" left wing party opposed to the iraq war. This shameful barefaced lying by Clegg is in total contradiction to everything ive and many others observed obver the last few years


----------



## elbows (Sep 18, 2010)

The mainstream party opposed to the Iraq war yes, as for leftwing Im not sure how much they ever pretended to be that.

The greater lies were in the past, hes actually being more honest here, especially when he says 'enjoy power' lol.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 18, 2010)

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/95260


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2010)

they certainly did pretend to be left wing and to be fair, many of them actually were


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Yes there was. They actively recruited on that basis and that happened at my uni and in my local area but at many other places across the country. I remember my last year of uni when I went to a debate organised by the LGBT between political parties and the lib dems protrayed themselves as the most left wing. One of them asked if I wanted to join and I said that I preferred something a bit more left wing, they looked at me as if I was an alien.
> 
> the lib dem organised themselves as the party of students, the "mainstream" left wing party opposed to the iraq war. This shameful barefaced lying by Clegg is in total contradiction to everything ive and many others observed obver the last few years


 
They were doing that right up until this election, we had the same approach around here. Quite a few younger types fell for it too.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Y
> the lib dem organised themselves as the party of students, the "mainstream" left wing party opposed to the iraq war. This shameful barefaced lying by Clegg is in total contradiction to everything ive and many others observed obver the last few years


 I was tempted to vote for them, over the Gary Mckinnon issue. They were certainly presenting themselves as the party that was going to defend our freedoms.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2010)

That doesn't surprise me at all. A mate of mine from my sp branch said that he had had heard lib dem activists saying "you don't vote lib dem and you're a student? if your a student you have to support the lib dems "


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 18, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I was tempted to vote for them, over the Gary Mckinnon issue. They were certainly presenting themselves as the party that was going to defend our freedoms.


 
I did vote for them before (in local elections). I even did some voluntary work for them in 2005 putting stamps on envelopes - mind you, i was still at school then  (im 22 now) 

Again their whole approach was about being presenting themselves as a left wing party, which i fell for


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I did vote for them before (in local elections). I even did some voluntary work for them in 2005 putting stamps on envelopes - mind you, i was still at school then  (im 22 now)
> 
> Again their whole approach was about being presenting themselves as a left wing party, which i fell for


 
thier ideas about the welfare system, seemed O.k too, at at time when G. Brown was suggesting forcing teenage mums into rehabiltion hostels. The lib dems were speaking out about polices that punish the poor.
Now look what Clegg is saying

_The welfare reforms that will be brought forward by a Conservative Cabinet Minister in our Coalition Government are profoundly liberal in intent and effect and underpinned by three liberal beliefs.
_
http://j.mp/duppeX

bastard


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2010)

He's actively trying to drive supporters away from his party isn't he? I can see them dropping another two points after that interview.

What an utterly useless cunt.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 18, 2010)

killer b said:


> He's actively trying to drive supporters away from his party isn't he? I can see them dropping another two points after that interview.
> 
> What an utterly useless cunt.


 
I don't think he believes the Lib Dems have a future as an independent party at all; he doesn't seem very bothered by the idea either.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 18, 2010)

the Lib Dems have always been utterly mercenary fuckers though - they just played to the crowd


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2010)

I guess that's one thing me & nick agree on...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

They're really on a roll right now - little Danny Alexander this morning:



> I know there are a minority in the trade unions who will deliberately misrepresent what this government stands for because they are spoiling for a fight. Please don't allow their political motivations to push you into doing the wrong things for the country.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

Oh yeah, IOS/ COMRES poll finds that 40% of lib-dem voters will now never vote lib-dem again. I estimated the lib-dem vote at around 30% anti-tory labour protest, 30% anti-labour tory and and 40% actual pro-lib dem extremists. I think i may have over-estimated the last figure.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

I love these principles of Clegg's - especially when allied to such firm decisiveness:



> Meanwhile extraordinary new details of how Clegg negotiated the coalition deal with Cameron in the days following the election are revealed tomorrow by the Observer's chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, in two additional chapters of his book, The End of the Party.
> 
> On the Tuesday after the election, Clegg rang repeatedly to beseech Brown to stay put, telling him: "Gordon, this isn't over yet." He also demanded more time to negotiate with the Tories.
> 
> ...



Of course, in public he was saying that the only way a deal could be done with labour was if Brown went straight away. New Politics comrades, new politics.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 19, 2010)

What a fucking weasel


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 19, 2010)

Just in case there was a single person still harbouring any illusions - from the horse's mouth itself:



> Nick Clegg: There is no future for us as left-wing rivals to Labour
> 
> "There were some people, particularly around the height of the Iraq war, who gave up on the Labour Party and turned to the Liberal Democrats as a sort of left-wing conscience of the Labour Party.
> 
> "I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was."



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...re-for-us-as-a-party-of-the-left-2082689.html


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just in case there was a single person still harbouring any illusions - from the horse's mouth itself:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...re-for-us-as-a-party-of-the-left-2082689.html


 
Yes, I heard that on the radio.  What a cunt that little cunt is.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 19, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Problem with faxes and emails is that it isn't much use for delivering goods, see.



Exactly. If people are going to use the arrival of the internet as an argument then it has been responsible for the rise in people ordering goods from ebay and amazon etc.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 19, 2010)

i was thoroughly worried about a tory government and thought a coalition government between conservatives and liberal democrats would never
happen, but since it has, i can't bring myself to hate it. this is more down to the fact nothing appears to have happened other than rolling back 
labour's police state and the proposed cuts. on a personal level i don't like cameron, but i do find myself agreeing with some of the things he says. read
into that what you will. nick clegg's only crime is one of political expediency, which in my book doesn't make him a bad person. he'll have to do alot worse
for me to alter my opinion of him.

labour supporters need to stop attacking the lib dems and focus on the policies of the coalition. labour needs this time out of office to rediscover itself
and address it's own mistakes while in government.

on DS this whole debate is alot more balanced. less group think.


----------



## Corax (Sep 19, 2010)

Fuck off back to the Spy then.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2010)

lol  what you mean is more people agree with you


----------



## smokedout (Sep 19, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i was thoroughly worried about a tory government and thought a coalition government between conservatives and liberal democrats would never
> happen, but since it has, i can't bring myself to hate it. this is more down to the fact nothing appears to have happened other than rolling back
> labour's police state and the proposed cuts.



so you think all the people who lose their homes, or the pensioners who won't be able to heat their homes properly, or the hundreds of thousands likely to lose their jobs is nothing happening

maybe nothing's happened to you


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 19, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so you think all the people who lose their homes, or the pensioners who won't be able to heat their homes properly, or the hundreds of thousands likely to lose their jobs is nothing happening
> 
> maybe nothing's happened to you



winter fuel allowance is being ring fenced (at least the last time cameron spoke on the topic), job loses were going to happen as a matter of course (whoever was in power). people who can't afford their homes, lose them. we live in a captalist system.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> winter fuel allowance is being ring fenced (at least the last time cameron spoke on the topic)...


 
No it's not. There's been a drip drip lib-dem led media attack on universal benefits (under the guise of 'middle class benefits') all summer and Clegg was at it again _over this bloody weekend_. What on earth makes you say it's ring-fenced? It's not.


----------



## binka (Sep 19, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> people who can't afford their homes, lose them. we live in a captalist system.


 
quite right, i don't understand all these people moaning about losing their jobs and not being able to pay the mortgage. these things happen its a fact of life. chin up you'll probably get somewhere else to live eventually. you might even get a minimum wage job too if you're lucky.


----------



## the button (Sep 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. There's been a drip drip lib-dem led media attack on universal benefits (under the guise of 'middle class benefits') all summer and Clegg was at it again _over this bloody weekend_. What on earth makes you say it's ring-fenced? It's not.



"Middle class benefits" is the most startling piece of newspeak that the cunts have come up with so far.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 19, 2010)

According to Channel 4, Clegg's got his facts wrong about child poverty.

http://tinyurl.com/3y9wo9g


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 19, 2010)

the button said:


> "Middle class benefits" is the most startling piece of newspeak that the cunts have come up with so far.


 
And one that the BBC has adopted totally uncritically.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And one that the BBC has adopted totally uncritically.


 
Middle-class guilt. Well, that and the politics.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 19, 2010)

binka said:


> quite right, i don't understand all these people moaning about losing their jobs and not being able to pay the mortgage. these things happen its a fact of life. chin up you'll probably get somewhere else to live eventually. you might even get a minimum wage job too if you're lucky.



laying the sarcasm on a little thick there.

people who get a loan, used it as a deposit for a house, then expect someone to buy the property 6 months later for 40k more than they paid for it are the people i'm refering to.
should i really shed a tear for greedy BTL'ers or the property speculators? i think not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 19, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> laying the sarcasm on a little thick there.
> 
> people who get a loan, used it as a deposit for a house, then expect someone to buy the property 6 months later for 40k more than they paid for it are the people i'm refering to.
> should i really shed a tear for greedy BTL'ers or the property speculators? i think not.



Yeah because that's the only people it affects...


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 19, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> laying the sarcasm on a little thick there.
> 
> people who get a loan, used it as a deposit for a house, then expect someone to buy the property 6 months later for 40k more than they paid for it are the people i'm refering to.
> should i really shed a tear for greedy BTL'ers or the property speculators? i think not.



You said "people who can't afford their homes, lose them".  Is that not what you meant then?  What about the closure of nurseries, libraries, social services, the attack on pay and conditions?


----------



## binka (Sep 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What about the closure of nurseries, libraries, social services, the attack on pay and conditions?


 
he couldnt care less i would imagine


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2010)

Where do these fuckwits keep popping up from?


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2010)

Digital spy, by the looks of it.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You said "people who can't afford their homes, lose them".  Is that not what you meant then?  What about the closure of nurseries, libraries, social services, the attack on pay and conditions?



would you rather whole counties go bankrupt, like what's happening to states in the U.S.?

owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's 
nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.

these people could rent, and those with families will get properties to live in if they can't afford rental deposits. it's not as though people are being thrown onto the streets.

p.s. what does homeowners have to do with social services and pay conditions in the public service. the piece your quoting makes no mention of these.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> would you rather whole counties go bankrupt, like what's happening to states in the U.S.?
> 
> owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's
> nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.
> ...


. 

WTF? Bizarre. The lib-dems and Tories policies are going to make many homeless whilst social cleansing many half decent areas and leaving even working families seriously out of pocket as regards HB.  Do read some reports from housing experts on this instead of weird waffling.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> .
> 
> WTF? Bizarre. The lib-dems and Tories policies are going to make many homeless whilst social cleansing many half decent areas and leaving even working families seriously out of pocket as regards HB.  Do read some reports from housing experts on this instead of weird waffling.



has it ever crossed your mind, some of these working families you mention, voted for the tories and the liberal democrats?

i talked about america because the opposite of cutting the deficit, is to increase it. the U.S. government is doing just that,
throwing hundreds of billions into the economy in the vain hope it stimulates the various sectors into growth. it's not working as unofficial
(real) unemployment figures in america is 22%.

butch, maybe you could try posting some links and some facts, instead of your usual half arse opinions (disguised as fact).


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 20, 2010)

butcher's posts a lot of links unlike you


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Even more bizarre - and on even more levels. 

First point - so what? Why on earth should the fact that lib-dems and tories managed to mug off a load of people mean that i should support attacks on either them or the wider targets of these ridiculous extremists attacks on our social conditions? 

Second and third point - i've shown now countless times, with 'facts' that these cuts are not needed, that there was a massive con that took place at the birth of the coalition about a sovereign debt crisis and 'what the markets wanted' in order to push through this extremist agenda - one that the same sacrosanct markets have now clearly and repeatedly indicated they neither sought nor want.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

**


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> butch, maybe you could try posting some links and some facts...



Maybe i should eh 

Maybe you should post up some incoherent bizzaro half understood thoughts?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Even more bizarre - and on even more levels.
> 
> First point - so what? Why on earth should the fact that lib-dems and tories managed to mug off a load of people mean that i should support attacks on either them or the wider targets of these ridiculous extremists attacks on our social conditions?
> 
> Second and third point - i've shown now countless times, with 'facts' that these cuts are not needed, that there was a massive con that took place at the birth of the coalition about a sovereign debt crisis and 'what the markets wanted' in order to push through this extremist agenda - one that the same sacrosanct markets have now clearly and repeatedly indicated they neither sought nor want.



the first point is nonsensical, (even for you). if someone voted for the tories they knew to expect public sector cuts. obviously this impact others who didn't voted for them
but labour would've had to implement similar cuts. worse than thatcher's is one imfamous quote. political agreement across all 3 main parties suggest the cuts were necessary.
your second and third point support my belief you're not all there. a decade of reckless consumer spending, a property bubble and 2 wars is going to give rise to huge deficits.
how can you say it doesn't exist or isn't a problem when all the evidence points the other way, is quite frankly astounding.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Agreement across all 3 main parties (which there isn't even) suggests the exact opposite as it goes. When all the main parties of the state and capital say somethings needed you can be damn sure it's not. You've not shown me how it's nonsensical to reject attacks and cuts on the mass of the population - focused on the poorest and those least able to deal with them - because some people voted lib-dem. Would you do that for me now please?

I don't know what you think you're doing in the rest of the post. I presume it's an example of the exemplary debate you want me to engage in? I don't quite get it if it is, because all you've actually done is crudely describe a few surface 'facts' without saying how or why they arose (for example the link between expanded use of personal credit and attacks on the wage) and that there's now a deficit and OMG this is a problem the EVIDENCE says so - without pausing to outline either the problem or the evidence. Would you like to do that now? Have  a go at _explanation_.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchers, what you've been doing is denying there's a problem (despite evidence to the contrary). a mentality one might expect of kindergardeners.

it a pity you haven't left those days behind you.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

That's your reply?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> butchers, what you've been doing is denying there's a problem (despite evidence to the contrary). a mentality one might expect of kindergardeners.
> 
> it a pity you haven't left those days behind you.



Wow, your incisive political analyasis has won the thread, well done.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Even the OECD is rejecting the view ( i nearly said logic then) of this poster.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> butchers, what you've been doing is denying there's a problem (despite evidence to the contrary). a mentality one might expect of kindergardeners.
> 
> it a pity you haven't left those days behind you.


 
What is the problem, spell it out and present some evidence. You haven't actually said anything on this thread at all so far.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 20, 2010)

poison - you are taking the arguments for massive immediate cuts at face value and ignoring the fact that there is a profound and clear ideological position underpinning the logic. 

Freidmanite neo-liberalism argues for reducing the public sector (the 'state' in their parlance) to its bare minmum as a way of 'generating wealth' - which it does, for the already wealthy and at the expense of everybody else. 

The majority of the tory party and many seniros lib dems sign up to this ideology in part or in whole - e.g many tories would like to dismantle the NHS.  By gerneating talk of an economic rises they give themselves the polictical cover for slashing back the public sector.
THe county is not broke, the economy is not about to collapse, the defict is large - but not chronically so. It it entriely possible to rebalance the economy through other much farier methods. 

The facts - and recent history - show that these cuts will hit the poorest and most vunerable the hardest. Where I live  (social housing estate in leeds) vital services have already been slashed back and I fully expect the area to go rapidly downhill over the next few years as already depreate people have their benfits slashed, as unemployemnt goes up, local investement in housing improvemnts and repairs grinds to a halt and servcies are further cut back. 

Anyone whos defends this assualt on the people at the very bottom when in posession of the facts is a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

It's all _our_ fault:



> Political culture in Britain had not yet caught up with coalition politics. "Britain still suffered from the machismo of the highly confrontational political culture, which has been aided and abetted by the near state of apoplexy and hysteria on the part of the Labour party," he said.



When oh when will the backwards public catch up with Nick and Dave and their plans for needed modernisations!


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> What is the problem, spell it out and present some evidence. You haven't actually said anything on this thread at all so far.


Isn't the problem that the country is in massive debt. As in, we owe shit loads of money to other countries (China?). Also that, as individuals, we are all massively in debt- like mortgages 5x salaries, loads of hire purchase. We've borrowed loads of money to live our (comparatively) luxury western lifestyles and now we're fucked.

Sorry for the lack of links, but that's my general understanding of why we have to cut Government spending by 25% in most departments. We have to pay back a big debt or we go bankrupt like Greece.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

I see they've kept one election promise at least - the infamous _Give paedos the vote!_ demand:



> Nick Clegg's officials said last night that the blanket ban on Britain's 88,000 prisoners taking part in elections cannot continue. The Deputy Prime Minister took responsibility for the issue from Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, in July.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Isn't the problem that the country is in massive debt. As in, we owe shit loads of money to other countries (China?). Also that, as individuals, we are all massively in debt- like mortgages 5x salaries, loads of hire purchase. We've borrowed loads of money to live our (comparatively) luxury western lifestyles and now we're fucked.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of links, but that's my general understanding of why we have to cut Government spending by 25% in most departments. We have to pay back a big debt or we go bankrupt like Greece.


 
No, that isn't the problem.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Isn't the problem that the country is in massive debt. As in, we owe shit loads of money to other countries (China?). Also that, as individuals, we are all massively in debt- like mortgages 5x salaries, loads of hire purchase. We've borrowed loads of money to live our (comparatively) luxury western lifestyles and now we're fucked.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of links, but that's my general understanding of why we have to cut Government spending by 25% in most departments. We have to pay back a big debt or we go bankrupt like Greece.



No.

Try reading the full article linked to in [URL="http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/332293-Cameron-s-economic-policies-will-kill-not-cure-look-what-s-happened-to-Ireland]this thread[/URL].


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Isn't the problem that the country is in massive debt. As in, we owe shit loads of money to other countries (China?). Also that, as individuals, we are all massively in debt- like mortgages 5x salaries, loads of hire purchase. We've borrowed loads of money to live our (comparatively) luxury western lifestyles and now we're fucked.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of links, but that's my general understanding of why we have to cut Government spending by 25% in most departments. We have to pay back a big debt or we go bankrupt like Greece.


 
that's what the government say.

would you normally take what they say at face value?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> butchers, what you've been doing is denying there's a problem (despite evidence to the contrary). a mentality one might expect of kindergardeners.
> 
> it a pity you haven't left those days behind you.


we do NOT need cuts on anything like the scale needed, and the proposed cuts may make things worse by triggering a second recession which further limits the UK's ability to cut the deficit (See; Ireland, and South America, pretty much all of it, throughout the 80s).
SElling back our shares in 2 huge banks would go a huge way to reducing the deficit.
e2a; These cuts are about ideology - Thatcherism, in fact - and not 'good housekeeping'


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> No.
> 
> Try reading the full article linked to in [URL="http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/332293-Cameron-s-economic-policies-will-kill-not-cure-look-what-s-happened-to-Ireland]this thread[/URL].


That's interesting. So basically:


> Joseph Stiglitz explains: “If you introduce austerity measures, the amount you can raise in tax falls, and welfare payments go up – so you don’t have enough money to pay your debts anyway.”



So what is the solution? If spending less doesn't work. Who do we owe money to, and why have we let ourselves get so much in debt? We've obviously been spending more money then we're making, so some degree of spending has gotta go or we'll keep getting more and more into debt.

Jesus, how can one of the richest countries in the world be in so much debt? How can our government have allowed that to happen?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

kaka tim - i agree there is a ideological bent to the coalition cuts. i also agree the cuts could be made in such a way as to make it easier
on the public. it's true the deficit can't be paid off through cuts alone, either the government will inflate it's way out of the problem or seek to 
raise the value of creditor nation's currencies in order to compete in the global market.

i read a few years ago, for a person worth £2m to enjoy the same standard of living they did in the late 90's they would need £6m today (circa 06/07).
which illustrates the rise in the cost of living and the inflation in the money supply with low interest rates. i make the point because everyone tries to 
make every political discussion (on here) an egalitarian one, when in truth everyone is affected in some way by government policy (albeit some more than others).

kaka would you rather the government kept spending levels as they are, borrow to meet those demands, pay the exorbitant rates on the sovereign 
debt through inflation and then go cap in hand to the IMF (a la james callaghan) and have them dictate our fiscal policy?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

This is why the crude charts graphs and 50 word articles on businessinsider are not at all helpful. It produces the above.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Royal Mail has had problems for years, a huge pensions defecit and failure to make a profit.


A pensions deficit massively exacerbated by the decision by RM management to take contributions holidays from the fund.
Oh, and "failure to make a profit"? May I suggest you actually read the annual balance sheets for Royal Mail for the last 20 years?


> It's the least profitable mail company out of all of it's western counterparts, Deutsche Post (Germany) and TNT (Netherlands) achieved profit margins of 13% and 15% from their mail operations.


When one compares apples and oranges, opne arrives at travesties of reality such as the one above. 


> Something needs to be done about it and Labour didn't solve this problem with their 13 years in power so perhaps the Coaliton will make a better go of it.


 
So, based on a "perhaps" that is rooted in your own incomprehension of reality, you're happy for a bunch of ideologically-motivated (those that aren't, like Clegg, motivated purely by proximity to power, anyway) goons to roll the dice on Royal Mail?

You cretin.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Kennedy, the King over the water, has managed to miss just about every single event after only two days...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> has it ever crossed your mind, some of these working families you mention, voted for the tories and the liberal democrats?
> 
> i talked about america because the opposite of cutting the deficit, is to increase it. the U.S. government is doing just that,
> throwing hundreds of billions into the economy in the vain hope it stimulates the various sectors into growth. it's not working as unofficial
> (real) unemployment figures in america is 22%.


You do realise that Keynesian stimulus needs to be long-term, not just a three year wonder? That it needs to exceed the length of the economic problem it is deployed against?
Foolish question. You obviously don't.
Perhaps you might reflect on what would have occurred in the last three years if so many nation-states *hadn't* supported their economies and launched economic stimulus packages.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> That's interesting. So basically:
> 
> 
> So what is the solution? If spending less doesn't work. Who do we owe money to, and why have we let ourselves get so much in debt? We've obviously been spending more money then we're making, so some degree of spending has gotta go or we'll keep getting more and more into debt.
> ...



Keynes vs Friedman.

Governments have to spend their way out of recession, but to pay for that they also have to tax the rich during the boom (Keynes). Governments hate taxing the rich (Friedman, and he who pays the piper).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Isn't the problem that the country is in massive debt. As in, we owe shit loads of money to other countries (China?).


Not really. That'd only be a problem if we were in as deep as the US is (and has been since the 1970s). We're not. 


> Also that, as individuals, we are all massively in debt- like mortgages 5x salaries, loads of hire purchase. We've borrowed loads of money to live our (comparatively) luxury western lifestyles and now we're fucked.


Ask yourself why that's the case.
it's because we've been sold those lifestyles by Capital, the media and the politicians. They make money *and* get to exercise a fairly insidious form of social control at the same time.


> Sorry for the lack of links, but that's my general understanding of why we have to cut Government spending by 25% in most departments. We have to pay back a big debt or we go bankrupt like Greece.


 
No, we don't, because our economy isn't constructed on the same foundations as Greece, and our credit rating isn't either (however much Standard and Poor might try to manipulate the lending market by making noises that imply otherwise).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> Keynes vs Friedman.
> 
> Governments have to spend their way out of recession, but to pay for that they also have to tax the rich during the boom (Keynes). Governments hate taxing the rich (Friedman, and he who pays the piper).


 
Of course, if we're looking at it from a "what works" viewpoint, you'd choose Keynesianism every time. over Friedmanite economics. Only the former has worked when applied to "real life" economies rather than simplistic models.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

What world do these grassroots lib-dems live in? It's not the real one:



> The first up is Richard Grayson, the vice-chair of the Lib Dem federal policy committee who is pushing for his party to make relationships with Labour while party managers execute their current coalition – he's not a fan of what Clegg et al are doing, and his is a name you'll come to hear more and more of.
> 
> For it to happen, Grayson says the following four things need to happen:
> 
> ...



I've not been in the labour party for 20 years but i'd spit in your fucking face if you attempted to 'make friends' - you'll need friends to stop you drowning soon enough. I'd rather throw you a sack of stones as would most people.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, if we're looking at it from a "what works" viewpoint, you'd choose Keynesianism every time. over Friedmanite economics. Only the former has worked when applied to "real life" economies rather than simplistic models.


 
Indeed. It's quite shocking how poor the dominant school of economics since the 1980s has been.

Another great article for Edie:



> Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems. More important was the profession’s blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy. During the golden years, financial economists came to believe that markets were inherently stable — indeed, that stocks  and other assets were always priced just right. There was nothing in the prevailing models suggesting the possibility of the kind of collapse that happened last year. Meanwhile, macroeconomists were divided in their views. But the main division was between those who insisted that free-market economies never go astray and those who believed that economies may stray now and then but that any major deviations from the path of prosperity could and would be corrected by the all-powerful Fed. Neither side was prepared to cope with an economy that went off the rails despite the Fed’s best efforts.
> 
> And in the wake of the crisis, the fault lines in the economics profession have yawned wider than ever. Lucas says the Obama administration’s stimulus plans are “schlock economics,” and his Chicago colleague John Cochrane says they’re based on discredited “fairy tales.” In response, Brad DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley, writes of the “intellectual collapse” of the Chicago School, and I myself have written that comments from Chicago economists are the product of a Dark Age of macroeconomics in which hard-won knowledge has been forgotten.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit. They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.

If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

TBF, Keynesianism only worked because of the pre-existing economic power of the countries that tried it at the time. As soon as the cheap oil and fixed exchange rates ran out, the whole thing fell apart.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit. They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.
> 
> If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.


 
Aye, these bastards are full of smoke and mirrors, and one of their tricks is to sell us all the idea that we have a deficit that needs repaying (panic panic), which means cuts to public services and a heavier burden on the poor. It's their hook; it is no different to the big lie about the pits being unprofitable - yet we now import vast amounts of coal! The truth is it is ideologically motivated. The cuts are bullshit.

Following WWII the UK's deficit was much, much higher as a proportion - yet the economy was boosted not by cuts but by spending, by creating the NHS and council housing and jobs; indeed, it was a period of huge investment in which swathes of Europe were rebuilt.


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Aye, these bastards are full of smoke and mirrors, and one of their tricks is to sell us all the idea that we have a deficit that needs repaying (panic panic), which means cuts to public services and a heavier burden on the poor. It's their hook; it is no different to the big lie about the pits being unprofitable - yet we now import vast amounts of coal! The truth is it is ideologically motivated. The cuts are bullshit.
> 
> Following WWII the UK's deficit was much, much higher as a proportion - yet the economy was boosted not by cuts but by spending, by creating the NHS and council housing and jobs; indeed, it was a period of huge investment in which swathes of Europe were rebuilt.


What is the variation in the deficit over, say, the last 100 years. Is the amount the deficit is now significantly more than the average amount it's gone up and down?

Does anyone know the answer to that? I'm trying to say, how should we know whether to be worried if we don't believe the government?


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit. They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.
> 
> If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. *And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.*


 
The deficit is not the problem. The deficit is a symptom.  The other option of course is to make more. How might we do that? Or put another way can you not see a connection between spending less and making less as a result?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You do realise that Keynesian stimulus needs to be long-term, not just a three year wonder? That it needs to exceed the length of the economic problem it is deployed against?
> Foolish question. You obviously don't.
> Perhaps you might reflect on what would have occurred in the last three years if so many nation-states *hadn't* supported their economies and launched economic stimulus packages.



i agree stimulus was needed but in america, financial institutions aren't the only beneficiaries. the whole economy is being propped up. 
for america to do this, it creates treasury bonds and gets friendly nations to buy them. when china sold £34.bn worth of US bonds earlier this year
japan intervened and started buying up the bonds. it's now the largest foreign holder of US treasuries. economically it makes no sense for japan to
do this, so we must assume they've been coerced. taiwan and south korea are also notably foreign t-bill holders.

what this all means is the uk isn't america. it can't run deficits of this magnitude in pertuity.

i've already mentioned this in another thread, though due to it's relevance i'll do so again, here. when the BoE dumps £200bn into the economy 
it does so with the provision the money will be taken out of the real economy (i.e. private and public sector).

you can't say "go" quantative easing and in the same breath say "no" to public sector cuts.

things don't work like that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> Indeed. It's quite shocking how poor the dominant school of economics since the 1980s has been.
> 
> Another great article for Edie:


 

Good article. 




			
				keynes said:
			
		

> “We have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time — perhaps for a long time.”



and here we are again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i agree stimulus was needed but in america, financial institutions aren't the only beneficiaries. the whole economy is being propped up.
> for america to do this, it creates treasury bonds and gets friendly nations to buy them. when china sold £34.bn worth of US bonds earlier this year
> japan intervened and started buying up the bonds. it's now the largest foreign holder of US treasuries. economically it makes no sense for japan to
> do this, so we must assume they've been coerced. taiwan and south korea are also notably foreign t-bill holders.
> ...


 
Roosevelt did.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i've already mentioned this in another thread, though due to it's relevance i'll do so again, here. when the BoE dumps £200bn into the economy
> it does so with the provision the money will be taken out of the real economy (i.e. private and public sector).



 No it doesn't  You're very very confused. It's the exact opposite.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit. They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.
> 
> If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.


Yeah. That's what the article I linked to says.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit. They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.
> 
> If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.


DP


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> What is the variation in the deficit over, say, the last 100 years. Is the amount the deficit is now significantly more than the average amount it's gone up and down?
> 
> Does anyone know the answer to that? I'm trying to say, how should we know whether to be worried if we don't believe the government?



one thing to remember is that britain is a safe debt. We pay back- christ we only finished paying off the yanks for a massive post war debt a few years ago. But they got every penny. We may not be an economic powerhouse anymore but the country is capable of borrowing in large amounts because it is known that the wealth is here and debts will be paid. We could borrow heavily and invest in our economy, a tactic proven to get things back on an even keel. But the ideology of tory governance is set on slash and burn- squeeze blood from a stone. Big state is anathema to the political class in charge. More and more new quango quashers are finding there isn't actually any savings to be made as we are operating on a shoestring anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

.


> Ex-cop [and union basher] Brian Paddick was quick to voice lavish support for Clegg at the rostrum yesterday, prompting thoughts that only modesty made him tell the BBC's Andrew Marr that other Lib Dem contenders for London mayor "could do a better job than I could".


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> What is the variation in the deficit over, say, the last 100 years. Is the amount the deficit is now significantly more than the average amount it's gone up and down?
> 
> Does anyone know the answer to that? I'm trying to say, how should we know whether to be worried if we don't believe the government?


 
The deficit is higher than in previous years. However, the point is it is manageable, and at far less cost for the vast majority of people than the cuts will be.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't  You're very very confused. It's the exact opposite.





the exact opposite of what i said would mean the private and public sector create wealth to the tune of £200bn and the government
saves it for times when the country needs it. 

this (as you can imagine) is a little hard to fathom, considering we aren't a creditor nation. neither do we have any gold reserves.
add to this a huge fiscal and national deficit and it's obvious the opposite isn't true.

trust you to say something stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

The BOE do expect the £200 billion  they've sold not to be disappeared from circulation. The whole point is that it circulates.  Contra your weird claim that they expect it to be taken out. You're a bit out of your depth here. And we're only paddling.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

How many claims have you this arse over tit now? Winter-heating allowance ring-fenced = wrong, BOE wants to operate a tight monetarist policy by printing money = wrong, others?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The BOE do expect the £200 billion  they've sold not to be disappeared from circulation. The whole point is that it circulates.  Contra your weird claim that they expect it to be taken out. You're a bit out of your depth here. And we're only paddling.



when the BoE uses QE, the funds created aren't sold through the money markets they're used to buy financial assets (such as treasuries, securities etc) from banks,
in the process giving them excess reserves. if this money found it's way into system it would eventually cause hyperinflation. the money is there to clear toxic
assets (sub prime, deriatives etc) from the bank's balance sheets.

you've misunderstood what i meant. the £200bn *isn't* taken out of the economy, public sector jobs and services are. meaning we as a nation consume less 
which fulfills the demand for commodities elsewhere in the world.

if i'm paddling, you're aquaphobic


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

No, you misunderstand your own argument, it appears. £200 bn is not taken out of 'the economy' at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> when the BoE uses QE, the funds created aren't sold through the money markets they're used to buy financial assets (such as treasuries, securities etc) from banks,
> in the process giving them excess reserves. if this money found it's way into system it would eventually cause hyperinflation. the money is there to clear toxic
> assets (sub prime, deriatives etc) from the bank's balance sheets.


 
Show me it being used in this manner.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How many claims have you this arse over tit now? Winter-heating allowance ring-fenced = wrong, BOE wants to operate a tight monetarist policy by printing money = wrong, others?



the winter heating fuel allowance was said to be ring fenced by the prime minister at PMQ's (there or at a public conference). you've got
to take his word for it til the spending review is published.

i never insinuated the BoE was operating a tight monetary policy. how could i do that when interest rates are at 0.5%.

you need to spend more time reading my post instead of reacting to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Did he? Show me?

That's the point, jumbo.


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> one thing to remember is that britain is a safe debt. We pay back- christ we only finished paying off the yanks for a massive post war debt a few years ago. But they got every penny. We may not be an economic powerhouse anymore but the country is capable of borrowing in large amounts because it is known that the wealth is here and debts will be paid. We could borrow heavily and invest in our economy, a tactic proven to get things back on an even keel. But the ideology of tory governance is set on slash and burn- squeeze blood from a stone. Big state is anathema to the political class in charge. More and more new quango quashers are finding there isn't actually any savings to be made as we are operating on a shoestring anyway.


I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> when the BoE uses QE, the funds created aren't sold through the money markets they're used to buy financial assets (such as treasuries, securities etc) from banks,
> in the process giving them excess reserves. if this money found it's way into system it would eventually cause hyperinflation. the money is there to clear toxic
> assets (sub prime, deriatives etc) from the bank's balance sheets.
> 
> ...


 
The BoE QE cash was explicitly meant to find it's way into the wider economy. Here's a handy pdf from the BoE explaining it for you Quantitative easing explained. Putting more money into our economy to boost spending


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?


 
We got rid of industry and based our capitalist economy around finance capital, is the short answer. Debt is a product, to be bought and sold.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Show me it being used in this manner.



google "quantative easing". wiki page has a good explanation.

you could also google "shadow banking system". alot of pages will return results for america, but there are a few international ones in there too.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

There's no bullshitter like an economics bullshitter.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?


 
Look at it this way:

You raise £100 p.a. in taxation. You spend £110 of that. In five years, you owe 50% more than your annual income (we're ignoring inflation in this example). 

What you're left with is having to cut your normal spending back by £10 every year, but also to pay back the £50 you've accumulated in debt. You can do this by either raising taxes to bring in £110 per year, diverting the extra £10 into paying down the debt OR you can choose to cut spending by £10 per year, meaning that of the £100 you get in tax take, you only spend £90 on services and divert £10 to paying the debt down. The Condemd have opted to pay the £50 back by raising the tax take to £105, while at the same time, decreasing spend to £75.

Why do we owe the money? Depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. What's for certain is that GB over-estimated the tax take consistently, allowed tax avoidance on a scale that would make a tory blush (via non-doms, allowing a giveaway merchant to run HMRC, cutting HMRC's budget so they can't employ people to chase down avoiders/evaders/late payers) and while this would have been difficult but not impossible to sort out, the laxly regulated City had a few issues and, rather than let the global financial system tank, GB chose to spend money he really didn't have on the Wreck, RBS and QE.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?



Because banks started collapsing and they used public money to buy some of them to keep them afloat. And that has created a debt that they want us to pay for again. With our fucking jobs and social conditions. While the bankers keep awarding themselves film-star bonuses. In brief.

Hey ho.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Look at it this way:
> 
> You raise £100 p.a. in taxation. You spend £110 of that. In five years, you owe 50% more than your annual income (we're ignoring inflation in this example).
> 
> ...


 
No, none of this rubbish that puts a national economy on a footing with a personal economy. There is no valid comparison whatsoever. None.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 20, 2010)

Is anyone else listening to Clegg's speech? It's possibly the worst political speech i've ever heard.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because banks started collapsing and they used public money to buy some of them to keep them afloat. And that has created a debt that they want us to pay for again. With our fucking jobs and social conditions. While the bankers keep awarding themselves film-star bonuses. In brief.
> 
> Hey ho.


 
The debt was already there - the banking crisis magnified an already-existing problem of overspending because Senor Darling had no more ££s to spend on propping up the banks. The banking debt is an issue, but the deficit was already there for the world to see prior to the banking mess.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2010)

All this it costs x amount to do this and y amount to do that household econimics stuff over-looks one crucial factor: labour.

It might be cheaper to have someone on the dole than working as a social worker but one is idle while the other is productive and their absense will have a knock-on effect to other elements of society. Watch acquisition crime sky rocket for starters.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, none of this rubbish that puts a national economy on a footing with a personal economy. There is no valid comparison whatsoever. None.


 
There is a valid comparison when you're using it for illustrative purposes. Simply - the govt spend more money than it was raising in taxes, did this over several years, and was left with a reasonably large chunk of debt when the banking crisis hit. On it's own the debt wouldn't have been that bad.

Altho I await with baited breath your own E-Z reader on how the national debt works.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The debt was already there - the banking crisis magnified an already-existing problem of overspending because Senor Darling had no more ££s to spend on propping up the banks. The banking debt is an issue, but the deficit was already there for the world to see prior to the banking mess.


 
Yeah, that's why I said "in brief" at the end.

It still doesn't alter the fact that the capitalist class are now socialising losses from the private sector while keeping profits private. They want their wealth protecting and any risk under-written by the working class.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

Well yeah, but that's what capitalists do.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?


Although it is nowhere near the same as household budgeting, government debt makes sense for exactly the same reasons a mortgage does. It allows capital spending when the lump sum is not immediately available. Most of this debt is held by the BOE, so we effectively owe it to ourselves, and pay ourselves interest. This is one of the huge con jobs on this deficit scare-mongering. We're not in the same situation as Greece, or even the US. Most of our debt is still held domestically, whereas they are owned by interests elsewhere.

The debt is suddenly a bigger perceived problem than it might be in a normal recession because it was triggered by a worldwide financial crisis. The bankers were earning bonuses on fake money - when the various bubbles burst the credit boom came to an end and we had to spend billions on boosting the economy to stop it dying altogether. Companies going under and people losing jobs means less tax paid in and more costly benefits paid out.

However, the debt is nowhere near as big a problem as ideologically-motivated types like to claim. They want to reduce the size of the state and this is their opportunity to do it with a bit of propaganda flannel. It has fuck all to do with economic recovery and everything to do with making us into a country with low wages, low welfare and a handful of billionaires living it up on the back of our labour.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The BoE QE cash was explicitly meant to find it's way into the wider economy. Here's a handy pdf from the BoE explaining it for you Quantitative easing explained. Putting more money into our economy to boost spending



2 questions. have you seen any of this £200bn (either in government spending or lax regulatory lending)?
is the government cutting public spending across the board?

if the answer is no and yes respectively, you may want to add a pinch of salt while reading that pdf.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 20, 2010)

The QE cash was supposed to go into freeing up the credit market, whereas it's mainly stayed with the banks to allow them an easy way to build up their capital bases.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

business insider strikes again!


----------



## yield (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> I think I just don't understand why we are in debt at all. We're a rich nation, why do we owe money at all?


 
Blagsta linked to a great youtube animation in the Explain the world's debt situation thread from last week.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> No offence ymu, but economics is blatantly a load of shit.


Just about everyone except economists will agree with you on that.


> They are completely unable to predict anything. They agree on nothing. You can support any argument you like with any number of economists. They don't know what they're fuckin on about.


Not quite true. Many of them know what they're talking about, especially when they're applying historical analysis rather than mathematical models. The problem lies in the fact that most modern economists accept Friedmanism as holy writ.


> If as a country we owe money, we need to repay it. And if we're spending more than we're making, then we need to spend less. It's not fuckin rocket science. These bastards are full of smoke and mirrors.


The argument(s) derive from how we repay, at what rate and for what reason(s), and as for spending less, as the old adage goes, sometimes you have to "speculate to accumulate", and that's what Keynesian economic stimulus is about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i agree stimulus was needed but in america, financial institutions aren't the only beneficiaries. the whole economy is being propped up.
> for america to do this, it creates treasury bonds and gets friendly nations to buy them. when china sold £34.bn worth of US bonds earlier this year
> japan intervened and started buying up the bonds. it's now the largest foreign holder of US treasuries. economically it makes no sense for japan to
> do this, so we must assume they've been coerced. taiwan and south korea are also notably foreign t-bill holders.
> ...


No-one is expecting the UK to. As you say, we're not the USA.
That doesn't, however, mean that we need to enact a policy of economic slash-and-burn off the back of a simplistic representation of "deficit=bad, deficit reduction=good", because there's a damn sight more "good" and "bad" in *how* the deficit is managed/reduced, than in it's reduction (or not) _per se_. Even a person as ignorant as an economist should be able to see that fairly clearly.


> i've already mentioned this in another thread, though due to it's relevance i'll do so again, here. when the BoE dumps £200bn into the economy
> it does so with the provision the money will be taken out of the real economy (i.e. private and public sector).


How so? When the BoE enacts quantitative easing it "creates" that money (with all the attendant economic pressures). It doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul.


> you can't say "go" quantative easing and in the same breath say "no" to public sector cuts.


You can. You merely require the wit to balance the needs of society and capital.


> things don't work like that.


Only if you hold a viewpoint based on market orthodoxies that are founded in an economic outlook (Friedmanism and it's Chicago School cheerleaders) that has never survived any kind of real-world "market testing".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's no bullshitter like an economics bullshitter.


 
To be fair, bullshitting is pretty much a necessity (alongside kowtowing to market orthodoxies) for many economics grads.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

VP - "How so? When the BoE enacts quantitative easing it "creates" that money (with all the attendant economic pressures). It doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul"

money has a relative value to a commodity. the commodity is the thing we work for, purchase and consume.
money is only the means by which we obtain the commodity.
with this in mind, if money is created outside of the existing system with no tangible asset backing it, it's deemed to have no value.
money can't create more of the goods and services it purchases, it can only alter the purchasing price.

a creditor nation doesn't want the money we create, it wants the commodities our money buys. the only achievable way of doing this
is making commodities in the domestic market available. cuts in public expenditure will ensure those goods aren't consumed as people lose their
jobs and with them their purchasing power.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> VP - "How so? When the BoE enacts quantitative easing it "creates" that money (with all the attendant economic pressures). It doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul"
> 
> money has a relative value to a commodity. the commodity is the thing we work for, purchase and consume.
> money is only the means by which we obtain the commodity.
> ...


The really weird thing is, in your last paragraph, you almost appear to get it. It's like you're regurgitating half understood snippets without ever having thought about their meaning.

QE on a Zimbabwean scale does not work. QE to keep the economy producing and consuming during a recession does.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> The really weird thing is, in your last paragraph, you almost appear to get it. It's like you're regurgitating half understood snippets without ever having thought about their meaning.
> 
> QE on a Zimbabwean scale does not work. QE to keep the economy producing and consuming during a recession does.



if i'm wrong, quote the piece that's wrong and tell me why it is.

don't insult the post and offer absolutely nothing in exchange.

i just explained butchers posting philosophy. do you two know each other?


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

No. butchers despises me. You're not very good at this reading comprehension lark, are you?

I posted a couple of articles earlier. Try reading them. Come back with an informed critique and you might get a more detailed response. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting lalala isn't going to win any arguments.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

only one of us is engaging in a discussion here. there's nothing wrong with post 1228, if there was you'd be all over it like a rash.

instead you're asking me to read some rubbish you posted earlier - not even bothering to offer a link.

say alot about your confidence in debating the points i raised.

oh well....


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

You have not engaged in any debate whatsoever! You have provided nothing to back up your assertions, ignored every attempt from many different posters to explain why your understanding of macroeconomics is horribly flawed, and your last response was the last ditch of the desperate - asking me about my links to someone else who is disagreeing with you.

You have offered only statements on this thread. You've been given plenty of information to work with - by many people - and yet you refuse to even look at it. There's no reason why anyone should put more effort into engaging with you when you're simply intent on insisting that black is white because that's what you thought you read somewhere once.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> only one of us is engaging in a discussion here.



Is it you?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

still no link.

**whistles** wonders if he'll state the reasons he opposes post 1228.

i can see no reason why it's wrong. i bet he can't either.

silly boy


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> only one of us is engaging in a discussion here. there's nothing wrong with post 1228, if there was you'd be all over it like a rash.
> 
> instead you're asking me to read some rubbish you posted earlier - not even bothering to offer a link.
> 
> ...


 
Everything is wrong with post 1228, it's a lot of shit. Money in the UK isn't backed by any tangible assets and hasn't been, arguably since the introduction of the token coinage in 1816. The currency of the UK is backed by the UK economy and confidence in it. This confidence in the UK is what marks the limit of QE before this hyperinflation you talk of results.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

> money has a relative value to a commodity. the commodity is the thing we work for, purchase and consume.



This is wrong for a kick off. It's utterly meaningless in relation to a commodity (you don't know what a commodity is). This will be very easy. What is the value of a commodity?


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> still no link.
> 
> **whistles** wonders if he'll state the reasons he opposes post 1228.
> 
> ...


It's she. And I already said that the last paragraph shows a glimmer of understanding - but it appears to be there by accident, given the context in which it appears.

The links you requested:



ymu said:


> No.
> 
> Try reading the full article linked to in Indeed. It's quite shocking how poor the dominant school of economics since the 1980s has been.
> 
> Another great article for Edie:


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th.../URL].[/QUOTE]
 
[QUOTE="ymu, post: 9045816


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Everything is wrong with post 1228, it's a lot of shit. Money in the UK isn't backed by any tangible assets and hasn't been, arguably since the introduction of the token coinage in 1816. The currency of the UK is backed by the UK economy and confidence in it. This confidence in the UK is what marks the limit of QE before this hyperinflation you talk of results.



confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.

chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's she. And I already said that the last paragraph shows a glimmer of understanding - but it appears to be there by accident, given the context in which it appears.
> 
> The links you requested:



another G.I.R.L. (guy in real life) i wrongly diagnosed.

the link won't open in my browser.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.
> 
> chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread.



You just lost. bye.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> another G.I.R.L. (guy in real life) i wrongly diagnosed.
> 
> the link won't open in my browser.


 
Yes it will.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.
> 
> chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread.


 
You're one thick fucker aren't you? Ignoring for one moment who Chris Rock is and why we shouldn't care what he has to say about economics you do understand that his statement slates the dollar and not the pound don't you? Of course you don't


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

oops


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.
> 
> chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread


 
Is that why they did it do you think?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> You're one thick fucker aren't you? Ignoring for one moment who Chris Rock is and why we shouldn't care what he has to say about economics you do understand that his statement slates the dollar and not the pound don't you? Of course you don't



it serves to illustrate the erosion of confidence in the dollar, once the currency leaves the U.S. a two tier agreement on the currency's value in relation to commodities.
it's relevant to the discussion about QE in the uk


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> another G.I.R.L. (guy in real life) i wrongly diagnosed.
> 
> the link won't open in my browser.


 
No. Girl in real life. You really need to get this reading thing down.

Links:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...kill-not-cure-look-what-s-happened-to-Ireland

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Mental. proper mental.


----------



## FreddyB (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> it serves to illustrate the erosion of confidence in the dollar, once the currency leaves the U.S. a two tier agreement on the currency's value in relation to commodities.
> it's relevant to the discussion about QE in the uk


 
Pathetic


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> a creditor nation doesn't want the money we create, it wants the commodities our money buys. the only achievable way of doing this
> is making commodities in the domestic market available. cuts in public expenditure will ensure those goods aren't consumed as people lose their
> jobs and with them their purchasing power.


 
WTF?

Its not just commodities that they may want to spend our currency on. Other goods and services may be just as desirable.

The creditor nation may be exporting commodities and other stuff to to us, and imports make up a good deal of the domestic consumption that you are calling on us to reduce. If we import less, it will help our balance of trade but it damages the country that is relying on us as a market.

Likewise, if we manufactured, mined etc more stuff that other people wanted to buy, they would have more use for our currency. Not sure why you'd need to slash the public sector etc to achieve that.

As for commodities, our North Sea oil production has dropped massively in a decade and we now have a lot less of it to export. Probably little that can be done about that, and cutting stuff doesnt make enough difference. Yes there are all sorts of scenarios where we could be priced out of the market for a commodity, leaving more available in the global market for others to buy, but I dont think we are quite at that stage yet.

I disagree with any posters who think there arent a load of really big problems of epic proportions that require us to change a lot, yes there is extreme ideology at work here, and making the most of opportunities, but there is other stuff going on too. The problem is that underlying fundamental issues are totally overshadowed by the numerous injustices and general lack of fairness. Imagine for a moment that its not just a load of fiscal shenanigans, and that resource constrains mean we have to massively change our lives and our expectations. Well, there is no chance of doing that in a way that most will go along with when the burden is placed so unfairly upon certain people, whilst others spend their energies in shoring up their own position and wealth, and we are denied detailed information and debates about the underlying realities. 

I think it can be hard to ascertain this nations true wealth. In some ways we are well developed and wealthy, in others we are poor and the dodgy systems whose partial-failure and near collapse we may celebrate, were also responsible for allowing us to pretend to be better off than we ought to be. We've still got some potential, but we have to go in a direction quite different to the one e have been travelling in for 30ish years, and this involves the loss of some of the perks that went with the horror. 

What is entirely missing at this stage, is the idea that if we must suffer and sacrifice in some way, we should get something in return. And I dont mean that all we get is a lecture in how to be responsible with our own finances from people who were deeply irresponsible with the nations finances. I mean fundamental rights. But right now, before we can get to the stage , we are being stripped of many of the basic rights that were hard won in the past. If they get away with this now, I dont think they will get away with it forever. For if we are to become poorer as a nation, if there is less to go around, then it must be shared more evenly, not less.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's
> nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.
> 
> these people could rent, and those with families will get properties to live in if they can't afford rental deposits. it's not as though people are being thrown onto the streets.


 
Its horseshit to say that most people knew they couldnt afford the repayments.

And who sold people on the great dream of home ownership anyway? You cant blame people if they had it hammered into their head for decades that home ownership is what they should aim for, with shitty experiences with landlords reinforcing it, along with the powerful idea that increasing property prices in this country offered a way for many people to substantially increase their personal wealth, perhaps the only true investment theyd ever make. And then they were offered a way to achieve this dream via what seemed like great offers, not knowing quite how exploitative, sloppy and reckless the lenders were being.

Well its mostly over now anyway, the great mass home ownership dream isnt quite dead yet but theres a pretty good chance it will wither in a way not seen here in recent times. Think even the condems are looking at ending the 'buy your council house' stuff.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> [...] who Chris Rock is [...]



He's a stand up comedian.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> No. Girl in real life. You really need to get this reading thing down.
> 
> Links:
> 
> ...


 
the disconnect with reality on u75, is so strong you could have testicles and a penis and i'm sure you could convince posters you're a girl. anyway..

funny you should use a nytimes article as i found this by them

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/business/worldbusiness/01irish.html

in it they describe ireland as the wild west of european finance. note this was written in 05, well before the crash.
is it really surprising an economy built in the way ireland's has been, has suffered a crash of their magnitude? receive grants from europe,
entice financial institutions with lax regulatory practices and tax them a pittance to boot. oh.. i forgot, they had a property bubble similar to ours.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Absolutely. Did you not read the article which points out that Ireland instituted its savage cuts 2 years ago, and are the first to be downgraded by Moody's? Or did you just not understand it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

He just does bizzzre googles. There's no content.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu - if you were a million euros in debt and you decided to cut back on food shopping for 2 years, would you expect the debt to be paid?

this is the magnitude of the problems facing ireland today.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 20, 2010)




----------



## fractionMan (Sep 20, 2010)

he's just a shit troll this one.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

elbows said:


> Its horseshit to say that most people knew they couldnt afford the repayments.
> 
> And who sold people on the great dream of home ownership anyway? You cant blame people if they had it hammered into their head for decades that home ownership is what they should aim for, with shitty experiences with landlords reinforcing it, along with the powerful idea that increasing property prices in this country offered a way for many people to substantially increase their personal wealth, perhaps the only true investment theyd ever make. And then they were offered a way to achieve this dream via what seemed like great offers, not knowing quite how exploitative, sloppy and reckless the lenders were being.
> 
> Well its mostly over now anyway, the great mass home ownership dream isnt quite dead yet but theres a pretty good chance it will wither in a way not seen here in recent times. Think even the condems are looking at ending the 'buy your council house' stuff.



how can you absolve reckless, greedy individuals of any responsiblity, for purchasing property they knew full well they had no right buying.

p.s. haven't we been here before with the housing crash of 87. surely we know by now these dreams come at a cost


----------



## Edie (Sep 20, 2010)

Thanks a lot for your replies on the why we're in debt question. Seems to be cos we stopped making stuff and turned into a finance economy (I don't really understand why this would lead to us as a nation owing more, did we buy other countries debts because we believe long term they will be repayed. Or something ), we've over spent and then it was all made worse by bailing out the banks. Is that fair?

Whatever the reason, it seems most people agree there is a debt and _something_ needs to be done.

kyser showed that we can either cut spending or tax more or a mix. Other people seem to think that by investing a lot more (borrowed) money into the economy, we create jobs... make more money... then can tax people more... then pay off more debt. (this is called Keynesian stimulus).

So.. it seems that the last option is best for most people if it works cos there is less unemployment, less poverty, less people being made homeless. But it also seems like the most risk. What evidence is there that borrowing more to invest will work? If it doesn't I guess we're doubly fucked.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> how can you absolve reckless, greedy individuals of any responsiblity, for purchasing property they knew full well they had no right buying.
> 
> p.s. haven't we been here before with the housing crash of 87. surely we know by now these dreams come at a cost



No right buying?  What does that mean?  What rights are you referring to?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 20, 2010)

council property, I guess


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Thanks a lot for your replies on the why we're in debt question. Seems to be cos we stopped making stuff and turned into a finance economy (I don't really understand why this would lead to us as a nation owing more, did we buy other countries debts because we believe long term they will be repayed. Or something ), we've over spent and then it was all made worse by bailing out the banks. Is that fair?
> 
> Whatever the reason, it seems most people agree there is a debt and _something_ needs to be done.
> 
> ...


 
New Deal & WWII


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 20, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No right buying?  What does that mean?  What rights are you referring to?


 


frogwoman said:


> council property, I guess


 
Nah, he just means people over-extending on mortgages, the twat


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Thanks a lot for your replies on the why we're in debt question. Seems to be cos we stopped making stuff and turned into a finance economy (I don't really understand why this would lead to us as a nation owing more, did we buy other countries debts because we believe long term they will be repayed. Or something ), we've over spent and then it was all made worse by bailing out the banks. Is that fair?
> 
> Whatever the reason, it seems most people agree there is a debt and _something_ needs to be done.
> 
> ...



The evidence would be history.  FDR's New Deal etc.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> So.. it seems that the last option is best for most people if it works cos there is less unemployment, less poverty, less people being made homeless. But it also seems like the most risk. What evidence is there that borrowing more to invest will work? If it doesn't I guess we're doubly fucked.


 
*The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. - *John Maynard Keynes

that's why the option 'best for most people' is more viable.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> ymu - if you were a million euros in debt and you decided to cut back on food shopping for 2 years, would you expect the debt to be paid?


 
That depends how many people I'm feeding, and how much I cut back. If I'm depending on them to go out to work to bring in an income, then starving them so that they are too ill to work isn't sensible.

You can't think about government economies as if they were households - they're not. Their income depends on tax, which depends on people in work and spending money in the businesses which employ people who spend money. I spent a considerable proportion of the 1990s living on almost nothing. Free bones from the butcher to make soup with pearl barley, emptying pub ashtrays to reconstitute the butts later on. That was about it for luxuries. Now, if every single person in the country did that, every shop and manufacturer would be fucked (and there would be no butchers to get free bones off).

Now, have you read anything about Keynes vs Friedman yet, or are you still going to insist that you can work all this out from first principles on a fucking bulletin board?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> (and there would be no butchers to get free bones off).


 
(((butchers)))


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2010)

Edie said:


> Thanks a lot for your replies on the why we're in debt question. Seems to be cos we stopped making stuff and turned into a finance economy (I don't really understand why this would lead to us as a nation owing more, did we buy other countries debts because we believe long term they will be repayed. Or something ), we've over spent and then it was all made worse by bailing out the banks. Is that fair?
> 
> Whatever the reason, it seems most people agree there is a debt and _something_ needs to be done.


 
Us having debt isnt new, and present debt levels are not at insane highs compared to some other periods in our history.

One of the big reasons the debt is now seen as a problem that must be tackled, is not the level of debt in itself, but that the cost of being in debt and the availability of credit is changing. The credit crunch & associated knock-on effects means that the potential for the debt becoming harder and harder to service (gets more expensive to repay) increases, which coupled with a general decline in the economy causes some wailing and fears for the future. I think much of this is due to changing expectations for how much wealth we will be able to create in future, and when I say we I mean the world, or at the very least the developed world. Once sentiment on these matters goes bad, as it did a few years ago, it can be hard to get out of the downward spiral. Leaving issues of fairness aside, one of the big fears is that the cuts will affect the wider economy, further reducing our ability to service debt, and making our position worse not better, all the pain for no gain.

We havent stopped making stuff, but we have reduced certain key industries in a way that affected our exports, leading to trade deficits that dont exactly help matters. The financial service sector, and other services, are supposed to plug the gap but even when they were booming it was not enough to balance trade with the rest of the world properly. Im not sure whether the finance sector made our debts worse during the good times or not, the main reason they put us in peril now is because they are so exposed to all the financial woe going on around the world, although some still seem to be making a tidy profit. For this and other reasons Im not convinced we will easily find out how much the bank bailout has really cost us, there are so many other things going on that it maybe hard to separate the costs of that from all the other stuff thats costing us.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> That depends how many people I'm feeding, and how much I cut back. If I'm depending on them to go out to work to bring in an income, then starving them so that they are too ill to work isn't sensible.
> 
> You can't think about government economies as if they were households - they're not. Their income depends on tax, which depends on people in work and spending money in the businesses which employ people who spend money. I spent a considerable proportion of the 1990s living on almost nothing. Free bones from the butcher to make soup with pearl barley, emptying pub ashtrays to reconstitute the butts later on. That was about it for luxuries. Now, if every single person in the country did that, every shop and manufacturer would be fucked (and there would be no butchers to get free bones off).
> 
> Now, have you read anything about Keynes vs Friedman yet, or are you still going to insist that you can work all this out from first principles on a fucking bulletin board?



for the purposes of the question i posed, you're feeding yourself. it's implied.

a poster has already stated the idiocy of monetary policy; BoE - government - people - tax. bank of england creates the money, loans it to the
government, government distributes it to the populace, populace pays tax on income. a perpetual cycle of debt which can never be paid.
obviously the debt we're discussing is between countries.

keynes - spend spend spend. friedman - there's a correlation between price inflation and money supply (no shit sherlock).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

Nutter


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> for the purposes of the question i posed, you're feeding yourself. it's implied.
> 
> a poster has already stated the idiocy of monetary policy; BoE - government - people - tax. bank of england creates the money, loans it to the
> government, government distributes it to the populace, populace pays tax on income. a perpetual cycle of debt which can never be paid.
> ...


 
So you've not read anything about Keynes then. How shocked I am.

Keynesian economics is about government spending to prop up the economy in a recession and building up a surplus during the boom. It is about smoothing out the economic cycles. You cannot use Keynes in a recession and Friedman in a boom.

And you definitely cannot use Friedman in a recession. It's murderously stupid. Literally.

Friedman came along after the 1929 crash, but he only really put a monetarist layer on the free market ethos that existed pre-1929. Keynes came into prominence in the 1930s, and was abandoned for Friedman in the Reaganomics revolution in influential parts of the west in the 1980s. Now, look at this graph and say what you see:


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

ymu said:


> So you've not read anything about Keynes then. How shocked I am.
> 
> Keynesian economics is about government spending to prop up the economy in a recession and building up a surplus during the boom. It is about smoothing out the economic cycles. You cannot use Keynes in a recession and Friedman in a boom.
> 
> ...



tell me ymu, what does keynes have to say about booming economies funded with debt, like the uk, ireland and america.
should a surplus be collected from the debt used to run the economy?

the political elements to an economy is often overlooked by these theories. 

reaganomic = deficit spending.


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

Tax breaks for the rich in a boom is a massive error, yes. As is masking falls in real incomes with cheap credit in order that the rich can siphon even more out of the economy. What the fuck do you think Keynes would say?  Oh yeah - you've not actually read anything at all. You're just making it up as you go along.

Now, any chance of an answer to my questions because all you're doing is spouting ill-informed factoids and heavily discredited dogma. If all you want to do is use this thread as a platform for your ideas, fine - just don't go asking people to answer your questions when you have no intention of answering theirs.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 20, 2010)

the graph says in times of recession, income equality is at it's most pronounced. question, answered.

ymu, you can't say go off and read several tomes by keynes and friedman and expect it to be done.
you set yourself up as someone who knows about the economic theories of these two economist. why shouldn't i, for
expediency sake, tap your vast reservoir of knowledge on the subject 

the question i posed is partly rhetorical, because logically, it makes no sense to collect surplus funds from a debt fuelled boom.

economic theories can suggest all they want, as all i'm interested in, is economic reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2010)

So that chart wins. Fuck off and come back with a better one. That one stands.
Also, you're a nutjuob. Off you fuck


----------



## ymu (Sep 20, 2010)

What would the graph look like if you extended it to 2008 and beyond? We've had dozens of recessions in that period, but only two serious crashes. When did they happen, in relation to income inequality, and what does this tell you about free-market economics?

I didn't say read a couple of tomes, I asked you to read a couple of articles. You demanded the links again (they were a whole page earlier in the thread) and I gave them to you again. I can't read them for you too. Sorry.

The debt-fuelled boom was only debt-fuelled because the rich got the tax cuts they wanted (why the fuck do you think we've been cutting staff at HMRC when they're the only workers in the public sector who make a massive profit?), and wages were allowed to grow at far less than any measure of inflation. For the avoidance of riots, this had to be masked by cheap credit and and sucking people into home ownership when it was a risk they could not afford. Rockefeller is said to have sold his stocks pre-1929 when he heard an elevator boy boasting about his own portfolio - he realised that if the stock market needed the savings of small investors to support prices, it was about to go boom. Plus the subversion of sexual equality to mean both partners in work, instead of just one, so we all get to work more but our joint incomes are barely worth more than a single income was in the 1970s, in terms of the quality of roof over our heads and food on the table.

In the 1970s wages as a share of national income was around 60% or more. Now they're down to just 53%. Anyone earning less than £120k or so (currently) saw their incomes drop or stay the same in relation to productivity, whilst the super-rich, who pay fuck all tax, pocketed the boom-time cash.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 21, 2010)

free market economics. is there a greater misnomer. the markets are neither free nor fair. in america you have the plunge protect team
ready to intervene if the dollar falls too rapidly. the 1000 point drop in dow industrial average and it's remedy, high frequency trading and a host
of other tools that prove the markets are fixed.

homes are one of the few assets the bank has complete control over. they finance the purchase, the interest rate and ultimately, create the 
conditions in which repossessions occur.

cheap credit was brought about by low interests rates in america, which lead to low inter bank lending rates. with so much credit in the system
lending to anyone who wanted a mortgage became normal practice. what do wages (in relation to inflation) matter, when you can get a 100% mortgage.
who would riot in paradise?

the rest of your post is about egalitarianism. while a good ideology it's something which won't happen in a capitalist society. another fallacy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 21, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> free market economics. is there a greater misnomer. the markets are neither free nor fair. in america you have the plunge protect team
> ready to intervene if the dollar falls too rapidly. the 1000 point drop in dow industrial average and it's remedy, high frequency trading and a host
> of other tools that prove the markets are fixed.
> 
> ...


 
Are you a bit simple?


----------



## ymu (Sep 21, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> the rest of your post is about egalitarianism. while a good ideology it's something which won't happen in a capitalist society. another fallacy.


No. You're wrong on a number of counts there:

1. Inequality is not a yes/no characteristic. You have to talk about _levels_ of inequality, not just a simplistic presence or absence of it. 

2. The graph shown in the earlier post which I referred to shows the _pattern_ of income inequality over the last century. If you look at the dates, the pattern as it relates to instances of global economic meltdown is quite interesting.

3. You seem to assume I _want_ to live in a capitalist society. What on earth gave you that idea? 

Apart from the obvious bit (yes, 'free market' should be in scare quotes), I can't understand what much of the rest of your post is trying to say, so forgive me if the rest of this is irrelevant. 

It was not so much cheap credit as easy credit, which of course brings the price of credit down. The banks were competing with each other for more and more business, tapping the 'subprime' market and paying off the ratings agencies to mark these loans up as sound lending decisions so they could sell the losses on to some other suckers in a huge game of toxic pass the parcel - hedge funds were betting against their own advice to their clients (the less wealthy ones, of course). The boom in home ownership in the UK and US put a lot of people's savings onto the stock market via their mortgages (with the rest dragged in by PEPs and ISAs and "tell Sid"). And all the while the irresponsible lending practices were fuelling an obvious housing bubble for speculators to bet on, that has yet to wreak the worst of its havoc on the people who live in those houses when the bubble really does burst.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

What's the lib-dem finances like - anyone know?


----------



## Santino (Sep 21, 2010)

Will someone PLEASE call a leading member of the Lib Dems a cunt?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

Teather you freaky cunt!


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 21, 2010)

ymu - you once question why i'm still on this thread, and believe me i've asked myself the same question.
but i think i've boiled it down your disagreeing with my assertions about QE and the lose of commodities in a domestic market,
despite the empirical and circumstantial (and indeed physical) evidence to support my claim.

i fully accept you could be on here for shits and giggles and that's fine, but it would be nice to have some coherent narrative
on why you feel i'm wrong.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 21, 2010)

http://www.libdemvoice.org/official...e-election-and-coalition-agreement-20301.html

liberal democrat membership increasing.

sorry if this has already been posted.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

Yes it's genius, they're cutting their ties with the only social bloc they had (upwardly mobile public sector managers) and becoming a regional class parasiste (south-east private sector managers) on the tories. Fantastic.


----------



## ymu (Sep 21, 2010)

Yeah, good trolling. Now, do fuck off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 21, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> http://www.libdemvoice.org/official...e-election-and-coalition-agreement-20301.html
> 
> liberal democrat membership increasing.
> 
> sorry if this has already been posted.


 
450 resignations my arse.

Let's see their figures when the annual DD's & SO's are called for.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 21, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> keynes - spend spend spend.


how in the name of god can you reduce keynesianism to a formula as simple as THAT?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 21, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> how in the name of god can you reduce keynesianism to a formula as simple as THAT?


 
Ignorance


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2010)

can we cunt off this dickhead and go back to insulting the liberal vermin?


----------



## Santino (Sep 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> 450 resignations my arse.
> 
> Let's see their figures when the annual DD's & SO's are called for.



What are the chances that when the time comes to renew subs there's a delay 'in order to handle new membership'. Say, about two or three months so that the real membership figures get buried on a busy news day.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 21, 2010)

Santino said:


> What are the chances that when the time comes to renew subs there's a delay 'in order to handle new membership'. Say, about two or three months so that the real membership figures get buried on a busy news day.


 
Almost guaranteed


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2010)

killer b said:


> can we cunt off this dickhead and go back to insulting the liberal vermin?


 
which one?


----------



## Edie (Sep 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...you're a nutjuob. Off you fuck


 


Proper Tidy said:


> Are you a bit simple?


 


ymu said:


> Yeah, good trolling. Now, do fuck off.


 


Proper Tidy said:


> Ignorance


_Really_? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 21, 2010)

Edie said:


> _Really_? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.


 
No, he's a loon in a cult


----------



## ymu (Sep 21, 2010)

Edie said:


> _Really_? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.


No, it's not just that I disagree with him. What he's stating is largely half understood propaganda messages, which he hasn't backed up with any kind of source. He's repeatedly mis-stating the theories and concepts he's using, and simply repeating them again when someone points out his error. He's changing the subject rather than answering direct questions put to him, demanding links that have already been posted and then making it obvious he hadn't read them, and then claiming that I'm actually asking him to read all of Keynes and Friedman's work and not just a couple of thought-provoking articles. He may be the world's laziest idiot, but he's most likely trolling.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

Alan McGee - lib dem.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Alan McGee - lib dem.


 
Preferred him when he got kicked out of the Labour party for running Malcolm McLaren's campaign against Livingstone. Ah well, never trust a hun.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 21, 2010)

FT's comment on Clegg's speech:



> Mr Clegg offered the usual simplistic nonsense of comparing a governmental deficit with household debt. He lumped tax "avoiders" and "evaders" into the same sentence, which is pretty stupid ("Doesn't he have an Isa then?" muttered my neighbour). And he has picked up his new colleague Michael Gove's mad mantra about setting headteachers free to do what they like. This is meant to be a party opposed to untrammelled dictatorship



Also, it looks like the LibDem activists have voted for a boycott of the free school reform, stating that the reform encourages "social divisiveness" and "increasing the amount of discrimination on religious grounds in pupil admissions". But! 



> Sarah Teather, Lib Dem minister in the education department, defended the policy, attacking the motion as "illiberal" and appealing to delegates not to "tie our councillors' hands" by encouraging them to boycott free schools. The margin of the victory is a signal of grassroots discontent.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 21, 2010)

Just came across Shirley Williams' brilliantly incoherent justification for supporting the coalition



> In the end, two things persuaded me. For the whole month of April, I travelled from the top to bottom of England, Newcastle to Penzance and Land's End. I didn't just do meetings. I spoke to thousands of people on the streets and pavements. What I got from them was a very strong sense of outrage about MPs' expenses, disproportionate outrage really because the level of anger was even greater than the level of misbehaviour. Some of these were a shock to the core. Some things were almost ludicrously exaggerated like the issue of the rocking chair, or the dolphin or whatever. It was very silly of the MP but not wicked. There were wicked things like the switching around of one's house to get capital gains. I was quite surprised by the fury of the public which was very, very powerful. I was exempted by being a "national treasure". I say that in quotation marks. The second thing was this very intense sense of a plague on all your houses, a 'we don't want any of you in government'. The Liberal Democrats were not so morally accused as the two [bigger] parties, but there was a sense that you're all up to it, you're evil. Therefore, when the electorate voted in fairly substantial numbers, it was an improvement on earlier elections, not a drop. What you got was this very strong feeling that we're going to give you another chance. We're going to stick to the mainstream parties. There wasn't a huge upsurge for UKIP or the Greens. What they wanted was, I think, the parties to work together. I don't think they worried explicitly about which parties they wanted to work together but they wanted to see politicians working together.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

That _is_ mental. Fuck the dolphin.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

She thinks a vote was a vote for any of them. If you voted labour then fuck you, you really meant lib-dem. If you voted tory then fuck you, you meant lib-dem.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2010)

> In the end, two things persuaded me. *For the whole month of April, I travelled from the top to bottom of England,* Newcastle to Penzance and Land's End. I didn't just do meetings. I spoke to thousands of people on the streets and pavements. What I got from them was a very strong sense of outrage about MPs' expenses, disproportionate outrage really because the level of anger was even greater than the level of misbehaviour. Some of these were a shock to the core. Some things were almost ludicrously exaggerated like the issue of the rocking chair, or the dolphin or whatever. It was very silly of the MP but not wicked. There were wicked things like the switching around of one's house to get capital gains. I was quite surprised by  the *fury* of the public which was very, very powerful. I was exempted by being a _"national treasure". _I say that in quotation marks. The second thing was this very intense sense of a plague on all your houses, a *'we don't want any of you *in government'. *The Liberal Democrats were not so morally accused as the two [bigger] parties, but there was a sense that you're all up to it, you're evil. *Therefore, when the electorate voted in fairly substantial numbers, it was an improvement on earlier elections, not a drop. What you got was this very strong feeling that we're going to give you another chance. We're going to stick to the mainstream parties. There wasn't a huge upsurge for UKIP or the Greens. What they wanted was, I think, the parties to work together. I don't think they worried explicitly about which parties they wanted to work together but they wanted to see_ politicians working together._



fixed it for you


----------



## little_legs (Sep 22, 2010)

combustible found this garbage on Iain Dale's blog, that fucking LBC commentator who will swim naked in the sea of glass to suck cameron's dick. a truly wonderful find, combustible.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

If she thinks the dolphin was exaggerated she ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

> Vince Cable will tomorrow launch an aggressive attack on capitalism with a speech that warns that the current system "takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can". In an echo of Denis Healey's famous 1974 pledge to "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak", Cable will unveil plans to shine a "harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour".



He is here to help.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

Lib-dems play left, their mug supporters lap it up. No one else buys it. 

Pint in the head of steam.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

Crucified lib-dem, tattoo. pic please..


----------



## Open Sauce (Sep 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> we do NOT need cuts on anything like the scale needed, and the proposed cuts may make things worse by triggering a second recession which further limits the UK's ability to cut the deficit (See; Ireland, and South America, pretty much all of it, throughout the 80s).
> *SElling back our shares in 2 huge banks would go a huge way to reducing the deficit.*
> e2a; These cuts are about ideology - Thatcherism, in fact - and not 'good housekeeping'


 
The Tories have already talked about privatising these at a discount. So rather then the country as a whole benefiting from any profit (and there will be profit), it is going to be used for gerrymandering again, this has the added benefit or making the middle class owners of banks, therefore more likely to oppose any legislation stifling their activities. The libdems have not yet signed up to this, but they don't need to, it is trick to play nearer the next election.


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

Edie said:


> _Really_? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.


 
Just to come back on this more formally, now that I can be arsed. Edie, you don't need to take our word for it that he's got it wrong. The IMF and OECD both say he's got it wrong - and neither of these are even centre-right, let alone left; they're full on neo-liberal, economically far-right.



> The International Monetary Fund today provided a boost for Labour's campaign strategy when it warned rich western countries that their economies were too weak for spending cuts, tax increases or higher interest rates.
> 
> In its influential World Economic Outlook, the IMF said the recovery in global growth over the past year had relied on "highly accommodative" policies and there was a risk of a relapse.
> 
> ...





> Growth is weakening in the world's rich economies, and further monetary stimulus might be needed in the form of quantitative easing and commitment to close-to-zero interest rates if the slowdown proves more than momentary, the OECD said. Plans to bring looming budget deficits under control through public spending cuts and tax rises "could be delayed".
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/09/oecd-cuts-global-economic-growth-forecasts



Oh, and the comparisons of an economy with a domestic household? Nonsense according to informed non-propaganda spouting journalists across the mainstream political spectrum, from the Guardian to the FT.



> Elsewhere, Mr Clegg offered the usual simplistic nonsense of comparing a governmental deficit with household debt.
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f832eff8-c4f0-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss





> He reached for that disreputable old populist fallacy, comparing the national economy with a household budget: how can you spend more than your income?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/clegg-talks-pure-cameronomics



It's not just nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. Useful for propaganda purposes, hopeless for actually running an economy - even if you _want_ the economy to have small government and as much income inequality as possible. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of ending the stimulus (the OECD) has stepped back sharply now that the effects of the first round of cuts are having their (highly predictable) impact. It will be an absolute fucking disaster if the coalition don't act on this and go ahead with the ideologically-driven agenda anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2010)

The news is saying Cable is going to criticize capitalism. I look forward to his intense and cogent marxist analysis of the current mode of capitalism...

A tenner says he wags a finger at the naughty bankers and thats it.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 22, 2010)

heres what the guardian really think about the IMF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/28/useconomy-imf

"can we trust the IMF?" it asks. lol


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> heres what the guardian really think about the IMF:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/28/useconomy-imf
> 
> "can we trust the IMF?" it asks. lol


Well, that's the point. They're amongst the most untrustworthy neo-liberal arseholes out there, responsible for ruining many an economy with their privatise-everything mantra. If even the IMF (and OECD, now) are saying cuts to the extent proposed by the coalition are a shit idea right now, you can bet your bottom dollar they really are a shit idea.

It's interesting that you chose to post that article in an (ill-judged) defence of your position, when it is fundamentally opposed to your position. 



> There are alternatives. Central banks like the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve Board could just buy and hold large amounts of government debt. These central banks can both ensure that there are no questions of solvency by providing a ready market for government debt and that there is no build-up of interest burdens. The interest paid on the debt held by the banks is refunded to governments.
> 
> Large-scale central bank purchases of government debt will not create inflation in a context of massive unemployment and excess capacity. This is not a point we have to debate. Japan's central bank has bought an amount of government debt roughly equal to its GDP, yet it remains far more concerned about deflation than inflation. While we could hope to do better on the stimulus front than Japan, inflation is simply not a problem it faces now or even on the distant horizon.


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

.


----------



## Santino (Sep 22, 2010)

What is Cable up to? A feint to the left to keep the dissidents down? Positioning himself to split/defect?


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 22, 2010)

ymu said:


> Well, that's the point. They're amongst the most untrustworthy neo-liberal arseholes out there, responsible for ruining many an economy with their privatise-everything mantra. If even the IMF (and OECD, now) are saying cuts to the extent proposed by the coalition are a shit idea right now, you can bet your bottom dollar they really are a shit idea.
> 
> It's interesting that you chose to post that article in an (ill-judged) defence of your position, when it is fundamentally opposed to your position.



you used a IMF statement in a guardian article, to support your position, yet when presented with a guardian article discrediting the IMF you backtrack
and agree the IMF isn't trustworthy. what is it to be? can we assume the IMF was right on deficit spending in your post of 1311 and thoroughly unscrupulous
in the quoted post? or should we accept your talking out your arse (yet again) and move on.

p.s. i didn't post the link to agree with "my position" as my position should stand free of any particular biase.
but since you highlight it, it's funny how japan's unemployment rate has soared to 4.4%
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-unemployment-soars-to-44-in-december
having brought up all that government debt. note the article mentions "seasonally adjusted" figures. this is code for 'we are cooking the numbers'. birth\death ratios,
temporary christmas jobs etc etc. expect the real figures to be much higher.

you see even the guardian gets it wrong occasionally, but that's what happens when you pursue the reality you want and ignore the reality which is there


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

No. I used the IMF statement to show that even the rightiest of the right, and not just the leftiest of the left (not me, btw) know that your arguments are cack. I have never ever said the IMF are anything but neoliberal arseholes in my entire life! You may google search my posts on here to prove it if you like (you won't be able to use the urban search function because of the tremendously irritating 4 letters or more restriction).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

Desperate Cable - got the go ahead from Cameron and Clegg. Just how insulting to their members can they be? Do they really think that little of them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> you see even the guardian gets it wrong occasionally, but that's what happens when you pursue the reality you want and ignore the reality which is there


you seem quite capable of ignoring reality


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 22, 2010)

ymu said:


> No. I used the IMF statement to show that even *the rightiest of the right, and not just the leftiest of the left (not me, btw) know that your arguments are cack*. I have never ever said the IMF are anything but neoliberal arseholes in my entire life! You may google search my posts on here to prove it if you like (you won't be able to use the urban search function because of the tremendously irritating 4 letters or more restriction).



this is only true if we assume the IMF doesn't have a vested interest in the uk's continued deficit spending. the IMF is the lender of last resort and if and when 
the uk goes to the IMF, they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.

p.s. if you can *agree* the right and left can both be proved right about a particular point of order. what say you, to the conservatives, labour and the liberal democrats
agreeing to spending cuts?

labour has already stated they would've implemented tory style cuts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2010)

abour aren't left wing though, are they? I mean only idiots hold any illusions to that idea anymore. Centrists, all the way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.


 yeh cos cuts are obviously stimulus spending.

oh - and points of order arise during meetings, and are meaningless outside that context


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Desperate Cable - got the go ahead from Cameron and Clegg. Just how insulting to their members can they be? Do they really think that little of them?


 
I can't find the article now, but there was a snippet from a Tory minister about how the typical conversation with a Lib Dem minister on a new Tory policy goes:

"You know we have to have a row about this?"
"Yes. Is next Tuesday good for you?"


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

Yep. that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 22, 2010)

And the Tories love it, they're deliberately letting things like that slip to further undermine their colleagues in the Libdems


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 22, 2010)

BBC choosing to take Vince Cable  at face value all day long - more than  a little sad.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2010)

Vince cable thinks he a light shining in Lancashire - have i that right?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 22, 2010)

Have we really got to the point where the BBC can insert a contradiction in not just the same news report but the same sentence of the same news report and no any where one pulls them up: 'In a speech cleared by 10 Downing Street, Vince Cable attacked capitalism . . . ' Do me a favour.

Sarah Lancashire?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2010)

Pretty worrying the BBC's behaviour tbh, i barely look at it these days but if what butchers has posted is anything to go by ..


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> this is only true if we assume the IMF doesn't have a vested interest in the uk's continued deficit spending. the IMF is the lender of last resort and if and when
> the uk goes to the IMF, they will shed the rhetoric of stimulous spending and begin the mantra of austerity measures.
> 
> p.s. if you can *agree* the right and left can both be proved right about a particular point of order. what say you, to the conservatives, labour and the liberal democrats
> ...


 
Labour isn't - oh, forget it


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

He's still claiming Labour is on the left? Oh good grief! 

He really doesn't do comprehension at all does he. 



frogwoman said:


> Pretty worrying the BBC's behaviour tbh, i barely look at it these days but if what butchers has posted is anything to go by ..


 
BBC News has been worth shit since Hutton. It wasn't worth a great deal more before that mind, but it's been an unashamed propaganda mouthpiece since then. News24 is a little better - there's a noticeable shift in editorial line come 6am when BBC1 switches back to its own news programming. Although I can't vouch for them more recently - haven't watched much News24 since we've been reliant on a generator for our leccy.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2010)

Not only does he think labour is on the left he seems to think the two are interchangeable


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> would you rather whole counties go bankrupt, like what's happening to states in the U.S.?
> 
> owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's
> nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.
> ...


 
London Councils report The Impact of Housing Benefit Changes in London (pdf)  estimate that 82 000 people will be made homeless by HB benefit changes in London alone, as well as leading to a drop of around (potentially 26+%) in the number of properties available to rent to those on HB.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 23, 2010)

Pretty amusing this, Vince Cable points out  mildly that huge bonuses are a bit greedy and somehow it gets billed as 'laying into capitalism' EH??????


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> London Councils report The Impact of Housing Benefit Changes in London (pdf)  estimate that 82 000 people will be made homeless by HB benefit changes in London alone, as well as leading to a drop of around (potentially 26+%) in the number of properties available to rent to those on HB.


 
from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html



> The cuts which take effect from next April will cut the maximum housing benefit which can be claimed from £103,000 to £20,800 a year, or £400 a week.



are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?

£103,000 is an outrageous amount of money. can you justify this being spent on a family?


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html
> 
> ...


It depends if London wants any bus drivers, cleaners, binmen or retail workers really. They ain't gonna commute.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html
> 
> ...


 
Talk about hook line and sinker. There are a handful (around a 100) families who receive a 100 grand housing benefit a year. The other millions receive nothing even approaching that, yet the first group are being used to attack the barebones payments of the second lot. And you fall for it - whilst ignoring the points raised in the post you're pretending to reply to. Exemplary.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Talk about hook line and sinker. There are a handful (around a 100) families who receive a 100 grand housing benefit a year. The other millions receive nothing even approaching that, yet the first group are being used to attack the barebones payments of the second lot. And you fall for it - whilst ignoring the points raised in the post you're pretending to reply to. Exemplary.



£1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0

how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?

p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> £1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0
> 
> how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?
> 
> p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.


 
No I don't believe putting 82 000 people in London alone in danger of homelessness is good policy. Nor do any of the specialists or agencies in this field. Dogmatic extremists are lapping it up though. 

You've got real comprehension problems as well. My whole point ( which I was forced to repeat as you ignored it in your 'reply' is that these cuts are going to effect nearly everyone, not just the 100 families( all huge families with loads of kids btw). That's the point, that and the fact that Osborne used these 100 families as covet for an attack on millions and a few mugs fell for it. 

Unless, of course, you're going to show us how these changes really are going to effect only a 100 people and why the govts own figures and calculations and those of every single report into the expected outcomes - including the one you ignored above - are wrong. Show us how the Charted Institute of Housing's reports estimate of 600 000 families’ housing benefit being cut  by an average of £1,000 a year is wrong. SHow us why and how the The National Housing Federation's estimate that more than 750,000 people are at risk of losing their homes in London and the South East is wrong. Or get back YouTube.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've got real comprehension problems as well. My whole point ( which I was forced to repeat as you ignored it in your 'reply' is that these cuts are going to effect nearly everyone, not just the 100 families( all huge families with loads of kids btw). That's the point, that and the fact that Osborne used these 100 families as covet for an attack on millions and a few mugs fell for it.



You could always take some or all of the kids into care to decrease the family size. Or link the payment of future housing benefit to an offer of contraceptive implants/sterilization on the NHS. Alternatively you could invest in the economy by commissioning a home building programme; and while your at it move from the notion of market rents to one of fair rents (based on size, quality and location of accommodation). 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

You'll also need to learn the difference between averages and maximums i got poison. You appear to think that under current proposals all HB recipients receive 100 grand and under the changed rules they'll now receive 21 grand. They won't because these are maximum figures not average figures. The average HB recipient receives 4 grand a year.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> £1,600 a month on HB isn't enough?: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...ooms=4&displayPropertyType=houses&radius=20.0
> 
> how much do you believe "the rest" receive? if these cuts only affect the "100" families, isn't this decision, good policy?
> 
> p.s. like a politician you aren't able to answer a straight question.





> Almost 54,000 children already living below the poverty line will be pushed even further down by government cuts to housing benefit, Shelter reveals today.
> 
> Independent research commissioned by Shelter from the University of Cambridge shows the cuts will push an extra 27,000 families already below the poverty line to below the minimum income guarantee.



http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/child_poverty_to_worsen


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> are you intimating £20,800 isn't enough to find suitable accomodation?


if yer family's big, and you live in London, there's a high chance it isn't, actually. Where on earth do you live - John O'Groats?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

> The Government will face costs of up to £120 million a year because of the huge rise in homelessness caused by cuts to local housing allowance (LHA), Shelter has revealed today.



http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/LHA_cuts_to_cost_120m_a_year


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You could always take some or all of the kids into care to decrease the family size. Or link the payment of future housing benefit to an offer of contraceptive implants/sterilization on the NHS. Alternatively you could invest in the economy by commissioning a home building programme; and while your at it move from the notion of market rents to one of fair rents (based on size, quality and location of accommodation).
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



a sensible post for a change.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> http://england.shelter.org.uk/news/september_2011/child_poverty_to_worsen


 
He even quoted from an article supporting the same sort of figures - thousands likely to be made homeless as a result of these changes - to argue that they don't really have any effect.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> a sensible post for a change.


 
Which bits did you like most?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

butch, you imply all responsiblity for the family is the government's. where's the parent's responsiblity in all of this?
i wouldn't agree to cuts if the starting position weren't so high in the first place.

p.s. what about the mail's poster family in chelsea who got the £2.1m home after complaining their previous address was in a poor area.
i know this is one highlighted case, and the mail is making a meal (feast!) out of it, but it does show negligent council spending.
i was speaking to a guy whose father was a housing administration officer. he said fulham, ealing and some of the surrounding boroughs
were awash with HB claimants. those areas aren't cheap. these locations are lifestyle choices, with landlords gaming the system. giving tenants kick-
backs for higher fees. you and i both know this goes on and so does the council. though everyone's happy because the government is collecting the tab.


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

The government's responsibility is to make sure there is affordable housing and enough jobs to go round. They are responsible for any shortfall in those targets. Benefits are below the poverty line as it is. ~20% of kids in the UK live in poverty. That is shameful for a rich country, and it is the government's responsibility to make the situation better, not worse.

You won't find many posters here who are against rent controls. Punish the greedy landlords, not the people who need housing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> butch, you imply all responsiblity for the family is the government's. where's the parent's responsiblity in all of this?
> i wouldn't agree to cuts if the starting position weren't so high in the first place.
> 
> p.s. what about the mail's poster family in chelsea who got the £2.1m home after complaining their previous address was in a poor area.
> ...



I implied no such thing. You implied it to build a pathetic strawman. £84 a week is not 'so high' at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> p.s. what about the mail's poster family in chelsea who got the £2.1m home after complaining their previous address was in a poor area.
> i know this is one highlighted case, and the mail is making a meal (feast!) out of it, but it does show negligent council spending.


oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> The government's responsibility is to make sure there is affordable housing and enough jobs to go round. They are responsible for any shortfall in those targets. Benefits are below the poverty line as it is. ~20% of kids in the UK live in poverty. That is shameful for a rich country, and it is the government's responsibility to make the situation better, not worse.
> 
> You won't find many posters here who are against rent controls. Punish the greedy landlords, not the people who need housing.



I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy). 

I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah!  Ghettoes ftw!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.


 
I agree we shouldn't make judgements on sensationalist snippets, it does make you wonder how such anomalies arise though.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah!  Ghettoes ftw!


 
This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah, them nasty thick working class people.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).
> 
> I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?



Ignorance over mental health issues, a penchant for punitive state intervention and a proposal for social cleansing; top post moon.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## YouSir (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.


 
Jasus that's a thick thing to say.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 24, 2010)

YouSir said:


> Jasus that's a thick thing to say.


 
Away with you; next you'll be saying the middle class might learn a thing or two from the working class...madness.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is a valid point, the net impact of ghettoes is probably more costly economically then paying people on benefits to mingle in nice middle-class areas where a culture of self-improvement might take hold.


 
who do you think needs self-improvement - the people on benefits or the middle class people?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, them nasty thick working class people.


 
I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect.  You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect.  You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.


 
So poor areas are uncivilised cultural voids where the inhabitants shudder at the sight of books such is their fear and anger at the very notion of learning like a good, civilised middle class person would/should? Hmh...


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect.  You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.


 
Yeah, them uncivilised council estate dwellers!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> who do you think needs self-improvement - the people on benefits or the middle class people?


 
There are many people on benefits through no fault of their own, there are others who are work shy and some who have never had the benefits of being exposed to a culture of betterment, learning or working. 

I'm agreeing with Blagsta that creating ghettoes is a bad idea, I want people on benefits to be a part of society and have a chance to get back into work and regain their self-esteem.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many people on benefits through no fault of their own, there are others who are work shy and some who have never had the benefits of being exposed to a culture of betterment, learning or working.
> 
> I'm agreeing with Blagsta that creating ghettoes is a bad idea, I want people on benefits to be a part of society and have a chance to get back into work and regain their self-esteem.


 
Yeah all working class people who live on council estates are on benefits!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

He's getting worse by the day.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

"work shy"

_You score 10 points._


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh fs! welcome to a place called 'reality', a very imperfect place. It is impossible to have something as civilised as awelfare state covering a quite-transient, multinational society of near-60 milion without there being SOME anomalies. It's the overall picture that counts, not th sensationalist tabloid snippets that you tories so gorge on.



i asked the question of butch, but he chose not to respond. let me try you.

is £103,000 a year too much for a council to spend on HB for a family?
simple yes or no will suffice considering the amount.

remember this is only on HB, not JSA, working tax credits, child tax credits etc etc.


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).
> 
> I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?


 
How will London cope without any low paid workers living in it? Would you commute 2-4 hours a day for £7-8/hour? Could you afford to? Could the transport system cope with that many workers travelling in every day?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

YouSir said:


> So poor areas are uncivilised cultural voids where the inhabitants shudder at the sight of books such is their fear and anger at the very notion of learning like a good, civilised middle class person would/should? Hmh...


 
No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture. 

There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah all working class people who live on council estates are on benefits!


 
No, I didn't say this did I?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, I didn't say this did I?


 
Yes you did.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's an individuals responsibility to meet their own housing needs, the state should provide a minimum safety net for those who are capable of but fail to look after themselves and a decent standard of living for those who are really unable to due to physical problems or severe mental health (not just a bit of mild depression and generally being work shy).
> 
> I think it makes sense to set the local housing allowance at an average for the area's rental as it is at the moment. Most areas you have rich and poor locations so you aren't going to be able to live in the nicest page on housing allowance. I don't live in London but I’m guessing the problem is it's expensive throughout the area from which they take the average rent, so you get this £1,600 figure. Is the answer that people who can't afford it should consider moving away from the expensive areas?


 
You need to read and understand some history.  You are very poorly informed and read on this subject, it worries me that you are out addressing politicians with such a scant understanding of the history of our country.  You should start by reading a bit on post war regneration in Britain.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> How will London cope without any low paid workers living in it? Would you commute 2-4 hours a day for £7-8/hour? Could you afford to? Could the transport system cope with that many workers travelling in every day?


 
That's another good point, along with Blagsta's. It makes sense to have different classes and types of workers living alongside each other.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be *exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture. *
> 
> There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. *The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this*, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.


 
You. Are. Fucking. Shitting. Me.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.
> 
> There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.


 
What staggeringly patronising bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.
> 
> There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit.


 
Name the thieves Thaddeus.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes you did.


 
Ok well sorry, I retract any statement or implication where I say everyone on council estates are on benefits.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree we shouldn't make judgements on sensationalist snippets, it does make you wonder how such anomalies arise though.


no it doesn't, it's bloody obvious, all organisations and systems are fallible


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think working class people are inherently nasty and thick, but if poor ghettoes take hold you do get a culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect.  You only have to look around some slum council estates to appreciate the problems arising from a culture of degradation and poverty.


you ignorant patronising wanker!
oh sorry, my  





> culture void of learning, betterment or societies civilising affect


 means I've no right to coment, I'm just an ignorant pleb who needs to do whatever a stockbroker tells me to do


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> You. Are. Fucking. Shitting. Me.



Victorian paternalism was at the core of things like the 1850 Public Libraries act, people thought if the poor had access to books it would improve society as a whole.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> you ignorant patronising wanker!
> oh sorry, my   means I've no right to coment, I'm just an ignorant pleb who needs to do whatever a stockbroker tells me to do


 
I know it's not very fashionable to talk about cultural betterment, as opposed to say health betterement of health which has funds to encourage poor fat people to walk and run around.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

Except for the books the (ex)chartists who formed the backbone of the public library movement wanted - they weren't allowed in and they were refused employment at them.

At least you've  come out explicitly in favour of elite paternalism now and exposed a whole raft of your core assumptions to fresh air. I wonder how this tallies with your parties energetic destruction of any historical legacy of Chamberlain style local authorities? At least those people recognised in some form that civil liberties are set within wider social relations/conditions and that inequality fundamentally and fatally undermines them. Unlike you crude orange bookers.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Do people here think it's wrong that I’d want to try and help ensure those in poor areas have opportunities to better themselves?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do people here think it's wrong that I’d want to try and help ensure those in poor areas have opportunities to better themselves?


I don't need you to educate me, 'better me' or civilise me, you arrogant, ignorant knobend
e2a: we don't _need_ you to inflict your condescending ideas of the 'better' people we should be. We need you to ensure our communities have the resources so that we can do it ourselves.
Except, with the huge cuts you're pushing through, you are going to do precisely the opposite - wage economic war on hard-pressed, inner-city communities


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Except for the books the (ex)chartists who formed the backbone of the movement wanted - they weren't allowed in and they were refused employment at them.


 
The powers that be at the time probably feared everyone going to libraries filled with subversive material. I’m suggesting people have access to free and open libraries .


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

I don't think you'd understand betterment for those in poor areas moon23 if it hit you with a privatised bus service.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know it's not very fashionable to talk about cultural betterment, as opposed to say health betterement of health which has funds to encourage poor fat people to walk and run around.


 
No, it's not fashionable to portray social prejudice as a coherent political philosophy. Actually, it is. It's what's holding you and the historical tories together


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do people here think it's wrong that I’d want to try and help ensure those in poor areas have opportunities to better themselves?


 
Do people here really oppose Crozier's attempts to _modernise_ Royal Mail? British Airways attempts to be _flexible_?  The EU's attempts to _rationalise_? How could anyone oppose them - the _words_ alone are enough surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The powers that be at the time probably feared everyone going to libraries filled with subversive material. I’m suggesting people have access to free and open libraries .


 
...and i'm suggesting that your historical knowledge leaves a lot to be desired and that the same sort of gaps and ignorance applies to your understanding of the full social implications of modern day politics - esp those that your extremist party is imposing.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The powers that be at the time probably feared everyone going to libraries filled with subversive material. I’m suggesting people have access to free and open libraries .


 
That would be why education and local services such as public libraries are being cut so drasticlaly then. Silly me.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I don't need you to educate me, 'better me' or civilise me, you arrogant, ignorant knobend


 
No, but you needed an education system and access to sources of public knowledge. I'm just saying that the risk of creating ghettoes is a valid point raised when considering lowing housing benefit. I don't see what is so wrong about arguing that you should pool poor people together. 

It's pretty obvious that lot's of problems like teenage pregnancy come from a 'benefits culture' where quite a few generations of people living in the same poor estate have really low expectations and access to culture or education.

It’s our responsibility to help these people, it’s not patronizing, it’s simply being civil & kind.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

That'd be why attempts at privatisation are continuing apace then.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The powers that be at the time probably feared everyone going to libraries filled with subversive material. I’m suggesting people have access to free and open libraries .


 
If the Lib Dems want to save libraries, they shouldn't have shacked up with the Tories and u-turned on the harshness of cuts.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> I don't think you'd understand betterment for those in poor areas moon23 if it hit you with a privatised bus service.



I think free enterprise helps, part of the problem in many poor areas is a total reliance on the state. I think you need free enterprise but also a socially liberal helping hand in the form of universal eduction etc.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No they are areas where opportunites have been stolen from people who never had the fortune to be exposed to a positive middle-class attitude of learning, working and culture.
> 
> There is nothing wrong about wanting to try and help give people the opportunities for learning and improvement. *The Victorians had a wonderful sense of wanting to do this, many great works of public art and general civic improvement have stemmed from that spirit*.


 
They had the workhouse ffs!

The govt plans for council housing are basically to try and make the ghettoes of complete poverty, so anyone with a job etc gets moved out ASAP and no sense of community because they will be so temporary.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

back to safe labour stomping ground. egalitarianism and class struggle! it's funny how for most of this decade alot of you were armed with your
credit cards and living a life of ease. none of you can really claim to know real poverty. even the merest hint of it, (with these fiscal cuts) has this forum's
members breaking a sweat and screaming foul.
no doubt worried about their fake bourgeois lifestyles and propensity for free money.
not so much working class as entitlement class


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> That would be why education and local services such as public libraries are being cut so drasticlaly then. Silly me.


 
They are being cut to help prevent an economic disaster that would result in even less money to spend. Spending as a % of GDP is not varying hugely as disscussed elsewhere.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> They had the workhouse ffs!
> 
> The govt plans for council housing are basically to try and make the ghettoes of complete poverty, so anyone with a job etc gets moved out ASAP and no sense of community because they will be so temporary.


 
I'm not saying that the workhouses were a good idea, obviously Victorian society is not some ideal model. It just had some good aspects to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah it's 41% (minus 6%). In same way that the min wage is £20 an hour (minus £15).


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> back to safe labour stomping ground. egalitarianism and class struggle! it's funny how for most of this decade alot of you were armed with your
> credit cards and living a life of ease. none of you can really claim to know real poverty. even the merest hint of it, (with these fiscal cuts) has this forum's
> members breaking a sweat and screaming foul.
> no doubt worried about their fake bourgeois lifestyles and propensity for free money.
> not so much working class as entitlement class




Excuse me? What are you on about??


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not saying that the workhouses were a good idea, obviously Victorian society is not some ideal model. It just had some good aspects to it.


 yeh, we might have lost you to the arsenic found in so many victorian things. and that would be no loss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> back to safe labour stomping ground. egalitarianism and class struggle! it's funny how for most of this decade alot of you were armed with your
> credit cards and living a life of ease. none of you can really claim to know real poverty. even the merest hint of it, (with these fiscal cuts) has this forum's
> members breaking a sweat and screaming foul.
> no doubt worried about their fake bourgeois lifestyles and propensity for free money.
> not so much working class as entitlement class


_trans_: 






			
				i_got_poison said:
			
		

> i need my prescription filling


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many people on benefits through no fault of their own, there are others who are work shy and some who have never had the benefits of being exposed to a culture of betterment, learning or working.
> 
> I'm agreeing with Blagsta that creating ghettoes is a bad idea, I want people on benefits to be a part of society and have a chance to get back into work and regain their self-esteem.


newsflash: people on benefits are part of society


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> newsflash: people on benefits are part of society


 
Yes, but they often feel on the edge of it or excluded from it. Social exclusion is a problem with people living in poor ghettoes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

So you oppose the budget and the cuts to come then. Finally - some sense.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

I think there is a danger that problems with housing are seen simply as a matter of targets and state provision. Ultimately I don't think the state can resolve all of these problems on it's own, and it requires people who have pride in themselves and are capable enough of providing the means to be resourceful and fend for themselves.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think there is a danger that problems with housing are seen simply as a matter of targets and state provision. Ultimately I don't think the state can resolve all of these problems on it's own, and it requires people who have pride in themselves and are capable enough of providing the means to be resourceful and fend for themselves.


what i think you mean is you're a social darwinist.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So you oppose the budget and the cuts to come then. Finally - some sense.



I ideologicaly oppose cuts in services that help ensure poor people have a fair start in life, but accept that due to the current economic situation we have to reduce spending. 

Personally I would scrap trident, reduce all IT spending on major projects and shrink the armed forces by 50%.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

...or a matter of there not being enough affordable housing, inflating the market, putting unscrupulous landlords in the driving seat, so let's have  program of well funded building of social housing, instead of cutting the budget for precisely this sort of activity. The benefits would be enormous and immediate. Forget all this Victorian betterment crap from kids books from 150 years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what i think you mean is you're a social darwinist.


 
He's a socio-path.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I ideologicaly oppose cuts in services that help ensure poor people have a fair start in life, but accept that due to the current economic situation we have to reduce spending.
> 
> Personally I would scrap trident, reduce all IT spending on major projects and shrink the armed forces by 50%.


 
So you _do_ support the cuts and especially those ones that mean the poorest are hit hardest. Do make your mind up. Have you even bothered to look at What's happening in Ireland where your mad extremists measures were imposed? Have you compared how they're doing to those countries that rejected such ideological dogmatism? Spain for example? What would that tell you?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are being cut to help prevent an economic disaster that would result in even less money to spend. Spending as a % of GDP is not varying hugely as disscussed elsewhere.


 
Jesus wept. How do you propose this "betterment" to be carried out then, if the things we have been describing here are being cut?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what i think you mean is you're a social darwinist.


 
Compared to the dedicated egalitarians on this thread yes. I would rather see a bit more focus on developing people’s individual capabilities to be self-reliant and provide for their own housing needs.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...or a matter of there not being enough affordable housing, inflating the market, putting unscrupulous landlords in the driving seat, so let's have  program of well funded building of social housing, instead of cutting the budget for precisely this sort of activity. The benefits would be enormous and immediate. Forget all this Victorian betterment crap from kids books from 150 years ago.


 
Labour's attempts to make it easy for first-time buyers didn't help in terms of inflating the housing market.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are being cut to help prevent an economic disaster that would result in even less money to spend. Spending as a % of GDP is not varying hugely as disscussed elsewhere.


 
You are the economic disaster.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 24, 2010)

If I was eating cornflakes right now I'd be throwing up in them.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour's attempts to make it easy for first-time buyers didn't help in terms of inflating the housing market.


 
So what? How does that undermine my point and the proposed program of massively expanded affordable house-building? Because labour fucked up you think you should fuck up on an even bigger scale too but with the added bonus of hitting the poorest hardest and earliest? What sort of logic is that? How about neither of you fucking up or offering support for fucked up policies - how's that sound?


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I ideologicaly oppose cuts in services that help ensure poor people have a fair start in life, but accept that due to the current economic situation we have to reduce spending.
> 
> Personally I would scrap trident, reduce all IT spending on major projects and shrink the armed forces by 50%.


 
Why do we have to reduce spending when there is a tax gap of £120bn? Could we not just employ a couple of hundred thousand more tax men and make the rich pay their way?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> If I was eating cornflakes right now I'd be throwing up in them.


 
I, too, would be throwing up in your cornflakes.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So you _do_ support the cuts and especially those ones that mean the poorest are hit hardest. Do make your mind up. Have you even bothered to look at What's happening in Ireland where your mad extremists measures were imposed? Have you compared how they're doing to those countries that rejected such ideological dogmatism? Spain for example? What would that tell you?


 
Interesting, I shall ask Mark Littlewood and see what his take on this articule is.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> Why do we have to reduce spending when there is a tax gap of £120bn? Could we not just employ a couple of hundred thousand more tax men and make the rich pay their way?


 
The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

How are goods produced moon?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I, too, would be throwing up in your cornflakes.


 
me too


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Interesting, I shall ask Mark Littlewood and see what his take on this articule is.


 
Never mind  Mark Littlewood or your desperate name-dropping. Tell me what you think. Tell me what you think about it's evidence based questioning of the assumptions behind your program. Tell me why you didn't have this sort of info about  international comparisons as the basis for your positions before now.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


 
How are goods produced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


 
oh do fuck off. what's your fucking source for this piece of bollocks?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


 
The rich hamper restrain and retard economic activity and production by their irrational pursuit of profit (the relations of production come into conflict with the forces of production) - whilst simultaneously wrecking social life by making everything worthwhile about financialisation.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> oh do fuck off. what's your fucking source for this piece of bollocks?



hey moon, here's a gutter child in need of improvement


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

How are goods produced? You're the one who said that "the rich generate economic activity".


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

> hey moon, here's a gutter child in need of improvement



He's not. What a disgusting creature you are.


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

Frightening to think the economy is in the hands of people whose followers think like this. They're gonna get away with premeditated econocide, and these fools won't lift a finger to stop them. My only hope is that moon is one day wandering around the ruins of an abandoned library and picks up a decent book about the New Deal, and ends his days in an agony of guilt for having been such an ignorant fool who never bothered to do his homework until long, long after it mattered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> hey moon, here's a gutter child in need of improvement


seek professional medical advice at your earliest opportunity.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Never mind  Mark Littlewood or your desperate name-dropping. Tell me what you think. Tell me what you think about it's evidence based questioning of the assumptions behind your program. Tell me why you didn't have this sort of info about  international comparisons as the basis for your positions before now.


 
I think the articule draws a simplistic and flawed anaology between two different countries and is wrong to assume the reason Ireland has economic difficulties is becuase it's tried to reduce it's defecit.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

How are goods produced moon?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

any chance of an answer? 





Pickman's model][QUOTE=moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


 
oh do fuck off. what's your fucking source for this piece of bollocks?[/quote]


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

Because the principle has never been proven before, right moon?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> hey moon, here's a gutter child in need of improvement


 
I would start by teaching Pickman some manners, it's rude to swear.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think the articule draws a simplistic and flawed anaology between two different countries and is wrong to assume the reason Ireland has economic difficulties is becuase it's tried to reduce it's defecit.


 
Tell me why where and when then.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

Rude to swear? How old are you? 6?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> any chance of an answer?


 
Rich people generate economic activity in the following means:


Investing their capital
Spending their wealth
Through being taxed


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Rude to swear? How old are you? 6?


 
There is nothing wrong with attempting to maintain civility on internet forum boards, and besides it was a somewhat tounge-in-cheek statement.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

How are goods produced?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is nothing wrong with attempting to maintain civility on internet forum boards, and besides it was a somewhat tounge-in-cheek statement.


 
I don't care whether it was "tounge in cheek" [sic] - the fact that this is what passes for lib-dem "humour" makes it worse tbh. 

Now: 




			
				frogwoman said:
			
		

> How are goods produced?


 any chance of an answer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2010)

Times like these I miss that tw*t untethered.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why where and when then.


 
The Irish banking system is far more exposed to loses from their domestic real-estate bubble bursting. Their deficit reduction program is failing because it's a drop in the ocean of what is required. In contrast Spanish banks are more diversified and have better capitalization.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

Why arent you answering my question?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but they often feel on the edge of it or excluded from it. Social exclusion is a problem with people living in poor ghettoes.


genuinely, have you ever been even remotely near a "ghetto" at any point in your life?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't care whether it was "tounge in cheek" [sic] - the fact that this is what passes for lib-dem "humour" makes it worse tbh.
> 
> Now:
> 
> any chance of an answer?



I don't think you can extrapolate a Party's humoristic style from one member. Goods are produced by people when those with money offer them some in exchange for their produce.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

Which people moon? Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why arent you answering my question?


 
You have to be more patient and wait your turn for Moon's worthwhile attention.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm temporarily leaving this thread before my blood pressure goes critical.
what a condescending, smug, complacent arsehole....


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

So goods are produced by people in return for money - which people?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Which people moon? Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> Christ, and you left the sp for this ??? Did you genuinely not learn anything in your whole time on the left ?


 
Yes, i'm aware you are trying to imply that it's the workers who make everything that is useful, but the fact is they only make things to trade becuase they know the can exchange it for something. Those with a lot of money, e.g. the rich can therefore provide the opportunties for this exchange by investing their capital.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think you can extrapolate a Party's humoristic style from one member.



Having known many "activists" from your cult I think I can actually. 
Did you not learn anything your entire time  Im not saying my anaylsis and opinions is the right one but Christ get a bit more sense !!!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I'm temporarily leaving this thread before my blood pressure goes critical.
> what a condescending, smug, complacent arsehole....



Relax, I was self-parodying.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, i'm aware you are trying to imply that it's the workers who make everything that is useful, but the fact is they only make things to trade becuase they know the can exchange it for something. Those with a lot of money, e.g. the rich can therefore provide the opportunties for this exchange by investing their capital.


 
 

How do the rich get rich (assuming they're not inheriting anything?) Why do they only have to sell to rich people? Are everyone you see at your local tesco's rich then?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Irish banking system is far more exposed to loses from their domestic real-estate bubble bursting. Their deficit reduction program is failing because it's a drop in the ocean of what is required. In contrast Spanish banks are more diversified and have better capitalization.


 
Genuinely amazing. _Spain had the largest property bubble in Europe_. 

I did think that you'd done a min of research on these issues before coming up with your mad socially destructive proposals but it's utterly evident that you haven't - you're totally winging it. You've literally no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, i'm aware you are trying to imply that it's the workers who make everything that is useful, but the fact is they only make things to trade becuase they know the can exchange it for something. Those with a lot of money, e.g. the rich can therefore provide the opportunties for this exchange by investing their capital.


 
Where did the money come from?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Having known many "activists" from your cult I think I can actually.
> Did you not learn anything your entire time  Im not saying my anaylsis and opinions is the right one but Christ get a bit more sense !!!


 
I agree rich people don't generate wealth on their own, but they posess the mean to organise economc activity through their wealth. Rich people who have earnt it, and I accept there are some who haven't do so because they organize economic activity in such a way to make profit. Simply taxing these people to the hilt means they have less money to invest in useful economic activity that helps to generate wealth. Instead the state spend the money, sometimes this is useful, other times you have what amounts to a waste of resources on bureaucracy as state infrastructure attempts to take on economic organisation of workers and activity.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

But how do they get their wealth in the first place? According to many (most??) right wingers, Rich people are rich because they did something. What did they do?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Genuinely amazing. _Spain had the largest property bubble in Europe_.
> 
> I did think that you'd done a min of research on these issues before coming up with your mad socially destructive proposals but it's utterly evident that you haven't - you're totally winging it. You've literally no idea what you're talking about.


 
Yes but the Spanish banks were not so much at risk of it as they were more diversified and had better capitalisation.

If you look at the following chart you will see Ireland's liabilities were also higher than Spain’s as a percentage of it's GDP


----------



## stupid dogbot (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rich people generate economic activity in the following means:
> 
> 
> Investing their capital
> ...


 
Are you reading this shit out of a textbook from the 50s?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> But how do they get their wealth in the first place? According to many (most??) right wingers, Rich people are rich because they did something. What did they do?


 
Some rich people are rich due to their professional skills and the value of their labour, more are rich because they started with capital to invest or they borrowed capital and invested it well. 

Generally they all share in common participation in useful economic activity.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Are you reading this shit out of a textbook from the 50s?


 
Reads like Baden-Powells Guide to Capitalism for Good Little Boys. It really is away with the fairies stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some rich people are rich due to their professional skills and the value of their labour



NOW we're getting somewhere! Is everyone they sell their labour and skills to rich as well then?


----------



## stupid dogbot (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Reads like Baden-Powells Guide to Capitalism for Good Little Boys. It really is away with the fairies stuff.


 
Isn't it? Dib dib dib...


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

lib dem activist lol.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

I'd also like to point out that comparison with Spain and Ireland is flawed because Ireland created the National Asset Management Agency which has spent around 90Bn Euro on buying back assets at a reduced rate from their fatally crippled banking sector. This sum more than overshadowed anything they were able to save through their deficit reductions attempts that amounted to a drop in the ocean.

The whole left-wing narrative of Ireland going down the drain due to deficit reduction is a simplification of the particular economic situation that country faces. The Spanish economy and Irish economy are not some blank scientific guinea pigs.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> lib dem activist lol.









Can't argue with the power of the bar chart and the Riso.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Generally they all share in common participation in useful economic activity.


 
Like, say, tax evasion and expenses fiddling?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> Like, say, tax evasion and expenses fiddling?


 
Some do, which is why I was pleased to hear Danny Alexender pledge money to tackle this problem. - Added being on 'the fidddle' occurs at both the top and the bottom of the heap.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

Ok I have to go do a focus round, enjoy the rest of your Friday everyone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some do, which is why I was pleased to hear Danny Alexender pledge money to tackle this problem. - Added being on 'the fidddle' occurs at both the top and the bottom of the heap.



He did no such thing. If you cut £2 billion pounds from a budget then add £1 billion to it, you end up with a net cut of £1 billion. Infant school-level maths.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2010)

The National Asset Management Agency is actually one of the initiatives driving the economy into the ground through the liabilities they guarantee of those assets - an increase in the deficit as % of GDP of 2%+ with more to come.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 24, 2010)

Has Moon23 actually got a single thing right in any thread since the election?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Has Moon23 actually got a single thing right in any thread since the election?


 
bring back rebel warrior say i


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rich people generate economic activity in the following means:
> 
> 
> Investing their capital
> ...


no, i asked 'what's your source', not 'please post up some bollocks'


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can't argue with the power of the bar chart and the Riso.


 
Something your cult is ridiculed across the country for, for dishonesty and inaccuracy at that. your making yourself look more and more a tool by the second.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i asked 'what's your source', not 'please post up some bollocks'


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour's attempts to make it easy for first-time buyers didn't help in terms of inflating the housing market.


the effect of that was nothing compared to a) thatcher's right to buy legislation, with the clauses banning councils from using sale receipts to build new housing, and b) historic underfunding of councils, these two combining to ensure construction of social housing slowed to a virtual standstill.
BOTH of those were down to the Tories, those wonderful people on whose cocks you and your tory-lite mates are so greedily slurping right now.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The National Asset Management Agency is actually one of the initiatives driving the economy into the ground through the liabilities they guarantee of those assets - an increase in the deficit as % of GDP of 2%+ with more to come.


 
Yes I agree it is, that's the point Ireland has other factors negativley affecting it other than cuts in public spending which is why you can't just compare it to Spain as that articule you posted does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

any chance of an answer? 





Pickman's model][QUOTE=moon23 said:


> The rich generate economic activity, punishing them is a mistake.


 
oh do fuck off. what's your fucking source for this piece of bollocks?[/quote]


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 24, 2010)

You soppy cunt, why would anyone reply to abuse . . .


----------



## ymu (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I agree it is, that's the point Ireland has other factors negativley affecting it other than cuts in public spending which is why you can't just compare it to Spain as that articule you posted does.


 


ymu said:


> Because the principle has never been proven before, right moon?


 
Done your homework yet, kiddo?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> You soppy cunt, why would anyone reply to abuse . . .


there speaks a shitfer.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Something your cult is ridiculed across the country for, for dishonesty and inaccuracy at that. your making yourself look more and more a tool by the second.


 
i might as well post up a picture of a cheap fold up table and some posters and say, see, cant argue with that. humour has its place but in this case its the sign ocf someone whose being comprehensiveely pwned and knows it and is resorting to laaa laaa laaa nobody likes us type 'gags'


----------



## Corax (Sep 24, 2010)

I've just worked it out!  Clegg is the saviour of the left after all - what other possible explanation could there be for his behaviour?

He's deliberately alienating the left wing of his party to make them reluctantly revert to Labour.  Milliband will storm to victory in the next elections and Clegg will get a peerage for the selfless sacrifice of his party and reputation.  It all makes sense now!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Sep 24, 2010)

Imagine being so mental a cunt that you don't think Danny Alexander is a despicable festering turd.


----------



## i_got_poison (Sep 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I would start by teaching Pickman some manners, it's rude to swear.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2010)

What's happened to all those _save us Nick!_ purple loons? Are they all on the _we can save you Nick!_ AV wagon?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I agree it is, that's the point Ireland has other factors negativley affecting it other than cuts in public spending which is why you can't just compare it to Spain as that articule you posted does.


but you and other LDers here have persistently helpd up Ireland, Greece, Spain, as examples of what could happen to the UK if we didn't immediately introduce crippling cuts in public spending, despite the fact that none of those can be compared like-for-like to the UK


----------



## Dan U (Sep 28, 2010)

Another reason why the Lib Dems are shit. Amongst all the bad news theirs been no sign of Osborne, and yet he pops his head out today cos of this... I hope they feel used and sullied

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/27/george-osborne-imf-backs-cuts


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

Who was Nick Clegg talking about?



> "They are the party of choice for rich bankers, and no wonder when their major tax policy is to give tax breaks to double millionaires. They even have plans to cut taxes for the banks and raise them for solid British manufacturing companies. They will never change Britain for the better because they are only interested in helping people at the top."


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2010)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-vote-for-party-again-says-poll-2072183.html



> *Four in 10 Lib Dem voters would not vote for party again, says poll*
> 
> The Liberal Democrats have lost the support of almost four in 10 of the people who backed the party in May, according to an opinion poll for The Independent.
> 
> ...


----------



## the button (Oct 9, 2010)

Bit of a hostage to fortune there, young Nick.....


----------



## yield (Oct 9, 2010)

Chris Huhne: Winter fuel allowance could be cut
Telegraph. 09 Oct 2010



> He hints that, despite past Tory assurances to the contrary, winter fuel allowance may also be cut for wealthier pensioners in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)

Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne - in fact all lib-dem MPs - not two weeks ago signed a pledge to oppose any and all rises in university tuition fees. This pledge was also contained in their election manifesto and was used prominently in their attempt to appeal to the student vote at the time. This weekend Vince Cable wrote to all party members this making the case for higher tuition fees.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 10, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *frogwoman*
> i might as well post up a picture of a cheap fold up table and some posters and say, see, cant argue with that. humour has its place but in this case its the sign ocf someone whose being comprehensiveely pwned and knows it and is resorting to laaa laaa laaa nobody likes us type 'gags'


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Bit of a hostage to fortune there, young Nick.....


 
i still think he looks like a young Jim Davidson, and now he probably has the beliefs to match


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne - in fact all lib-dem MPs - not two weeks ago signed a pledge to oppose any and all rises in university tuition fees. This pledge was also contained in their election manifesto and was used prominently in their attempt to appeal to the student vote at the time. This weekend Vince Cable wrote to all party members this making the case for higher tuition fees.


he sent them a blank sheet of paper?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)

New poll puts Lib Dems in second place

Those were the days eh?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> New poll puts Lib Dems in second place
> 
> Those were the days eh?


 
fuck knows where they get those results from i'd be surprised if more than 15% would vote Lib Dem now


----------



## the button (Oct 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Bit of a hostage to fortune there, young Nick.....



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11510466?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> Universities in England should have no upper limit on tuition fees, Lord Browne's review is set to recommend.
> 
> But government support will only be guaranteed up to a maximum of £7,000 per year - which is likely to make this the upper fee for most universities.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 10, 2010)

Oh my god. Cunts, cunts, cunts.


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2010)

Labour will try to use this to strain the Lib Dem-Tory alliance by the looks of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11510463



> Speaking on BBC1's Politics Show, Mr Miliband warned against creating a free market in tuition fees, which he said raised "the prospect of £5,000, £7,000 or £10,000 in fees".
> 
> "I'll work with anybody in the House of Commons who wants a progressive system of student finance," said Mr Miliband.



Hmm a messy approach from the government to do with interest rates:



> Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, described a system of variable interest rates for student loan repayments, once people have graduated and entered work.
> 
> This would mean that "those with the lowest incomes have their interest rate effectively subsidised, while those on the highest incomes provide something additional to provide that subsidy".


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Vince Cable, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne - in fact all lib-dem MPs - not two weeks ago signed a pledge to oppose any and all rises in university tuition fees. This pledge was also contained in their election manifesto and was used prominently in their attempt to appeal to the student vote at the time. This weekend Vince Cable wrote to all party members this making the case for higher tuition fees.


 
They're fucking shameless, aren't they?


----------



## little_legs (Oct 12, 2010)

will be interesting to see how many lib dems will rebel. clegg will be selling the u-turn on tuition fees by the recommendation to lift the £15K salary level to £21K. 



> A report by Lord Browne will tommorrow recommend removing the current cap of £3,290, instead setting a new "softer" cap of £7,000 at which full student support is paid.
> 
> However, Lord Browne will also suggest that the £15,000 salary level at which they have to start re-paying should be lifted, which may help Mr Clegg to sell the idea to his party.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Every single lib-dem MP signed a pledge to vote against. Let's see the _timetable_ on this.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

They are so transparently fucked.

My mum's a Lib Dem activist. She just changes the topic, in a sweetly humorous way, every time I try to discuss this.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

She is fucked.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 12, 2010)

i want to know simon hughes' position on this. he's gone complete awol recently. if he votes yes for this garbage, i'll have to find his office and throw an egg at his door. a sixth of southwark's population is aged 0-14, i want to write him & ask how does paying £7K/academic year match with his social mobility reforms. shithead.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

A large component of the lib-dem was students or first time voters. I said a few week back about this report that this is them kicking away their last support.  

Why do they want to die?


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> She is fucked.


 
I think she's in denial. I hope so anyway. I loves my dear old mum and I like to think the best of her where possible. It is a bit of a stretch this time, tbf ...


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

Browne has recommended removing the cap completely.


----------



## the button (Oct 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> will be interesting to see how many lib dems will rebel.



My guess is none. Might get a few harrumphs offstage, like. As I've often said, the LibDems have far more to lose from a breakdown in the coalition than the Tories. Electoral annihilation awaits for those who rock the boat.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Yep, bye bye purple loon student vote. (sorry i meant pro-electoral reform vote of course). This could be interesting. There will be pantomime opposition of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Tell you what though, would make a great opp for some young turk to plant the flag career-wise with an eye to the post clegg situ.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2010)

It is clear Vince believes the new funding system that’s been devised will be both fairer and more affordable than a pure graduate tax, and that it meets the spirit of the party’s long-standing opposition to tuition fees though clearly not the letter.​
From Liberal Democrat Voice.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

I note the coalition agreement the lib-dems to _abstain_...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

do you reckon any will vote against?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

A few will. That one from Portsmouth will. The members will swallow it.

(should say, the coalition haven't yet accepted the proposals)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

what one from portsmouth? 

doesn't matter now, tho, they are finished


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i want to know simon hughes' position on this. he's gone complete awol recently.


 
He's been told by Clegg to be quiet and keep on message I suspect...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> what one from portsmouth?
> 
> doesn't matter now, tho, they are finished


 
Hancock - though i see he's in trouble himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

jeesus ...


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

Fucking hell!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

..and he's the good one!


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i want to know simon hughes' position on this. he's gone complete awol recently. if he votes yes for this garbage, i'll have to find his office and throw an egg at his door. a sixth of southwark's population is aged 0-14, i want to write him & ask how does paying £7K/academic year match with his social mobility reforms. shithead.


half way down page - HTH!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

The Guardian are fingering mullholland even though he 'insisted that his rebellion did not a represent a threat to the future of the coalition arrangement.'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The Guardian are fingering mullholland.


 
that's a bit of an unpleasant image there you've given me


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

Imagine your first foray into politics being to join the youth wing of the Lib Dems.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

"If we got Rage against the Machine to No. 1 we can get the lib dems to office"


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> "If we got Rage against the Machine to No. 1 we can get the lib dems to office"


 
they did it too. they must be so proud.


----------



## netbob (Oct 12, 2010)

I can't see how some MPs cannot vote against without looking ridiculous, especially those with student populations in their constituencies. e.g. http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/5439/


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 12, 2010)

Laughable lies.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Here we go - do watch this


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Guardian1.35



> From John Leech, the MP for Manchester Withington
> 
> I signed the NUS pledge and supported our manifesto, which promised to vote against any rise in tuition fees. I am going to keep that promise. This is a political red line for me.
> 
> ...



Good to be able to pretend to be on the other side. Very manageable.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

If enough of them vote against, will there have to be another election? They wont, tho, will they?


----------



## binka (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, bye bye purple loon student vote. (sorry i meant pro-electoral reform vote of course). This could be interesting. There will be pantomime opposition of course.


the 'yestoav' people are currently looking to use student unions to put on music nights for the launch of the campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> If enough of them vote against, will there have to be another election? They wont, tho, will they?


 
It won't, it's not a confidence issue.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Oh, OK  what would bring down the government tho? in parliamentary terms i mean


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Well the lib-dems have tried to make sure that nothing can. A confidence vote is still 50%+1

There's nothing to vote on yet though. It's a good thing to look radical on for mullholland and the reliant on student vote types for now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

oh,, ok gotcha


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

If the Lib Dems did prevent legislation going through, Clegg would just use it as another opportunity to say 'this is how coalition government works, we don't agree on everything'. The cunt.


----------



## binka (Oct 12, 2010)

vince giving a statement to the house on bbc parliament now


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

U-turn announced.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

> Cable says the Lib Dems were opposed to a rise in tuition fees. But in the current circumstances "we accept that that current policy is simply no longer feasible". That's why he will introduce legislation along the lines proposed by Browne.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Watch the word 'pure' now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

And the mugs have agreed to bear the electoral/media brunt of it as well. Cameron must be laughing his sleeves off at these people.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And the mugs have agreed to bear the electoral/media brunt of it as well. Cameron must be laughing his sleeves off at these people.


 
I've just said as much on Twitter. The LDs have been the 'face' of nearly all the tough/unpopular cuts.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


>


 
All the activists I know are hoping for big rebellion from the MPs


----------



## binka (Oct 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All the activists I know are hoping for big rebellion from the MPs


 
and what will their response be when there isn't one?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

What's happening now btw is cameron having a think if they accept and push through the reports recommendations in full he _might_ have a hard time due to fake lib-dem anger. The bill will be a WORK OF ART.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 12, 2010)

binka said:


> and what will their response be when there isn't one?



I don't know, I think Cable sounded awfull today. You can't go back on a pledge like that.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 12, 2010)

Quick Q - It seems what Vince Cable is saying is that less well-off graduates will pay less that they do now, and that wealthier ones will pay more. But when the effective 0% interest rate is gone, doesn't that mean that the poorer students (who'll be paying for longer) end up paying more in total?


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

It's a fucking gift to the 'squeezed middle' lot.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know, I think Cable sounded awfull today. You can't go back on a pledge like that.


 
Yes you can, it's what your party is all about.

KBT: sounds about right


----------



## stupid dogbot (Oct 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All the activists I know are hoping for big rebellion from the MPs


 
"Hoping"


----------



## netbob (Oct 12, 2010)

The libdem web team will be hastly taking this page down  http://www.libdems.org.uk/education.aspx (just got mentioned in HoC)


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Quick Q - It seems what Vince Cable is saying is that less well-off graduates will pay less that they do now, and that wealthier ones will pay more. But when the effective 0% interest rate is gone, doesn't that mean that the poorer students (who'll be paying for longer) end up paying more in total?


Yes. A city boy will be able to pay the whole lot off with a single bonus and incur bugger all interest. Anyone who's mug enough to work for the public sector, or a women who is silly enough to damage her career prospects by having children, will be paying back a big chunk for most of their working lives, and incur much more interest as a result.


----------



## binka (Oct 12, 2010)

i don't think vince is enjoying this at all


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

It's amazing, they have managed to get alexander as cut boy and cable as anti-student boy. Do they know how they look?


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2010)

skidmarks lol


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes. A city boy will be able to pay the whole lot off with a single bonus and incur bugger all interest. Anyone who's mug enough to work for the public sector, or a women who is silly enough to damage her career prospects by having children, will be paying back a big chunk for most of their working lives, and incur much more interest as a result.


 
Is this the case? Did Vince 'Mable' Cable not get his add on early repayment penalty thing attached to the bill? His proposal is that anyone attempting to act as you've described would be hit by a early repayment charge.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 12, 2010)

No it's not the case, it's subtler than that - according to Browne anyway.

He says those who pay early incur additional costs in the same way someone paying off their mortgage early does.


----------



## strung out (Oct 12, 2010)

vince cable on question time last year...


unlimited tuition fees "fundamentally wrong"


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 12, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No it's not the case, it's subtler than that - according to Browne anyway.
> 
> He says those who pay early incur additional costs in the same way someone paying off their mortgage early does.


 
So there would be an early repayment charge. Which is what I said. Someone Cityboy paying it off in one shot on a bonus would be hit by a penalty for paying it off quickly.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 12, 2010)

But there's paying it off early (which there never used to be any incentive to do, because interest was effectively nil) and theres being required to pay it off faster (ie cheaper).


----------



## mauvais (Oct 12, 2010)

Whatever I said in my previous 11,972 posts is no longer feasible, and by remarkable coincidence, the exact opposite is fair and affordable. Backwards not forwards! This party never had _any _gears!


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Is this the case? Did Vince 'Mable' Cable not get his add on early repayment penalty thing attached to the bill? His proposal is that anyone attempting to act as you've described would be hit by a early repayment charge.


 
I'm sure someone else will know the details, but if you honestly think that any early repayment penalty will amount to the equivalent of 20+ years worth of interest on a £20k debt, you've not been living on the same planet as the rest of us for quite some time.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 12, 2010)

Is it possible for the lib dems to sink _any_ lower than this? Oh I'm looking forward to their MPs getting grilled to death at future public forums. The fucking scum.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 12, 2010)

Seven Twelve thousand An unlimited amount is basically the same as zero anyway. The fact that it is infinitely more is simply a measure of the worsening economic climate. I do don't do don't know what you're complaining about.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 12, 2010)




----------



## Refused as fuck (Oct 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All the activists I know are hoping for big rebellion from the MPs


 
That would require each MP to possess a fully working spine. Channel 4 News reports that to date they haven't scraped one together between them all in their entire history.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2010)

The wall on the lib dems facebook page is turning ugly


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2010)

The Review will analyse the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and their implications for student financing and support. It will examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers. In doing so it will consider a wide range of potential policy options.​
The 'wide range of potential policy options' was either remove the cap on fees or have a graduate tax. It would seem theat the Lib Dems are taking their lead from the reports lead author in being economical with the truth; more of the same TINA rubbish.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. seems this research from Leicester University hasn't figured in Browne or Cable's reading; table one shows the disproportionate effect of increasing fees on poorer students.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 12, 2010)

Surely someone whose parents pay upfront pay significantly less then a poorer student who has to take out a loan at all.....how can that be right?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

They just _destroyed_ a local lib-dem (bristol west) on htv by counter-posing his pre-election words with today. _It's all about the search for fairness_. Off you go.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Even better, he's just _cried_ that it won't effect people until after the next election


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2010)

they'll be running low on coffin nails for this lot soon.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Surely someone whose parents pay upfront pay significantly less then a poorer student who has to take out a loan at all.....how can that be right?


 
Even more to it than that, as Nick Robinsons blog says:



> Critics still say that his package is not progressive enough and could actually result in those earning, say, 30k to 45k paying back more than those on higher incomes. The reason for this is that, under Browne's proposals, graduates will pay 9% of their earnings each year, as they do now. However, unlike now, the debt owed will increase over time as Browne is proposing that graduates start to pay the real rate of interest on their debt. Thus, if Daddy can pay off your debt or if you can pay it back quickly because you're earning a lot, you will end up paying less for education than someone who does it steadily over the years - just like any other debt, in fact.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/focus_on_the_mi.html


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

Lovely beads of sweat appearing on Cable's forehead when Jon Snow waved the pledge at him. 

His response was basically "we're in government now so we can't get away with the naive fantasies we indulged in when we were just trying to get people to vote for us."


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Even better, he's just _cried_ that it won't effect people until after the next election


 
Most of their uni seats now looking vulnerable.  Sheffield Hallam?  But where will students vote? Hardly for Cameron.  Need a punish Clegg candidate (not necessarily Labour, perhaps much better if not).


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

elbows said:


> Even more to it than that, as Nick Robinsons blog says:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/focus_on_the_mi.html


9%? Fucking hell.

A back of the envelope calculation suggests that a graduate tax of 0.1% for every £1k spent on fees and subsistence would provide a more than adequate return. I can't see any reason not to extend that to any form of training past the age of 18, which would allow people to access opportunities that are just completely unavailable right now, nor any reason why the cost should not be shared by the employers who are getting the training for free.

Back of the envelope:

mean UK income ~£27k (higher for graduates, at around £30k)
0.1% of £30k = £30
years in work ~ 40
40 x £30 = £1200 paid back over a lifetime, for every £1000 spent


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Most of their uni seats now looking vulnerable.  Sheffield Hallam?  But where will students vote? Hardly for Cameron.  Need a punish Clegg candidate (not necessarily Labour, perhaps much better if not).


 
Students are registered in their university constituencies, which are mostly marginals. Oh joy.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

There's quite a few they picked up with student votes on anti-war, anti-fees basis - like Manchester Withington.  Quite a few of their MPs will be voting against this package to hang onto their own jobs.  The problem is some only realistically face Tory opponents - which is another reason why we need AV.  So people can vote against the coalition and its policies without handing seats directly to the Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Here we fucking go, _vote for them against them!_


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

I'm saying vote against the coalition.  But how do you do that effectively?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

By voting lib-dem. Obviously.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

No that's clearly not what I'm saying - under FPTP that wouldn't do any good whatsoever.  But to allow a significant electoral challenge you need a system that allows other candidates to contest the election without the credible argument that they are only helping the Tories.  If it turns out it's still a LD/Con contest, surely its better that they're fighting with each other than fighting for seats that are closely fought with non-coalition candidates?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Hang on, your anti no campaign is based on "the credible argument that they are only helping the Tories". 

If you want to attack _the coalition_ vote no.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

A No vote will be a boost for the Tories, but will stiffen LD resolve to make the coalition work (and hence preserve their own necks from the dangers of an early election).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

A yes vote will be one for the lib-dems and their coalition. _Only_ a no vote contains the seeds of coalition collapse. You know this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The problem is some only realistically face Tory opponents - which is another reason why we need AV.  So people can vote against the coalition and its policies without handing seats directly to the Tories.


 
no we dont need AV though


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

well what will happen to those lost LD votes in the SW? They will stay at home or go to losing candidates.  Either way the Tories sweep the board and are on their way to a majority.  If we don't get AV it's harder to kick out the coalition parties, and there is a huge argument against left candidates standing elsewhere as they will "split the Labour vote".  This is why we need AV.  And why left unions like PCS will be backing a YES vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

You're talking about a GE. No one else is. I'm talking about this panto referendum. To even post as you do is to accept the premise that a no vote might bring the coalition down. Which you think you're arguing against. 

Please don't throw the PCS in my face, go back to the_ you're a tory_ line. Much funnier.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 12, 2010)

nus & ucu are planning to march in central london on nov. 10 to protest against the cuts in education. more info here: http://www.demo2010.org/promote-the-demo/

if any of you are interested, could you please sign a letter to cable here: www.standupforstudents.org.uk


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

A No vote will make the LDs cling harder than ever to the Tories, out of desperation to make the public think the coalition has "worked" and compensate for losing their "trophy" of electoral reform.  It won't speed the demise of the coalition.   If it was do disastrous for the coalition why would Con central office be organising so hard for a NO?


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well what will happen to those lost LD votes in the SW? They will stay at home or go to losing candidates.  Either way the Tories sweep the board and are on their way to a majority.  If we don't get AV it's harder to kick out the coalition parties, and there is a huge argument against left candidates standing elsewhere as they will "split the Labour vote".  This is why we need AV.  And why left unions like PCS will be backing a YES vote.


 
AV will allow people to vote for the party they want, and then put the least worst party that can actually win it second. It makes very little difference, and can work out even less proportional than FPTP. It might help the Greens in some of their target seats, but it will not deliver a government which is not Tory, Labour or a coalition with the Lib Dems.

It makes fuck all difference what electoral system we have. We don't have any parties which can plausibly get into power which will do what the voters want them to do, or even what they told the voters they would do. They'll do what their paymasters want them to do, with a keen eye on post-parliamentary money-grubbing opportunities. There is no magic electoral system which will give us democracy. It's irrelevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

What the hell do you a think a yes vote will do 8ate ? It'll embiggen and harden the lib-dems in their approach. Only a no vote can split them and fuck the coalition up. You _do_ know this.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

What I want to see is a YES vote combined with a really bad night for the LDs at local council level.  A NO vote would accentuate grumbles at grassroots but harden the relationship with the Tories.  But increase the likelihood of a Tory majority at the next GE.  I don't think that slapping down the LDs only to get a purely Tory government is going to help much.  I would welcome the fact that under AV the CWU (for example) could run anti-privatisation candidates without fear of "splitting the Labour vote".  Who will celebrate a NO?  Tories and the most conservative (small c) faction of Labourists.   I don't see why you want to join them


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Yeah, back to the _you're a tory_ approach. As predicted. Defeat beckons.

A no vote will split the lib-dems right down the middle. A yes vote will unite them. That's it. It's that simple.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

The LDs are split down the middle already - a NO vote will make the local councillors and activists cling to the leadership to claim that the coalition has "worked in the national interest".  If the coalition breaks down shortly after a NO, they get hammered out of sight.  And know it.  So they are totally committed.  A YES vote means Clegg needn't fear wipe out and gives him extra elbow room in the coalition.  But that's not why it's worth having.  It's worth having because it will help the voters knock both parties out of power and also allows left parties some room to stand.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

No it won't, it'll do the exact opposite. It'll be manifest proof that they mean nothing. A yes vote will show that the policy is working. That's what will unite waverers.

All you're saying is support the coalition because the tories might win otherwise - whilst pretending this an anti-coalition position. It's a pro-coalition position - and most people have gone well beyond it. Stop being a pro-coalition drag.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

But people will see a yes vote as an endorsement of the coalition though.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> But people will see a yes vote as an endorsement of the coalition though.


 How when Cameron has argued publically and vehemently against?

It's absurd to say a YES vote is pro-coalition.  Whose side are you on?  Cameron/ virtually every Tory MP/Taxpayers Alliance/xenophobe Lord Leach and Lord Prescott?
Or PCS/John McDonnell/Billy Hayes/Caroline lucas?

Is there really a case to answer?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

You're all TORIES - desperate paid liar type stuff. It really is.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

you don't answer why the Tories and their allies would be so keen on a NO vote - and why leading lefts would argue for YES.  

Let's have an answer...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Get to fuck. I'm not playing that kiddy game. This is why you're going to lose.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

You might be right, and nothing would delight Cameron et al more.  But you don't actually answer *why* the battle lines are being drawn up in that way...surely it must make you reflect?

edit - I suppose it's consistent for someone who wants to smash parliamentary democracy to advocate the least democratic system possible - and thereby meet Tories who never much cared for giving the proles the vote.  But given the fact that the majority of the population do invest some significance in election...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

I think i _know_ why you're on the other side, with the neo-liberal extremists. Do you?

Easy this.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

Neo-liberal extremists like McDonnell and Serwotka?  Whereas you're with Cameron... right...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Yes. You're so going to kill yourself with this stuff. _Encore!_


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

No reflection?  No pause for thought?  shame...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

Surely if everyone votes yes, it's an endorsement of the lib dems and their policy and by extension an endorsement of tories? I don't really see any *significant* difference between the leadership of the lib dems and that of the tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

What sort of reflection is needed in response to _you  and all you sail in are thick tories?_ It's pathetic. And _you're paid for it._


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 12, 2010)

The libdems should be put in death camps.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Surely if everyone votes yes, it's an endorsement of the lib dems and their policy and by extension an endorsement of tories? I don't really see any *significant* difference between the leadership of the lib dems and that of the tories.


 
No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships.  It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against.  It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition.  But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it.  So the losers are both coalition parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The libdems should be put in death camps.


 No reflection? No useless leniency? You tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships.  It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against.  It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition.  But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it.  So the losers are both coalition parties.


 
You're manufacturing a self-justifying fantasy that has as its hero a rotten villain - and makes a virtue out of it. _But it's the best i could do._


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What sort of reflection is needed in response to _you  and all you sail in are thick tories?_ It's pathetic. And _you're paid for it._


 
No - Im asking (*genuine question*) what logic leads you to line up with virtually 100% of Tory MPs against left unions and MPs?  You think I'm only saying this because I'm paid to?  WRONG I work on this campaign because I happen to believe that it is worthwhile.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 12, 2010)

I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

Belushi said:


> I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.


 
Innit!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

See, this is the reality. None of this devious waffle above.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> you don't answer why the Tories and their allies would be so keen on a NO vote - and why leading lefts would argue for YES.
> 
> Let's have an answer...


I'm not sure I'm understanding you, so forgive me if I'm pointing out the glaringly obvious and missing the deeper point you're making.

The Tories don't want a YES vote because it means they will never hold power alone again. Labour are split on this issue. They abandoned plans for electoral reform when they got in because they had a huge majority and didn't want to give it up for coalition politics.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

Belushi said:


> I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.


 
Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead.  Well, ok....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No - Im asking (*genuine question*) what logic leads you to line up with virtually 100% of Tory MPs against left unions and MPs?  You think I'm only saying this because I'm paid to?  WRONG I work on this campaign because I happen to believe that it is worthwhile.


 
You're doing exactly what i say you are. It's why you're going to lose.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships.  It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against.  It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition.  But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it.  So the losers are both coalition parties.


 
If we're going to have PR we might as well have proper PR and not this watered down imitation for the benefit of the tories as coalition partners which will make everyone in a worse position before its introduction. And im not convinced that the tories will come out against it, the lib dems and tories compromised so that we'd have a referendum on AV and not proper PR.  

How is not supporting something that tories also don't support making me a tory or sympathetic to their views? I'm not


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead.  Well, ok....


 
You're a tory too!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

stephj said:


> Innit!


 
Also a tory!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Seriously, what fucking london think tank bubble do you live in a8?


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead.  Well, ok....


 
You want to hand the Lib Dems the power to give us a perpetual Tory government? Because that's what AV makes more likely. The parliamentary party are overwhelmingly on the right, much more so than their membership.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

I'm not saying that.  I'm saying you are acting as useful idots for the tories.  Frogwoman - Cameron has said in his conference speech he will be working against a YES vote.  The head of the NO campaign is Matthew Elliot of the Taxpayers Alliance - working with Lynton Crosby and others from the pro-Tory, pro-Boris camp - others include Bernard Jenkin Mp, Daniel Kaczinsky MP and Charlotte de Vere.  All tory.

How would a YES vote "make things worse" - I don't see it.  You lot obviously think an awful lot about the significance of Clegg and company if you're so desperate to deprive them of a "win".  The thing to work for is a YES, followed by an anti-coalition voting pattern.  That would shaft both Clegg and Cameron to the maximum extent.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> You want to hand the Lib Dems the power to give us a perpetual Tory government? Because that's what AV makes more likely. The parliamentary party are overwhelmingly on the right, much more so than their membership.


 
After the coalition this is what FPTP government is likely to mean.  AV is no more likely than FPTP to lead to hung parliaments.  Indeed, in Australia (which has AV) there have been fewer hung parliaments than in the UK in the same period.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The thing to work for is a YES, followed by an anti-coalition voting pattern.  That would shaft both Clegg and Cameron to the maximum extent.


 
TBF thats fucking delusional.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

So what though? Clegg is also a tory.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

Belushi said:


> TBF thats fucking delusional.


 
why?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what though? Clegg is also a tory.


 
yes and the best way of getting rid of both is...for Labour to win over former LD voters in LD/Lab marginals but for the LD vote to hold up where the Tories are the main challenge.  You don't need to be an expert psephologist to see this


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

A no vote that splits the lib-dem and fucks the coalition is bit more damaging than this paid fantasy.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

SO you say we should endorse one lot of tories' policies above another because the other tories are the bad tories, whereas a no vote wouldn't be a vote for cameron et al, it would be a vote of distrust in the government. AV is actually a worse voting system than FPTP, it doesn't give smaller parties a bigger advantage, I don't know why you';re so keen on it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

A yes vote that really means no. In the coalition but against it. In labour but anti-labour. Pro-coalition but against it. All things to all men at any one time - but no politics. Bring back moon.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

It won't split the LDs though - it will make their leadership cling even harder to the Tories.  I'm not paid to spend my evenings posting here (funnily enough).  I do it as I happen to think it


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> yes and the best way of getting rid of both is...for Labour to win over former LD voters in LD/Lab marginals but for the LD vote to hold up where the Tories are the main challenge.  You don't need to be an expert psephologist to see this


 
But this is a referendum, this isn't about Laobur. The lib dems - one lot of tories in government - are proposing this - do you not see?? And why do you believe what Cameron is saying in his speeches - if the lib dems can play the duplicitous game so can the tories surely ??


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 12, 2010)

James Mayo is a freedom fighter. We need a national campiagn to call for the releasing of this political prisoner and hero:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/ExPara-made-threat-to-kill.5801453.jp

A great, great man.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It won't split the LDs though - it will make their leadership cling even harder to the Tories.  I'm not paid to spend my evenings posting here (funnily enough).  I do it as I happen to think it


 
Their leadership is going to cling to them anyway - yay or nay. The members are only going to challenge that if their leaderships policy is shown to not lead anywhere they want to go. That can only come from a no vote. A yes vote will cement that leadership. You are living in a fantasy land.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> SO you say we should endorse one lot of tories' policies above another because the other tories are the bad tories, whereas a no vote wouldn't be a vote for cameron et al, it would be a vote of distrust in the government. AV is actually a worse voting system than FPTP, it doesn't give smaller parties a bigger advantage, I don't know why you';re so keen on it


 
NO - oppose the LDs policies on cuts/deficit all alond the line.  A vote against AV just tells Cameron what a great game he's played in shafting the LDs.  Which is fine, except it makes getting rid of tories harder not easier.  

AV doesn't go as far as I would like.  But a NO vote locks the current system in place for decades.  A YES vote is a step forward in breaking the "you're splitting the vote" argument against the left.  That's why I'm in favour.  And it's a platform for moving to a better system still.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

In and out, for and against - and if you don't agree with what i'm paid to say this week you're a tory.

Btw, the only prat whose used the you're splitting the vote bollocks on here recently is you.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Their leadership is going to cling to them anyway - yay or nay. The members are only going to challenge that if their leaderships policy is shown to not lead anywhere they want to go. That can only come from a no vote. A yes vote will cement that leadership. You are living in a fantasy land.


 
The members really count for fuck all.  Same as Labour.  A No vote might lead to some grumbles, but won't deflect Clegg from his course.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> NO - oppose the LDs policies on cuts/deficit all alond the line.  A vote against AV just tells Cameron what a great game he's played in shafting the LDs.  Which is fine, except it makes getting rid of tories harder not easier.
> 
> AV doesn't go as far as I would like.  But a NO vote locks the current system in place for decades.  A YES vote is a step forward in breaking the "you're splitting the vote" argument against the left.  That's why I'm in favour.  And it's a platform for moving to a better system still.


 
We want him to shaft the lib dems though and shaft himself in the process.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The members really count for fuck all.  Same as Labour.  A No vote might lead to some grumbles, but won't deflect Clegg from his course.


The votes count you prat. That's what will put pressure on him and them.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> In and out, for and against - and if you don't agree with what i'm paid to say this week you're a tory.



I get paid for this, rather than something else - because I happen to believe it   I would probably be better paid if I didn't


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Yeah, and johhny lydon loves butter.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The vote count you prat. That's what will put pressure on him and them.


 
Not in the locals though - that will make them cling to the Tories all the more to claim "we did it for the national interest" in the end.  A GE is where it counts.  But by that stage getting the LDs smashed will only benefit Cameron at the end of the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Up the coalition then. Can't you think this stuff through for even a second?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, and johhny lydon loves butter.


 
So you won't support England because Capello is paid to manage.  Or like Mark E Smith because he gets paid for gigs... you're a joker


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

No - against the coalition but in an electorally effective way, not just all mouth


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> So you won't support England because Capello is paid to manage.  Or like Mark E Smith because he gets paid for gigs... you're a joker


 
What world do you live in? It's so unconnected with reality that i don't know where to begin.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No - against the coalition but in an electorally effective way, not just all mouth


 
Against the coalition by supporting it because what might happen if you oppose it might be worse. I'm the joker? I take it you don't ever take this weird waffle out on the doorstep? You would be laughed off the street.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What world do you live in? It's so unconnected with reality that i don't know where to begin.


 
eh?  Because people only ever do worthwhile stuff spontaneously, and anyone who has taken a wage for anything is corrupted?  And I'm the one that's "unconnected with reality"?!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No - against the coalition but in an electorally effective way, not just all mouth


 
Just oppose the coalition outright.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> eh?  Because people only ever do worthwhile stuff spontaneously, and anyone who has taken a wage for anything is corrupted?  And I'm the one that's "unconnected with reality"?!


Well you certainly appear to be imagining a lot of stuff that's not there.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2010)

Its going to be funny watching the Lib Dems try to win a campaign on this issue considering how much they have pissed off the kinds of people who would previously have been taken in by their lies.

Even the name of the proposed system is ironic, Alternative Vote backed by a party that pretended to be the real alternative but were instantly found out when it mattered.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

stephj said:


> Just oppose the coalition outright.


 
Only a tory would think thusly.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Against the coalition by supporting it because what might happen if you oppose it might be worse. I'm the joker? I take it you don't ever take this weird waffle out on the doorstep? You would be laughed off the street.


 
I don't support the coalition.  And you know it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

No i don't. You dare call me a tory then cry like this?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

But i don't see what's electorally effective about telling people to say yes to a lib dem policy which people dont want anyway.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

I do oppose the coalition and it's policies.  But a pro AV vote isn't a coalition policy.  Which is why the Tories want to sink it.  They think they've played a blinder - reducing the number of (Labour) MPs has been swallowed by LDs, but they think they can grant a referendum but sink it.  If you vote NO it's playing straight into Camerons hands.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No i don't. You dare call me a tory then cry like this?


 
Idon't call you a tory.  I simply *ask* why you are choosing to align yourself with a position backed by few other than tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

If you want bring the coalition down vote no. Everyone else worked that out without your help. Catch up with us.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Idon't call you a tory.  I simply *ask* why you are choosing to align yourself with a position backed by few other than tories.


 
You chose to employ a strategy aimed at labelling those who oppose you as tories. You also lie about this when called on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

> a position backed by few other than tories.



nutter.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> After the coalition this is what FPTP government is likely to mean.  AV is no more likely than FPTP to lead to hung parliaments.  Indeed, in Australia (which has AV) there have been fewer hung parliaments than in the UK in the same period.


 
After the coalition, the Lib Dems will disappear and the Tories will stay out of power for a generation, whichever electoral system we have.

And yes - that's precisely why AV is not PR and I don't understand why anyone gives a flying fuck.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> But i don't see what's electorally effective about telling people to say yes to a lib dem policy which people dont want anyway.


 
people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything?  You think?

OK AV isn;t where we want to end up.  But it makes the Tories fight for seats in the South that would be otherwise in the bag.  And it allows greater space for left/anti-coalition candidates to stand without *necessarily* splitting the Labour vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

We?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

We those opposed to the coalition and wanting to see a left alternative emerge


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Yeah the labour party and those who don't want to split their vote. You're rotten. Just have some principles, have some politics and stick by them. Not this paid multi-coloured adopt all positions at once  bollocks.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If you want bring the coalition down vote no. Everyone else worked that out without your help. Catch up with us.


 
It won't.  That will cement the coalition for the full term -anything else would be Ld turkeys voting for xmas


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything?  You think?
> 
> OK AV isn;t where we want to end up.  But it makes the Tories fight for seats in the South that would be otherwise in the bag.  And it allows greater space for left/anti-coalition candidates to stand without *necessarily* splitting the Labour vote.


 
What's it got to do with the legitimacy of anything else? People dont trust the lib dems on ANYTHING, and a vote against the lib dems is exactly that. 

without necessarily splitting the labour vote - isn't that the sort of thing that has been so damaging in the past?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah the labour party and those who don't want to split their vote. You're rotten. Just have some principles, have some politics and stick by them. Not this paid multi-coloured adopt all positions at once  bollocks.


 
This is it though - the Labour left and non-Labour left would both benefit from a YES.  Whereas a NO just cements auto-Labourism for the forseeable future.   Prescott wants a NO, PCS want a YES.  Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It won't.  That will cement the coalition for the full term -anything else would be Ld turkeys voting for xmas


No it won't. Only someone who is paid to argue otherwise cannot see why not.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> This is it though - the Labour left and non-Labour left would both benefit from a YES.  Whereas a NO just cements auto-Labourism for the forseeable future.   Prescott wants a NO, PCS want a YES.  Why?


 
You can easily support both sides on this as well then can't you?

Back to the you're tory stuff. Keep it coming.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What's it got to do with the legitimacy of anything else? People dont trust the lib dems on ANYTHING, and a vote against the lib dems is exactly that.
> 
> without necessarily splitting the labour vote - isn't that the sort of thing that has been so damaging in the past?


 
Like it or not (I don't) - the LDs operate as the de facto anti-Tory opposition in parts of the country (at the same time as operating as the de facto ant-Labour opposition in others - a consequence of not having PR but FPTP).  which means simply obliterating the LDs as much as it might feel good (it would) would actually make it harder to reach a non-Tory government.  We need to smash the LDs intelligently, where they are at their most reactionary.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Idon't call you a tory.  I simply *ask* why you are choosing to align yourself with a position backed by few other than tories.


 
My enemy's enemy is my friend? Is that the level you have to stoop to try and sell this?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2010)

so this jjust about getting labour back in - what makes you think itd even do that?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You can easily support both sides on this as well then can't you?
> 
> Back to the you're tory stuff. Keep it coming.


 
there's no support both sides - i want to end auto-Labourism.  But that means actually working through and beyond Labour not pretending that the defeat of the coalition partners is possible without it.  You're being utterly and completely disingenous.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

> We need to smash the LDs intelligently, where they are at their most reactionary.



What hand wringing wet waffle.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> there's no support both sides - i want to end auto-Labourism.  But that means actually working through and beyond Labour not pretending that the defeat of the coalition partners is possible without it.  You're being utterly and completely disingenous.



But that means actually working through and beyond Labour - what is this self-serving waffle?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> so this jjust about getting labour back in - what makes you think itd even do that?


 
I'm afraid that unless you are able to smash and replace parliamentary democracy overnight the only alternative to the coalition parties *is* a Labour government.  If you came up with a convincing strategy from winning the majority from electoralism I'd be dancing up and down with delight.  But I don't think you have one.  And nor do I.  So it's a question of what kind of opposition might be mobilised against the coalition partners.  And what kind of influences can bear brought to bear upon it.  My guess is that AV would mean more influence for the left and the greens.  I don't see what argument means that Labour will be more effective under FPTP than AV.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But that means actually working through and beyond Labour - what is this self-serving waffle?


 
stop waffling and read the above


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

You're just one of them aren't you?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

One of whom?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Them. That lot.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

It actually makes me quite sick to read your caring joan bakewell crap dressed up as politics now.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 12, 2010)

No.  In so far as I am inside it's because i want to be outside.  But the outside doesn't have a proper strategy to change what goes on inside.  So we need to work inside and outside to shift and dissolve the boundary.  
(edit - how's that for Joan Bakewell )


----------



## Lakina (Oct 12, 2010)

turd munching arse licking dick sucking lie rakers who took less than 5 minutes to reveal what a bunch of bullshitters they are.  Clegg, Cable, Alexander, you are fucking scum for betraying so many voters so shamelessly.  Lib Dem party is getting wiped out forever now - people see through your shit.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No.  In so far as I am inside it's because i want to be outside.  But the outside doesn't have a proper strategy to change what goes on inside.  So we need to work inside and outside to shift and dissolve the boundary.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2010)

On the BBC news at 10, after they finished showing the Lib Dems for what they are, they had a story about the Chilean miners and mentioned how they had been humbled by the ordeal. I suggest that after they have been rescued, we put our politicians down the hole so that they can reflect. Let us out they will cry, but sorry, we just cant afford to, there is no alternative.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything?  You think?


 
Id wager that very few of the people unhappy with the political system think that AV is going to change things in the way thats needed.

Attempts to turn the MPs expenses scandal into a vote winner for some MPs are disgusting.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

articul8 said:


> people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything?  You think?


No. Are you saying that you're directing your energies in the best possible way to change things for the better? A new way to elect the same parties? How is that going to change anything?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 12, 2010)

elbows said:


> Id wager that very few of the people unhappy with the political system think that AV is going to change things in the way thats needed.
> 
> Attempts to turn the MPs expenses scandal into a vote winner for some MPs are disgusting.


 
Exactly, I'd have thought that most people already see AV as both a climbdown for the Lib Dems, as well as being a bit of a convenient distraction from the more serious issues that MPs expenses and the existing parliamentary system posed. It's a cheap sell to the electorate - 'if we change our electoral system, our broken politics will be fixed'!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 12, 2010)

Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.




			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.



I'm thinking this   , and I'm not even especially opposed to AV in principle.

One of the biggest arguments though for voting against the AV referendum as currently planned, is the pro Tory boundary changes that will almost certainly be bundled in with it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> No. Are you saying that you're directing your energies in the best possible way to change things for the better? A new way to elect the same parties? How is that going to change anything?


 
It's going to change it by ensuring MPs have to gain over 50% support which will mean they have to work harder to keep that support rather than rely on having a strong core vote.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I heard someone say this the other day, that they were going to vote NO in the referndum just to spite the Lib Dems for joining the coalition. I pointed out the Tories were going to be voting NO as well so they would be voting with them, and along the lines of Matthew Elliot and the Tax Payers Alliance. 

It's pretty sad that this Labour activist was going to throw away the only chance for electroal reform in years for political point scoring.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm pretty sure the Tory boundary changes will be included in the bill that enables the AV referendum, not the actual referundum. A NO vote would mean you still had the boundary changes but also what the Tories want in terms of keeping FPTP.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's going to change it by ensuring MPs have to gain over 50% support which will mean they have to work harder to keep that support rather than rely on having a strong core vote.


I don't buy it. MPs shouldn't be doing social work in their constituencies, they should be holding the government, and their own party leadership, to account. It's not going to change what happens centrally, and what happens centrally is what big business wants because the rest of us can't afford to pay them £10k an hour to come and have a chat after dinner.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> I don't buy it. MPs shouldn't be doing social work in their constituencies, they should be holding the government, and their own party leadership, to account. It's not going to change what happens centrally, and what happens centrally is what big business wants because the rest of us can't afford to pay them £10k an hour to come and have a chat after dinner.


 
I agree MPs shouldn't just be acting like social workers but much casework is useful, for instance fighting immigration cases and sticking up for the views of local residents by asking questions in the house.

It won't stop all coruption but there was a correlation between how safe someone's seat was and their chances of taking the piss with their expenses. I suspect if MPs had to win more local support then it might make some think twice.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree MPs shouldn't just be acting like social workers but much casework is useful, for instance fighting immigration cases and sticking up for the views of local residents by asking questions in the house.
> 
> It won't stop all coruption but there was a correlation between how safe someone's seat was and their chances of taking the piss with their expenses. I suspect if MPs had to win more local support then it might make some think twice.


Yeah, but I'm still not interested in having different bums on seats if they all belong to identikit parties which are incapable of delivering what the majority of voters want. Punish them for being shit, by all means - brilliant - but if the only alternative is to elect someone who will be equally shit because their party is just as shit ... well, it doesn't get my juices flowing.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yeah, but I'm still not interested in having different bums on seats if they all belong to identikit parties which are incapable of delivering what the majority of voters want. Punish them for being shit, by all means - brilliant - but if the only alternative is to elect someone who will be equally shit because their party is just as shit ... well, it doesn't get my juices flowing.


 
Fair enough, if you think all the parties are the same AV unlike FPTP isn't going to help get a minority party into power. I do agree with Adrian Ramsay the Green's deputy leader that voting NO will be used as an indicator that people are happy with the current way in which politics is run.
_
"If you vote No in this referendum, nobody would know whether you were rejecting AV because you wanted genuine reform, or were simply opposing any reform. We think the only logical vote for reformers is to vote Yes to AV, because everyone who does so is clearly showing that they're unhappy with the current system. "_


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Fair enough, if you think all the parties are the same AV unlike FPTP isn't going to help get a minority party into power. I do agree with Adrian Ramsay the Green's deputy leader that voting NO will be used as an indicator that people are happy with the current way in which politics is run.
> _
> "If you vote No in this referendum, nobody would know whether you were rejecting AV because you wanted genuine reform, or were simply opposing any reform. We think the only logical vote for reformers is to vote Yes to AV, because everyone who does so is clearly showing that they're unhappy with the current system. "_


Oh, what a shock, they're not giving us a referendum which allows us to vote for what we actually want.

I don't have a vote, but if I did you'd be doing a great job of convincing me that anything that makes it easier for the Lib Dems to get power would be a bad idea. There's no politics here, just opportunistic blackmail. Imagine my surprise to see a Lib Dem behaving like that ...


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oh, what a shock, they're not giving us a referendum which allows us to vote for what we actually want.
> 
> I don't have a vote, but if I did you'd be doing a great job of convincing me that anything that makes it easier for the Lib Dems to get power would be a bad idea. There's no politics here, just opportunistic blackmail. Imagine my surprise to see a Lib Dem behaving like that ...


 
I think Ramsay makes a reasonble point about change and how voting for electoral reform is worthwhile. I don't understand what you mean by blackmail, who is being blackmailed?  Personal i'm in favour of AV as I'd prefer to have the power to rank candidates I liked.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think Ramsay makes a reasonble point about change and how voting for electoral reform is worthwhile. I don't understand what you mean by blackmail, who is being blackmailed?  Personal i'm in favour of AV as I'd prefer to have the power to rank candidates I liked.


 
_Vote for what we want because otherwise you're telling the government that they're doing a good job and you approve._

Fuck off. Vote for what you want and tell the Lib Dems they have a future? No chance!

I don't care much about electoral reform because it's missing the point. But you didn't even manage to get that on the table. AV puts STV further away, not closer, you spineless self-aggrandising wimps.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A No vote will make the LDs cling harder than ever to the Tories, out of desperation to make the public think the coalition has "worked" and compensate for losing their "trophy" of electoral reform.  It won't speed the demise of the coalition.   If it was do disastrous for the coalition why would Con central office be organising so hard for a NO?


 
Conservative central office will organise against AV because:

1. they can't do anything else given the Tories long standing and deeply held opposition to electoral reform; 

2. they want to damage the Lib Dems (remember this is a marriage of convenience not one of choice) as coalition partners and as opponents at the next general election.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships.  It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against.  It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition.  But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it.  So the losers are both coalition parties.


 
Both coalition partners i.e. Clegg and Cameron would claim it as a victory for 'the new politics'. Given the similarity of their agendas why shouldn't they; it's actually a very small price to pay for Cameron (especially since prior to the referendum he will have made sure he's making a lot of anti-AV noise).

Cheers Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No - against the coalition but in an electorally effective way, not just all mouth


 
How is voting yes in one the key products of the coalition (a referendum on AV) being against the coalition. Yes to AV is an exemplary way to show the coalition at it's 'best'; four more years.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> We those opposed to the coalition and wanting to see a left alternative emerge


 
Some of 'we' surely? Unless you're trying to claim that it is impossible to oppose the coalition and AV, which would be both intellectually dishonest and persoanlly insulting.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> My guess is that AV would mean more influence for the left and the greens.


 A bit like the situation in somewhere like Italy, then? What determines the strength of the opposition to neo-liberal class war on the poor is not the parliamentary left and the greens, but rather people's ability to mobilise to put pressure from outside. Look at countries where the greens have been in government, for goodness sake.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

Random said:


> A bit like the situation in somewhere like Italy, then? What determines the strength of the opposition to neo-liberal class war on the poor is not the parliamentary left and the greens, but rather people's ability to mobilise to put pressure from outside. Look at countries where the greens have been in government, for goodness sake.


 
Yep. You cannot change the politicians, you have to change the discourse.

This is a particularly crap article by Monbiot, but it's worth a read for the psychology he discusses in it. The key reference is linked to from there if anyone wants to read more (no idea if it's any good, not got round to it yet). AFAIK the basic psychology is sound.



> Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that “economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.”(4) Conservatives in the United States generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that both appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive response to this trend has been disastrous.
> 
> Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once-progressive political parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to Middle England, which was often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been a catastrophic mistake.
> 
> ...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 13, 2010)

The seeds of Lib-Dem disquiet followed by coalition collapse are already germinating nicely in the large cities in this country. The shoots should start to break through around the time of the Local Elections. It was gaining cllrs in large cities which gave the LDs the foothold they used in their last genuine upturn. I'd wager the same will hold true in reverse.

In a general election, in LD/Con marginals the LDs will probably hang on, but in their much-lauded post-industrial inner city seats (which also contain a lot of students) they are toast.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh yes. BNP-style wipe out.


----------



## Santino (Oct 13, 2010)

From (a Guardian summary of) a YouGov survey:



> Perhaps the most alarming finding for Clegg is the one right at the end. Near the start of their survey, YouGov asked its respondents how they would vote in a referendum on AV or FPTP. FPTP was one point ahead. But at the end of the survey, after respondents had answered a series of questions testing the arguments for and against electoral reform, YouGov asked the same question again, asking people to take into account the issues raised in the poll. In the responses to this question, FPTP was seven points ahead. This suggests that exposure to the arguments makes people even less likely to back AV.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> _Vote for what we want because otherwise you're telling the government that they're doing a good job and you approve._
> 
> Fuck off. Vote for what you want and tell the Lib Dems they have a future? No chance!
> 
> I don't care much about electoral reform because it's missing the point. But you didn't even manage to get that on the table. AV puts STV further away, not closer, you spineless self-aggrandising wimps.


 
It's an argument, not my words but that of the Green's deputy leader. The NO camp will portray a NO vote as evidence that people don't want electroal reform and that they are happy with the status quo.

AV is about giving people a fairer choice of representative, and ensuring MPs have to work harder to gain the majority of support. If people want to vote against it becuase they don't like the Lib Dems for  forming a coalition with the conservative party they are welcome to cut off their noses to spit in our faces.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

They don't want to vote for it cos it's a shit 'compromise' and you know it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> They don't want to vote for it cos it's a shit 'compromise' and you know it.


 
I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

lol

you utter robot


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.



you were meant to disable his argument, not destroy it


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.


 
improvements. lol.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.


 
I've not seen any convincing arguments yet that it will be a 'great compromise' and offer 'practical improvements'. The Lib Dems sold out on what they wanted (just as they did things like VAT, speed of cuts and perhaps the scale of the revolt over student fees).


----------



## strung out (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.


 
you actually believe this shit


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> you were meant to disable his argument, not destroy it


 



			
				i_got_poison said:
			
		

> i'm a leftie, but it takes a forum like this to actually realise why the left is despised in some quarters.


 
Leftie - LOL.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

I think this is a very sad turning point, if the left decide to vote against  the non-partisan yes campaign because they think it will punish the Lib Dem's. 
Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and *the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.*


 
The Lib Dems aren't offering anything different! Despite their pomp and circumstance leading up to the election, now they find themselves in a coalition, they're falling into the same. They haven't got a backbone because they want the 'coalition' to appear to succeed.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

I_got_poison, if you call yourself a leftie, then what in particular makes you one? don't you see a contradiction between the "left's" ideals and the lib dems'? i would ask both of you the same question i asked before - if you get involved with left wing parties and groups then there must have been something which made you get involved and how their ideas made sense on some level. that's why people - a lot of people - voted for the lib dems, as they thought they were a progressive party and stood up for ordinary people against the war etc. as we know that wasn't reality, but that's what got a lot of people involved in and voting for them. so i'd ask both of you the same thing - you must have thought that that "leftie" stuff made sense on some level, no? and why has this changed for you?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think this is a very sad turning point, if the left decide to vote against  the non-partisan yes campaign because they think it will punish the Lib Dem's.
> Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.


 
So what? it's not like the lib dems are any different is it? in fact, the party that comes out of it the best (!!!) if you can even call it that is the tories - at least you know what they stand for, at least they're not sell outs, you KNOW what views they have, you know what cunts they are, and thats that.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what? it's not like the lib dems are any different is it? in fact, the party that comes out of it the best (!!!) if you can even call it that is the tories - at least you know what they stand for, at least they're not sell outs, you KNOW what views they have, you know what cunts they are, and thats that.


 
Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

Wow. I'd love to see an expert analysis of how biased (or not) the poll questions were. Highly suspicious, but interesting if it was a genuinely well-constructed exercise.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Theleft in this country makes me despair sometimes. Opportunistically jumping on the NO bandwagon as they think they can punish the Lib Dems and gain electorally from it. Hopefully Ed Miliband has more principled politics, and will steer the Labour party towards supporting AV.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.


 
it's because the Tories are such cunts she said that. If they started NOT being cunts they would then be sell outs to their true supporters. She isbasically saying that the Tories are the only party true to their supporters.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.


 
Hahahaha! We're not the ones in a coalition with them. 

All I'm saying is that they're not sell outs and don't decieve their voters (well, not that much, anyway). If you vote tory, you know exactly what you are voting for. Nobody votes tory because they think they are going to scrap tuition fees or stop the war and all that stuff. The Tories don't go around telling people they're the "party for students" and then stab their core vote in the back and they don't spend time appealing or attempting to appeal to left-wing voters.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> it's because the Tories are such cunts she said that. If they started NOT being cunts they would then be sell outs to their true supporters. She isbasically saying that the Tories are the only party true to their supporters.


 
Yep


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

stephj said:


> Leftie - LOL.


 
define leftie and then devise an argument as to why i'm not one.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> it's because the Tories are such cunts she said that. If they started NOT being cunts they would then be sell outs to their true supporters. She isbasically saying that the Tories are the only party true to their supporters.


 
Not really they promised not to touch child benefit then scrapped it for those earning > £44K which is likely to include quite a few Tory supporters. Many Tory supporters also feel betrayed over the EU.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 13, 2010)

Steve Bells cartoon today is excellent:


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.


 
Knowing where you stand with the Tories is not the same as praising them


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's an argument, not my words but that of the Green's deputy leader. The NO camp will portray a NO vote as evidence that people don't want electroal reform and that they are happy with the status quo.
> 
> AV is about giving people a fairer choice of representative, and ensuring MPs have to work harder to gain the majority of support. If people want to vote against it becuase they don't like the Lib Dems for  forming a coalition with the conservative party they are welcome to cut off their noses to spit in our faces.


 
What the fuck difference does it make who said it? For fuck's sake. Just because you're a tribalist does not mean the rest of us can't think for ourselves. I don't care who said it. You repeated it because you thought it was a good argument. It is not. It is a shit argument.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> define leftie and then devise an argument as to why i'm not one.


 
You're not very good as this


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think this is a very sad turning point, if the left decide to vote against  the non-partisan yes campaign because they think it will punish the Lib Dem's.
> Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.


 
Since AV can be less proportional than FPTP you criticism of 'delivering the same' lacks substance.

What does have substance is the Tories reliance on the Lib Dems to push through their shared agenda. For those opposed to that politics, attacking the coalition by voting no to AV seems a wise course of action. Of course I can understand that as a Lib Dem you can see what's in store for your party if the vote goes against you.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 13, 2010)

People will see a vote for AV as a way of enhancing the position of the lib dems - and that will be a major disincnetive for many people due to the lib dems shameless tory-love. They've fucked their best chance of achieving their cherished electrol reform in generations becasue clegg wanted a cabinet seat. Utter twats. And now they winge that the likely faliure of the referendum is the fault of the 'cynicism' of the left! - good grief. 

Fuck you with fucking nobs on.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Hahahaha! We're not the ones in a coalition with them.
> 
> All I'm saying is that they're not sell outs and don't decieve their voters (well, not that much, anyway). If you vote tory, you know exactly what you are voting for. Nobody votes tory because they think they are going to scrap tuition fees or stop the war and all that stuff. The Tories don't go around telling people they're the "party for students" and then stab their core vote in the back and they don't spend time appealing or attempting to appeal to left-wing voters.




The Liberal Democrats are a centre party so sometimes they appeal to left-wing voters on certain issues. There was a group of Lib Dem voters who voted for the party on it's anti-Iraq war and Civil liberties stance who then assumed the party was some left-wing version of Labour. 

I agree the party has made a big mistake with the students, and it's really pissing a lot of people off. I'm glad Mulholland is fighting the case and I hope there is a big rebellion. To be honest I think Nick should be leading that rebellion.

I think it’s totally wrong that a load of people who all had a free education themselves are saddling a younger generation with debt.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> People will see a vote for AV as a way of enhancing the position of the lib dems - and that will be a major disincnetive for many people due to the lib dems shameless tory-love. They've fucked their best chance of achieving their cherished electrol reform in generations becasue clegg wanted a cabinet seat. Utter twats. And now they winge that the likely faliure of the referendum is the fault of the 'cynicism' of the left! - good grief.



It's quite fucking breathtaking isn't it?!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Theleft in this country makes me despair sometimes. Opportunistically jumping on the NO bandwagon as they think they can punish the Lib Dems and gain electorally from it. Hopefully Ed Miliband has more principled politics, and will steer the Labour party towards supporting AV.


 
Nothing opportunist in opposing AV if what you want is a more proportional voting system.

Nothing opportunist in opposing AV if you are opposed to the entrenching of neo-liberlaism which the coalition is attempting.

Something deeply opportunist in promoting AV which just happens to offer the chance of keeping Lib Dem fingers in the govermental pie.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

Besides, the Lib Dems don't care about the left, Clegg said so:



> "There is no future for us as left-wing rivals to Labour."



So, fuck 'em.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Since AV can be less proportional than FPTP you criticism of 'delivering the same' lacks substance.
> 
> What does have substance is the Tories reliance on the Lib Dems to push through their shared agenda. For those opposed to that politics, attacking the coalition by voting no to AV seems a wise course of action. Of course I can understand that as a Lib Dem you can see what's in store for your party if the vote goes against you.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
One of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems is because I believe that electoral reform is necessary and the party remains the best vehicle for achieving that reform. If the Lib Dems lose the vote they will be more tied to the coalition than ever. What else will they have, other than holding on for the full-term in the hope the economy picks up?

If they win the AV vote then the party is far more likely to attempt to break the coalition and fight an election, if Labour supported the AV vote and Milliband has been positive about a Lab-Lib pact then you could see a more progressive alliance.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

you mug


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Liberal Democrats are a centre party so sometimes they appeal to left-wing voters on certain issues. There was a group of Lib Dem voters who voted for the party on it's anti-Iraq war and Civil liberties stance who then assumed the party was some left-wing version of Labour.
> 
> I agree the party has made a big mistake with the students, and it's really pissing a lot of people off. I'm glad Mulholland is fighting the case and I hope there is a big rebellion. To be honest I think Nick should be leading that rebellion.
> 
> I think it’s totally wrong that a load of people who all had a free education themselves are saddling a younger generation with debt.


 
Thanks for your polite and considerate reply. I wouldn't hold your breath though about the rebellion though - and I don't think clegg would have anythign to do with it


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Nothing opportunist in opposing AV if what you want is a more proportional voting system.
> 
> Nothing opportunist in opposing AV if you are opposed to the entrenching of neo-liberlaism which the coalition is attempting.
> 
> ...


 
You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> One of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems is because I believe that electoral reform is necessary and the party remains the best vehicle for achieving that reform. If the Lib Dems lose the vote they will be more tied to the coalition than ever. What else will they have, other than holding on for the full-term in the hope the economy picks up?
> 
> If they win the AV vote then the party is far more likely to attempt to break the coalition and fight an election, if Labour supported the AV vote and Milliband has been positive about a Lab-Lib pact then you could see a more progressive alliance.


 
If we get AV it will fuck any chances of getting real PR in this counntry for a v long time if that's what you want.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> One of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems is because I believe that electoral reform is necessary and the party remains the best vehicle for achieving that reform. If the Lib Dems lose the vote they will be more tied to the coalition than ever. What else will they have, other than holding on for the full-term in the hope the economy picks up?



Then they should walk away from it - let the coalition collapse. Put your one-time principles above trying to soften the blow of the Tories a bit by bit (which is already starting to look a bit hollow). Stand outside and oppose the Tories outright.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


 
The Yes campaign is also backed by neo-liberals.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


 
The Taxpayers Rich-cunts Alliance are going to back stuff whenever it suits them anyway... fuck them too. You don't have to vote NO for the same reasons as them!

Christ sakes!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm sure I could find a few issues where I agree with the BNP's stated position on (what's their position on AV btw?) That doesn't mean I'm about to vote for them though. If they came out in favour of AV, would this be a sign you spported the BNP? Because that's essentially what your argument is saying. Don't oppose something because someone else opposes it. Wtf?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> People will see a vote for AV as a way of enhancing the position of the lib dems - and that will be a major disincnetive for many people due to the lib dems shameless tory-love. They've fucked their best chance of achieving their cherished electrol reform in generations becasue clegg wanted a cabinet seat. Utter twats. And now they winge that the likely faliure of the referendum is the fault of the 'cynicism' of the left! - good grief.
> 
> Fuck you with fucking nobs on.



I can understand this bit -  we hate the Tories therefore we hate the Lib Dems for going into Coalition with them. I can't understand that it therefore follows that we should vote along Tory lines against the AV referendum to smite the Lib Dems for going along with the Tories. 

Sorry that just doesn't make any sense to me at all.


----------



## Santino (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


 
You keep saying this as if it means something. The YES campaign is back by hypocritical promise-breaking Lib Dem neo-liberal scum. How it voting YES going to oppose their politics?


----------



## Random (Oct 13, 2010)

I think very very few people will be voting either for or against the AV amendment. I'm with them.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

stephj said:


> The Taxpayers Rich-cunts Alliance are going to back stuff whenever it suits them anyway... fuck them too. You don't have to vote NO for the same reasons as them!
> 
> Christ sakes!



I know you'd rather help the Tories and punish the Lib Dems - Fair enough if you prefer revenge over principle then go for it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Santino said:


> You keep saying this as if it means something. The YES campaign is back by hypocritical promise-breaking Lib Dem neo-liberal scum. How it voting YES going to oppose their politics?


 
and the Green party.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know you'd rather help the Tories and punish the Lib Dems - Fair enough if you prefer revenge over principle then go for it.


 
This argument would be easier to make if the principal hadnt already been eroded long before the referendum comes.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know you'd rather help the Tories and punish the Lib Dems - Fair enough if you prefer revenge over principle then go for it.


 


I hate both the Lib Dems and the Tories - although it's hard to know which is which atm.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

I can't tell them apart tbh


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


 
And of course I'll be opposing AV on exactly the same grounds as Matthew Elliot!

However, Mr Kenny stressed that the GMB – which gave £1.4m to Labour last year – would not be forming an alliance across the political divide. "We are not going to get into bed with everybody who opposes a change in the voting system," Mr Kenny said.​
You're supporting a 'timid reform' for party political advantage.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> and the Green party.


 
You keep saying this as though it matters. I don't support the gp, and im sure some people in it will vote for, others will vote against - people will have a range of different views. I don't know why the green party leadership saying they support something matters so much.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know you'd rather help the Tories and punish the Lib Dems - Fair enough if you prefer revenge over principle then go for it.


 
What principle? It won't guarantee proportionality. I won't 'won't transform politics, and it won't open up the House of Commons to diverse voices'. Clegg is hoping the 'timid reform' will entrench Lib Dem power at Westminster; it's ort of a principle but not much of one.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And of course I'll be opposing AV on exactly the same grounds as Matthew Elliot!
> 
> However, Mr Kenny stressed that the GMB – which gave £1.4m to Labour last year – would not be forming an alliance across the political divide. "We are not going to get into bed with everybody who opposes a change in the voting system," Mr Kenny said.​
> You're supporting a 'timid reform' for party political advantage.
> ...



Not at all, it gives people more choice. I prefered AV to FPTP long before I even joined the Liberal Democrats. GMB are looking after their own interests too.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You keep saying this as though it matters. I don't support the gp, and im sure some people in it will vote for, others will vote against - people will have a range of different views. I don't know why the green party leadership saying they support something matters so much.


 
I point it out because the AV vote is being painted as something the Lib Dems want, whilst that's true Lib Dems do want this reform it's not a single-party campaign. There are lot's of people all across the political spectrum who prefer AV to FPTP.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

So what? Lots of people like a thing so I should like it as well otherwise I'm a tory?


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are aware the NO campaign is backed by neo-liberals though? How is voting NO going to oppose their politics? It's run by Matthew Elliot FFS.


 
My enemy's enemy is not my friend.

Get some politics, ffs!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not at all, it gives people more choice. I prefered AV to FPTP long before I even joined the Liberal Democrats. GMB are looking after their own interests too.


 
Really? I seem to recall you always talking about how important getting PR was and not mentioning AV?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not at all, it gives people more choice. I prefered AV to FPTP long before I even joined the Liberal Democrats. GMB are looking after their own interests too.


 
You were saying that I and anybody else voting no was supporting Matthew Elliot and the Tax Payers Alliance; I was pointing out that wasn't the case. 

The fact that you've liked AV for ages is neither here nor there; there is no time limit on being wrong. 

However, I will take back my accusation that you're supporting a 'timid reform' for party political advantage; the truth is you're just a useful idiot.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I can understand this bit -  we hate the Tories therefore we hate the Lib Dems for going into Coalition with them. I can't understand that it therefore follows that we should vote along Tory lines against the AV referendum to smite the Lib Dems for going along with the Tories.
> 
> Sorry that just doesn't make any sense to me at all.


 
Becasue a vote for AV will now further entrench the lib dem/tory neo-liberal bloc whilst doing nothing to actually open up and diversify politics - good luck  selling that one.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> and the Green party.


And the vested interests of another small party with no hope of power under FPTP should influence us how, exactly?


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

Id be more interested in doing something radical with the House of Lords to be honest.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> My enemy's enemy is not my friend.
> 
> Get some politics, ffs!



I only posted that in response to those who are trying to turn the AV referendum into some anti neo-liberal/LD vote. I have politics which are based on the merits of AV over FPTP.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> And the vested interests of another small party with no hope of power under FPTP should influence us how, exactly?


 
It's not all about vested interests, this cynicism is corrosive.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not at all, it gives people more choice. I prefered AV to FPTP long before I even joined the Liberal Democrats. GMB are looking after their own interests too.


 
More _illusion_ of choice, I think you meant to say. Yay, let's lull people into thinking they have democracy for a few more decades yet. That'll hasten the development of real democracy.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon i actually could support pr - but why not have real PR and not this pathetic watered down version?


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I only posted that in response to those who are trying to turn the AV referendum into some anti neo-liberal/LD vote. I have politics which are based on the merits of AV over FPTP.


 
But both sides are being promoted by neo-liberal arseholes. Both sides are also being promoted by sections of the left. Why do you think it's a valid point to make? It's not. It's drivel.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not all about vested interests, this cynicism is corrosive.


 
What's cynical in pointing out that a small party with one MP could support a policy which increased their representation in parliament (or could do?)


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Becasue a vote for AV will now further entrench the lib dem/tory neo-liberal bloc whilst doing nothing to actually open up and diversify politics - good luck  selling that one.


 
I care about whether a voting system will be more representative, or whether it will better hold MPs to account, not so much how it might or might not affect the electoral outcome in terms of a some bloc of politics. If I did then I’d be very much against PR on the basis that it would result in perpetual centre-right coalitions.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What's cynical in pointing out that a small party with one MP could support a policy which increased their representation in parliament (or could do?)


 
It assumes they only care about increasing their number of MPs rather than the issues at hand.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> But both sides are being promoted by neo-liberal arseholes. Both sides are also being promoted by sections of the left. Why do you think it's a valid point to make? It's not. It's drivel.


 
That's kind of the point of my post, to show that voting against AV isn't some anti neo-liberal vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Perhaps they care about both? Because the more MPs they have, the more impact their policies will potentially have and governments will have to keep them on side to get them to vote for or against stuff. Nothing necessarily "cynical" in that at all.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> define leftie and then devise an argument as to why i'm not one.


 
Pro working class and won't polish the Tories shoes in exchange for a sniff of the levers of power.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I_got_poison, if you call yourself a leftie, then what in particular makes you one? don't you see a contradiction between the "left's" ideals and the lib dems'? i would ask both of you the same question i asked before - if you get involved with left wing parties and groups then there must have been something which made you get involved and how their ideas made sense on some level. that's why people - a lot of people - voted for the lib dems, as they thought they were a progressive party and stood up for ordinary people against the war etc. as we know that wasn't reality, but that's what got a lot of people involved in and voting for them. so i'd ask both of you the same thing - you must have thought that that "leftie" stuff made sense on some level, no? and why has this changed for you?



social and judicial equality are the primary reasons for my liberal\socialist views. but i hold these views in the full knowledge the world is full of inequality.
david cameron isn't a total fool, he realises having the liberal democrats on board will help the image of his party, maybe even help detoxify some elements within it.
the LD's policy successes (to date) have been overlooked because a majority of the left, still can't countenance the idea of the coalition.

this partly puts me off the current left wing debate. there appears to be no rationale behind the arguments, just an inherent disgust for any coalition policy.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

socialist???? 

are you kidding me ??? how is 25-40% cuts, mass privatisations, and punishing the poorest people in society "socialism"? How is cutting off university access for everyone except the very rich "socialism"? It is not - how can you even say that  


you stabbed your core support in the back in such a shameless, despicable manner, that will have repercussions across the public sector and across the country. if you have any integrity or any principles left - LEAVE


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

that is either a genius troll or the most idiotic thing I've read in quite a while


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

> the LD's policy success (to date) have been overlooked because a majority of the left, still can't countenance the idea of the coalition.



What policy success? The policy where they were going to scrap tuition fees you mean ??


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2010)

> david cameron isn't a total fool, he realises having the liberal democrats on board will help the image of his party, maybe even help detoxify some elements within it.



What does this mean, and why do you think it?


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's kind of the point of my post, to show that voting against AV isn't some anti neo-liberal vote.


 
Not if you think in terms of _parties_, no. We're not all robotic tribalists, remember?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

well not all of us, anyway


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> socialist????
> 
> are you kidding me ??? how is 25-40% cuts, mass privatisations, and punishing the poorest people in society "socialism"? How is cutting off university access for everyone except the very rich "socialism"? It is not - how can you even say that
> 
> ...



mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

So much fail.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Do people think the AV referendum should be decided on the merits of AV over FTPT or on other political considerations then?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
> tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
> they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.
> 
> taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.


 
You keep going on about the labour party as though the damage it did somehow excuses lib-demmery and all its works. I'm against privatisation and cuts whoever's doing them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.


 
First, why should we take trident off the table? 

Second, your question assumes an answer to another one – namely, should the government be making cuts?


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
> tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
> they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.
> 
> taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.


 
See, this is how we know you're not a leftie. You keep saying that Labour is socialist/on the left.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

It's the classic lazy response froggie... 'yeah but Labour did shit things too11111!111'. Yeah, we know.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> socialist????
> 
> are you kidding me ??? how is 25-40% cuts, mass privatisations, and punishing the poorest people in society "socialism"? How is cutting off university access for everyone except the very rich "socialism"? It is not - how can you even say that



Your talking about cuts in spending over the term of the government that bring spending as a GDP back to around 2006 levels. The reason they are going to be felt in some departments is becuase other areas like oversea aid and the NHS have been protected. They are also over the term of the government so it's about 5% a year.

Also although I disagree with increasing tuition fees, it isn't cutting off access for people as they won't have to pay it back until they earn over £21,000 so you can get a University education safe in the knowledge if you end up on a low income it won't affect you negatively.

The reason I disagree with it is because it saddles middle-earners with too much debt, and it goes against a pledge made by Lib Dem MPs


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

The fact is that the lib dems betrayed their voters as much as Labour did. YOu can't handle this fact.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> First, why should we take trident off the table?
> 
> Second, your question assumes an answer to another one – namely, should the government be making cuts?


 
All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> The fact is that the lib dems betrayed their voters as much as Labour did. YOu can't handle this fact.


 
I accept the stance on tution fees is screwing over student support, i'm not happy about it at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.


 
So what? The terms of the debate are set and we are not allowed to think differently? You don't work for the BBC by any chance, do you?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

> taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts?



Nowhere. I am against all cuts. Reduce the defecit by collecting unpaid taxes ffs - that would get rid of £120bn of it.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do people think the AV referendum should be decided on the merits of AV over FTPT or on other political considerations then?


 
What do you mean by other political considerations? 

Is STV one of them, or does it really belong with your primary question?

Should we consider whether it is likely to deliver actual democracy sooner, or is it more likely to delay it? I think that belongs with the primary question too.

Should we cement the bond between the Tories and the Lib Dems and condemn ourselves to more of the same? If the Lib Dems lose this, they're dead. If they win it, they have a fighting chance - but not of forming a coalition with Labour within a generation. Not after this. I think that belongs with your primary question too. It is supposed to be about getting us the government we want, after all.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.


 
In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You keep going on about the labour party as though the damage it did somehow excuses lib-demmery and all its works. I'm against privatisation and cuts whoever's doing them.


 
if cuts aren't on the table, then you must be in favour of deficit spending.
£1 in every £4 spent is borrowed. what ratio would you be comfortable with?
2 in 4, 3 in 4 or the ludicrous 4 in 4.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Jesus wept  Where do you think money comes from? More government spending would stimulate the economy and the prospect of people losing their jobs wouldn't mean that they were cautious about spending anything.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.


 
That does not make them right!






Who should be paying back the deficit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> if cuts aren't on the table, then you must be in favour of deficit spending.
> £1 in every £4 spent is borrowed. what ratio would you be comfortable with?
> 2 in 4, 3 in 4 or the ludicrous 4 in 4.


 
Again, your reasoning is faulty. Being opposed to cuts does not mean one is in favour of deficit spending. It could mean that one is in favour of tax increases.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??


 
Keynes was on his white charger and Friedman was still in short trousers, career-wise. That's how it's different. We've managed to elect three decades worth of economically illiterate, ideologically driven morons, because economically illiterate, ideologically driven morons were all that was on offer.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

Yay for democracy!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
> tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
> they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.
> 
> taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.


 
Get rid of trident. We shouldn't be swanning about like we're some super power. Cancel all police over time. Announce wind fall taxes on city bonuses. Don't worry if it means we'll lose 'talent' - if they like selling barrels of oil so much they can fuck off and live in Iraq. Cancel our war obligations. The money is needed at home not for the interests of the neo-cons.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Jesus wept  Where do you think money comes from? More government spending would stimulate the economy and the prospect of people losing their jobs wouldn't mean that they were cautious about spending anything.



earlier in the thread this same argument was used. my response is the same as it was then. let's hope you don't fall silent
like the last poster.

deficit spending creates inflation and the price of commodities goes up. inflation is tackled by a reduction in the money supply; either through
taxation or public sector cuts. if you ignore inflation and continue to spend all commerce will eventually cease until a deal can be ironed out with the IMF.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

So why don't we collect the unpaid taxes then? Why have there been tax cuts for the rich? I agree we need to reduce the deficit, but there are other ways to do it, not just cuts - cuts will send us into a double dip recession, and this type of "shock therapy" has been nothing but horrific everywhere it has been done. Also, who said that the deficit had to be paid back immediately, especially when the debt is basically owed to the taxpayers anyway?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> What do you mean by other political considerations?
> 
> Is STV one of them, or does it really belong with your primary question?
> 
> ...



So you think it's more a question of what the wider political outcomes and considerations are then simply a matter of whether AV or FPTP is better? I'm just trying to boil this argument we are having down.

It seems to me there is on the one hand the question about the actual referendum, what is best AV vs FPTP and another question about what is the best tactical voting outcome to deliver your preferred political outcomes.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??


 
I have to say I am suspicious of the argument that the deficit is not a problem because it has been much higher in the past.

Firstly it doesn't deal with what the likely consequences would be in the medium term of allowing the national debt ...to grow and grow.

Secondly, while there may be similarities with previous occasions when national debt has been higher, there will also be differences. For example, the post-WW2 deficit was funded (to what extent I don't know) by massive loans from the US as part of the Marshall Plan. There is nothing like that to fall back on now.

Without seeing a rounded account that integrates both the similarities and differences it is impossible to say whether there is a valid comparison to be made between now and previous instances of large budget deficits.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Get rid of trident. We shouldn't be swanning about like we're some super power. Cancel all police over time. Announce wind fall taxes on city bonuses. Don't worry if it means we'll lose 'talent' - if they like selling barrels of oil so much they can fuck off and live in Iraq. Cancel our war obligations. The money is needed at home not for the interests of the neo-cons.



i, personally would get rid of trident in a heartbeat, but the last government dithered on the proposal and this administration has flat out refused to scrap it.
the wars are harder to extricate ourselves from. gordon brown did the right thing in getting us out of iraq, but was unwilling to do so in afganistan.
cameron is desperate to end the war there but would lose too much political capital, hence his speech on a withdrawl timetable and hand of over afgani provinces to american\coalition
forces.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So you think it's more a question of what the wider political outcomes and considerations are then simply a matter of whether AV or FPTP is better? I'm just trying to boil this argument we are having down.
> 
> It seems to me there is on the one hand the question about the actual referendum, what is best AV vs FPTP and another question about what is the best tactical voting outcome to deliver your preferred political outcomes.


 
It's as much about the political outcomes as anything else, and most people on here don't want to give you lot an endorsement of anything. You still havent answered btw - why not real PR and not this pathetic imitation of it?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Besides having had the referendum, there's no guarantee that you'll actually do it - as we have seen in the events of the last few days.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So you think it's more a question of what the wider political outcomes and considerations are then simply a matter of whether AV or FPTP is better? I'm just trying to boil this argument we are having down.
> 
> It seems to me there is on the one hand the question about the actual referendum, what is best AV vs FPTP and another question about what is the best tactical voting outcome to deliver your preferred political outcomes.



Yes, of course that's what I think. If you think AV is more democratic than FPTP, that's one thing. But this referendum is about whether we think AV will give us more democracy than FPTP. Those are very different questions.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i, personally would get rid of trident in a heartbeat, but the last government dithered on the proposal and this administration has flat out refused to scrap it.
> the wars are harder to extricate ourselves from. gordon brown did the right thing in getting us out of iraq, but was unwilling to do so in afganistan.
> cameron is desperate to end the war there but would lose too much political capital, hence his speech on a withdrawl timetable and hand of over afgani provinces to american\coalition
> forces.



If there was an outright Lib Dem Government we'd definitely be scrapping Trident, and further increasing Capital Gains Tax - that sort of financial measure would make scrapping tuition fees affordable.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

yeah, right


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It's as much about the political outcomes as anything else, and most people on here don't want to give you lot an endorsement of anything. You still havent answered btw - why not real PR and not this pathetic imitation of it?



AV gives the lib dems a platform to achieving PR. PR is a thorny issue as it opens the door to, too many, unsavoury far right parties (and the like).


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

what makes you think that?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes, of course that's what I think. If you think AV is more democratic than FPTP, that's one thing. But this referendum is about whether we think AV will give us more democracy than FPTP. Those are very different questions.


 
Yes I think it's more democratic to give people more choice to rank candidates in order, rather than just vote for one. I also argue that STV is even more democratic as it gives a voice in parliament for all those people who vote for a party that is never big enough to win outright in one consistency.

In terms of outcomes STV would be a disaster for the centre-left in this country though.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> yeah, right


 
Yes, but sadly there's a coalition with the Tories, where we stopped them cutting inheritance tax for the rich, and kept income tax breaks for the lowest earners.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In terms of outcomes STV would be a disaster for the centre-left in this country though.


 
If, by centre-left, you mean the libdems/labour, why would this be?


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> PR is a thorny issue as it opens the door to, too many, unsavoury far right parties (and the like).


 
agreed. the fewer libdems in parliament the better


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but sadly there's a coalition with the Tories, where we stopped them cutting inheritance tax for the rich, and kept income tax breaks for the lowest earners.


 
forgive me for not believing a word in the libdem manefesto.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but sadly there's a coalition with the Tories, where we stopped them cutting inheritance tax for the rich, and kept income tax breaks for the lowest earners.



they won't get credit for this


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but sadly there's a coalition with the Tories, where we stopped them cutting inheritance tax for the rich, and kept income tax breaks for the lowest earners.


 
The inheritance tax cuts not happening is one of the only things Im happy about this year.

However I question how much this was really down to the Lib Dems - if anything I think Cameron & Co were actually happy to have a way out of implementing this policy, because it would go down especially badly at a time where they are parping on about fairness. Lib Dems gave them a convenient getout.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> AV gives the lib dems a platform to achieving PR. PR is a thorny issue as it opens the door to, too many, unsavoury far right parties (and the like).


 
But your main thing, for all these years, why people voted for you, was the PR thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No - Im asking (*genuine question*) what logic leads you to line up with virtually 100% of Tory MPs against left unions and MPs?  You think I'm only saying this because I'm paid to?  WRONG I work on this campaign because I happen to believe that it is worthwhile.


 
First you need ask yourself whose interests are served by a "yes" vote. IMO there's a spectrum from the electorate (who gain a fraction more "choice" over their representative) to the political professionals (who will feel re-validated in their roles as pseudo-democratic cheerleaders for neo-liberalism).

More importantly a non-vote (as opposed to a "No" vote) at least sends a message that we, the electorate, aren't buying into their re-arrangement of the deck-chairs.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> agreed. the fewer libdems in parliament the better


 
Innit


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If, by centre-left, you mean the libdems/labour, why would this be?


 
I'm not just talking about parites, in terms of the nations general political alignment. Labour have shifted to the right, the Lib Dems have formed a coaltion with the Tories.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> they won't get credit for this


 
turns out the country is delighted with the income tax break for low earners, however since everyone's going to be unemployed in about 6 months time it seems something of a hollow victory.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Innit


 
So you would oppose STV on the basis of it meaning more Lib Dem MPs as well?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Nowhere. I am against all cuts. Reduce the defecit by collecting unpaid taxes ffs - that would get rid of £120bn of it.


 
it is strange in these times of cuts that no one in the media (Or Labour for that matter)has been brave enough to put that solution to them


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

I would vote BNP to keep out the lib dems* - 

*i wouldn't really, but still


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not just talking about parites, in terms of the nations general political alignment. Labour have shifted to the right, the Lib Dems have formed a coaltion with the Tories.


 
But that has happened with fptp in place.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> First you need ask yourself whose interests are served by a "yes" vote. IMO there's a spectrum from the electorate (who gain a fraction more "choice" over their representative) to the political professionals (who will feel re-validated in their roles as pseudo-democratic cheerleaders for neo-liberalism).
> 
> More importantly a non-vote (as opposed to a "No" vote) at least sends a message that we, the electorate, aren't buying into their re-arrangement of the deck-chairs.


 
Do you think the Murdoch press will A) Portray a 'No' vote as a message the electorate aren't buying into their re-arrangement of the deck-chairs or B) An endorsement for the status quo from which they benefit. 

Only in small left wing cliques a 'NO' vote will be seen as smiting the 'sell out' Lib Dems and staying true to the ideology of revolutionary reform.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that has happened with fptp in place.


 
Yes becuase electroal systems represent the views of the population, my argument is not that I want a particular electoral system becuase it will generate the political outcomes I desire but rather I want a system that better represents the views of people.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I would vote BNP to keep out the lib dems


 
Disgusting, your politics are twisted.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you think the Murdoch press will A) Portray a 'No' vote as a message the electorate aren't buying into their re-arrangement of the deck-chairs or B) An endorsement for the status quo from which they benefit.
> 
> Only in small left wing cliques a 'NO' vote will be seen as smiting the 'sell out' Lib Dems and staying true to the ideology of revolutionary reform.


 
For all these years though you've been going on about how you want PR and now it turns out you don't.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

A small sample of messages on the lib dems facebook wall:



> I've been a Liberal/LibDem for 27 years. I was a councillor for 20 years, but if we go back on the pledge we gave at the election on student fees, that could be the end for me.





> I tore up my membership today I have tried to understand decisions made so far and policy shifts but this is a step too far...the students of this country have been let down what happened to the Lib Dem back bone?





> In the words of Orwell: "the Liberals are power worshippers without power!"
> That is why they are now powerhungry harlots selling themselves for the sake of power even if it means lurching to the very Right and betraying all their voters. The Conservative Party are using the Liberal Democrats. I hope they make an electoral pact, that will be the perfect match Tories and toffs: Cameron, Clegg and Osborne - together forever!





> So today you die as a party, there is no come back even AV cant save you now. TORY LAP DOGS TO A MAN.





> There's been a lot of talk today about Lib Dem prinicples and pledges and I now think we can answer definitively the question:
> What DO the Liberal Democrats stand for?
> - Dave Cameron entering the room!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Disgusting, your politics are twisted.


 
You don't actually think I was serious do you? Have a think about what I might have been trying to say with that post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes becuase electroal systems represent the views of the population, my argument is not that I want a particular electoral system becuase it will generate the political outcomes I desire but rather I want a system that better represents the views of people.


 
You're confusing me now. Is FPTP fair or not fair? If it is unfair, which point of view is underrepresented by it?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> For all these years though you've been going on about how you want PR and now it turns out you don't.



I want PR, I’m just pointing out it won't bring about some amazing leftie government that a lot of people think. The European elections are proportional, and you have a massive UKIP vote. You'd probably find all those Daily Mail readers who would love to vote UKIP but instead settle with what they consider to be a left-leaning Cameron type of Conservatism would have their say.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You don't actually think I was serious do you? Have a think about what I might have been trying to say with that post.


 
I hope you were just joking  phew!


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I would vote BNP to keep out the lib dems



which means you'd have no problem voting conservative.

under the red scarf is a blue one.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

its intriguing the way libdemmers are getting so worked up about the vote for av. ive had a vague interest in politics for about 15 years and in all that time the one thing ive associated with the libdems has been pr. up until 5 months ago i'd never ever heard a single libdem mention av. now they are banging the drum as if its the greatest reform since womens suffrage. 

i honestly dont understand how anyone can be an ardent supporter of the libdems; they dont appear to be able to hold any principles.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I think it's more democratic to give people more choice to rank candidates in order, rather than just vote for one. I also argue that STV is even more democratic as it gives a voice in parliament for all those people who vote for a party that is never big enough to win outright in one consistency.
> 
> In terms of outcomes STV would be a disaster for the centre-left in this country though.


 
Yeah, I'm not a tribal opportunist either. But at least you've admitted you want a system that you think will destroy the centre-left. No more pretences, eh?

I've already said I don't think electoral reform has any relevance to democracy in the UK at the moment. I am, as it happens, completely neutral on PR. I think it can cause more problems than it solves, and I do not think it is relevant anyway. Could not give a flying fuck. If you responded to what people post, you might have understood that by now. But you don't. You spot a keyword and look up the propaganda line that goes with it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I hope you were just joking  phew!


 
Have a think about what I was trying to say with that post.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> which means you'd have no problem voting conservative.
> 
> under the red scarf is a blue one.


 
lol, you are clueless.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> turns out the country is delighted with the income tax break for low earners, however since everyone's going to be unemployed in about 6 months time it seems something of a hollow victory.


 
They're not so impressed that the effect of it is entirely reversed by the rise in VAT though (another Lib Dem manifesto promise broken), causing the poorest to take the biggest share of the pain, even before you factor in the horrific details decided since the emergency budget.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yeah, I'm not a tribal opportunist either. But at least you've admitted you want a system that you think will destroy the centre-left. No more pretences, eh?
> 
> I've already said I don't think electoral reform has any relevance to democracy in the UK at the moment. I am, as it happens, completely neutral on PR. I think it can cause more problems than it solves, and I do not think it is relevant anyway. Could not give a flying fuck. If you responded to what people post, you might have understood that by now. But you don't. You spot a keyword and look up the propaganda line that goes with it.


 
I don't want an electoral system because I think it will do X or Y I want a system that best represents the views of the electorate. If you bothered to read what I had said you would have got that point, so quite how you can extrapolate I want to destroy the centre-left is beyond me.

So you position is you want to vote against AV because you think it would hurt the Lib Dems, and don’t care about the merits of any system over another?


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> lol, you are clueless.



you got some nerve tory girl.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's going to change it by ensuring MPs have to gain over 50% support which will mean they have to work harder to keep that support rather than rely on having a strong core vote.


 
It will make that difference in only a marginal number of constituencies that are *already* marginal under our current system. AV is a _chimera_. It's merely "more of the same, with a few bits of ornament".


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> They're not so impressed that the effect of it is entirely reversed by the rise in VAT though (another Lib Dem manifesto promise broken), causing the poorest to take the biggest share of the pain, even before you factor in the horrific details decided since the emergency budget.


 
The Coalition is made up of 307 Conservative MPs & 57 Lib Dem MPs what makes you think that those 57 Lib Dem MPs should be able to deliver their entire manifesto? To portray everything the Coalition does that goes against Lib Dem manifesto as a broken promise is to show an utter political immaturity that is unable to grasp the concept of coalition politics or compromise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> They don't want to vote for it cos it's a shit 'compromise' and you know it.


 
In fact it isn't a compromise at all. The difference between AV and FPTP is the difference between someone arse-raping you without lube or with. Either way, you still get butt-fucked.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Coalition is made up of 307 Conservative MPs & 57 Lib Dem MPs what makes you think that those 57 Lib Dem MPs should be able to deliver their entire manifesto? To portray everything the Coalition does that goes against Lib Dem manifesto as a broken promise is to show an utter political immaturity that is unable to grasp the concept of coalition politics or compromise.


 
from what i can see is -

Lib Dem policies - 1 - some watered down version of PR being considered
Tory Policies - The rest .

so 307 - 57 is not exactly pro rata


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> you got some nerve tory girl.


 
I wouldn't vote BNP, would never fucking dream of such a thing. I was joking. The point I was making was that for all your fucking whining about tribalism, tories, etc, you lot are the most "tribal" of them all, you only think about what will benefit your own party and nothing else, maybe not cooperate with the BNP, but almost everything else. it's very telling that every criticism of the Lib Dems we make you respond with "the tories, the tories, etc etc etc." Do you think that little of your coalition partners?


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Coalition is made up of 307 Conservative MPs & 57 Lib Dem MPs what makes you think that those 57 Lib Dem MPs should be able to deliver their entire manifesto? To portray everything the Coalition does that goes against Lib Dem manifesto as a broken promise is to show an utter political immaturity that is unable to grasp the concept of coalition politics or compromise.



exactly


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In fact it isn't a compromise at all. The difference between AV and FPTP is the difference between someone arse-raping you without lube or with. Either way, you still get butt-fucked.


 
If you had the choice you would prefer lube though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.


 
Please elucidate exactly how AV is a "great compromise" between FPTP and a properly proportionally-representative voting system.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
if i left the forum they'd be able to concentrate on changing the world, but as it is , slagging me off is more important. keeps me amused while i have the broken ankle though!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 13, 2010)

I want to know in what way i_got_poison considers himself socialist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> improvements. lol.


 
Pure reformism. Fiddle with what's already on offer, polish it up a bit so it shines, rather than actually (Heaven forfend!) being bold and instituting something new.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.


 
Except that she hasn't, you halfwit, she has said that the Tories will derive benefit.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
Reform for reforms sake is worthless.

I dont like the fact my vote is often pretty worthless due to the present system, but theres no way I want the system changed unless its a meaningful and dramatic change. There is so little opportunity to change these sorts of things in this country that I certainly dont want what little appetite for change has been built up to be squandered on shitty compromises.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I wouldn't vote BNP, would never fucking dream of such a thing. I was joking. The point I was making was that for all your fucking whining about tribalism, tories, etc, you lot are the most "tribal" of them all, you only think about what will benefit your own party and nothing else, maybe not cooperate with the BNP, but almost everything else. it's very telling that every criticism of the Lib Dems we make you respond with "the tories, the tories, etc etc etc." Do you think that little of your coalition partners?


 
The Lib Dems find compromise and work with others where they can to achieve some of their policy desires. For instance locally there is a Labour/Liberal Council that has ousted Conservative control. Now from one perspective this could be seen as simply opportunism, the Lib Dems trying to gain power by any means regardless of the principle or politics. However it's really the case that Lib Dems are perhaps more prepared to compromise to get some of their polices through. 

This compromise probably comes from being a smaller party in the centre common-ground of both the Conservatives and Labour.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

Compromise is a big part of politics but unless you have a keen sense of where to draw the line, when not to compromise, what useful politics do you really have? There is no point in the Lib Dems existing if they are just there to make up the numbers when one of the big 2 fall a little short.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I wouldn't vote BNP, would never fucking dream of such a thing. I was joking. The point I was making was that for all your fucking whining about tribalism, tories, etc, you lot are the most "tribal" of them all, you only think about what will benefit your own party and nothing else, maybe not cooperate with the BNP, but almost everything else. it's very telling that every criticism of the Lib Dems we make you respond with "the tories, the tories, etc etc etc." Do you think that little of your coalition partners?



funny, but i could've sworn there was no smilie to indicate you were joking.

a graduation tax or raising the cap level on fees doesn't help the liberal cause. but as things stand there's little or no opportunities for graduates to get a jobs paying £21k +
which would trigger their loan repayments. so the argument is a little redundant given the economic circumstances. wouldn't you agree?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please elucidate exactly how AV is a "great compromise" between FPTP and a properly proportionally-representative voting system.


 
Because there was no fucking way the Tories or Labour would have allowed a referendum on PR vs FPTP to take place so instead you have a compromise of AV vs FPTP.  What’s great is it’s actually going to happen and people are going to get the first vote on a referendum issue since the 70s.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What’s great is it’s actually going to happen and people are going to get the first vote on a referendum issue since the 70s.


 
Ive been waiting my whole life for a referendum. Hard to get excited about it when its a choice between 2 shits though.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> Compromise is a big part of politics but unless you have a keen sense of where to draw the line, when not to compromise, what useful politics do you really have? There is no point in the Lib Dems existing if they are just there to make up the numbers when one of the big 2 fall a little short.


 
Agreed, but Lib Dems compromise to win certain things. Locally for instance the Tories were just going to cut services how they saw fit, so we are compromising with Labour to form a local Coalition council to consult with residents on where the cuts should go.

Nationally we have compromised on PR, VAT and Tuition fees but won some things in terms of an increase in capital gains tax, an increase in the tax allowance and the student premium. It’s clear the compromises are all about putting some of our manifesto and policy into action.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> funny, but i could've sworn there was no smilie to indicate you were joking.


 
Yeah, you've outed me, everyone who reads this forum knows I'm a massive racist.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> Ive been waiting my whole life for a referendum. Hard to get excited about it when its a choice between 2 shits though.


 
I've never been older enough to vote in a referendum before. I see AV as an improvement on FPTP so it excites me. Perhaps I’m just more pessimistic about what it's realistic to achieve on the reform front so have low expectations.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> funny, but i could've sworn there was no smilie to indicate you were joking.
> 
> a graduation tax or raising the cap level on fees doesn't help the liberal cause. but as things stand there's little or no opportunities for graduates to get a jobs paying £21k +
> which would trigger their loan repayments. so the argument is a little redundant given the economic circumstances. wouldn't you agree?


 
It's 15k when you have to start paying it back, not 21k. Given your hatred of Labour I'd have thought you'd be wanting to point that out.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It's 15k when you have to start paying it back, not 21k. Given your hatred of Labour I'd have thought you'd be wanting to point that out.


 
I think he was referring to the proposal to raise it to 21K. That's one good thing, at least students with shit degrees in poorly paid admin jobs won't be having to pay loan re-payments under the new system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your talking about cuts in spending over the term of the government that bring spending as a GDP back to around 2006 levels. The reason they are going to be felt in some departments is becuase other areas like oversea aid and the NHS have been protected. They are also over the term of the government so it's about 5% a year.
> 
> Also although I disagree with increasing tuition fees, it isn't cutting off access for people as they won't have to pay it back until they earn over £21,000 so you can get a University education safe in the knowledge if you end up on a low income it won't affect you negatively.


Which entirely avoids reference to the reams of research conducted since fees were instituted, that show that the the *prospect* of debt puts off a disproportionate number of people from poorer backgrounds. Putting fees up does nothing to solve the divide between haves and have-nots, and reinforces that divide.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> Compromise is a big part of politics but unless you have a keen sense of where to draw the line, when not to compromise, what useful politics do you really have? There is no point in the Lib Dems existing if they are just there to make up the numbers when one of the big 2 fall a little short.


 
its very easy to compromise when you dont stand for anything


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Jesus wept  Where do you think money comes from? More government spending would stimulate the economy and the prospect of people losing their jobs wouldn't mean that they were cautious about spending anything.


 
Have pity on them. Neo-liberals have a hard time understanding Keynesian economics.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It's 15k when you have to start paying it back, not 21k. Given your hatred of Labour I'd have thought you'd be wanting to point that out.



without checking it, i thought the proposal was £21k.

p.s. i know it's £15k now.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
wtf


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> its very easy to compromise when you dont stand for anything


 
I quite liked the post someone made on the lib dems facebook page where they said that its now clear what the Lib Dems stand for - Cameron entering the room.

Not that I think the Lib Dems really stand for nothing at all, they do have some values, but ones that fit easily within the narrow mainstream political spectrum of these times. Their core values have been obscured somewhat by their propaganda and attempts to appeal to people who would vote for either Tory or Lib Dem, depending on the consituency they are fighing an election in, but overall their name, Liberal Democrat, does match what they believe in. The worst that liberal thinking and democracy has to offer, and yellow.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> wtf


 
i think he means that doing something, anything is better than doing nothing.

what have you done today fractionman if that is your real name? well you have no right to criticise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> AV gives the lib dems a platform to achieving PR.


And if the Lib-Dems decide that AV suits them just fine for the next handful of decaces? 


> PR is a thorny issue as it opens the door to, too many, unsavoury far right parties (and the like).


 If you believe in democracy then you believe in democracy, "unsavoury far right parties" or not. If you believe in democracy then you oppose those parties democratically. Otherwise, why bother? Why not just institute a benign dictatorship?


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> i think he means that doing something, anything is better than doing nothing.
> 
> what have you done today fractionman if that is your real name? well you have no right to criticise


 
If I don't vote I can't complain


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If, by centre-left, you mean the libdems/labour, why would this be?


 
More diffused, and possibly issues-based and/or localised voting, so way more people standing on such issues outside of party lines.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> wtf


 
Innit


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you believe in democracy then you believe in democracy, "unsavoury far right parties" or not. If you believe in democracy then you oppose those parties democratically. Otherwise, why bother? Why not just institute a benign dictatorship?


 
Yep. The furthest I would go to confront this problem is to say that democracy is about far more than the voting system, if we were to have a genuinely democratic system of voting then we would also need a media fit for purpose.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> I quite liked the post someone made on the lib dems facebook page where they said that its now clear what the Lib Dems stand for - Cameron entering the room.
> 
> Not that I think the Lib Dems really stand for nothing at all, they do have some values, but ones that fit easily within the narrow mainstream political spectrum of these times. Their core values have been obscured somewhat by their propaganda and attempts to appeal to people who would vote for either Tory or Lib Dem, depending on the consituency they are fighing an election in, but overall their name, Liberal Democrat, does match what they believe in. The worst that liberal thinking and democracy has to offer, and yellow.


 
yeah actually i agree with you, my old dad always calld lib dems yellow tories. they're obviously very comfortable working with the conservatives. its just very amusing that the only issues that made them in anyway different to either of the other parties are immediately up for 'compromise'


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you believe in democracy then you believe in democracy, "unsavoury far right parties" or not. If you believe in democracy then you oppose those parties democratically. Otherwise, why bother? Why not just institute a *benign dictatorship*?



when i'm world leader....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you think the Murdoch press will A) Portray a 'No' vote as a message the electorate aren't buying into their re-arrangement of the deck-chairs or B) An endorsement for the status quo from which they benefit.
> 
> Only in small left wing cliques a 'NO' vote will be seen as smiting the 'sell out' Lib Dems and staying true to the ideology of revolutionary reform.


 
Read my post again. I was not talking about a "no" vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
lol, we're not doing badly in the paper selling dept as it goes - better than your lot would if you went on the streets and, you know, talked and listened to people

do you actually think anyone's ever gonna vote for you again?


----------



## yield (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> i think he means that doing something, anything is better than doing nothing.



Not necessarily.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
Re-arranging political deck-chairs is "reformism", not reform itself.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like to hear how the efforts of others on this thread in reforming our political system are going? Sold many papers recently, hi-jacked many worker struggles for your own political gain?


 
So now we're all swappies?

It's so very easy to tell when even you know you've run out of arguments. Truly pathetic.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Swappies, tories and racists


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 13, 2010)

?


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> yeah actually i agree with you, my old dad always calld lib dems yellow tories. they're obviously very comfortable working with the conservatives. its just very amusing that the only issues that made them in anyway different to either of the other parties are immediately up for 'compromise'


 
Well no doubt some of the confusion that made suckers out of the people who voted Lib Dems for chage stems from whats been happening to the image of Labour and the Tories. The old labour party would never have had a reason to be born if the lib dems were lefty in the way some imagined. If Labour had always had the values of New Labour it would have had no reason to be born because the liberals would have done that job just fine. And Camerons 'detoxification of the tory nasty party image' moves the tories into a position that smells like classic liberal stuff, at least in terms of propaganda. Never mind, all this centre ground wank should start to evaporate once the economic woe kicks in and the mainstream political spectrum loses its narrow buffers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because there was no fucking way the Tories or Labour would have allowed a referendum on PR vs FPTP to take place so instead you have a compromise of AV vs FPTP.


So, in effect, the Lib-Dem position is to settle for eating a shit sandwich rather than a cheese sandwich because at least it's still a sandwich? 


> What’s great is it’s actually going to happen and people are going to get the first vote on a referendum issue since the 70s.


 
That's not "great", it's profoundly sad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> when i'm world leader....


 
...Satan will be ice-skating around his kingdom.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 13, 2010)

> Because there was no fucking way the Tories or Labour would have allowed a referendum on PR vs FPTP to take place so instead you have a compromise of AV vs FPTP



This despite a referendum on AV was actually a LP manifesto pledge, with Gordo saying he'd had a 'conversion' to it, just in time for the election?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Reading this sneering "how many papers have you sold today" / "politics is about compromise" bullshit (while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a tory and blaming everything on the tories) makes me feel sick tbh. It's as though you lot are actually proud of having no principles whatsoever - even insulting your coalition partners at every opportunity yet hiding behind them every time you do something unpopular.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Some of 'we' surely? Unless you're trying to claim that it is impossible to oppose the coalition and AV, which would be both intellectually dishonest and persoanlly insulting.



Opposing the coalition and AV is more logical from a right wing Tory point of view than a left one.  OF course it's possible for the left to argue against both.  But it is self deafeating as it makes a Tory majority more likely and reinforces the armlock that Labour has over the left (but in an insufficient number of heartland seats that make it hard for it to be in government.  You'd delight the big C and small C conservatives on right and left.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 13, 2010)

I don't think this point has been made (at least not that I've seen) but I think it's still perfectly legit to pay your Uni fees up front i.e. incur no debt and therefore no interest and zero  debt. 

Which would obviously be a major factor in the middle class vs. working class 'fairness' issue.

Anyone know the factual SP on paying fees up front?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> . For those opposed to that politics, attacking the coalition by voting no to AV seems a wise course of action.


If you're a Daily Telegraph reader pissed off at the coalition and wanting a clear blue Tory majority it would be.  Not if you're attacking it from the left.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 13, 2010)

Can't believe the utterly sophistical logic being argued here

1) The Lib Dems are shit (true)
2) The LDs are backing AV (also true)
3) People who hate the LDs would benefit if AV vote was lost (NOT FUCKING TRUE!)

And no of course it won't make parliament into a vehicle of workers democracy - that's not my claim.  But does it make it more or less viable for a left alternative to emerge?  My bet is that it makes it more likely in the longer term - partly because it could well lead to STV for local government but mostly as Labour won't hold a revolver to smaller parties or independent candidates and tell them not to split the vote.  Those who want to stick with FPTP need to outline a strategy for building a credible left alternative under that system, when it has helped to throttle all such attempts for decades.  

Actually, Labour will also be able to better disaggregate its support which currently appears in the LD figures due to tactical voting.  It will help to stop the LDs posing as "the only ones who can win here" against the Tories - like they don't share a lot in common.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> lol, we're not doing badly in the paper selling dept as it goes - better than your lot would if you went on the streets and, you know, talked and listened to people
> 
> do you actually think anyone's ever gonna vote for you again?


 
I was on the streets on Saturday doing a Lib Dem street stall.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was on the streets on Saturday doing a Lib Dem street stall.


 
have you no shame?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ?


 
Where did you get that picture of Lib Dem tele-canvassing from?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> have you no shame?


 
What's shamefull about being out on the street in the local community you represent promoting a public meeting?


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Reading this sneering "how many papers have you sold today" / "politics is about compromise" bullshit (while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a tory and blaming everything on the tories) makes me feel sick tbh. It's as though you lot are actually proud of having no principles whatsoever - even insulting your coalition partners at every opportunity yet hiding behind them every time you do something unpopular.



you do look awful nice in your new blue dress. it really brings out your hue


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What's shamefull about being out on the street in the local community you represent promoting a public meeting?


 
it was a rhetorical question - we all know the answer.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Reading this sneering "how many papers have you sold today" / "politics is about compromise" bullshit (while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a tory and blaming everything on the tories) makes me feel sick tbh. It's as though you lot are actually proud of having no principles whatsoever - even insulting your coalition partners at every opportunity yet hiding behind them every time you do something unpopular.


 
It was sneering of me the "how many papers have you sold" comment. I just get a bit fed up with all the Lib Dem bashing from the left at the moment, and was lashing back out. I respect anyone who goes out, argues and tries to engage in democratic politics (apart from fascists).

The party does have principles, but I’m also proud of its ability to compromise and find practical solutions to serve and represent local people in the many coalition councils up and down the country. Not everything is the fault of the Conservatives, like any party the Lib Dems make their own mistakes sometimes. I think the tution fee issue is one of those mistakes for instance. 

Maybe the AV referundum will turn out to be another mistake, I am surprised to hear so many people from general lefty backgrounds saying they are going to vote NO. That doesn't fill me with much joy about the prospects of any electoral reform happening in my life-time.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party does have principles



stop it, you're cracking me up


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> stop it, you're cracking me up


 
stop being mean about the libdems


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was on the streets on Saturday doing a Lib Dem street stall.


 
And? What was the response? 

Thanks for the reply btw - but I don't think, honestly, that the reason that they change their policies depending on who they're talking to is evidence of "compromise" - i think it's evidence of the leadership not having any shame or principles whatsoever. The massive u-turn on tuition fees is more evidence of this, as are your campaign tactics and literature. I remember when your lot went round my uni and tried to present themselves as a centre-left "studenty" option to get students to vote for them.

I am honestly not trying to be horrible or have a go here I'm just trying to get you to think.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> ).
> The party does have principles,


ooohh be still my heaving sides. keep em coming, son, keep 'em coming...



> Maybe the AV referundum will turn out to be another mistake, I am surprised to hear so many people from general lefty backgrounds saying they are going to vote NO. That doesn't fill me with much joy about the prospects of any electoral reform happening in my life-time


if you had actually grown a collective pair and settled for a _real_ PR referendum, rather than the pale pastiche of one the tories offered and you so limply, desperately accepted, then i for one would have suported it, and I can only presume so would many others


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> And? What was the response?
> 
> Thanks for the reply btw - but I don't think, honestly, that the reason that they change their policies depending on who they're talking to is evidence of "compromise" - i think it's evidence of the leadership not having any shame or principles whatsoever. The massive u-turn on tuition fees is more evidence of this, as are your campaign tactics and literature. I remember when your lot went round my uni and tried to present themselves as a centre-left "studenty" option to get students to vote for them.


in fact, this is their whole MO; I have watched in stunned, revolted fascination as one previously-sound lib dem I know transformed herself from millie tant to hyacinth bucket, in the two hours it took for her to journey from impoverished inner city constituency to affluent, leafy suburban one.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> And? What was the response?
> 
> Thanks for the reply btw - but I don't think, honestly, that the reason that they change their policies depending on who they're talking to is evidence of "compromise" - i think it's evidence of the leadership not having any shame or principles whatsoever. The massive u-turn on tuition fees is more evidence of this, as are your campaign tactics and literature. I remember when your lot went round my uni and tried to present themselves as a centre-left "studenty" option to get students to vote for them.
> 
> I am honestly not trying to be horrible or have a go here I'm just trying to get you to think.


 
I do think about it, essentially I think the party often campaigns opportunistically and doesn't do enough to explain what the liberal principles are. I’ve seen campaigns built around a Conservative or Labour squeeze message without any reference to principle and I don’t think they are a great tactic. For the same reason I get angry when I see inaccurate bar charts (any I’ve ever designed have been spot on).  A lot of that stems from holding the centre ground, the temptation is to only reach to your target group during a campaign. 
I think it’s wrong when the party represents itself as either left or right, it should be clear about it’s central position and the fact that it essentially believes in free-markets with a social welfare safety net, international cooperation and a liberal state with minimal government control. 

The response from the stall was mixed, it was in a Labour area and we were handing out leaflets on an AV meeting. I did have one person accuse me of destroying the welfare state, and being worse than the Tories. I also had others who hadn’t heard about AV before, so I explained it to them. One old guy said how his generation had ruined the country, but the Coalition was fucked because it’s already unpopular and normally it takes governments a few years to get unpopular. Another person said they didn’t mind the coalition but thought the Lib Dems should be more vocal in standing up against the Conservatives. 

It’s a bit different in my area there is a local council coalition with Labour though so some people are happy we are keeping the Tories out of power on the council. One thing that pleases me is the local coalition with Labour is going quite well.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which entirely avoids reference to the reams of research conducted since fees were instituted, that show that the the *prospect* of debt puts off a disproportionate number of people from poorer backgrounds. Putting fees up does nothing to solve the divide between haves and have-nots, and reinforces that divide.


yup; working class families have folk-memory historical horror of debt.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> in fact, this is their whole MO; I have watched in stunned, revolted fascination as one previously-sound lib dem I know transformed herself from millie tant to hyacinth bucket, in the two hours it took for her to journey from impoverished inner city constituency to affluent, leafy suburban one.


 
That's odd, I can understand Lib Dems in inner-city areas being different from Lib Dems in leafy suburban ones but was this person actually changing their views?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> I quite liked the post someone made on the lib dems facebook page where they said that its now clear what the Lib Dems stand for - Cameron entering the room.
> 
> Not that I think the Lib Dems really stand for nothing at all, they do have some values, but ones that fit easily within the narrow mainstream political spectrum of these times. Their core values have been obscured somewhat by their propaganda and attempts to appeal to people who would vote for either Tory or Lib Dem, depending on the consituency they are fighing an election in, but overall their name, Liberal Democrat, does match what they believe in. The worst that liberal thinking and democracy has to offer, and yellow.


I Would add to this; their used to be a lot of Liberals who belonged to a far more progressive strain of liberalism, one which believed that civil liberties were meaningless without social economy and social and economic justice. Unfortunately, they all left, leaving the field clear for the Orange Book crowd.
I bet these are people who nevertheless voted LD at the last election (or GREen) and are now watching in utter horror.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> if you had actually grown a collective pair and settled for a _real_ PR referendum, rather than the pale pastiche of one the tories offered and you so limply, desperately accepted, then i for one would have suported it, and I can only presume so would many others


 
thats the funny thing. just after the election when cameron made that desperate televised plea to the libdems it was quite obvious they could have got a vote on pr out of the tories. but no they settle for an av vote they are going to lose.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's odd, I can understand Lib Dems in inner-city areas being different from Lib Dems in leafy suburban ones but was this person actually changing their views?


she was changing not just the way shde communicated, but the entire message; from trendy left pitch to one nation tory, in essence.
And, no, it's not odd; you're a party of cynical, opportunistic, political shapeshifters. It's in your DNA.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's odd, I can understand Lib Dems in inner-city areas being different from Lib Dems in leafy suburban ones but was this person actually changing their views?


 
you find it odd that a libdem changes their views? have you never changed yours?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 13, 2010)

binka said:


> you find it odd that a libdem changes their views? have you never changed yours?


 
Most people's views change over time on issues, not quite so rapidly as as Strethamite suggests. I can understand changing the angle of your pitch to appeal to a different type of person though.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I do think about it, essentially I think the party often campaigns opportunistically and doesn't do enough to explain what the liberal principles are. I’ve seen campaigns built around a Conservative or Labour squeeze message without any reference to principle and I don’t think they are a great tactic. For the same reason I get angry when I see inaccurate bar charts (any I’ve ever designed have been spot on).  A lot of that stems from holding the centre ground, the temptation is to only reach to your target group during a campaign.



So why not put your actual views rather than changing them according to what demographic you're talking to? Virtually all your campaigning is like this actually, highly personalised and attacking individuals rather than having anything to say, and chnaging your views depending on who you talk to. 



> I think it’s wrong when the party represents itself as either left or right, it should be clear about it’s central position and the fact that it essentially believes in free-markets with a social welfare safety net, international cooperation and a liberal state with minimal government control.



What social welfare net? 



> The response from the stall was mixed, it was in a Labour area and we were handing out leaflets on an AV meeting. I did have one person accuse me of destroying the welfare state, and being worse than the Tories. I also had others who hadn’t heard about AV before, so I explained it to them. One old guy said how his generation had ruined the country, but the Coalition was fucked because it’s already unpopular and normally it takes governments a few years to get unpopular. Another person said they didn’t mind the coalition but thought the Lib Dems should be more vocal in standing up against the Conservatives.
> 
> It’s a bit different in my area there is a local council coalition with Labour though so some people are happy we are keeping the Tories out of power on the council. One thing that pleases me is the local coalition with Labour is going quite well.


 
What a surprise.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> she was changing not just the way shde communicated, but the entire message; from trendy left pitch to one nation tory, in essence.


 
Not unusual... reminds me of a few 'encounters' I've had over the years.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I Would add to this; their used to be a lot of Liberals who belonged to a far more progressive strain of liberalism, one which believed that civil liberties were meaningless without social economy and social and economic justice. Unfortunately, they all left, leaving the field clear for the Orange Book crowd.
> I bet these are people who nevertheless voted LD at the last election (or GREen) and are now watching in utter horror.


 
Ta for the info. When was this? Before, during or after the Liberal-SDP merger?


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh deary me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11537333



> Nick Clegg has urged his MPs to look at "all the facts" before deciding whether to oppose a rise in tuition fees.
> 
> The deputy prime minister said he would "understand" if fellow Lib Dems felt they could not back it, after signing a pre-election pledge not to do so.





> "I am painfully aware of the pledge we all made to voters on tuition fees ahead of the general election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career."
> 
> But the assumptions underlying that pledge were no longer practical, he added, because the financial situation facing the country had changed completely and there were a lack of "plausible alternatives" to the framework set out in the Browne report.



What a load of bollocks - when did the financial situation change, hardly after the election unless he thinks the coalition policies are going to make the economy far worse than it was known to be before the election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yup; working class families have dfolk-memory historical horror of debt.


 
I still do. It's why I won't even have a credit card. It's also why I've done all my higher ed, both under and post-grad, part-time and as and when I could afford it, rather than full-time.


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 13, 2010)

elbows said:


> Oh deary me...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11537333
> 
> What a load of bollocks - when did the financial situation change, hardly after the election unless he thinks the coalition policies are going to make the economy far worse than it was known to be before the election.


 
The financial situation changed the moment it became necessary for his career to toe the Tory line.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> you do look awful nice in your new blue dress. it really brings out your hue



Yeah, I'm a tory. You sussed me.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, I'm a tory. You sussed me.


 
I don't know how you're going to deal with his ingenious arguments froggie. I mean, the amount of thought and research that so obviously goes into them, you've no hope. Just give up and admit it. You are, in fact, a racist swappie Tory.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

OK sorry everyone, I lied, I am a tory  but it's a great relief not to have to hide any longer


----------



## the button (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> OK sorry everyone, I lied, I am a tory  but it's a great relief not to have to hide any longer



There's your Saturday afternoon sorted -- selling the Daily Mail in your town centre next to a crappy pastetable with a petition to abolish the national minimum wage.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Swappie Tories lol. Do they stand around getting passers-by to sign petitions about house prices and stuff? 

"If you sign this petition then you will get a 20% return on your investments - and while you are at, it , do you want to buy a copy of our paper, The Daily Telegraph - it's only £2.50"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

the button said:


> There's your Saturday afternoon sorted -- selling the Daily Mail in your town centre next to a crappy pastetable with a petition to abolish the national minimum wage.


----------



## the button (Oct 13, 2010)

Bet you never realised bringing back the birch was a transitional demand, eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

I guess sacrifices have to be made to one step on the way to full Toryism, comrade.


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Swappie Tories lol. Do they stand around getting passers-by to sign petitions about house prices and stuff?
> 
> "If you sign this petition then you will get a 20% return on your investments - and while you are at, it , do you want to buy a copy of our paper, The Daily Telegraph - it's only £2.50"


 
young tories seem to be using methods previously the preserve of the left - check out this photo a swappie mate of mine posted from manc uni.







it made me lol. 

one of the comment on the pic did too:



> SWP caught a few of the tories sitting on the union steps with the marker pen in their hand so they shouted at them until they went away.
> 
> one of the tories said 'you're making me feel intimidated'.



 

a battle both were doomed to lose, i fear...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Hehehehe that's hilarious  "TWAT!"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Bet you never realised bringing back the birch was a transitional demand, eh?


 
A transitional demand to what? Death?


----------



## the button (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> A transitional demand to what? Death?



The dictatorship of death, comrade. Or -- if things go a bit tits up -- a deformed worker's death where we can raise the banner of political revolution.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

Ah, I see, comrade. Mind you if we're Tories it wouldn't be a deformed workers' anything would it , because everyone would be unemployed ...


----------



## the button (Oct 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Ah, I see, comrade. Mind you if we're Tories it wouldn't be a deformed workers' anything would it , because everyone would be unemployed ...



True. But after 25 years in & around leftwing politics, I still can't spell that word for posh people that begins with 'bour.'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2010)

A new word for a new generation, comrade


----------



## Belushi (Oct 13, 2010)

the button said:


> True. But after 25 years in & around leftwing politics, I still can't spell that word for posh people that begins with 'bour.'


 
barbour?


----------



## killer b (Oct 13, 2010)

bouring.


----------



## binka (Oct 13, 2010)

simon hughes looking *very* uncomfortable on newsnight


----------



## Kaye (Oct 14, 2010)

This thread has become a painful read. However, based on it, I'm now going going to vote No. In particular because those in favour of a Yes only have the argument "well look who you're supporting" rather than arguing about the issue. And the 8 fella was particularly bad for that.

Can someone show me something that illustrates how the coalition is _worse_ because of the Lib Dems involvement. IE the exact opposite of what they're claiming?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

That is at least arguable, but not critical to the case for a YES vote.  Kaye - You have plenty of time to reconsider you're voting intentions .  I don't blame you for not having read the entire thread but to recapitulate - Positive reasons to vote YES include:
1) IT WOULD MAKE IT LESS DIFFICULT TO KICK OUT BOTH COALITION PARTNERS AT THE NEXT ELECTION!!!!!!!
2) No voters are left in the position of having to vote for their preferred party and see it wasted, OR having to vote tactically for a party you don't really support to see your vote count.
3) It would allow us to see the real extent of support for left and/or Green candidates currently masked by tactical voting.  It would confront us with the real extent (however limited) of this support and allow left or green candidates to identify local concentrations of support for winning council seats.
4) The switch to preferential voting makes STV (ie. PR) for local government a very easy step to take - to make consistent local elections England and Wales with Scotland and N. Ireland (already use STV).


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Can't believe the utterly sophistical logic being argued here
> 
> 1) The Lib Dems are shit (true)
> 2) The LDs are backing AV (also true)
> 3) People who hate the LDs would benefit if AV vote was lost (NOT FUCKING TRUE!)



How would the lib dems not benefit if the AV vote was won? 



> And no of course it won't make parliament into a vehicle of workers democracy - that's not my claim.


Nobody is saying it would 



> But does it make it more or less viable for a left alternative to emerge?  My bet is that it makes it more likely in the longer term - partly because it could well lead to STV for local government but mostly as Labour won't hold a revolver to smaller parties or independent candidates and tell them not to split the vote.  Those who want to stick with FPTP need to outline a strategy for building a credible left alternative under that system, when it has helped to throttle all such attempts for decades.
> 
> Actually, Labour will also be able to better disaggregate its support which currently appears in the LD figures due to tactical voting.  It will help to stop the LDs posing as "the only ones who can win here" against the Tories - like they don't share a lot in common.


 
I take your point, but the labour developed under a far worse version of FTPF than we have today. The conditions were completely different but that's not to say it couldn't happen again.

And nobody has said why we should take this pathetic tory/lib dem imitation of PR rather than PR itself.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How would the lib dems not benefit if the AV vote was won?



Well realistically their vote share is going to drop significantly at the next election.  So they are unlikely to make many gains under whichever system.  It is true AV might make it harder for them to get wiped out.  But - and this is the bit we have to accept - there are areas in the country (large swathes of the South of England) where eliminating the LDs makes it much easier for the Tories to pick up seats and concentrate their fire on picking up Labour seats. ie. it would hand a majority to Cameron.   AV would mean not only that some of the seats would go to the LDs, but also that the two coalition parties would be fighting each other in many more areas.  (unless of course there's an electoral pact between the two of them but that's a whole other ballgame).

Why do you say that the FPTP system was "far worse" at the turn of the last century?  I don't see this.  Particularly now that parties have identified the demographics of swing voters and the number of seats that might change hands is so low.  Around a fifth of the seats have been held by the same party since 1945!   I don't say it is impossible for a new party to emerge under FPTP - but it would take some almighty social cataclysm for this to happen on a really significant scale rather than in a few isolated local cases.  is it a coincidence that Britian - with its FPTP system - failed to see a really mass CP emerge - in contrast to France, Italy, etc.  

I don't say that AV is the best system we could change to.  But it's the only one on the table, and realistically all that could have been got out of the Tories.  So we should grab it and demand more.  That's another reason the Tories are so hostile.


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> is it a coincidence that Britian - with its FPTP system - failed to see a really mass CP emerge - in contrast to France, Italy, etc.


 I think you're wrong to see FPTP as an important causal factor in limiting CP growth - it didn't stop the Indian communist parties from becoming massivle, did it? I think the key difference between the UK and Itlay and France was that UK communism never really became a mass movement - it invovled tens of thousands rather than millions.

Likewise you're wrong to think that a change in the voting system will cause left parties to rise to the fore. They're hardly champing at the bit in their millions, held back only by a rigged electoral system, are they? With Pr we would see a tricke of a few more greens in parliament, maybe scargill or some other lefty celebrity as well, and that's it - because that's the situation at the grassroots as well.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Is it a coincidence that Britian - with its FPTP system - failed to see a really mass CP emerge - in contrast to France, Italy, etc.



Do you really think that PR would have seen the emergence of a mass CP in the UK (which is the implication of the above)? Couldn't there, for example, be rather more important factors in the polical, trade union, and religous histories of the UK working class, which differentiate them from France and Italy, than parliamentary balloting arrangements? 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

There's a really damaging logic at work here - don't attack the lib-dems, don't seek to damage the lib-dems because the result might weaken their position in the coalition. I don't see why that could be applied to the tories too but those putting forward this logic don't seem to mind that, presumably because they're doing it. In fact, why attack the coalition at all - a weakened coalition might force both parties to cling to each other even tighter. 

That really is an abandonment of politics and a total failure of nerve - an even weaker version of the sort of auto-laburism. It essentially means wait until the next general election (whilst adding in pious guff about building up an extra-parliamentary opposition - _inside parliament_ of course! ) and subsumes real life politics to parliamentary arithmetic. How the hell can we build up something against all this crap without attacking it and if we attack it we have to aim to weaken it. There's no sensible political logic in denying this.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you really think that PR would have seen the emergence of a mass CP in the UK (which is the implication of the above)? Couldn't there, for example, be rather more important factors in the polical, trade union, and religous histories of the UK working class, which differentiate them from France and Italy, than parliamentary balloting arrangements?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
It does show the cart-before-the-horse approach taken by this argument though. That politics determines the system rather than the system determining (crudely put) politics. Some very basic foundational arguments are either being forgotten here or deliberately being thrown overboard.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

exactly


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

> But - and this is the bit we have to accept - there are areas in the country (large swathes of the South of England) where eliminating the LDs makes it much easier for the Tories to pick up seats and concentrate their fire on picking up Labour seats. ie. it would hand a majority to Cameron.



Huh ?? this is a bit i don't get , they already have a majority!! the lib dems and tories are basically two different types of tory, you can't hold a piece of paper betwen them. |It seems to me that you want labour back in power (which is fair enough if that's what you think) and think that this approach will do it - but even the labour party are opposing it on the basis that it's tied a boundary changing bill iirc

how do you think that a tory government would be worse than what this govt is doing? for that matter how do you think a majority lib dem govt would be better?


----------



## Santino (Oct 14, 2010)

A great result at the next election would be a Lib-Tory pact with both renegade Tories and Liberals standing, resulting in a three-way split.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2010)

It might give birth to some whole new splinter parties - "Liberal Left Party", "The One Nation Conservative Party"

(A re-appearance of the "Literal Democrats"? )


----------



## Santino (Oct 14, 2010)

The Conversative Party


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2010)

Santino said:


> The Conversative Party


 
http://www.conversatives.com/


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It does show the cart-before-the-horse approach taken by this argument though. That politics determines the system rather than the system determining (crudely put) politics. Some very basic foundational arguments are either being forgotten here or deliberately being thrown overboard.


 
It reminds me of the sort of position would hear being taken by, for want of a better phrase, 'Marxism Today types'; it was wishful 'cart before horse' thinking then and remains so now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It reminds me of the sort of position would hear being taken by, for want of a better phrase, 'Marxism Today types'; it was wishful 'cart before horse' thinking them and remains so now.


 What did the MT lot used to say?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

That guy on their website does actually look like Tory Boy from the harry enfield show.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 14, 2010)

> ...don't attack the lib-dems, don't seek to damage the lib-dems because the result might weaken their position in the coalition



Well, that was always a fallacious argument, as we're now seeing. They can't be any weaker than they are at present.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

Random said:


> What did the MT lot used to say?


 
There was great enthusiasm from some MT types for electoral reform as a way of 'shaping a new politics'. Writing in 1988 in Marxism Today (latter reproduced in _New Times_) David Marquand came out with the following gem:

It [SLD] is, after all, the only mainstream UK party committed to constitutional reform: and although it's support for PR is partially dictated by self interest, *PR is an indefensible first step towards a citizen democracy*.  (bold added)​
Twenty two years later we find Lib Dem supporters using the same arse about face illogic, not to argue for the 'first step' of PR but for the more of the same of AV. The thinking is no more robust, while the ambition has dwindled to nothing more than self interest.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you really think that PR would have seen the emergence of a mass CP in the UK (which is the implication of the above)? Couldn't there, for example, be rather more important factors in the polical, trade union, and religous histories of the UK working class, which differentiate them from France and Italy, than parliamentary balloting arrangements?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?


 
That's right, you and the lib dems are the heirs of the Communist party. I can't take you seriously any more, btw.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's a really damaging logic at work here - don't attack the lib-dems, don't seek to damage the lib-dems because the result might weaken their position in the coalition.



Absolute 100% misrepresentation of my position - a pretty shabby way of arguing.  I am arguing *against* the coalition and the LD role within it - but arguing that it would easier to sweep both parties out of office (a majority Labour government) if voters in Con/LD marginals had the option of demonstrating their political opposition to the LDs and the coalition AND still being able to cast an effective anti-Tory vote - which is where AV comes in.  

But of course I'm NOT arguing a Labour majority per se is hardly a guarantee of stopping the cuts or transforming society (as if) , it is just the least worst outcome. Which is among the reasons I want to see a mass movement outside parliament emerge NOW (*not* wait until the next general election) to build an irresistable force that shifts Labour to the left.  And I'd like to see independent left candidates, trade union candidates, single issue protests etc have the room to stand without automatically being squeezed by the tactical wish to avoid splitting the Labour vote and letting in LD/Cons.



> How the hell can we build up something against all this crap without attacking it and if we attack it we have to aim to weaken it. There's no sensible political logic in denying this.



Attacking the coalition yes, but doing it intelligently - seizing on something that is *tactically* useful that the contradictions of the coalition have brought forward, while keeping up political opposition.  

If you want to disagree with me - fine - but do it on the basis of what I'm actually arguing not some fantasy "don't attack the liberals" position that is a million miles away from my position.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Random said:


> That's right, you and the lib dems are the heirs of the Communist party. I can't take you seriously any more, btw.


 
Well how about you engage with my *actual* argument (see above) not this fantasy bollocks about defending the LDs.  The LDs are a busted flush now electorally - they've fucked themselves up.  So we needn't waste time cutting off our own noses to spite the LDs - when the only party that benefits is Cameron's.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Huh ?? this is a bit i don't get , they already have a majority!! the lib dems and tories are basically two different types of tory, you can't hold a piece of paper betwen them.



But how - realistically - are you going to get rid of them unless you elect a Labour government? (not auto-Labourism - see above - except to the extent FPTP makes it inexorable)  how does handing a walkover of the South to the Tories help achieve that?



> It seems to me that you want labour back in power (which is fair enough if that's what you think) and think that this approach will do it - but even the labour party are opposing it on the basis that it's tied a boundary changing bill iirc


No Labour are opposing the Bill (so would I!) on the basis of the boundary changes BUT if gets passed the changes will already be in place - and Ed Miliband has said he will be voting YES - so assume the party will largely follow suit (a minority won't but they are neither here nor there).  



> how do you think that a tory government would be worse than what this govt is doing? for that matter how do you think a majority lib dem govt would be better?


 
A majority LD government is a fantasy (not mine!).  I don't see that a Con majority represents a step forward from a LD/CON coalition.  It isn't a step backwards either - as you say they are in this together.  But how realistically can both parties be swept out of power except by a Labour majority?  That strikes me as something of a step forward, although how much depends on what kind of movement is built outside of parliament.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There was great enthusiasm from some MT types for electoral reform as a way of 'shaping a new politics'.


 
Yes there was - as indeed is inevitable once you take seriously the "forward of march of labour halted" thesis - but the fact that the "New politics" happened without electoral reform led pretty directly to New Labour and where we are today.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?


 
Please go and read the various versions of the _British Road to Socialism_ (and the CPB's _Britain's Road to Socialism_); it will help place in perspective the marginal role the CPGB saw electoral reform (in the form of PR and the STV not AV) playing. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Yes there was - as indeed is inevitable once you take seriously the "forward of march of labour halted" thesis - but the fact that the "New politics" happened without electoral reform led pretty directly to New Labour and where we are today.


 
So now FPTP is responsible for New Labour as well as being a significant obstacle to the formation of a mass CP; how much more do you want to heap upon this political superstructure?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not sure why you find it so surprising that all manifestions of electoral politics are mediated - in significant ways - by the electoral system.  Of course that isn't to say it is simply an effect or reflection of it (I've not suggested otherwise).


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But how realistically can both parties be swept out of power except by a Labour majority?  That strikes me as something of a step forward, although how much depends on what kind of movement is built outside of parliament.


 What you are surely talking about is _rendering politicians powerless to make attacks on the working class_? That won't happen if the Labour party is elected, will it? The only way to make politicians powerless to attack the working class is by organised working class opposition, not placing your hopes in teh reshuffling of one bunch of oxbridge neo liberals for another lot.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I'm not sure why you find it so surprising that all manifestions of electoral politics are mediated - in significant ways - by the electoral system.  Of course that isn't to say it is simply an effect or reflection of it (I've not suggested otherwise).


 
Stop rowing away; what do 'led pretty directly' and 'significant obstacle' mean to you? Did the CPGB share your estimation of the importance of electoral reform as you have tried to claim; or are you going to distance yourself from that position now?

PR, let alone AV, isn't an indispensable first step to anything. AV is a coalition life line; one you seem determined to preserve for them. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

No rowing away - I think that the FPTP voting system has had a pretty malign influence on the development of left political representation - which isn't to say that if we only had PR most of our problems would disappear.  It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic.  Whether we make anything of that space is down to us.  I said the CP advocated STV.  They did (and the CPB still do I think).  You're right to say it was the MT wing that came to push a hard version of its importance.  But it was policy long, long before that.  

How is AV a coalition lifeline?  A NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition - quite the opposite - without AV cushioning the blow would put the fear of God in Lib Dem MPs who would do anything to avoid the electorate.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Random said:


> What you are surely talking about is _rendering politicians powerless to make attacks on the working class_? That won't happen if the Labour party is elected, will it? The only way to make politicians powerless to attack the working class is by organised working class opposition, not placing your hopes in teh reshuffling of one bunch of oxbridge neo liberals for another lot.


 
As i hope I made clear I don't think that *simply* replacing this lot with a majority Labour government is anything like enough.  But the fact it's not sufficient doesn't mean it's not in some sense necessary.  You surely don't believe it is of no consequence whether Cameron is elected with a majority or whether Labour is?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 14, 2010)

elbows said:


> Ta for the info. When was this? Before, during or after the Liberal-SDP merger?


during and after, as the right of the party increased its' stranglehold


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> As i hope I made clear I don't think that *simply* replacing this lot with a majority Labour government is anything like enough.  But the fact it's not sufficient doesn't mean it's not in some sense necessary.  You surely don't believe it is of no consequence whether Cameron is elected with a majority or whether Labour is?


 I would rather have a weak neo liberal tory government in power, crippled by working class oppositon, than a strong neo liberal labour government, strengthened by 'left' members like you.


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic.


 "It's just that if we had a cart it would increase our chances of getting a horse."


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No rowing away - I think that the FPTP voting system has had a pretty malign influence on the development of left political representation - which isn't to say that if we only had PR most of our problems would disappear.  It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic.  Whether we make anything of that space is down to us.  I said the CP advocated STV.  They did (and the CPB still do I think).  You're right to say it was the MT wing that came to push a hard version of its importance.  But it was policy long, long before that.
> 
> How is AV a coalition lifeline?  A NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition - quite the opposite - without AV cushioning the blow would put the fear of God in Lib Dem MPs who would do anything to avoid the electorate.


 
I know what the CPGB/CPB policy was and is, but unlike the line you seem to be pushing, their appreciation of the importance of PR/STV is that it is marginal in relation to much much greater economic factors.

AV is a life line for the coalition because without it the Lib Dems will have sold their soul for nothing more than whipping boy/junior partner ministerial positions. Some of the top of the party could easily cope with this, but the party as a whole will be severely damaged both internally (why are we Lib Dems?) and externally (lack of trustworthiness and poor judgment).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2010)

Is this tory govt weak, though? It seems very strong to me, looking like it might be able to push through legislation effectively abolishing govt funding of universities. This current coalition seems like the worst of all worlds to me. A minority tory administration would have been far preferable.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

but part of that surely is that labour aren't even bothering to even seem like they're opposing anything.


----------



## Random (Oct 14, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is this tory govt weak, though?


 Wasn't saying it already was, just saying that effective working class opposition is the way to go, whether it's labour or tories


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but part of that surely is that labour aren't even bothering to even seem like they're opposing anything.


 
our optimism didn't last long did it.

saw Vince cable at the dispatch box the other day and although i don't like him or any other Lib Dem/Tory at least he sounded like he meant it. Labour on the other hand "oh yes we will support you hammer the disabled"

cringeworthy


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Random said:


> Wasn't saying it already was, just saying that effective working class opposition is the way to go, whether it's labour or tories


 
and who here is saying "nah, let's just get a Labour government elected" and that'll do the trick?  Certainly not what I've been saying.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Random said:


> "It's just that if we had a cart it would increase our chances of getting a horse."



 each electoral system shapes and constrains the methods of all those parties fighting to achieve representation under it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> except the carts don't beget horses, whereas all parties with electoral representation are - have their methods determined at least in part (not aas direct causal result, but nevertheless...) as a product of an electoral system.


 
For crying out loud please please please re-write that!

Cheers - Louis (Prisoner of Love) MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

done


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

Here's Yougov's tracker on AV - since the lib-dem and troy coalition was formed a 10 point lead for AV has turned into a 5 point deficit:







The  Constitution Society have also conducted a large poll that supported the idea that the tide is turning against AV, especially after exposure to anti as well as pro arguments. Here. (pdf) This is line with YG's 2 or 3 post-explanation based polls as well.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 14, 2010)

Interesting that the wouldn't vote segment has been relatively stable (sort of) and the D/Ks are very consistent.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Yougov's polling methodology is flawed - not that it means anything much this far out anyway.

Butchers - how about you apologise for completely misrepresenting what I'm arguing?  Not asking you to agree with me, just acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to oppose the LDs, the coalition and still back a YES vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

This is the post explanations bit of the Constitution Societies poll - 






The second lot of figures represent:


----------



## ymu (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not convinced that the boundary changes will make a lot of difference. Of course the Tories will attempt to gerrymander the boundaries as much as possible, but there's a limit to what can sensibly be done.

Labour do have an electoral advantage in terms of % of the national vote and how this translates into seats, because it just so happens that the smaller constituencies are more likely to vote Labour (presumably because the Tories killed manufacturing in these areas and people had to move away). But Labour voters are also less likely to turn out, especially in safe seats. The Tories have structural disadvantage at least in part because the rich tend to ghettoise themselves in rural and suburban areas. There's a limit to how much the boundaries can be used to split these areas up and distribute the Tory vote more evenly (which matters under FPTP and AV, but much less under STV).

Another headache for the gerrymanderers is what effect the boundary changes will have on turn out. Create more Tory marginals and you create more voters willing to turn out to make sure they don't get in.

I don't have a problem with cutting the number of seats - it is a stupidly large parliament for such a small country. And the one thing I do trust Labour to do is fight blatant gerrymandering that puts them at a disadvantage. I'm not convinced it will make a lot of difference. Labour has a structural advantage because rich people hate living anywhere near poor people, and rich_er_ people in more mixed areas are more likely to be socially liberal. It's not unfair, it's just demographics, and I suspect there's very little the Tories can do about it.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

a) depends what they have been fed by way of a "brief" (this won't happen on polling day)
b) DK's much higher than FPTPers, and more than enough to make the critical difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Absolute 100% misrepresentation of my position - a pretty shabby way of arguing.  I am arguing *against* the coalition and the LD role within it - but arguing that it would easier to sweep both parties out of office (a majority Labour government) if voters in Con/LD marginals had the option of demonstrating their political opposition to the LDs and the coalition AND still being able to cast an effective anti-Tory vote - which is where AV comes in.
> 
> But of course I'm NOT arguing a Labour majority per se is hardly a guarantee of stopping the cuts or transforming society (as if) , it is just the least worst outcome. Which is among the reasons I want to see a mass movement outside parliament emerge NOW (*not* wait until the next general election) to build an irresistable force that shifts Labour to the left.  And I'd like to see independent left candidates, trade union candidates, single issue protests etc have the room to stand without automatically being squeezed by the tactical wish to avoid splitting the Labour vote and letting in LD/Cons.
> 
> ...



 That's the political logic of your position. It's one you're relentlessly outlined over the last few days. You've argued over and over that a defeat in the AV referendum would mean a weakened lib-dems clinging tighter to the coalition. Yet when i say this is your position you deny that it is. Now, you might not be either willing or able to recognise the logic of your own position but it's pretty clear that those not taken in by this lib-labbery can and have reacted accordingly. Here it is _in your own words_



> A No vote will make the LDs cling harder than ever to the Tories, out of desperation to make the public think the coalition has "worked" and compensate for losing their "trophy" of electoral reform.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> a) depends what they have been fed by way of a "brief" (this won't happen on polling day)
> b) DK's much higher than FPTPers, and more than enough to make the critical difference.


 
a) you've already decided - hence your claim that the methodlogy was flawed. Based on what?
b) Not true. DKs are well behind pro-FPTP in both polls. Why assume they're going to go your way anyway? You should recognise the real danger staring you in the face - that the FPTP votes are coming directly from those who were previously pro-AV.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

Yes, I'm saying I don't think a NO vote would have the effect you think it will.  But it doesn't follow that I'm backing a YES vote because I want to strenghten the LD's within the coalition.   It's you that are making the effect on the LDs the litmus test of whether to support or not to support AV, not me.  I'm baffled why you can't see that this is not the basis on which I'm arguing.  

I don't think either a YES or a NO will have a decisive effect on the coalition one way or the other.  [where it will have an effect is whether the Tories emerge on the other side of the election which I expect to be in 4 years time - if you want to bring down the coalition it's a full general strike not a faustian pact with the Tories you need.  Good luck with that - I'm all for it.  But I don't think we can bank on it happening.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> a) you've already decided - hence your claim that the methodlogy was flawed. Based on what?
> b) Not true. DKs are well behind pro-FPTP in both polls. Why assume they're going to go your way anyway? You should recognise the real danger staring you in the face - that the FPTP votes are coming directly from those who were previously pro-AV.


 
You don't cite their findings that when segmented by certainty to vote, AV has a *lead* over FPTP among the three deciles most certain to vote.    Methodology flawed based on sample size, reliance on telephone/web based responses (demographically unrepresentative), etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> baffled quite frankly.   Yes, I'm saying I don't think a NO vote would have the effect you think it will.  But it doesn't follow that I'm backing a YES vote because I want to strenghten the LD's within the coalition.   It's you that are making the effect on the LDs the litmus test of whether to support or not to support AV, not me.
> 
> I don't think either a YES or a NO will have a decisive effect on the coalition one way or the other.  [where it will have an effect is whether the Tories emerge on the other side of the election which I expect to be in 4 years time - if you want to bring down the coalition it's a full general strike not a faustian pact with the Tories you need.


 
If you're baffled it's by your own incoherence mixed with maximalist posing. Why make the incorrect point that a no vote would weaken the lib-dems and strengthen the coalition directly against arguments that it would weaken the lib-dems and the coalition if it's not your position? And why do it over and over?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

A NO *would* weaken the LDs and lock the MPs even tighter to the Tories - I do think this.  But it doesn't follow that I want to see a YES vote to strenghten the LDs.  They are already so weak that a victory would only be pyrrhic for them.  They will slip back anyway at the next GE with or without AV.  I therefore think the main electoral battle is to contain the Tories come the next GE  not to smash the LDs (who are just being useful idiots for them) out of sight.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition


oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 14, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs


 
what a beautiful sight


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You don't cite their findings that when segmented by certainty to vote, AV has a *lead* over FPTP among the three deciles most certain to vote.    Methodology flawed based on sample size, reliance on telephone/web based responses (demographically unrepresentative), etc.


 
Nor did you. Nor did you say that the FPTP/AV split on the certain to vote segment is 59/62 with the DKs on 23 (with very similar results in the next two segments). Which, unless i'm mistaken means the DKs are a long way from being larger than the FPTP. (certain to vote section is only 46% of the total as well as well

I think you need to do more than a generic anti-polling critique if you want to dismiss these specific findings.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs


 
We know this. The voters know this. The lib-dems _certainly_ know this - hence their attempts to disassociate Nick Clegg from the yes campaign and to lay the ground for the coming defeat not meaning that much after all. I suspect that articul8 knows this as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2010)

I doubt many ld voters, as opposed to members, give a toss about the outcome of this referendum.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

But even supposing you're right, why would it trigger their MPs to commit hari kari and pull out of the coalition when the public hates them?   Surely their only option is to grit their teeth and hope that some economic miracle saves their bacon.  Which it wouldn't so they will be wiped out. But the main beneficiaries of that will be the Tories (who will have played a blinder by getting the Libs to agree to the gerrymander), and who will sweep the board in the South and start picking off Labour held marginals.

it's better to let them slowly die on the vine and slip into permanent irrelevance than watch them collapse and deliver a Tory walkover.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I doubt many ld voters, as opposed to members, give a toss about the outcome of this referendum.


 
I wasn't talking about the dwindling number of pro lib-dem voters (11% last night) but those voters who want to punish the lib-dems, those voters who are behind the collapse in their polling figures. I think it's a fair enough conclusion that the drop in AV support is connected directly to the drop in lib-dem support.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But even supposing you're right, why would it trigger their MPs to commit hari kari and pull out of the coalition when the public hates them?   Surely their only option is to grit their teeth and hope that some economic miracle saves their bacon.  Which it wouldn't so they will be wiped out. But the main beneficiaries of that will be the Tories (who will have played a blinder by getting the Libs to agree to the gerrymander), and who will sweep the board in the South and start picking off Labour held marginals.


 
A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to do more than a generic anti-polling critique if you want to dismiss these specific findings.


 
I don't particularly - it's too far out to be meaningful.  I didn't mean to type that DKs are bigger than FPTP, I meant bigger than def won't vote - and by some margin.  Which means there is approx 25% up for grabs, as these are all people who in principle might vote YES.  Obviously they need to be won over in greater numbers.  But I think that's doable.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.


 
They are already weakened and damaged - and will be by terrible council results anyway.  It doesn't need a NO vote in the referendum to deliver that.   The problem is that - combined with the effects of the boundary changes - FPTP would turn bad results for the LDs into catastrophic ones at the next General Election - raising the hurdle to be jumped in order to kick out both coalition parties.   There's no way they could avoid this - even by a series of total u-turns and Cable going into full anti-Bankers mode couldn't avert their doom


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

articul8 said:


> They are already weakened and damaged - and will be by terrible council results anyway.  It doesn't need a NO vote in the referendum to deliver that.   The problem is that - combined with the effects of the boundary changes - FPTP would turn bad results for the LDs into catastrophic ones at the next General Election - raising the hurdle to be jumped in order to kick out both coalition parties.   There's no way they could avoid this - even by a series of total u-turns and Cable going into full anti-Bankers mode couldn't avert their doom


 
So damage and weaken them some more. That they're already weakened is no argument whatsoever.

No, that's your problem with the no vote, because you're arguing an auto-labourist position. You're still operating on the assumption that the lib-dems are still somehow better than the tories, to the left of them, so that a lib-dem victory over the tories substantively means something. The last 6 months should have disabused you of this notion. You should by now, have worked out the complete compatibility of the aggressive neo-liberal agendas of the lib-dems and the tories. Cathc up with the rest of us.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2010)

They're getting a bollocking on QT right now - as expected. Tessa Jowl was fucking shit on the question. Dave Willettes = absolute filth. Looks like some sort of weasal cunt out of The Thick Of It. Oh fuck, now Wax Hastings is wobbling his jaw. Carpet bomb them flat I say.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2010)

It was labour that appointed that fucking clown Lord Browne. Oh fuck, Tessa Jowl is so fucking shit. Just shut the fuck up please you fucking cretin.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2010)

I really hate all these people. Tweedle Dumb, Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Even Fucking Dumber. Imagine not even being able to nail the Libdems balls to tbe walls on something so fucking simple. Fuck me.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2010)

"Scholarships" - cunts. 

The point of education is educate, not to take people who are already "clever" (i.e. got good 'A' levels - its not the same fucking thing).


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 14, 2010)

The Libdems = the Quail Chocolate Cake of UK politics.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're still operating on the assumption that the lib-dems are still somehow better than the tories, to the left of them, so that a lib-dem victory over the tories substantively means something. .


 
No, I'm operating on the assumption that if they busy fighting each other at the next election that avoids the situation of a Tory walkover in the South allowing them to concentrate their cash on marginals that Labour needs to win if both coalition partners are to be swept out.  Unless, we think that a formal electoral pact is a real possibility...?

I think the LDs are just opportunists through and through - they can mutate into whatever form suits their perceived self interests in any particular time or place.  It's like some political version of V!  I'm all for damaging and weakening them - but they aren't the overriding consideration on everything under the sun.  Why cut off anti-coaltion noses to spite the LDs?  Only the Tories win if you take that line.  AV would allow for clever opposition to the LDs that would help maximise the chances of getting rid not just of Clegg but of Cameron too.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

the fact is though, while labour would have been better than the tories, the whole idea that OMG ITS THE TORIES AND WE MUSTNT LET THE TORIES WIN is just stupid tbh. do you think labour, if they'd won the election, wouldn't have been imposing the cuts? there were going to be cuts whoever won. despite being in opposition milliband is saying he's willing to work with the tories to introduce them ffs. obviously im not too happy that the tories have won, but you are seeming to see everything from the perspective of getting labour back, as tho this would change everything and make everything better. it wouldn't. 

i'd never vote labour after what they did in Iraq tbh, or if i did, there'd have to be such a big change that it wouldn't recognisely be the same party


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No, I'm operating on the assumption that if they busy fighting each other at the next election that avoids the situation of a Tory walkover in the South allowing them to concentrate their cash on marginals that Labour needs to win if both coalition partners are to be swept out.  Unless, we think that a formal electoral pact is a real possibility...?
> 
> I think the LDs are just opportunists through and through - they can mutate into whatever form suits their perceived self interests in any particular time or place.  It's like some political version of V!  I'm all for damaging and weakening them - but they aren't the overriding consideration on everything under the sun.  Why cut off anti-coaltion noses to spite the LDs?  Only the Tories win if you take that line.  AV would allow for clever opposition to the LDs that would help maximise the chances of getting rid not just of Clegg but of Cameron too.



Do you actually realise how much you're twisting and turning. I say that your position is actually one that's simple auto-labourism, it argues for an approach designed to bring about maximum electoral benefit for labour and you reply by saying no it's not - it's one that's designed to bring about maximum electoral benefit for labour. (edit: but, in order to end auto-labourism!)

What difference would either a ld or tory victory make in that tiny handful of ld/C marginals? (about 25 i think)They've just spent the last 6 months demonstrating that they're ideological twins. That they might have to stand against each other and spend some cash which might then benefit labour is not a good enough - logically or politically - to pass up a chance to do potential damage to one component of the coalition thereby thereby weakening the coalition by bringing contradictions and disagreements to the fore etc. This potential to harm the cuts program is far more important than working to help _your_ labour party.

And no one is saying the Lib-dems 'are the only consideration' under the sun - no one. Quite the opposite. You've been presented with a well thought out scenario designed to do maximum damage to the coalition over  through one single issue. You've responded by calling those arguing for it tories, not only tories but _unintelligent_ tories at that, and unintelligent tories who don't seem to want to help labour either.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> 4) The switch to preferential voting makes STV (ie. PR) for local government a very easy step to take - to make consistent local elections England and Wales with Scotland and N. Ireland (already use STV).


You keep making this claim yet you provide no evidence to back them up. It didn't happen in Australia and it isn't going to any time soon


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> You keep making this claim yet you provide no evidence to back them up. It didn't happen in Australia and it isn't going to any time soon


 
What was the interval between Scotland getting electoral reform for the Scottish Parliament, and getting STV for local elections?  Less than a decade.  WHy couldn't same happen in England and Wales?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

Butchers

My position even in the short-term isn't accurately described as auto-Labourism as it argues simultaneously for extra-parliamentary opposition to the cuts which goes far beyond what the current Labour leadership are proposing - in so far as it bears any relation to auto-Labourism, it is to the extent that the FPTP system demands it.  To say it makes no difference whether we have a Labour government or one with one or more combination of coalition partners is simply irresponsible.   It is precisely that structural feature that I think needs to be undermined, but it can't be ignored or wished away.
 What are 25 marginal seats?  a) could be the difference a Labour majority or not, b) if there are 25 less seats that the Tories need to spend money in they can spend it more damagingly elsewhere and c) it's not just those - it includes the wider pool of seats the Tories currently have a sub 5000 majority in but wouldn't otherwise be competitively fought at the next GE under FPTP    

The LDs will be in internal dissaray whatever happens in the referendum - a NO vote won't quicken the demise of the coalition.  But it will make it harder to avoid a Tory majority at the following election.  You are not a Tory.  Just being a useful idiot for them.

Frogwoman


> you are seeming to see everything from the perspective of getting labour back, as tho this would change everything and make everything better.


 Eh?  
I've explicitly argued that simply returning a Labour government is not in itself a solution to anything - but that fact that it isn't sufficient doesnt' mean it is not still in some sense necessary - but alongside a powerful broad extra-parliamentary movement against the cuts - including the ones Labour agree with.


----------



## Random (Oct 15, 2010)

Why is getting Labour into power necessary? I would have thought that 13 years of labour would have kicked that idea out of most lefties.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> What was the interval between Scotland getting electoral reform for the Scottish Parliament, and getting STV for local elections?  Less than a decade.  WHy couldn't same happen in England and Wales?


because those who will fight it hardest - in both Labour and the Tories - are truly brilliant at obstructive and delaying tactics, and because this is a country where, historically, political change happens very s-l-o-w-l-y


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2010)

I agree with articul8 broadly. If what you want is better PR than AV, getting AV first when it's the only alternative to FPTP on the table is a good step. 

When women over 30 were granted the vote in 1918, those who opposed women's suffrage thought that they had effectively barred equal women's rights for at least a generation by getting this watered-down version accepted. Full voting rights for women followed just 10 years later.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

Random said:


> Why is getting Labour into power necessary? I would have thought that 13 years of labour would have kicked that idea out of most lefties.


 
Well if you want to mount an electoral challenge to the coalition parties, it is realistically the only national alternative.  But obviously that's not to say that this is a healthy situation - plainly it isn't.   And I'm certainly not arguing all other forms of political action should be subordinated to getting Labour elected.  But a powerful movement against the cuts in the country would force Labour to shift to accommodate that mood.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

it didnt before tho did it? when they got elected in 1997 people thought it'd be time for a change as the tories had been in power for so long, but it wasn't apart from a few small things


----------



## Random (Oct 15, 2010)

I remember back in 1997 - back then I thought that under a Labour administration a left of labour opposition would flourish. Instead the opposite happened. I hope nowadays most people hve learnt that if you _want_ a left of labour grassroots resistance you have to _build_ it, electing Labour won't offer any help or any shortcuts.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> it didnt before tho did it? when they got elected in 1997 people thought it'd be time for a change as the tories had been in power for so long, but it wasn't apart from a few small things


 
That's my point that simply returning Labour with a majority *in the absence of significant extra-parliamentary opposition* won't be enough.  The more that social counterweights to neoliberalism are able to exert resistance, the more Labour will find itself coming under real pressure to contest the current agenda (of course I'm under no illusion that it won't be lead by people at the top who will see their role as restraining and diverting that pressure - but that's where a real crunch point could develop).


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But a powerful movement against the cuts in the country would force Labour to shift to accommodate that mood.


what on earth makes you confident that it would do that? a 'powerful movement against the war in the country' - including the biggest protest march ever seen in the UK - didn't stop them from taking us into the Iraq war.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

You talk about real extra parliamentary opposition but at the same time you're criticising that opposition when it coems in the shape of the voting no to AV, etc, on the grounds it and that the existence of these other views will make it less easy for Labour. Isn't that what opposition is meant to do, to oppose? And to oppose neo-liberalism shouldn't "we" be at least criticising it in all of its variants?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You talk about real extra parliamentary opposition but at the same time you're criticising that opposition when it coems in the shape of the voting no to AV, etc, on the grounds it and that the existence of these other views will make it less easy for Labour. Isn't that what opposition is meant to do, to oppose? And to oppose neo-liberalism shouldn't "we" be at least criticising it in all of its variants?



Extra-parliamentary opposition doesn't necessarily mean anti-parliamentary opposition - my support for AV is tactical, instrumental.  It's because I think it will help to have a positive effect in overcoming the logjam that democratic politics has found itself in - I'm not saying that all we need is AV and everything's fine.  It wouldn't be.  But would we be better or worse than if FPTP continued?  Opposition out of principle to something strategically beneficial simply simply because the LDs want it is just dumb.  And it's giving a stragic centrality to defeating the LDs that's way out of proportion to their actual importance.  You are paying them a compliment in an odd sort of way!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't tihnk it will have that effect though. And maybe it is the lack of change  and the fact that they basically all stand for the same shit that will get people to see how ridiculous mainstream politics actually is. As if enough people, even ones who are completely non political, dont see this already. 

im not making it into a central consideration, i just don't think we should supporting anything the lib dems do that will allow them to say theyre progressive again, fuck that


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Extra-parliamentary opposition doesn't necessarily mean anti-parliamentary opposition - my support for AV is tactical, instrumental.  It's because I think it will help to have a positive effect in overcoming the logjam that democratic politics has found itself in - I'm not saying that all we need is AV and everything's fine.  It wouldn't be.  But would we be better or worse than if FPTP continued?  Opposition out of principle to something strategically beneficial simply simply because the LDs want it is just dumb.  And it's giving a stragic centrality to defeating the LDs that's way out of proportion to their actual importance.  You are paying them a compliment in an odd sort of way!


 
You appear not to be reading what others have posted:



> A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move _*to weaken and damage the coalition*_ as a claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.



How many times do you need to be told that attacking the lib-dems is *attacking the coalition*, it's not proposing attacking the lib-dems alone or any such thing. It recognises that the coalition has a weak spot - the lib-dems. The lib-dems in turn have a weak spot, (this referendum). Attack the double weak spot.

...and i note we're back to the argument that _your_ tactical instrumental approach is _intelligent_ but others similarly nuanced approach is _dumb_.  This is, of course, also represented by your insistence that others are just dumbly attacking the lib-dems alone _blind_ to how this will help the tories and _ignorant_ as to why they should be concerned with helping labour.

You've totally failed to sustain the case that a yes vote is 'strategically beneficial' as well. Considering your whole argument rests on it this is a pretty fatal flaw. I don't see how it is 'strategically beneficial' and i've found your arguments as to why it is to be unconvincing to say the least - i understand why you need to make them though. I think you're making an argument for throwing away short-medium term gain in order for your pet project of inside/outside/upside down having/your/cake/and/eating it position to claim some sort of immediate self-justification for existing. It's becoming  clearer just whose pet-project this is by the day.

edit: in fact the only strategic benefit would be, if you're correct, for labour. Who you support. But want people to break from. By voting for them. From outside of labour. And inside of labour. And against labour. But not now. Now they need to be supported. By voting for them. This is the only way to break from them. Apparently. Maybe even joining labour. To break from labour. And so on.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 15, 2010)

nick clegg fighting the good fight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/15/nick-clegg-pupil-premium-shadow-deficit


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 15, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> nick clegg fighting the good fight
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/15/nick-clegg-pupil-premium-shadow-deficit


Gove announces that all "non-essential" DfE spending is to be cut i.e. play schemes, adventure playgrounds, etc to focus on school spending - then this opportunistic bastard makes an announcement that both covers up that massive cut as well as providing a further fiscal incentive for private companies to want to get involved in free schools and academies - fuck all to do with helping poorer pupils imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Gove announces that all "non-essential" DfE spending is to be cut i.e. play schemes, adventure playgrounds, etc to focus on school spending


 
Fuck that's depressing. It is really depressing seeing what they're doing.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How many times do you need to be told that attacking the lib-dems is *attacking the coalition*, it's not proposing attacking the lib-dems alone or any such thing. It recognises that the coalition has a weak spot - the lib-dems. The lib-dems in turn have a weak spot, (this referendum). Attack the double weak spot.



But how will losing the referendum politically change the stance taken by Lib Dem MPs in support of coalition policy?  At best it will make one or two more already disgruntled backbenchers more disgruntled.  Is that worth keeping FPTP in place for another 20 or 30  years at least.  I don't think so, because it doesn't have any practical effect on either the longevity or the political direction of the coalition.  But it does make it harder to some extent to avoid one or other (or both) of them being returned to government at the next election.  Attack the coalition fine, but not indiscriminately.  Where is the gain?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 15, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck that's depressing. It is really depressing seeing what they're doing.


_The government plans to cut "non-essential" education projects including youth clubs, after-school music and art activities and child safety projects to meet its commitment to increase funding for disadvantaged children under a pupil premium.

Michael Gove's education department will make deep cuts to £13.9bn of centrally-funded programmes in next week's spending review to help pay for top-up payments for poorer pupils. The pupil premium will form the centrepiece of the government's claim that the cuts are progressive._ grauniad and these objectionable cunts claim that's progressive!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But how will losing the referendum politically change the stance taken by Lib Dem MPs in support of coalition policy?  At best it will make one or two more already disgruntled backbenchers more disgruntled.  Is that worth keeping FPTP in place for another 20 or 30  years at least.  I don't think so, because it doesn't have any practical effect on either the longevity or the political direction of the coalition.  But it does make it harder to some extent to avoid one or other (or both) of them being returned to government at the next election.  Where is the gain?


 
Again:



> A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as a claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.



Yesterday you correctly characterised those lib-dem MPs as spineless careerists - what better way to put them in fear of losing their lucrative careers by giving them a glimpse of how they're hated and what's driving the hatred?

I couldn't give a shit if we get FPTP for another 20 or 30 years - that's your particular bogeyman, not mine or others. With AV you'll get the exact same scenario as you're painting as so terrifying. You'll get the same with other proper versions of PR too. We're back to your cart/horse problem again.

Gain? To who? You and your lib-lab refoundation mates? Nowhere. To those who recognise that the coalition needs to be fucked up as quick as possible to prevent the cuts - potentially plenty.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

I just think you're plain wrong to say they will slam the break pedal on the cuts as a result of losing the referendum.  That would delight the Tories, make them feel invincible and gird their loins!   In fact it will make the LDs all the more desperate to avoid another election for 4 years and desperately trying to sell their agenda is necessary and inevitable - on in "in for a penny in for a pound" basis.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I just think you're plain wrong to say they will slam the break pedal on the cuts as a result of losing the referendum.  That would delight the Tories, make them feel invincible and gird their loins!


 
No it wouldn't.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

Not Cameron maybe, but the Tory party more generally definitely.  Why have they got Lynton Crosby, Boris's people. Taxpayers Alliance, No to EURO etc people all jumping up and down about it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

I didn't say they'd slam the brakes on. I said the defeat in the referendum will send them a clear message (one that their self-interest will want to heed) that the cuts are damaging them and that this will heighten the submerged tensions conflicts and disagreements currently hidden in the coalition, weakening it, putting agreed plans and programs under scrutiny and pressure (again, quite likely to be driven by self-interest) 

It's not going in is it? I just repeated myself three times that this isn't about forcing an immediate election but about putting the coalition in a position of potential log-jam as regards the things that are driving the lib-dems ongoing collapse i.e the cuts. 

And once more, in case you haven't noticed, the lib-dems are _already_ in for-a-penny-in for a pound. A victory will enable them to say to what's left of their support inside and outside of parliament that look, we told you to be patient, but we've now delivered on out one big pledge. Coalition - _this coalition_ works.

Your naivety on this is astonishing, as is your insistence that people are arguing the only position that you've got a worked out reply to. We're not.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

and you haven't grasped that self-interest will bind the LDs closer to their coalition partners for fear of an early election, and the Tories will feel unstoppable.   Whereas a YES vote will be a slap down for Cameron, will get the Tory right itching to blame him for the whole thing.   Why wouldn;t that produce just as much internal grief and strain on the coalition as your scenario?

A NO vote would say people have faith in their political system, and trust the way things get done in Westminster.  It would hardly be a revolutionary message.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

I've _disagreed_ with that proposed scenario. I'm not asking you to agree with my proposed scenario but to _recognise_ what it is instead of this one you've prepared earlier and think you have the answers to. 

I think the tories are not going to have to swallow AV, but if they have to they will. It can easily enough be sold as the final block on full PR that it represents. The tories are not going to destabilise the coalition over something so utterly meaningless. They're far too politically sussed to fall for that sort of guff.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2010)

I can recognise you're scenario (LD anxiety will undermine Clegg et al and will cause friction and paralysis in the coalition)  but find it implausible, since rightly or wrongly they think that they need to prove that a coalition can do radical (radically right wing) things and win over the public in the longer term.   Actually, I think Clegg isn't too fussed about winning the referendum - it would please his troops but he could live with losing.  He really does believe in the small state.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

I think the tories are not going to have to swallow AV, but if they have to they will. It can easily enough be sold as the final block on full PR that it represents. *The tories* are not going to destabilise the coalition over something so utterly meaningless. They're far too politically sussed to fall for that sort of guff. The lib-dems aren't and will. The tories can take the hit, the lib-dems can't.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 15, 2010)

vince cable's plan for the royal mail

http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_ne...ting&pPK=a576f52b-c3d4-4b20-a430-5cfd70eb1a10



> The Post Offices will not be for sale and there will be no further programme of closures. Innovative proposals could see Post Office Ltd turned into a mutual, giving power to staff, sub postmasters and communities


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 15, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> vince cable's plan for the royal mail
> 
> http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_ne...ting&pPK=a576f52b-c3d4-4b20-a430-5cfd70eb1a10



There's a thread here btw.

You didn't mention that the Royal Mail of course will be mostly privatised, and mutualising Post Office counters might sound all very community and 'big society', but it could mean the death of them if those involved cannot find the money and resources to keep them running (Post Offices are already struggling, along with village stores and pubs).

Socialist my fucking arse.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

stephj said:


> There's a thread here btw.
> 
> You didn't mention that the Royal Mail of course will be mostly privatised, and mutualising Post Office counters might sound all very community and 'big society', but it could mean the death of them if those involved cannot find the money and resources to keep them running (Post Offices are already struggling, along with village stores and pubs).
> 
> Socialist my fucking arse.


 
*That* is why the lib dems are shit basically - "socialist", lol. You are basically a party of hipsters, or in other words, tories who find it unfashionable to admit that you are tories, because, like, that is so not cool man, and seeming to be very very slightly left-wing is more "edgy" and "cool" but you don't want to get too radical and start supporting things like strikes, because you're basically, at the end of it all, still tories, and besides, you hate chavs and that.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> and you haven't grasped that self-interest will bind the LDs closer to their coalition partners for fear of an early election, and the Tories will feel unstoppable.   Whereas a YES vote will be a slap down for Cameron, will get the Tory right itching to blame him for the whole thing.   Why wouldn;t that produce just as much internal grief and strain on the coalition as your scenario?
> 
> A NO vote would say people have faith in their political system, and trust the way things get done in Westminster.  It would hardly be a revolutionary message.


 
A No vote would be selling sort a generations chances of reform for what might or might not end the coalition sooner. I agree that losing the AV vote will wed the Lib Dems to the Tories, their only hope will be that the economy picks up after 4 years or so. A yes vote would embolden the party to stand up to the Tory party as they would have defeated it and won on what is a central issue.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A No vote would be selling sort a generations chances of reform for what might or might not end the coalition sooner. I agree that losing the AV vote will wed the Lib Dems to the Tories, their only hope will be that the economy picks up after 4 years or so. A yes vote would embolden the party to stand up to the Tory party as they would have defeated it and won on what is a central issue.


 
Yeah right


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A No vote would be selling sort a generations chances of reform for what might or might not end the coalition sooner. I agree that losing the AV vote will wed the Lib Dems to the Tories, their only hope will be that the economy picks up after 4 years or so. A yes vote would embolden the party to stand up to the Tory party as they would have defeated it and won on what is a central issue.


 
Anything that's been 'thrown away' will be by and because of you. Don't you dare lecture _anyone_ on selling generations short you cuts supporting goon.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

but the welfare state and free university tuition is so last century man


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but the welfare state and free university tuition is so last century man


 
Yeah it's more important to be able to rank candidates in order of preference than fund education and healthcare.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yeah it's more important to be able to rank candidates in order of preference than fund education and healthcare.


 
Insert some guff about choice here


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Cos the fucking cunts are on newsnight saying that they will start means testing child benefit.


i hate to say i told you so....


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2010)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 15, 2010)

even that isn't right cos they haven't plucked the poor fucker bare.....


----------



## ymu (Oct 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


>


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

Clegg and Huhne both in big trouble in their seats. This on uk polling report tonight:



> Taking Eastleigh first, Chris Huhne&rsquo;s seat is a Con/LD marginal. In 2005 it was an ultra-marginal with only 568 votes in it, in 2010 Chris Huhne extended his majority to 3864 (7%) &ndash; the shares of the vote were LD 47%, CON 39%, LAB 10%. Lord Ashcroft&rsquo;s poll has currently voting intention in Eastleigh at CON 42%(+3), LAB 21%(+11), LDEM 31%(-16) &ndash; suggesting the Lib Dem vote collapsing towards Labour and letting the Conservatives through.
> 
> Moving onto Sheffield Hallam, this is currently a pretty safe Lib Dem seat for Nick Clegg, with the Conservatives currently in a distant second place. The topline figures for general voting intention in the Populus poll are LDEM 33%(-20), LAB 31%(+15), CON 28%(+4): an even bigger collapse from the Lib Dems to Labour, but as Labour start off in third place Nick Clegg narrowly holds on.


----------



## ymu (Oct 16, 2010)

Look at those numbers for Clegg! From safe Lib Dem with Labour third, it's a three way marginal with Labour second.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A No vote would be selling sort a generations chances of reform for what might or might not end the coalition sooner. I agree that losing the AV vote will wed the Lib Dems to the Tories, their only hope will be that the economy picks up after 4 years or so. A yes vote would embolden the party to stand up to the Tory party as they would have defeated it and won on what is a central issue.



if this coalition fails a general election will return a conservative majority. what little concessions the lib dems were able to wring from a coalition will 
evaporate, in favour of a hardline approach. those complaining of cuts now will have their eyes opened when cameron caves into the demands of his backbenchers.
labour should work with the liberal democrats to get agenda through into government policy.

i've not read anything concerning what numbers\position the liberal democrats would poll if AV were passed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

stephj said:


> There's a thread here btw.
> 
> You didn't mention that the Royal Mail of course will be mostly privatised, and mutualising Post Office counters might sound all very community and 'big society', but it could mean the death of them if those involved cannot find the money and resources to keep them running (Post Offices are already struggling, along with village stores and pubs).
> 
> Socialist my fucking arse.


 
Poison's link is shite, there's no meat on the actual proposals (as opposed to the well-crafted generalisations that hide the sort of occurrences you mention above). Such fluff may make a few lib-dims feel good, but that's the only purpose it serves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A No vote would be selling sort a generations chances of reform for what might or might not end the coalition sooner. I agree that losing the AV vote will wed the Lib Dems to the Tories, their only hope will be that the economy picks up after 4 years or so. A yes vote would embolden the party to stand up to the Tory party as they would have defeated it and won on what is a central issue.


 
So again you ask people to eat the shit sandwich because it's the only sandwich on offer, and again you can't understand why people might prefer to forego the shit sandwich.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Anything that's been 'thrown away' will be by and because of you. Don't you dare lecture _anyone_ on selling generations short you cuts supporting goon.


 
I'll speak how I like thanks and won’t be bullied down by you.  Labour had 13 years in power and failed to offer any form of PR. The Lib Dems have argued passionately for a fairer voting system for years. All that was on the table was a shot for AV, it is step towards greater reform of our current old and outdated unfair voting system. We as a party now  passionately argue for AV as a step on the road to reform.

If Labour had introduced some form of electoral reform in their 13 years of power then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

I think that being able to choose multiple candidates on a list is kind of secondary to the kind of hammering that the quality of life all of us are going to face over the next few years. That is the point you are failing to grasp.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So again you ask people to eat the shit sandwich because it's the only sandwich on offer, and again you can't understand why people might prefer to forego the shit sandwich.


 
Excuse me? The Liberal Democrats have for years consistently argued for a fairer voting system. Neither Labour or the Conservatives were prepared to offer a vote on STV. I don't remember Labour offering a PR system to try and form a coalition, and the Tories where never going to agree to it. Politics is about the art of the possible, what the Lib Dem's have done is secure a chance for a system that is an improvement on the current one. It's not the best improvement, but it's an improvement.

If you vote against AV then you will be voting against political reform, you are aligning yourself with the status quo and the Murdoch press for the sake of your intellectual purity.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think that being able to choose multiple candidates on a list is kind of secondary to the kind of hammering that the quality of life all of us are going to face over the next few years. That is the point you are failing to grasp.


 
If you are willing to conflate issues and throw away our generations chance for poltical reform then so be it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

This isn't about "intellectual purity" this is about real peoples lives not ticking boxes in a list.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

Excuse me but how dare you lecture others about "throwing away our generations chance" in any context? These cuts are going to destroy peoples lifes and futures and possibly kill people, having FPTP for another 50 years won't.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> This isn't about "intellectual purity" this is about real peoples lives not ticking boxes in a list.


 
Yes it's about real people and how they democratically elect representatives, it's not about whether we have a system that elects people that are going to agree with what you think is the best course of action. 

This is about whether the Labour party who had AV as part of their manifesto live up to their principles or sell them short for a shot at attacking the Lib Dems.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

This is about all the so called progressives arguing for the status quo because at this moment they disagree with those who propose the reform.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes it's about real people and how they democratically elect representatives, it's not about whether we have a system that elects people that are going to agree with what you think is the best course of action.
> 
> This is about whether the Labour party who had AV as part of their manifesto live up to their principles or sell them short for a shot at attacking the Lib Dems.


 

Before you have a go at anyone about not standing up for principles why not ask the Lib Dem MPs why they abstained on the vote for PR when even some tories and Labour MPs did when it has been THEIR POLICY for the last four years ! 

And I'm not in the Labour party, as you know


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Excuse me but how dare you lecture others about "throwing away our generations chance" in any context? These cuts are going to destroy peoples lifes and futures and possibly kill people, having FPTP for another 50 years won't.


 
You are prepared to conflate issues for political gain? Listen to yourself talking about killing people for an emotive hit. Whether you think the cuts are right or wrong is a separate issue from political reform. The Labour government had AV as part of it's manifesto, so we assume if they were in power and not making as many cuts they would be brining it in. 
You however are prepared to act as a roadblock to progressive political reform because the government introducing them is not to your liking. 

I would have hoped you were more principled and less partisan than that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

this is a thread about the lib dems, i think i am allowed to bring in whatever issues are relevent to the topic - and "throwing away our generations chance" is a misjudged choice of words indeed when it comes to the events of the last few days ..........


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is about all the so called progressives arguing for the status quo because at this moment they disagree with those who propose the reform.



this is called spite.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

It's not an "emotive hit" if people are being forced off benefits, are being decclared fit to work when they have terminal illnesses, are threatened with losing their homes and onto the streets and if funding is being cut for some NHS services which involve care for people with life threatening conditions


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Before you have a go at anyone about not standing up for principles why not ask the Lib Dem MPs why they abstained on the vote for PR when even some tories and Labour MPs did when it has been THEIR POLICY for the last four years !
> 
> And I'm not in the Labour party, as you know


 
Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by   Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

if you want electoral reform so much why not have a referendum on proper PR


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by   Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.


 
Some tories voted FOR PR

your party didn't


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

transitional demands lol


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> this is a thread about the lib dems, i think i am allowed to bring in whatever issues are relevent to the topic - and "throwing away our generations chance" is a misjudged choice of words indeed when it comes to the events of the last few days ..........


 
Maybe you are right, maybe like many Lib Dems I think the tuition fee proposal is a pile of shit. Thing is this has nowt to do with electoral reform. You are conflating issues and destroying our generations chance for reform because of you hold other political grievances.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by   Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.


 
Why is it the only realistic hope? What made them change their mind when they've been arguing for the last god knows how long for PR?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Maybe you are right, maybe like many Lib Dems I think the tuition fee proposal is a pile of shit. Thing is this has nowt to do with electoral reform. You are conflating issues and destroying our generations chance for reform because of you hold other political grievances.


 
I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to - 

Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this: 




			
				The BNP said:
			
		

> “Marketisation,” and particularly the Conservative-created Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes imposed by Gordon Brown, has been a disaster which is saddling Trusts and the taxpayer with enormous debts. We totally reject this attempt to turn the nation’s health service into a private profit centre for giant corporations.


should they take what they say (which in that sentence sounds pretty reasonable tbh) at face value and ignore everything else?? 
and say that their policy on health needs to be looked at separately from the other stuff, ie, their racism?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Some tories voted FOR PR
> 
> your party didn't



 Again you are putting a chance to smear the Lib Dems over any opportunity for real poltical change. As we all know the Tories were not prepared to offer PR in the Coalition agreement neither were Labour. The only reason the Lib Dems are getting behind AV with such passion is because they realise it's the only realistic thing that can be achieved. The reason they didn't vote for the amendment by Lucas is because it would have been portrayed badly by the NO to AV campaign.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why is it the only realistic hope? What made them change their mind when they've been arguing for the last god knows how long for PR?


 
Becuase after years and years of arguing for PR  (in the Jenkins report that was ignored by Labour for instance) we thought a hung parliment might offer a chance to actually have some infulence. It turns out neither Labour or the Conservative party were prepared to offer PR, so the party now has to settle with AV as a practical compromise on the road to reform.


----------



## i_got_poison (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to -
> 
> Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this:
> 
> ...



this from someone who said they'd vote BNP over liberal democrats.

the word you're looking for, is hypocrite.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to -
> 
> Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this:
> 
> ...



If the BNP say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong in that point, but you wouldn't want to vote for them becuase they are a bunch of racist fuckers. 

In the same vain of the Lib Dems say AV is better then FPtT it doens't mean they are wrong. Maybe you hate the Lib Dems, but they are still right that AV is better than FPTP.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

I was joking. You've not been around here long but other posters who've been here loger than you will tell you I'm one of the last people to even think of voting BNP.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If the BNP say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong. You wouldn't want to vote for them becuase they are a bunch of racist fuckers.
> 
> In the same vain of the Lib Dems say AV is better then FTPT it doens't mean they are wrong. Maybe you hate the Lib Dems, but they are still right that AV is better than FPTP.


 
You've just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave you to think about why.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You've just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave you to think about why.



Not at all, this is a referundum on whether AV is better than FPTP so it should be argued on such a basis. Whether the Lib Dems support it or have won it has no more relevance then whether Matthew Elliot from the Tax Payer's Alliance is running the NO campaign.

You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I was joking. You've not been around here long but other posters who've been here loger than you will tell you I'm one of the last people to even think of voting BNP.



I believe you to be joking. Your joke does tell us something about how eagerly you demonise groups as being 'like the BNP'.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

It doesn't, not really. I knew it'd get a reaction, and hey, i was right.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if you want electoral reform so much why not have a referendum on proper PR


 
Becuase neither Labour or the Conservatives would offer this. The Lib Dems have wanted PR for years, but realise this is a stepping stone.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It doesn't, not really. I knew it'd get a reaction, and hey, i was right.



Fair enough, I thought it was silly to joke about voting for the BNP. We all make silly jokes though, I say stupid things sometimes too when I’m feeling flippant or jokey. I don't for one minute seriously think you would vote BNP, I know you are no racist or facist.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not at all, this is a referundum on whether AV is better than FPTP so it should be argued on such a basis. Whether the Lib Dems support it or have won it has no more relevance then whether Matthew Elliot from the Tax Payer's Alliance is running the NO campaign.
> 
> You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.


 
If the BNP were promoting some policy, would you judge it only on what they said about it? Of course not.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Fair enough, I thought it was silly to joke about voting for the BNP. We all make silly jokes though, I say stupid things sometimes too when I’m feeling flippant or jokey. I don't for one minute seriously think you would vote BNP, I know you are no racist or facist.


 
Thank you.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> If the BNP were promoting some policy, would you judge it only on what they said about it? Of course not.


 
An important question. If BNP said raping children was wrong and promoted a policy against raping children then I would say that policy was correct. I would also say the BNP are wrong generally because of the other views they hold. I might  even say the BNP were using this issue as a fig leaf to gain popularity and trick people, however if there was a vote on whether raping children was wrong I’d still vote to say it was wrong. 

Now my apologies for such a crude analogy, my point is this: There are many things which the Lib Dems might do wrong (cuts, coalition, tuition fees etc). Regardless of those points AV is still a bit better then FPTP.

To be frank I think your arguments against the Lib Dems are stronger when you attack on principle against the cuts or on issues like tuition fees. I don't think there is much principle to be had in defending FPTP or a NO vote. 

Anyway it’s way too late and I’m in need of sleep. I respect you for being up at the small hours and debating Frogwoman, it shows you are passionate about these issues, so I wish you a good night.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg and Huhne both in big trouble in their seats. This on uk polling report tonight:


 
Sheffield Hallam is a weird constituency (I live here). I'd say that if an election were announced today, the right kind of protest candidate would have a decent chance here.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 16, 2010)

NO to the cuts, YES to voting reform.  Why is this an inconsistent position?  It's shared by some of the most prominent opponents of the cuts/privatisation agenda - Serwotka, McDonnell, Billy Hayes, Caroline Lucas....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

articul8 said:


> NO to the cuts, YES to voting reform.  Why is this an inconsistent position?  It's shared by some of the most prominent opponents of the cuts/privatisation agenda - Serwotka, McDonnell, Billy Hayes, Caroline Lucas....


 
So is no to the cuts, yes to voting reform, no to this AV referendum. 

And no one's said that position you have is inconsistent, they've said it's either damaging or is throwing away an opportunity for sweet fa.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

Moon's moans last night are pretty sickening to read this morning. For a start he makes the disgusting assumption that there's some sort of shared values between pro-cuts neo-liberal extremists like him and me/other posters that we're selling out. There isn't. 

Secondly, he _dares_ to wag his finger at people who disagree with him and dares to tell them that they don't have the right to politically judge his party and their positions and then act accordingly. He appears to believe that he and Clegg can cut to their hearts content attacking people left right and centre and then declare that this av referendum is 'above politics' and only nasty people would try and insert politics into it. Such hubris over so little. It's partly why you're going to lose.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase after years and years of arguing for PR  (in the Jenkins report that was ignored by Labour for instance) we thought a hung parliment might offer a chance to actually have some infulence. It turns out neither Labour or the Conservative party were prepared to offer PR, so the party now has to settle with AV as a practical compromise on the road to reform.


 
A post of such staggering mendacity that i believe that there may be a future for you in what's left of the party. You didn't have to 'settle' for AV as the best you could get, labour had an AV referendum for 12 months time as part of their manifesto, regardless of your lot. And on top of this, Brown *offered you a referendum on full PR* as part of a coalition deal. *The lib-dems turned this offer of a referendum on PR down*. 

They turned it down because they were _using_ labour to bump the tories into offering AV, because they were already ideologically committed to the tories and the immediate aggressive cuts agenda - as later revealed by Clegg when he publicly admitted his parties whole pre-election plan was lie and he had already signed up to the immediate cuts agenda.

This and other blatant lies are what are driving polling results like Clegg and Huhnes:

Huhne: CON 42%(+3), LAB 21%(+11), LDEM 31%(-16)
Clegg: LD 33%(-20), LAB 31%(+15), CON 28%(+4)


----------



## articul8 (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And on top of this, Brown *offered you a referendum on full PR* as part of a coalition deal. *The lib-dems turned this offer of a referendum on PR down*.
> 
> They turned it down because they were _using_ labour to bump the tories into offering AV, because they were already ideologically committed to the tories and the immediate aggressive cuts agenda - as later revealed by Clegg when he publicly admitted his parties whole pre-election plan was lie and he had already signed up to the immediate cuts agenda.


Bit more complicated than that.  Yes Clegg (and a faction around him) were already committed to that agenda - but the difficulty for the others was that a rainbow alliance coalition was extremely difficult to make work given the arithmetic.  20 Labour rebels committed to FPTP and/or not working with the LDs could have sabotaged any such alternative coaltion.  Of course, they could have let Cameron govern with a minority and worked with Labour and others on getting AV through - but that would have cost them their places round the cabinet table.  

Naked opportunists led by a right wing neoliberal.  None of which means the a NO vote on electoral reform is of any advantage in the longer term.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.


 
I am conflating the issue with the cuts with the referendum because they are conflated anyway. You can't separate one from the other especially when your party are attempting to use one as a distraction for th other.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

Like it or not the Lib Dems WILL use it as a referendum on their popularity because that's partly (mostly) what it is.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.


 
No, your party are selling you and its supporters short.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 16, 2010)

stephj said:


> No, your party are selling you and its supporters short.


 
i think he must be the only member not to realise it. Lets face it if your party teamed up with another party who are supposed to be THE OPPOSITE then just rolled over and accepted all their policies, you would have to be pretty naive to still have faith.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

Liar


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

There's an excellent justification of the above lies on the lib-dem lies site btw. The gist of it they had to chnage their policy to the exact opposite because of...the cuts  It's the cuts fault.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Excuse me?


Most definitely not. Your many apologia are inexcusable. 


> The Liberal Democrats have for years consistently argued for a fairer voting system.


Yes, and for much of that time the fairer system that they sought was STV. Now that they have tasted power, their convictions have suddenly become negotiable. This isn't speculation on my part, it's fact. 


> Neither Labour or the Conservatives were prepared to offer a vote on STV.


So your people settled for a shit sandwich because they couldn't wring a cheese sandwich out of Labour or the Conservatives. Great. It's not as if AV is a compromise between FPTP and STV, it's FPTP by another name, but with a few minor adjustments to make it more idiot-friendly.
Don't take my word for this, look at any of the many studies on comparative electoral systems.


> I don't remember Labour offering a PR system to try and form a coalition...


As we don't know the full scope of negotiations between Labour and the Lib-Dems, we're unlikely to be able to test the keenness of your memory.


> ....and the Tories where never going to agree to it.


And you know this...how?
What the Tories would have agreed to would depend on how badly they needed the Lib-Dems. Given just how much they *do* need the Lib-Dems to retain power, I'd say that your analysis is flawed, and that the more likely scenario is that your leader can't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.  


> Politics is about the art of the possible...


If I want trite political banalities I'll read the _Daily Telegraph_, thanks.


> what the Lib Dem's have done is secure a chance for a system that is an improvement on the current one. It's not the best improvement, but it's an improvement.


It *may* (although even this is arguable) be a "better" system in terms of maintaining the current tripartite _status quo_. What it *isn't* is a system that secures a better deal for the individual voter. We're still left with the same party structures, the same neo-liberal consensus. _Cui Bono_? The current political apparatus, obviously.


> If you vote against AV then you will be voting against political reform...


1832 (The Reform Act) was political reform, 1928 (Universal suffrage for over-21s) was political reform. *This* is not. It's a sop.


> you are aligning yourself with the status quo and the Murdoch press for the sake of your intellectual purity.


You are using cheap notions such as "if you're not with us you *must be* with THEM" in order to traduce people who don't agree with you. I generally see tactics such as this used by people who realise their own position isn't tenable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is about all the so called progressives arguing for the status quo because at this moment they disagree with those who propose the reform.


 
No, it really isn't.
Check the various old threads on voting system reform. There have been plenty over the last decade.
Once you do that (*if* you can be arsed, and don't mind your assumptions being challenged) you'll note that AV isn't well-regarded by the political grassroots or by unaligned people.
So, this is not an attack on the Lib-Dems _qua_ an attack on the Lib-Dems, it's an attack on the Lib-Dems for proposing and supporting a system that while it may find favour with the parliamentary Labour and Lib-Dem parties, doesn't find favour further down the food-chain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> transitional demands lol


 
And we all know how "transitional" they usually are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> this from someone who said they'd vote BNP over liberal democrats.


No, it's from someone who said something knowing that any board user who'd read her posts for more than a couple of weeks would understand that she was being ironic.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If the BNP say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong in that point, but you wouldn't want to vote for them becuase they are a bunch of racist fuckers.
> 
> In the same vain of the Lib Dems say AV is better then FPtT it doens't mean they are wrong. Maybe you hate the Lib Dems, but they are still right that AV is better than FPTP.


 
I don't hate the Lib Dems. I think "pity" is a more accurate summary of my feelings.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

> If the lib-dems say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong in that point, but you wouldn't want to vote for them because they are a bunch of neo-liberal fuckers.



Think about it moonie. I like the way you try to turn a subjective political judgment into a an objective correct by definition type model as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't hate the Lib Dems. I think "pity" is a more accurate summary of my feelings.


 
I do. I hate them.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Think about it moonie. I like the way you try to turn a subjective political judgment into a an objective correct by definition type model as well.


 
yep, unbelievable innit?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I do. I hate them.


 
ah, but hate implies a degree of respect - that they're actually people worthy of my hatred, whereas they're too pathetic to be worthy of anything tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

My hate doesn't!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

i can't hate people for joining a cult - it'd be like looking at the guy who i saw today in town haranguing shoppers about how the big bang didn't exist and thiking "my god i hate him" 
the leaders of the cult on the other hand ...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> My hate doesn't!


 
I know  and fair play to you mate, nothing wrong with that


----------



## little_legs (Oct 16, 2010)

expect more defending of the cuts by the lib dems this week. from today's FT: 



> ..the enthusiasm of Mr Clegg and other senior Lib Dems for the fiscal squeeze amazed many Tories.
> 
> Their intimate collaboration in this political enterprise has brought them closer together. Yesterday Mr Osborne and Mr Alexander convened party spin doctors to work out joint lines of defence against Labour attacks.


----------



## Neutron (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.
> 
> Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.



Because Nick Clegg is a slimy right-wing freak.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Help help I'm hurting labour. 

Quite consciously to.


----------



## grogwilton (Oct 17, 2010)

I was talking to my brother yesterday, its the first time I've seen him in a while since he moved to London. He was always the most 'right wing' in my family. He did economics at uni, supported the Iraq War. Was always the one who supported privatisation of services, argued globalisation benefitted poorer countries. He even supported the court rulings against Bassa in the BA dispute.

He voted Lib Dem in the election, and is going on his first demonstration ever- that one organised by the NUS and UCU against the change in fees. He hates Nick Clegg now. The first reason he gave was the blatant lie and turn around on pretty much EVERY policy they put forward before the election. Secondly, he finds the cuts in university education incredibly idiotic, even from a purely economic point of view, let alone a moral one. The 80% cuts in government expenditure will result most probably in universities closing. This is at a time when the HE sector is a massive mony spinner for the country. The amount of international students who pour money into this country from asia is huge. He said given that Britain doesn't produce much anymore (partly Cleggs fault now to because of Sheffield forgemasters, and in his own constituency of Sheffield) the decision to hammer one of the biggest growth sectors was idiocy.

My Dad was also a big Lib Dem fan, likes the AV stuff etc. Now he's pissed off with them too, citing the quango cull as actually costing the public sector more then it will save, and being purely tory ideological.

Both my brother and Dad are a very far from my own and Urbans' politics. They are core Lib Dem constituency- university educated, middle class, white collar workers, who are broadly socially and poltically liberal in their outlook, and generally not too fussed about cuts or prrivatisation here or there, or bothered about unions. My Dad even offered to put up Lib Dem posters in his window in the election. My brother now says he'll never vote Lib Dem again. Haven't spoken to my Dad who he'd vote for so don't know.

AV will not keep people happy Moon. Unless there is a remarkable shift in your party's political direction soon, you and all your MPs, councillors and members are walking dead, and Cable and Clegg will be made Lords by the Tories when they lose their seats, whilst the rest of you are left to swing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Eugene Levine, at the trial that had him killed, called communists 'dead men on furlough' - at least they knew it. The legions of lib-dems about to get wiped out do not appear to realise it. There's a sort of '96/pre 97 election feel where people are just waiting. It's coming.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 17, 2010)

grogwilton said:


> I was talking to my brother yesterday, its the first time I've seen him in a while since he moved to London. He was always the most 'right wing' in my family. He did economics at uni, supported the Iraq War. Was always the one who supported privatisation of services, argued globalisation benefitted poorer countries. He even supported the court rulings against Bassa in the BA dispute.
> 
> He voted Lib Dem in the election, and is going on his first demonstration ever- that one organised by the NUS and UCU against the change in fees. He hates Nick Clegg now. The first reason he gave was the blatant lie and turn around on pretty much EVERY policy they put forward before the election. Secondly, he finds the cuts in university education incredibly idiotic, even from a purely economic point of view, let alone a moral one. The 80% cuts in government expenditure will result most probably in universities closing. This is at a time when the HE sector is a massive mony spinner for the country. The amount of international students who pour money into this country from asia is huge. He said given that Britain doesn't produce much anymore (partly Cleggs fault now to because of Sheffield forgemasters, and in his own constituency of Sheffield) the decision to hammer one of the biggest growth sectors was idiocy.
> 
> ...


 
very well said


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Has there just been another lib-dem U-turn on nuclear power?


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Has there just been another lib-dem U-turn on nuclear power?


 
You mean this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11560551



> Plans for a controversial £30bn Severn barrage tidal energy project stretching from Weston-super-Mare in Somerset to Cardiff are expected to be scrapped.
> 
> Secretary of State for Energy Chris Huhne is expected to make the announcement in Parliament on Monday.
> 
> Reports suggest the scheme is to be axed as it is not "financially viable" and that instead he will give the go-ahead to new nuclear power stations.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Yep, it was buried in there -  lib-dem Huhne giving the nod to new nuclear power stations despite the manifesto saying that the lib-dems will



> Reject a new generation of nuclear power stations; based on the evidence nuclear is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy



There's very little left is there?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, it was buried in there -  lib-dem Huhne giving the nod to new nuclear power stations despite the manifesto saying that the lib-dems will
> 
> 
> 
> There's very little left is there?


 
If the Lib-Dems were selling their convictions and manifesto commitments for something of value, you could understand although not condone it.
That they are selling themselves for the tiniest sniff of power, in a way that benefits no-one except the parliamentary Lib-Dem party is truly shameful.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If the Lib-Dems were selling their convictions and manifesto commitments for something of value, you could understand although not condone it.
> That they are selling themselves for the tiniest sniff of power, in a way that benefits no-one except the parliamentary Lib-Dem party is truly shameful.



In fact it's only for the very short term benefit of a tiny handful of the parliamentary party.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 17, 2010)

I'd like to stick some money on Clegg detecting to the Tories inside 5 years. Are any bookies offering odds on this?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Any facebook types want to do a  _I voted Lib Dem - and I wish I hadn’t_ group?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If the Lib-Dems were selling their convictions and manifesto commitments for something of value, you could understand although not condone it.
> That they are selling themselves for the tiniest sniff of power, in a way that benefits no-one except the parliamentary Lib-Dem party is truly shameful.


 
If the LibDems ever had any convictions you would be able to read about them in the newspaper reports of the court proceedings. They think that they are in a coalition but really they are hostages. Also these hostages are showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome.


----------



## strung out (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Any facebook types want to do a  _I voted Lib Dem - and I wish I hadn’t_ group?


 
i would, but i'd have to join it to create it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If the LibDems ever had any convictions you would be able to read about them in the newspaper reports of the court proceedings. They think that they are in a coalition but really they are hostages. Also these hostages are showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome.


You give them too much credit. They're the ones driving this shit. They're the hard right of the coalition. They were before.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

strung out said:


> i would, but i'd have to join it to create it


 
Which would be a lie, the perfect start point for the lib-dems focus group.


----------



## strung out (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Which would be a lie, the perfect start point for the lib-dems focus group.


 
oh go on then http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-voted-Lib-Dem-and-I-wish-I-hadnt/152131894828948


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Good lad.


----------



## strung out (Oct 17, 2010)

now i just need to figure out which of my friends to invite...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

nutkins, he looks like a lib-dem.


----------



## strung out (Oct 17, 2010)

nah, he's labour, voted for roger berry i think


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

He _looks_ like one of them though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Right, when everyone gets back from the pub/mums this aft/evening this is a goer.


----------



## strung out (Oct 17, 2010)




----------



## trevhagl (Oct 17, 2010)

i think more people will avoid signing up to save the embarrassment of making it known they voted for them in the first place (and that includes me and probably all other protest voters)


----------



## little_legs (Oct 17, 2010)

from the sunday times: 





> almost the entire £8 billion social housing budget is to be axed



another u-turn from the pledge


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

It's almost too easy now.

l


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2010)




----------



## moon23 (Oct 18, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If the Lib-Dems were selling their convictions and manifesto commitments for something of value, you could understand although not condone it.
> That they are selling themselves for the tiniest sniff of power, in a way that benefits no-one except the parliamentary Lib-Dem party is truly shameful.


 
Rise in capital gains tax, reducing the tax burden on the poorest and £7bn for poor kids to help them through education and a vote on AV, scrapping the Housing Revenue Account.

You would have none of this if people hadn't voted Lib Dem.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

What else would we not have, list them here:

a crippling cuts agenda aimd that the poorest.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rise in capital gains tax, reducing the tax burden on the poorest and £7bn for poor kids to help them through education and a vote on AV, scrapping the Housing Revenue Account.
> 
> You would have none of this if people hadn't voted Lib Dem.



a) so what

b) a lie, it's a tax break forthe rich

C)in no way.

d) oh yeah, you've jist been reading your book of what to say. Tell us then. When labour set up the review that was told to abolish it.

Why, what's the trick?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

Oh, i get it, they take on central debt to make the lib-dems and tories figures look good. You can't even do good stuff right.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 18, 2010)

lol


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

Belushi said:


> lol


 
Belushi, tell them how fucked they are.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Belushi, tell them how fucked they are.


 
Er, we are not fucked we are in Government.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

Yep -that's it laid bare.

That's why you are fucked.
'
Doesn't matter what we say '_we are in Government_.' WE can lie and lie  _we are in Government. _


----------



## Belushi (Oct 18, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Er, we are not fucked we are in Government.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2010)

see you on the street selling papers in a few years moon - if anyone can stop laughing long enough to print them, that is 

you're fucked


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 18, 2010)

2 min knock-up...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

stephj said:


> 2 min knock-up...


 
Excellent.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 18, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i think more people will avoid signing up to save the embarrassment of making it known they voted for them in the first place (and that includes me and probably all other protest voters)


 
This is true. I can't find the page now, but a while ago on UK Polling Report there was a poll where they asked people every month who they voted for in the 2010 general election. The number of people saying Lib Dem was dropping month on month. So either people are increasingly reluctant to admit to voting LD, or people have managed to convince themselves that they didn't. I think the same will hold true for this Facebook group.


----------



## strung out (Oct 18, 2010)

King Biscuit Time said:


> This is true. I can't find the page now, but a while ago on UK Polling Report there was a poll where they asked people every month who they voted for in the 2010 general election. The number of people saying Lib Dem was dropping month on month. So either people are increasingly reluctant to admit to voting LD, or people have managed to convince themselves that they didn't. I think the same will hold true for this Facebook group.


 
only three people big enough to admit their mistake so far. all off here i think. either i don't have any friends who voted lib dem, they're all too ashamed to admit it, or they still support them!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Rise in capital gains tax...


Which Labour had already pencilled in. 


> ....reducing the tax burden on the poorest...


Which the Tories were already contemplating back in 2009. 


> ...and £7bn for poor kids to help them through education...


Conceded by the Tories as a sop to the Lib-Dems for selling their arseholes over tuition fees. 


> and a vote on AV...


When you could have had a vote on full PR if Tory Nick hadn't gone for class allegiance over party wishes.


> scrapping the Housing Revenue Account.


Big fucking deal, doing this as the economy stumbles. It's economically meaningless, especially without local authorities being able to borrow under the pre-Thatcher formula.


> You would have none of this if people hadn't voted Lib Dem.


Trans: You wouldn't be being offered a shit sandwich if people hadn't voted Lib-Dem.

Scheiße doppelschnitte? Nein danke!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2010)

stephj said:


> 2 min knock-up...


 
Excellent. Looks like the Lib-Dem bird is licking the sweaty green scrotum of Torydom.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2010)

i thought the lib dem bird was falling out of the tree dead


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

...whilst licking the sweaty green scrotum of Torydom


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2010)

it's almost true to life - oh wait! it is!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2010)

That's fucking brilliant.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 18, 2010)

nice work stephj


----------



## moochedit (Oct 18, 2010)

strung out said:


> oh go on then http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-voted-Lib-Dem-and-I-wish-I-hadnt/152131894828948



http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120995644590737&ref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/search/?ini...vote-for-Lib-Dem-again/125148604168145?v=wall

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100832939963708&ref=mf

http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-did...m-to-take-the-Tories-to-power/101481826565106

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Good-bye-Britain/112796942095509

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brad-...on-Nick-Clegg-Dick/120931271261925?ref=search

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nick-...to-Its-Complicated/115418088495462?ref=search

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sorry...-took-all-my-money/125869490758366?ref=search


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118563014844563&ref=mf

http://www.facebook.com/pages/RAGE-AGAINST-THE-CLEGGARON/125233910836186?ref=mf


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 19, 2010)

Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board; saving £200,000 and removing protection from 154,000 workers.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board; saving £200,000 and removing protection from 154,000 workers.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
A fairly transparent sop to the shire vote.


----------



## cynet (Oct 19, 2010)

Lib Dem's are a second rate party and have betrayed all there loyal member's, that is a fact, all there principle's and beliefs have gone out the window.

Dave boy Cameron is pulling the strings to puppet Clegg and boy it show's, i will never vote for them again.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 19, 2010)

cynet said:


> Lib Dem's are a second rate party and have betrayed all there loyal member's, that is a fact, all there principle's and beliefs have gone out the window.
> 
> Dave boy Cameron is pulling the strings to puppet Clegg and boy it show's, i will never vote for them again.


 
i can sort of see the Lib Dem top brass merging into the Tory party because they must know they will be wiped out if they continue to be 2 parties


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 19, 2010)

Some pricks on some forum tend to lump tory and libdem poll ratings together but many libdems would never vote tory at any cost.Trev can you tell the diference between a lib dem in the government and a tory


----------



## Santino (Oct 20, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Trev can you tell the diference between a lib dem in the government and a tory


 
Beats me.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 21, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11586389



> Spending Review: Sheffield protest targets Nick Clegg
> 
> A poster declaring 'Cleggzilla: bringing havoc to a city near you' was paraded in Sheffield
> 
> ...


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 22, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Trev can you tell the diference between a lib dem in the government and a tory


 
I know this one. It's that when they find them naked and auto asphyxiated the Dim Leb used a feather and the Tory used the whole chicken.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

Even the yanks can see how tactically inept Clegg is:

Cameron and Osborne playing Clegg like a fiddle ahead of 2015 election



> Beyond all the bonhomie, warm texts and cosiness of coalition life, the Tory leadership is quietly carving out a position for 2015. They want to be able to say they stuck to their word but that their good friend of recent years, Nick Clegg, regrettably doesn’t seem to have been so diligent. Smart thinking by Cameron and Osborne designed to hoover up votes at Clegg’s expense.
> 
> Just pointing it out


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 22, 2010)

Sort of in the same vein: you'd have thought that they'd realize, that putting the blame for much of the cutting at the doors of councils, wouldn't do their much vaunted local authority base a great deal of good. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

Yep, they seem to be attacking every single support they've relied on to get where they are today whilst making eyes at the tories and asking _is that ok? _


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Sort of in the same vein: you'd have thought that they'd realize, that putting the blame for much of the cutting at the doors of councils, wouldn't do their much vaunted local authority base a great deal of good.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Very true, in the North East Libdem Newcastle is going to take a hammering, while Labour run Sunderland is probably on course to avoid serious redundancies.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

You can see this in the local election results in urban areas - Swansea, Oxford, St Helens - seats lost and lib-dem voting collapse.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

The lib-dems are happily lying to themselves as well as us - this si from their shit internet hang out - it's a look at Glover's oleaginous defence of them last week:



> 4) No-one now asks if the Coalition will last… This, for Nick Clegg, is I suspect one of the biggest prizes of all. Back in May, people were speculating about the Coalition breaking up in a matter of weeks or perhaps months, the idea of it lasting a full Parliament was dismissed as a pipe-dream.



Mental. Do they know that they're lying? Or have they passed into the stage where the lie has been defended for so long that the liar comes to believe it to be true, to be the actual case?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 22, 2010)

it's bizarre. it's like they're gleefully throwing away 40 years of brilliant, painstaking roots-up building, community politics an' all....


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 22, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Some pricks on some forum tend to lump tory and libdem poll ratings together but many libdems would never vote tory at any cost.Trev can you tell the diference between a lib dem in the government and a tory


 
no. care to help?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> it's bizarre. it's like they're gleefully throwing away 40 years of brilliant, painstaking roots-up building, community politics an' all....


 
Which is why the constituency parties appear to be experiencing a lot of discomfort, especially in local authorities with a substantial Lib-Dem presence on the council. There are worries about the kind of percentage membership fall-off that "New" Labour experienced between 2002 and 2007. For the Lib-Dems a 40-50%+ drop could be fatal to the party.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why the constituency parties appear to be experiencing a lot of discomfort, especially in local authorities with a substantial Lib-Dem presence on the council. There are worries about the kind of percentage membership fall-off that "New" Labour experienced between 2002 and 2007. For the Lib-Dems a 40-50%+ drop could be fatal to the party.


This is certainly all true, even an understatement - in fact, in the inner city LD constituency parties (i.e. the ones where all the remaining lefty libs live), and the scots ones, I am reliably informed they are going absolutely MENTAL over what is going on!


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 22, 2010)

This is an excellent thread. I've read it all the way through and agree that the Lib-Dems are, indubitably, shit.


----------



## Santino (Oct 22, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> This is an excellent thread. I've read it all the way through and agree that the Lib-Dems are, indubitably, shit.


 
What was the best bit? Was it me calling Clegg a cunt or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

John Hemming. lib-dem MP. Wife has to break into house to save cat from the unfaithful MP. These people are filth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> John Hemming. lib-dem MP. Wife has to break into house to save cat from the unfaithful MP. These people are filth.


 
The wife was probably worried that if her husband was sexually-incontinent enough to fuck his researcher, he might rape the cat.


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2010)

Tower Hamlets mayoral poll:

    * Helal Uddin Abbas, Labour Party - 11,254
    * Alan Duffell, Green Party - 2,300
    * John David Macleod Griffiths, Liberal Democrats - 2,800
    * Neil Anthony King, Conservative Party - 5,348
    * Lutfur Rahman, Independent - 23,283

This is a borough that the LibDems used to control. Mind you, here they were entangled with the BNP rather than the Tories...


----------



## Random (Oct 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The wife was probably worried that if her husband was sexually-incontinent enough to fuck his researcher, he might rape the cat.


 
A toryboy at my university once yelled in the street, when on the piss "get me that cat, I want to rape it." So I think you're on to something with that analysis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2010)

Random said:


> A toryboy at my university once yelled in the street, when on the piss "get me that cat, I want to rape it." So I think you're on to something with that analysis.


 
I believe it was a Monday Club initiation rite. That and wanking off a Bulldog.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2010)

Lib-dems now demanding cuts to the EU's budget, including the social fund


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 24, 2010)

Wasn't Tariq Ali's line a few years ago 'Vote Lib Dem'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems now demanding cuts to the EU's budget, including the social fund


 
Rational behaviour would dictate enhanced infrastructural spending, but expecting rational behaviour from Lib-Dem politicians appears to be an increasingly futile practice.


----------



## ymu (Oct 25, 2010)

> It's only a matter of time before the word "Clegg" enters the dictionary as a noun meaning "agonised, doe-eyed apologist". Or maybe it'll become a verb. Years from now, teachers will ask their pupils to stop "clegging on" about how the dog ate their homework and just bloody hand it in on time.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/charlie-brooker-nick-clegg


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 25, 2010)

ymu said:


>


----------



## Santino (Oct 31, 2010)

This thread needs reinvigorating.

Clegg is a cunt.

Cable is a cunt. 

Laws is a massive cunt. 

Danny Alexander is a ginger rodent cunt.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 31, 2010)

Huhne is a bellend.

Sarah Teather is also a complete knobend.

Cheerleader Hislop needs shooting in his smug round fucking face.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2010)

daily mirror said:
			
		

> Nick Clegg claims he is so reviled over Government cuts that constituents spit at him and put dog dirt through his letterbox.
> 
> The Lib Dem leader and Sheffield MP told a magazine the cuts brought him face-to-face with voters' anger. He said: "I'm getting dog excrement through my letterbox. People are spitting at me."
> 
> Source


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 31, 2010)

Ahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


>


 
And that's just from his servants!


----------



## ymu (Oct 31, 2010)

Go Sheffield!


----------



## Santino (Oct 31, 2010)

That's not dog excrement.



So I hear, I mean.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 31, 2010)

> Nick Clegg claims he is so reviled over Government cuts that constituents spit at him and put dog dirt through his letterbox.



That's just David cameron, as part of the deal.


----------



## Goatherd (Oct 31, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


>


 
Who says there's no good news, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


>


 
What sort of mandate is this?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 31, 2010)

Beautiful.


----------



## where to (Oct 31, 2010)

ymu said:


> Go Sheffield!


 
and guess where next years Lib Dem Spring Conference is


----------



## ymu (Oct 31, 2010)

Oh joy, oh bliss.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 1, 2010)

The glorious day is coming.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 1, 2010)




----------



## Streathamite (Nov 1, 2010)

oh to be a fly on the wall at meetings of lib dem activists in their big city constituencies.
"Item one on the agenda; how fucked are we?"


----------



## Santino (Nov 1, 2010)

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh to be a fly on the wall at meetings of lib dem activists in their big city constituencies.
> "Item one on the agenda; how fucked are we?"


 
"Item two on the agenda; how much lube do we need?"


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 1, 2010)

"Item 3 on the agenda - back under the covers for the rest of the day or off to ye olde drinke-soddene helle-hole to drown our sorrows?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

*Thread needed bumping to avoid relegation to page two!*



where to said:


> and guess where next years Lib Dem Spring Conference is



I wonder if that's the same weekend as CAMRA's annual membership gathering (OK pissup   ) in Sheffield?

(That's in mid April, we're likely to be going .... )


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> I wonder if that's the same weekend as CAMRA's annual membership gathering (OK pissup   ) in Sheffield?
> 
> (That's in mid April, we're likely to be going .... )


you are a liberal tho innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

Glover's lasted piece of self delusion - some corkers in there:

Ten tips for the Liberal Democrats



> 3) Oh, and win the AV referendum. It's not impossible. And if not that, then at least win the public over to coalition government. It's happening: *voters like co-operation and they see the Lib Dems as a moderating force.* In 2015 the message should be: *like the coalition and want it to continue? Then you'll have to vote Lib Dem.*





> 4) Join forces with Labour in Scotland next May





> Hug students close





> Don't panic. There is no crisis.





> No one expects the opposition to approve of doing deals with Tories. But the majority of voters understand why it happened. Labour has misjudged the tone. Sneering at Clegg's party will not destroy it. Labour comes over as angry and isolated



He really is the boy in the bubble isn't he?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

Labour lol.  

"Hug students close" what drivel is this,especially when half of them would run a mile from him. he deserves a slap


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Item two on the agenda; how much lube do we need?"





frogwoman said:


> "Item 3 on the agenda - back under the covers for the rest of the day or off to ye olde drinke-soddene helle-hole to drown our sorrows?



keep 'em coming, comrades, keep 'em coming....


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

then a short break for refreshments and suspicious-tasting orange liquid


----------



## treelover (Nov 4, 2010)

> Lib-dems now demanding cuts to the EU's budget, including the social fund




Thats incredible, it is only regeneration funds, etc  from Europe that have kept cities and regions in the North from going belly up..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

Item 4 on the agenda. "See if MI5 can arrange to brain-wipe the entire population, so that we can pretend we haven't broken any pledges".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

treelover said:


> Thats incredible, it is only regeneration funds, etc  from Europe that have kept cities and regions in the North from going belly up..


 
So, what does that tell you?
It tells me that we can gauge exactly how much the coalition cares about anywhere that isn't a core constituency.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 4, 2010)

Julian Glover said:
			
		

> No one expects the opposition to approve of doing deals with Tories. But the majority of voters understand why it happened. Labour has misjudged the tone. Sneering at Clegg's party will not destroy it. Labour comes over as angry and isolated



That would be why the latest YouGov poll puts Labour on 39% and the Lib Dems on 11%


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

that hotbed of left wing activism, yougov survey takers.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 5, 2010)

Some interesting results here, LD vote in urban areas is suffering...

Coleridge Ward, Cambridge City Council. Lab gain from Con. Lab 900 (44%, +11.7), Con 734 (35.9%, +7.5), LD 223 (10.9%, -14.6), Green 137 (6.7%, -4.2), UKIP 53 (2.6%, -0.3). Swing of 1.6% from Con to Lab since May this year.

Cenarth Ward, Carmarthen CC. PC gain from Ind. PC 636 (81.9%, +59.4), Con 141 (18.1%, +18.1). Swing of 20.7% from Con to PC since 2008.

Ladywell Ward, LB Lewisham. Lab hold. Lab 1231 (41.4%, +3.2), Green 1041 (35%, +6.4), LD 314 (10.6%, -5.2), People not Profit 233 (7.8%, nc), Con 153 (5.1%, -4.6). Swing of 1.6% from Lab to Green since May this year. This ward had 3 Green councillors until May.

Hulme Ward, Manchester MBC. Lab hold. Lab 1035 (60.7%, +14.9), Green 451 (26.5%, +4.5), LD 151 (8.9%. -14.1), Con 67 (3.9%, -6.3). Swing of 5.2% from Green to Lab since May this year.

Ponteland East Division, Northumberland CC. Con hold. Con 843 (62.6%, +2.1), LD 403 (29.9%, +1.6), Lab 100 (7.4%, +2.9). Swing of 0.3% from LD to Con since 2008.

Lyth Valley Ward, South Lakeland DC. Con gain from LD. Con 474 (49.5%, +5.1), LD 451 (47.1%, -8.5), Lab 32 (3.3%, +3.3). Swing of 6.8% from LD to Con since 2008.

Moredon Ward, Swindon UA. Lab gain from Con. Lab 887 (47.5%, +12.2), Con 755 (40.4%, +1.9), UKIP 129 (6.9%, +6.9), LD 98 (5.2%, -12.9). Swing of 5.2% from Con to Lab since May this year.


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2010)

The Lib Dems are shit because Jon Gaunt looked more liberal than them on Question Time. A new low.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 5, 2010)

Santino said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because Jon Gaunt looked more liberal than them on Question Time. A new low.


 
He managed it on a few occasions.  Btw, Gaunt used to be a rather Left leaning cluib owner in years gone past.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> from a paper i despise, but the figures were quoted in other media
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...se-of-80-per-cent-cut-to-housing-benefit.html
> 
> ...


 
 Hey muppet, it turns out this figure applies to _three families._ Three. Well done on buying the line.


----------



## story (Nov 7, 2010)

The best thing that could be said about them is that their policies may politicise and/or re-politicise people.

Certainly I've encountered more political discussions in staff rooms and public places in the last few weeks than in any time since New Labour came to power (apart from during the Oil Wars).


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 7, 2010)

I couldn't get that link to the Glover article from BA, in post 2251, to work at all .... only produced the headline and subheadline and no other content 

Here's the link again

He isn't half talking shit! Unsurprisingly .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 7, 2010)

Santino said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because Jon Gaunt looked more liberal than them on Question Time. A new low.



He did???

Explain, please!


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> He did???
> 
> Explain, please!



Gaunt came out against control orders (having been in favour of them previously, I think), but the Lib Dem twat weaseled and wormed and basically supported them, despite belonging to a party which voted against them in Opposition.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Glover's lasted piece of self delusion - some corkers in there:
> 
> He really is the boy in the bubble isn't he?


ah, but even our King of the Delusional People now sees the Libdem vite may not hold up that well!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

15 years to the day of the execution of Ken Saro- Wiwa. 15 years since Vince Cable did his pilate act. 15 years of principles. 15 years of new politics.


----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2010)

Has anyone linked to Nick Clegg writing in the Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/poverty-plus-pound-not-enough



> The coalition's welfare reforms will at last make work pay. That is what we mean by fairness.





> Our welfare reform plans go hand in hand with our investments in long-term social mobility. In the comprehensive spending review we announced a £7bn "fairness premium", stretching from the age of two to 20. These investments are intended to promote social mobility, to ensure that children are able to rise regardless of their background.



If only it were true I may cut them some slack. But Ive seen very little that will actually improve social mobility, and of course most of Cleggs self-delusions are likely to fail quickly if private sector jobs dont materialise.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 10, 2010)

'social mobility' lol. Capital will always want a pool of cheap labour.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Unless the worst off are getting better off then social mobility is just re-arranging the furniture.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> Unless the worst off are getting better off then social mobility is just re-arranging the furniture.


 
Perhaps he means social mobility rather more literally; i.e. the geographical displacement of the poor.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2010)

Maybe he means downwards mobility


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Clegg is on the Pride of Britain awards tonight attempting to scab some credibility off the back of real heroes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 10, 2010)

> Hug students close






			
				students said:
			
		

> Nick Clegg, We know you, You're a fucking Tory too.



.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

The Lib Dems are shit because the CUNTING CUNTS had fuck all intention to make any effort to defend their 'pledge' on tuition fees. The cunts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg


----------



## big eejit (Nov 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because the CUNTING CUNTS had fuck all intention to make any effort to defend their 'pledge' on tuition fees. The cunts.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg


 
Cunts indeed, but (and I'm sure this has been pointed out already in this thread) cunts who are taking the heat of the architects of this shit. Clegg is Cameron's slimy human shield.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 12, 2010)

these _revealations_ are like a regular guardian column now. why can't these whores just backtrack on every single pledge and be done with it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2010)

give 'em time!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

Like someone else, I forget who (sorry), mentioned earlier or elsewhere. They could make all manner of brilliant pledges when they didn't actually expect to end up in a position where they'd have to implement them. 

But now they have found themselves on the corridors of power, it appears that they'll agree with absolutely anything just to keep the dream alive while it lasts.

Make the most of chaps. Because halley's comet needs to pass twice before you're allowed another sniff.


----------



## creak (Nov 12, 2010)

Another one then. Clegg said he changed his mind over economic policy some time before the election as well, but of course he didn't tell the public about his volte-face until after the votes had been counted. FFS, people voted for the Lib Dems precisely because they promised to do the exact opposite of what they are doing, now they're actually in government... they've got fuck all credibility, fuck all _legitimacy_, and neither has the coalition these shameless turncoats are slavishly propping up. Moon can go fuck himself.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

A fair few of the learned politicos on here warned against the lib dems for all these reasons. And they've been proven right the hard way.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 13, 2010)

creak said:


> Another one then. Clegg said he changed his mind over economic policy some time before the election as well, but of course he didn't tell the public about his volte-face until after the votes had been counted.



He also only admitted he changed his mind before the election after being caught out several times lying about when/why he changed his mind (ie he claimed Mervyn King persuaded him after the election despite King saying he did no such thing).


----------



## Roonster (Nov 13, 2010)

92 pages and counting of why the Lib-Dems are shit.. that's more than the total vote the Lib-Dems will get at the next General Election.. nuff said!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2010)

big eejit said:


> Cunts indeed, but (and I'm sure this has been pointed out already in this thread) cunts who are taking the heat of the architects of this shit. Clegg is Cameron's slimy human shield.


 
No I think they both are to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

Just in case anyone can't be bothered to click on the link:



> A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."





> The Lib Dems made no attempt to stand by their two key economic election pledges – no deficit reduction this year and opposition to a VAT increase – in the coalition negotiations. A Clegg aide told Wilson: "The thing that changed minds was George Osborne saying that he had seen the figures and it was quite horrific in real life as opposed to spin life."


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

What's the difference between this deliberate lying on election and campaign material and the Woolas case btw?


----------



## JimW (Nov 13, 2010)

> clear yellow water



The piss-weak party.


----------



## ymu (Nov 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's the difference between this deliberate lying on election and campaign material and the Woolas case btw?


 
The NUS are trying something like that apparently - going for recall on the Lib Dem MPs who don't vote against the increases.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

They can't really - it's unlikely to ever be legislated for ( you can bet the lib-dems will veto the pathetic proposal now) and the proposals only cover those convicted of serious criminal offences anyway.

Here's another one:

Nick Clegg: we got it wrong on Israel

..and look what mug they've managed to talk into sending this message


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> The NUS are trying something like that apparently - going for recall on the Lib Dem MPs who don't vote against the increases.


 
btw, Evan Harris - who i know some posters here had some illusions in - has come out attacking the proposed decapitation strategy of the NUS as a 'partisan stunt' and defending his parties lies on tuition fees and their total dishonesty.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's not worked though.  It's like the "War on Drugs" - at some point you have to accept that it's a lost battle.  The Lib Dems would push for a form of PR.  A shit form of PR, but at least it's a small step.  PR would allow the 'minority' parties a greater say.  It would be a _small_ step towards combating the very problem  (all the same) you're citing.
> 
> They've also got people like Evan Harris, who champions evidence-based decision making.  His star appears to be rising.  If people like him can gain influence, that can only be a good thing.


 
Yeah? Turned out to be the same as the rest of them didn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

Here the latest authoritarian initiative supported by the libertarian lib-dems:



> The controversy comes as police arrested a 57th person in connection with last week's student march through London, which ended in violent scenes. As police face continued criticism for failing to control the march, the Observer has learned that defence firms are working closely with UK armed forces and contemplating a "militarisation" strategy to counter the threat of civil disorder.
> 
> The trade group representing the military and security industry says firms are in negotiation with senior officers over possible orders for armoured vehicles, body scanners and better surveillance equipment.
> 
> The move coincides with government-backed attempts to introduce the use of unmanned spy drones throughout UK airspace, facilitating an expansion of covert surveillance that could provide intelligence on future demonstrations.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They can't really - it's unlikely to ever be legislated for ( you can bet the lib-dems will veto the pathetic proposal now) and the proposals only cover those convicted of serious criminal offences anyway.
> 
> Here's another one:
> 
> ...


 

Fucking cunts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here the latest authoritarian initiative supported by the libertarian lib-dems:


 
So much for their precious civil liberties.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 14, 2010)

I don't know why I'm continually surprised by how low they can go, but I am.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg: we got it wrong on Israel


could you pls let me know when they're right on something.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Here the latest authoritarian initiative supported by the libertarian lib-dems:


 
This has been coming for a long while hasn't it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> could you pls let me know when they're right on something.


 
You won't have long to wait Pickmans  They're in government now so they're stopping the worst excesses of the Tories! Without the capable leadership of Clegg and Cable, who knows what might happen


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You won't have long to wait Pickmans  They're in government now so they're stopping the worst excesses of the Tories! Without the capable leadership of Clegg and Cable, who knows what might happen


 
i was thinking more of some lemming like mass suicide of lib dem mps.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

Why do you bitter, hate-fillled lefties always have to resort to violence?  The class war ended a long time ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why do you bitter, hate-fillled lefties always have to resort to violence?


 
it's not always.

it's only at demos.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

All you outdated class warriors from the 70s should start to live in the real world and get a job


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> All you outdated class warriors from the 70s should start to live in the real world and get a job


 
i'm quite happy with two jobs, thank you


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

Seriously, the class war is over. And the sooner we realise that capitalism is here to stay, the better. The most we can do is make it more ethical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Seriously, the class war is over. And the sooner we realise that capitalism is here to stay, the better. The most we can do is make it more ethical.


 it's not here to stay because it's been in the fucking bathroom all morning. it's going to have to leave later, it behaves worse than that jazza out of the archers


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

You're just jealous because you wan't to have a bath but capitalism isnt letting you. Boo hoo, the politics of envy as usual.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 14, 2010)

big eejit said:


> Cunts indeed, but (and I'm sure this has been pointed out already in this thread) cunts who are taking the heat of the architects of this shit. Clegg is Cameron's slimy human shield.


 
The long term strategic mistake will be a failure of the Left to tackle the views of Conservative voters as it is so busy kicking of the Lib Dems for committing the ultimate sin of going into government with the Tories.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 14, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The long term strategic mistake will be a failure of the Left to tackle the views of Conservative voters as it is so busy kicking of the Lib Dems for committing the ultimate sin of going into government with the Tories.


 
So it is the left's fault that people will get screwed and not the lib dems for providing lobby fodder...glad we've got that clear. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Nov 14, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So it is the left's fault that people will get screwed and not the lib dems for providing lobby fodder...glad we've got that clear.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I thought you were meant to be educated, why can you not read?


----------



## little_legs (Nov 14, 2010)

from the Sunday Times: 



> A parliamentary inquiry is to investigate why Vince Cable, the business secretary, quietly signed off £32m of public funding to a helicopter manufacturer based in the constituency of David Laws, his Liberal Democrat colleague.
> 
> The taxpayer handout has been granted to Agusta-Westland despite being judged "unaffordable" by the previous Labour administration and despite the coalition government's austerity drive.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 14, 2010)

little_legs said:


> from the Sunday Times:


tbf, the enquiry really ought to be focussing on why they've not approved similar funding for other constituencies, eg forgemasters, rather than why they did agree to this one IMO.

this sounds like exactly the sort of thing a government ought to be supporting companies to do to help create jobs, and get us out of this mess.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 14, 2010)

free spirit said:


> tbf, the enquiry really ought to be focussing on why they've not approved similar funding for other constituencies, eg forgemasters, rather than why they did agree to this one IMO.
> 
> this sounds like exactly the sort of thing a government ought to be supporting companies to do to help create jobs, and get us out of this mess.


 
Agreed. The piece in the ST does mention that _pulling the plug_ on the Forgemasters ticked a lot of people off. But I think it's the secrecy surrounding the details of funding that's being questioned. It also mentions that the helicopter maker has a bit of history in the Westminster, I've never heard of it before, but a quick wiki gives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_affair.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 14, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The long term strategic mistake will be a failure of the Left to tackle the views of Conservative voters as it is so busy kicking of the Lib Dems for committing the ultimate sin of going into government with the Tories.


 
'The left' is kicking the libdems because they sold themselves as the party of principle during the general election. They said that there was another way, they promised the electorate so much and when it came down to it, they cynically sold their voters out. They even planned TWO MONTHS before the general election to renege on a promise they made not very long before people went to the polls. The backlash from 'the left' is understandable -you lot fucking deserve it.


----------



## ymu (Nov 15, 2010)

moon, if one of the MPs from the left of the party wanted to challenge Clegg's leadership:

1) what are the constitutional arrangements for doing this, and

2) would you support them?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Seriously, the class war is over. And the sooner we realise that capitalism is here to stay, the better. The most we can do is make it more ethical.



Sarcasm apart though, that is actually the line that a generation (or two) has been sold. 

When that conflicts with common sense, as it has increasingly clearly done since the banking crisis, I think that line gets increasingly harder to sell ...

When the consequences of capital's restructuring start to really bite, I think it's quite possible that mass anger at being sold a bunch of self-serving ruling class bullshit may ignite.

In the immortal words of Johnny Rotten 'Ever had the feeling you've been cheated?'

P.S. the Lib Dems really are shits aren't they?


----------



## moochedit (Nov 15, 2010)

ymu said:


> what are the constitutional arrangements for doing this, and


 
I'm not moon, but i googled the awnser to your first question ...

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf



> An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
> (a)
> the Leader asking for an election;
> (b)
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2010)

para h) if your leader turns out to be a smarmy lying wanker who just killed your party's credibility for the foreseeable future stone dead by sucking Tory cock.


----------



## ymu (Nov 15, 2010)

Thanks!

75 local parties (out of, presumably, 600ish) could force a Lib Dem leadership election? That's very doable. Get the students onto it - they probably have enough constituencies between them.


----------



## moochedit (Nov 15, 2010)

ymu said:


> Get the *students* onto it



do you think they have any left ?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Nylock said:


> 'The left' is kicking the libdems because they sold themselves as the party of principle during the general election. They said that there was another way, they promised the electorate so much and when it came down to it, they cynically sold their voters out. They even planned TWO MONTHS before the general election to renege on a promise they made not very long before people went to the polls. The backlash from 'the left' is understandable -you lot fucking deserve it.


 
The party didn't deny there had to be cuts, forming a coalition isn't selling out and there is nothing cynical about it. It's fucking common place on the continent where people grasp that a minority party in a partnership isn't going to get all its polices enacted. It's not breaking a promise to have to give up some areas of policy in a coalition.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party didn't deny there had to be cuts, forming a coalition isn't selling out and there is nothing cynical about it. It's fucking common place on the continent where people grasp that a minority party in a partnership isn't going to get all its polices enacted. It's not breaking a promise to have to give up some areas of policy in a coalition.


shitters.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

you've lost more votes than you could have dreamed of, i reckon. i speak to a lot of people who think you sold them down the river basically.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

ymu said:


> moon, if one of the MPs from the left of the party wanted to challenge Clegg's leadership:
> 
> 1) what are the constitutional arrangements for doing this, and
> 
> 2) would you support them?



The first question has been answered; the second one would depend on the candidate and whether they still had a sensible plan for reducing the deficit and state spending.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you've lost more votes than you could have dreamed of, i reckon. i speak to a lot of people who think you sold them down the river basically.



I'm not surprised we are not used to coalition and most left-leaning voters seem unable to accept that we can't enact all the polices they wanted to see enacted and instead are seeing them as broken promises. People are used to parties in power having total say so that narrative seems a reasonable explanation. It’s also the case that all three parties were in denial about the size of the deficit, the electorate did not appreciate quite how bad some things were going to be.  As many commentators have said, this was perhaps the worst time to be in government.  I think the party should have been more honest before about this, even if it would have hurt them a lot at the polls.

 The party is also negatively Labour's strategy of trying to steal Lib Dem votes rather than take on the Tory agenda directly. This will be a long-term failure of Labour but will when them back the left-leaning voters.

Still you go into politics to have an impact so it’s better to have a period of influence in government than it is to remain popular on the side-lines. Parties come back from bad polls all the time, just look at the Republicans winning in the mid-terms or Labour’s current polling increases. 

Locally for me the party is actual in a Coalition with Labour running the council so things are a bit different, and people see we are not simply just Tory-lite which is Clegg's image at the moment.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not surprised we are not used to coalition and most left-leaning voters seem unable to accept that we can't enact all the polices they wanted to see enacted and instead are seeing them as broken promises. People are used to parties in power having total say so that narrative seems a reasonable explanation. It’s also the case that all three parties were in denial about the size of the deficit, the electorate did not appreciate quite how bad some things were going to be.  As many commentators have said, this was perhaps the worst time to be in government.  I think the party should have been more honest before about this, even if it would have hurt them a lot at the polls.
> 
> The party is also negatively Labour's strategy of trying to steal Lib Dem votes rather than take on the Tory agenda directly. This will be a long-term failure of Labour but will when them back the left-leaning voters.
> 
> ...


you're blatant liars.

eta: _The party is also negatively Labour's strategy of trying to steal Lib Dem votes rather than take on the Tory agenda directly. This will be a long-term failure of Labour but will when them back the left-leaning voters._ - this for example? what is it but dissembling dyslexic rubbish?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you're blatant liars.
> 
> eta: _The party is also negatively Labour's strategy of trying to steal Lib Dem votes rather than take on the Tory agenda directly. This will be a long-term failure of Labour but will when them back the left-leaning voters._ - this for example? what is it but dissembling dyslexic rubbish?


 
Yes I am dyslexic, sorry for the bad grammar allow me to re-phrase it.

Labour's current strategy is to attack the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives. They are trying to 'steal' votes from the party, rather than make the case against strongly against the Conservatives. What you see in election terms is a swing with left-leaning voters returning to Labour. This doesn't affect the overall left/right balance of the nation or address the fact that the Conservatives won the most votes at the GE. The propagate the myth that every Coalition policy that is not a Lib Dem policy is a broken promise.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I am dyslexic, sorry for the bad grammar allow me to re-phrase it.
> 
> Labour's current strategy is to attack the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives. They are trying to 'steal' votes from the party, rather than make the case against strongly against the Conservatives. What you see in election terms is a swing with left-leaning voters returning to Labour. This doesn't affect the overall left/right balance of the nation or address the fact that the Conservatives won the most votes at the GE. The propagate the myth that every Coalition policy that is not a Lib Dem policy is a broken promise.


no it's not. it's the simple fact that you lied your way into power and appear to be content to continue on such a course whilst being held up as human shields for those tory bastards.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 15, 2010)

moon you are a fool clegg is a tory and as no concern for liberal policies he will not fight sheffield hallam at the next election but a safe surrey type seat because he is a feather in the tory hat.all the orange bookers are in the government the likes of simon hughes were totally ignored


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The long term strategic mistake will be a failure of the Left to tackle the views of Conservative voters as it is so busy kicking of the Lib Dems for committing the ultimate sin of going into government with the Tories.


 It's not the left kicking you you muppet - it's your own voters. The ones you lied to to. The ones you tricked. The ones you used.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party didn't deny there had to be cuts, forming a coalition isn't selling out and there is nothing cynical about it. It's fucking common place on the continent where people grasp that a minority party in a partnership isn't going to get all its polices enacted. It's not breaking a promise to have to give up some areas of policy in a coalition.


 
People have grasped what's happening pal. You haven't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The first question has been answered; the second one would depend on the candidate and whether they still had a sensible plan for reducing the deficit and state spending.


 So not any Lib-dem then. Join the only party for someone like you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not surprised we are not used to coalition and most left-leaning voters seem unable to accept that we can't enact all the polices they wanted to see enacted and instead are seeing them as broken promises. People are used to parties in power having total say so that narrative seems a reasonable explanation. It&rsquo;s also the case that all three parties were in denial about the size of the deficit, the electorate did not appreciate quite how bad some things were going to be.  As many commentators have said, this was perhaps the worst time to be in government.  I think the party should have been more honest before about this, even if it would have hurt them a lot at the polls.
> 
> The party is also negatively Labour's strategy of trying to steal Lib Dem votes rather than take on the Tory agenda directly. This will be a long-term failure of Labour but will when them back the left-leaning voters.
> 
> ...


 
Labour's stealing our votes  pathetic and hilarious.

You're so clueless.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I am dyslexic, sorry for the bad grammar allow me to re-phrase it.
> 
> Labour's current strategy is to attack the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives. They are trying to 'steal' votes from the party, rather than make the case against strongly against the Conservatives. What you see in election terms is a swing with left-leaning voters returning to Labour. This doesn't affect the overall left/right balance of the nation or address the fact that the Conservatives won the most votes at the GE. The propagate the myth that every Coalition policy that is not a Lib Dem policy is a broken promise.


 
Just fucking what!?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I thought you were meant to be educated, why can you not read?


 
You said the left should be attacking the Tories and not the Lib Dems. Presumably they should be attacking the Tories in order to defend and promote the interests of those about to get hurt by the proposed public sector cuts and standstills; these are the cuts and standstills which are being supported by Lib Dem lobby fodder and an enthusiastic Lib Dem leadership. My reading isn't the problem here. Your inability to think clearly and your willingnness to defend your party at all costs is.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Nylock (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party didn't deny there had to be cuts, forming a coalition isn't selling out and there is nothing cynical about it. It's fucking common place on the continent where people grasp that a minority party in a partnership isn't going to get all its polices enacted. It's not breaking a promise to have to give up some areas of policy in a coalition.


 
No. But declaring publicly to support one policy AFTER formulating a plan to ditch said promise at the first opportunity IS cynical and IS selling out. Lets' not forget here that after beardy lentil munchers, the libdem's main body of support was the students -some of which wasted, in some cases, their _first ever_ vote on your disgraceful pack of charlatans. What an introduction to representative democracy eh.


I suppose those first time voters sorta felt like this:





E2A: I never mentioned in that post you quoted them 'selling out', i said that they 'sold themselves as the party of principle'. Big difference... Guilty conscience encouraging Freudian slips here by any chance?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> forming a coalition isn't selling out and there is nothing cynical about it.


there's nothing cynical about going into an election with a flagship, nail-your-colours-to-the-mast policy (i.e. against tuition fees), that your own policy team were already planning to drop as soon as you could?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

They had three major polices - they formed the centre of their election approach. No to immediate aggressive cuts. End tuition fees. PR.

We now know that they had ditched the first two _before_ the election without telling the electorate - and ditched the last at the first chance. 

Moon is right, there was no sell-out. There was deliberate planned public lies.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

And the way in which you are so willing to give cover to this onslaught against thde poor, in return for red boxes and ministers' Limoes is certainly cynical!
enjoy it whilst it lasts, btw - next time, you're toast


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You said the left should be attacking the Tories and not the Lib Dems. Presumably they should be attacking the Tories in order to defend and promote the interests of those about to get hurt by the proposed public sector cuts and standstills; these are the cuts and standstills which are being supported by Lib Dem lobby fodder and an enthusiastic Lib Dem leadership. My reading isn't the problem here. Your inability to think clearly and your willingnness to defend your party at all costs is.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



That's fine Louis.

My point was how you could jump from what I said to:



> So it is the left's fault that people will get screwed and not the lib dems for providing lobby fodder...glad we've got that clear.



 It doesn't follow on from what i'm saying!


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> And the way in which you are so willing to give cover to this onslaught against thde poor, in return for red boxes and ministers' Limoes is certainly cynical!
> enjoy it whilst it lasts, btw - next time, you're toast


 
What the ministerial cars that the coalition helped scrap?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Sweet victory!


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What the ministerial cars that the coalition helped scrap?


 
It makes the hundreds of thousands of job losses worth it alone.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sweet victory!


 
If you read Chris Mullin's diary you'll see that scrapping ministerial limos was no easy matter.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What the ministerial cars that the coalition helped scrap?


oh big deal! You knew perfectly well what I meant; in return for the trappings of Office, you've basically signed up to the scrapping of everything that could possibly be said to underscore your claim to be a party of privilege


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Nylock said:


> No. But declaring publicly to support one policy AFTER formulating a plan to ditch said promise at the first opportunity IS cynical and IS selling out. Lets' not forget here that after beardy lentil munchers, the libdem's main body of support was the students -some of which wasted, in some cases, their _first ever_ vote on your disgraceful pack of charlatans. What an introduction to representative democracy eh.



There is a differeance between ditching a policy when you are in power, and when you are in a coalition where the larger party disagrees with you. So some people within the party started speculating as to what policy areas you can negoiate on. Seeing as both Labour and the Tories wanted to raise tution fees there was no way the Lib Dems could hang on to that policy in government.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Let me get this right. The lib-dems thought they'd win the election outright - that's why they proposed and campaigned on this maximalist manifesto. Is that right?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

PR would result in permanent coalition government. This would mean all parties having to adapt their programmes after elections in order to form government.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's fine Louis.
> 
> My point was how you could jump from what I said to:
> 
> It doesn't follow on from what i'm saying!



But it does, because for you the Lib Dems are meant to be a brake on the worst excesses of the Tories; any attack on them (including ones from the left) is objectively strengthening the Tories hand to go further. Therefore when those to their left attack the Lib Dems they are in fact ultimately having a go at the poor; this is the sort of idiocy you get yourself into with your party loyalty.

Spend more time thinking and less typing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Balbi (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is a differeance between ditching a policy when you are in power, and when you are in a coalition where the larger party disagrees with you. So some people within the party started speculating as to what policy areas you can negoiate on. Seeing as both Labour and the Tories wanted to raise tution fees there was no way the Lib Dems could hang on to that policy in government.


 
So yeah, you're the Tories' gimp then. Or even worse, I guess massuh boss needs to hear sho' nuff from Nick now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But it does, because for you the Lib Dems are meant to be a brake on the worst excesses of the Tories; any attack on them (including ones from the left) is objectively strengthening the Tories hand to go further. Therefore when those to their left attack the Lib Dems they are in fact ultimately having a go at the poor; this is the sort of idiocy you get yourself into with your party loyalty.
> 
> Spend more time thinking and less typing.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Even articul8 dropped this line of attack when it's logic was pointed out to him in ref to the AV vote.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh big deal! You knew perfectly well what I meant; in return for the trappings of Office, you've basically signed up to the scrapping of everything that could possibly be said to underscore your claim to be a party of privilege


 
In return for getting key areas of policy enacted, it's much better than what the Tories alone would have done. 

£2 Billion invested in social care
25% cut in Trident Warheads
ID cards Scrapped
Rise in Capital Gains Tax
Stoped Tory plans to scrap inherritance tax
Won a referundum on electoral reform
£7Bn on Fairness premium for children
Rise in personal Tax allowance
150,000 homes for social housing
Green Investment Bank
Ending child detention for immigration purposes
Scrapping of ContactPoint
Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty
The right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct
Fixed term parliaments of five years


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

> The right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct



Point to this.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> PR would result in permanent coalition government. This would mean all parties having to adapt their programmes after elections in order to form government.


 
Yes, this is what happens on the continent all the time. Given that people don’t seem to like this and view it as breaking promises rather than compromising then perhaps no one wants coalition governments in this country. If that’s the case then we stick to FPTP and the normal cycle of Labour and Conservatives cyclical going back and forth in power.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Point to this.


 
I don't think that's been passed yet, but isn't it in the government's programme?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Point to this.


 
Yes it would apply to any Lib Dems too


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, this is what happens on the continent all the time. Given that people don’t seem to like this and view it as breaking promises rather than compromising then perhaps no one wants coalition governments in this country. If that’s the case then we stick to FPTP and the normal cycle of Labour and Conservatives cyclical going back and forth in power.


 
With you on the outside. How transparent.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes it would apply to any Lib Dems too


 
Where is it enacted? 

Where is any of it enacted?


----------



## creak (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It’s also the case that all three parties were in denial about the size of the deficit, the electorate did not appreciate quite how bad some things were going to be.


 
I thought defecit spending was actually _lower_ than expected; 09/10 totals were predicted to be ~£163bn but ended up being ~£156bn. It's still a lot of course, but that's not the point. We keep seeing ConDems coming out and whining about how the public finances were in a worse state than they realised before getting into office, and using that as a justification for cutting deeper and harder than promised and breaking various pledges made before the election- but as the figures show, this excuse is bollocks. You can't keep using it, because it isn't true.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

.., Cable the soothsayer, the man who can see into the future, the man they based their economic manifesto on whines _'i didn't know_'...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> With you on the outside. How transparent.


 
So? If that's what people want then so be it. I'll go back to belonging to a small opposition party that helps campaigns locally and nationally. If people want to vote for someone else next time round then let them, it won't be any better under either of the other two main parties.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Where is it enacted?
> 
> Where is any of it enacted?


 
Dutch governments always start off with a programme. Their abiltity to pass it through the parlimentary sessions decides how the people vote at the following elections. That's how it works.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So? If that's what people want then so be it. I'll go back to belonging to a small opposition party that helps campaigns locally and nationally. If people want to vote for someone else next time round then let them, it won't be any better under either of the other two main parties.


 
What a  rousing battle hymn you provide for the lib-dems

This one's called TINA



> If people want to vote for someone else next time round then let them, it won't be any better under either of the other two main parties.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't think that's been passed yet, but isn't it in the government's programme?


 
Yes it's in the Coalition agreement, and is part of the programme.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I am dyslexic, sorry for the bad grammar allow me to re-phrase it.
> 
> Labour's current strategy is to attack the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives. They are trying to 'steal' votes from the party, rather than make the case against strongly against the Conservatives. What you see in election terms is a swing with left-leaning voters returning to Labour. This doesn't affect the overall left/right balance of the nation or address the fact that the Conservatives won the most votes at the GE. The propagate the myth that every Coalition policy that is not a Lib Dem policy is a broken promise.


 
That "vote-stealing" argument is pathetic. I had a green party prat make that argument to me the other night, how TUSC "stole" 2000 votes that could have gone to the green party. You keep going on about the labour party as though they are the cause of the nation's woes. The fact is that you support a party that is just as bad, and not only that, but you are defending literally everything it does. At least the LP members and supporters on here give the LP critical support rather than just blindly following everything. It's the same with the tory supporters. I don't like the tories but at least there are many different "types" of tory and they feel able to say they disagree with policies they don't agree with. 

As I've said before, it seems to me that you're desperately justifying the fact to yourself that by joining the LD's, you've made a very very serious mistake and because of this, this has just turned to blind support of everything the party does, as in the more you know it is wrong, the more you are supporting it. Im not trying to be horrible because you're very polite on here. And it's something I recognise in myself too, so i can understand it, when you want to support something you want to not ask any questions and like everything about it, but that's not the way that politics or anything else should work. 

I don't necessarily support everything the party i belong to says or does (im really not sure about the Sheridan stuff for example, ffs sort it out lol  ) But at least I actually feel able to say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes it's in the Coalition agreement, and is part of the programme.


 
So it's not been enacted as per your claim. This really is your fist time in politics isn't it? Over the weekend there were reports of the lib-dems frantically rowing back on this due to fear of them being recalled by their doting electorate.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let me get this right. The lib-dems thought they'd win the election outright - that's why they proposed and campaigned on this maximalist manifesto. Is that right?


 
Maybe the party should have laid out what it would try to negotiate on in the result of a Labour or Conservative Coalition, I’m not sure how that would affect the actual negotiation process. I guess it would make it very easy for the larger party to get more of their policy through by being able to force negotiations around what the election promises were.

The party, as all parties do campaign on what they would do if they were elected, they were not elected, we gotLess MPs then the last election.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't necessarily support everything the party i belong to says or does (im really not sure about the Sheridan stuff for example, ffs sort it out lol  ) But at least I actually feel able to say so.


 
I've supported Groen Links (Green Left) in Dutch elections ever since I moved here. They are a coalition of the Progressive Party, Evangelical Party, Communist Party and the Pacifist Socialist Party (the one I voted for before the parties amalgamated). However they have started preliminary talks about a fusion with the Dutch Labour Party and that is something I most certaily won't agree with.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What a  rousing battle hymn you provide for the lib-dems
> 
> This one's called TINA


 
Just saying it's the British public who decide, I think the Lib Dems are doing a good job and getting a good number of polices enacted for the size of the party. I think there is far less of a fanfare being made over the positive things and far more noise being made by the Unions, Labour and the press over the negative things. 

For instance the NUS' plans to unseat Lib Dem MPs, I can't remember them launching anything like this when Labour broke promises and introduced tution fees in the first time.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So? If that's what people want then so be it. I'll go back to belonging to a small opposition party that helps campaigns locally and nationally. If people want to vote for someone else next time round then let them, it won't be any better under either of the other two main parties.


 
 a few months ago you were saying how there's no point in being in a small party as it never changes anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Just saying it's the British public who decide, I think the Lib Dems are doing a good job and getting a good number of polices enacted for the size of the party. I think there is far less of a fanfare being made over the positive things and far more noise being made by the Unions, Labour and the press over the negative things.
> 
> For instance the NUS' plans to unseat Lib Dem MPs, I can't remember them launching anything like this when Labour broke promises and introduced tution fees in the first time.



You just gave a list of things that you haven't enacted. Whilst ignoring the unprecedented attacks on the social conditions of the poorest that you have enacted.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> a few months ago you were saying how there's no point in being in a small party as it never changes anything.


 
Hung parliaments give small parties power.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Maybe the party should have laid out what it would try to negotiate on in the result of a Labour or Conservative Coalition, I’m not sure how that would affect the actual negotiation process. I guess it would make it very easy for the larger party to get more of their policy through by being able to force negotiations around what the election promises were.
> 
> The party, as all parties do campaign on what they would do if they were elected, they were not elected, we gotLess MPs then the last election.



I don't care how it might have or did effect the _negotiation_ process - i'm talking about the lies you told - deliberately and knowingly - to the electorate during the election. Why aren't you?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Maybe the party should have laid out what it would try to negotiate on in the result of a Labour or Conservative Coalition, I’m not sure how that would affect the actual negotiation process. I guess it would make it very easy for the larger party to get more of their policy through by being able to force negotiations around what the election promises were.
> 
> The party, as all parties do campaign on what they would do if they were elected, they were not elected, we gotLess MPs then the last election.


 
So you basically lied.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So it's not been enacted as per your claim. This really is your fist time in politics isn't it? Over the weekend there were reports of the lib-dems frantically rowing back on this due to fear of them being recalled by their doting electorate.


 
Your being an idiot, they are in the process of being enacted, do you not understand that it takes more than 6mths of Parlimentary time to deliver Government policy. Go back and study how Parliment works Butchersapron.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> a few months ago you were saying how there's no point in being in a small party as it never changes anything.


 
There are degrees of small  I'm not talking small as in some minuscule socialist type party.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Wow, you're so massively naive. Where are the white papers?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are degrees of small  I'm not talking small as in some minuscule socialist type party.


 
You will be very soon.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you're so massively naive. Where are the white papers?


 
The Coalition Agreement can't be veered from without collapsing the government.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Of course it can. And if it can't so what?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So you basically lied.


 
No we campaigned against tuition fees, we are still ideologically opposed to them.  The electorate returned a hung parliament and we negotiated a coalition agreement in which the larger party that most people voted for got its way on this particular policy issue. In doing so we ensured the policy is preferable to what the Browne report commissioned by Labour suggested and we have a fairer outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No we campaigned against tuition fees, we are still ideologically opposed to them.



That's why we voted for them. Voted for them to treble.

Desperate stuff from a dying party.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it can. And if it can't so what?


 
Minor tweets in the agreement perhaps. If there is a major disagreement there would be elections. At the moment that would result in a huge Tory majority and no need to go slowly on their richman's agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Minor tweets in the agreement perhaps. If there is a major disagreement there would be elections. At the moment that would result in a huge Tory majority and no need to go slowly on their richman's agenda.


 
No there wouldn't. There would most likely be a minority tory govt with a lib-dem Confidence and supply pact  - which means that all this stuff that lib-dems pretended to oppose could be opposed and blocked.

Any why would there be a huge tory majority? That's madness. The latest poll results give labour a 20 seat majority.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Any why would there be a huge tory majority? That's madness. The latest poll results give labour a 20 seat majority.


 
At this time, that wouldn't survive an election campain. IMO


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Why on earth not? There's been consistent negative polling results for the coalition for the last month - before the cuts even really hit.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are degrees of small  I'm not talking small as in some minuscule socialist type party.


 
But I think that you will be soon, you're fucking haemmoraging support.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No we campaigned against tuition fees, we are still ideologically opposed to them.  The electorate returned a hung parliament and we negotiated a coalition agreement in which the larger party that most people voted for got its way on this particular policy issue. In doing so we ensured the policy is preferable to what the Browne report commissioned by Labour suggested and we have a fairer outcome.


 
If you're party is so ideologically opposed, then prove it then.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth not? There's been consistent negative polling results for the coalition for the last month - before the cuts even really hit.


 
I think the greater the economic uncertainty the greater the appeal of the Tories to most voters.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> If you're party is so ideologically opposed, then prove it then.


 
But that is not how government works.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I think the greater the economic uncertainty the greater the appeal of the Tories to most voters.


 
Well, the polls appear to show the exact opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> But that is not how government works.


 
Do what you say. _But that is not how government works._


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Do what you say. _But that is not how government works._


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

The Lib Dems basically lied and decided to go along with the tiuition fee stuff BEFORE THEY MADE THE PLEDGE. How is that not lying? Even for the political class it's a particularly venal and disgusting form of corruption IMO.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

They made this massive pledge and a great big thing about it when they had already decided that they were not going to do it, so that is lying.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


>


 
Why confused? 

Frogwoman was asking polticians to do what they said they would. BA pointed out your appreciation that such behaviour wasn't what government indulged in.

For my part I liked the juxtapositon; it spoke volumes about people's aspirations and commitment to honesty.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why confused?
> 
> Frogwoman was asking polticians do do what they siad they would. BA pointed out your appreciation that such behaviour wasn't what parliament indulged in.
> 
> ...


 
I was referring to government, not parliament.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I was referring to government, not parliament.


 
See my edit.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> See my edit.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I think the LibDems made a serious mistake when they failed to say that their pledge on tuition fees was dependent on the outcome of the election. Again, in Nederland, parties make few pledges but declare asparations. This leaves wriggle room in the negotiations which follow elections, (and often take months to complete). Once in government, however they are obliged to stick with the agreed results of the negotiations.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is a differeance between ditching a policy when you are in power, and when you are in a coalition where the larger party disagrees with you. So some people within the party started speculating as to what policy areas you can negoiate on. Seeing as both Labour and the Tories wanted to raise tution fees there was no way the Lib Dems could hang on to that policy in government.


 
In that case the libdems should not have signed up to the scrapping of tuition fees AFTER secretly planning to abandon the pledge post-election and certainly in light of the policy commitments by the other parties. It just comes across as you lot using it as a cheap gimmick to maximise the student vote in your favor knowing full well they would vote for the party that pledges to minimise their debt burden. It is cynical, manipulative and disgusting. Frankly it is the sort of shit we have all come to expect from the other parties and the sort of shit your sainted leader was desperately distancing yourselves from during the election campaign. You sold a lie to the electorate and they fell for it -so don't be surprised that, like the snake oil salesmen and quack doctors of the old west, the townspeople want to run out out after finding out the extent to which they have been duped. Good luck at the next election, because it is only luck that will ever see you lot in power again.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In return for getting key areas of policy enacted, it's much better than what the Tories alone would have done.


Oh, have you? let's see now, shall we? 


> £2 Billion invested in social care


NOT enacted as yet, mereely planned and still being argued over, and if it ever happens it will not be backed up by a net increase in the budget for that dept or for the councils who'll implement it, so it's simply cutting one much-needed resource to pay for another 


> 25% cut in Trident Warheads


no you haven't! ALL decisions on Trident have now been deferred for the whole of this parliament


> ID cards Scrapped


scrapping them was a flagship tory policy anyway


> Rise in Capital Gains Tax


except you bottled it. Libdem policy was an increase to 40 to get parity with income-tax, so as to stop some remuneration schemes using CGT to cut tax bills. You caved in and settled for 28%, which ruins the whole point of it all. 


> Stoped Tory plans to scrap inherritance tax


They were in desperate trouble with this policy anyway, and would prolly have dropped this anyway, as a flimsy support for the 'we're all in this together' line 


> Won a referundum on electoral reform


yes, but it wasn't a referendum on PR, was it? again, you bottled it and went for the woefullyn inadequate AV.


> £7Bn on Fairness premium for children


bollocks! You have simply stolen £7bn from elsewhere in the education budget, the overall budget hasn't risen AT ALL!


> 150,000 homes for social housing


STOP LYING! This is a target, you haven't enacted *anything*. At current rate of housebuilding in the UK, and given the money the condems are prepared to put in to this (in short, pitifully inadequate), you don't have a hope in hell of hitting this


> Green Investment Bank


a) this was originally a Labour plan anyway b) YOU HAVE ENACTED NO SUCH THING!! you have merely promised to do so.


> Ending child detention for immigration purposes


you've done no such thing! You merely got a paper commitment in the coalition carve-up. Children are _still_ being detained, the relevant minister now speaks of 'minimising the practice", and These people aren't impressed!


> Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty


Nope - NOT enacted, ass yet, still something only at the planning/aspiration stage


> The right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct
> Fixed term parliaments of five years


You have NOT 'enacted' either of these, or got anywhere near it yet!
You have 'enacted' FUCK ALL. stop this laughable tenth-rate spinning ferchrissakes!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Good work streathers.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I think the greater the economic uncertainty the greater the appeal of the Tories to most voters.


once yes, but dunno if that's true now. If anything, I'd say the voters trust/distrust labour and tories equally on the economy: the older ones haven't forgotten the ERM debacle


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Good work streathers.


cheers guv!


----------



## Santino (Nov 15, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Oh, have you? let's see now, shall we?
> 
> NOT enacted as yet, mereely planned and still being argued over, and if it ever happens it will not be backed up by a net increase in the budget for that dept or for the councils who'll implement it, so it's simply cutting one much-needed resource to pay for another
> 
> ...



You can prove anything with facts.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

Santino said:


> You can prove anything with facts.


ba-doom TISH!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In return for getting key areas of policy enacted, it's much better than what the Tories alone would have done.
> 
> £2 Billion invested in social care


With how much removed via local authority spending cuts imposed by central government?


> 25% cut in Trident Warheads


Due to a reduction in fleet, this would have happened whoever won the lection.


> ID cards Scrapped


Tory policy that they would have carried out without Lib-Dem influence.


> Rise in Capital Gains Tax


As a screen for a cut in corporation tax.


> Stoped Tory plans to scrap inherritance tax


Their plans were to allow IT to "wither on the vine", not to scrap it peremptorily, so only time will tell if you've "stoped" anything.


> Won a referundum on electoral reform


No, you solicited an agreement that a referendum on a type of electoral reform be held.


> £7Bn on Fairness premium for children.


While directing money away from those same children by doing away with social and education programmes of proven value.


> Rise in personal Tax allowance


Derisory.


> 150,000 homes for social housing


Over what time period was that?


> Green Investment Bank


Whoop-de-doo.


> Ending child detention for immigration purposes


Except that the coalition already rowing back from this commitment to a "minimisation of child detention" position.


> Scrapping of ContactPoint


Was likely to happen anyway, as its' legality wasn't well-enough established.


> Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty


In consultation with the air industry.


> The right to sack MPs guilty of serious misconduct


And yet, so far, "serious misconduct" has only been loosely quantified. can't think why!


> Fixed term parliaments of five years


Which merely shifts us from a 4-5 year parliament. Big deal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I think the greater the economic uncertainty the greater the appeal of the Tories to most voters.


 
Except that in their first six months of government, the Tories and their Lib-Dem fig-leaves have proven very effectively that they don't enjoy even the same degree of public trust as their predecessors in the Thatcher and Major governments.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Get them in your sights and take them down.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> For instance the NUS' plans to unseat Lib Dem MPs, I can't remember them launching anything like this when Labour broke promises and introduced tution fees in the first time.


 
So just because people made a mistake with Labour they have to repeat that mistake when your party is in power? People learn from mistakes (well, some of us do).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

_You could've said no if you wanted to._


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that in their first six months of government, the Tories and their Lib-Dem fig-leaves have proven very effectively that they don't enjoy even the same degree of public trust as their predecessors in the Thatcher and Major governments.


 
It will all depend on how quickly the government manages to steady the economic ship, or not, as the case may be.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

This is some stunning insight you're offering today by the way l&L.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is some stunning insight you're offering today by the way l&L.


 
You're right. But I'm still saddened by your loss of cleverness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> It will all depend on how quickly the government manages to steady the economic ship, or not, as the case may be.


 
They've made a lot of noise in that direction, but in terms of having actually achieved anything, the jury is out, and will remain so for the rest of this quarter at least.
The entrails don't predict plain sailing, though. Having a row of Nobel economics laureates all saying "that Osborne, he's cocked it right up by cutting too much, too soon" doesn't give the public confidence that our Chancellor has a clue about what he's doing (if he isn't taking his direction from elsewhere, that is).


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2010)

This thread is real urbans. Thank you all for the dissection of their colossal failure & betrayal.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 15, 2010)

A small clarification about the ID cards if I may. Is it true that the government is still asking the ISPs to keep the history of sites the users visit and e-mail addresses users send/receive e-mails to/from for another year or something?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2010)

ID cards & the identity register are supposedly dead, but IMP (Interception Modernisation Programme, including email & website storage) is still very much alive.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/08/imp_date_2015/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/26/interception_modernisation_home_office_price/


----------



## little_legs (Nov 15, 2010)

that's the one! thank you. i've heard people talking about it at school. theresa may is still snooping on us. nice.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 15, 2010)

@DonFosterMP for bath:



> 2. A fair chance for every child
> 
> Smaller class sizes, more money into schools and abolish university tuition fees



amongst other lies:  http://www.bathlibdems.org.uk/pages/pledgelocalnational.html

Oh, and my favourite:



> 4. A fair deal for you from politicians
> 
> Making politicians accountable and give you the right to sack corrupt MP's


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2010)

> One must no longer think about pledges, promises, scandal and success, but instead one has to think of the hypothetical.



http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-clegg-has-not-betrayed-us-22069.html


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2010)

What hypothetical? They dont have any ideology, even one that tey pay lip service to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 16, 2010)

Santino said:


> http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-clegg-has-not-betrayed-us-22069.html


 
I don't think your appetite is strong enough for a mature politics


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't think your appetite is strong enough for a mature politics



That'll be that second helping of mash I had earlier.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 16, 2010)

Tough on dinner. Tough on the causes of dinner.


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2010)

I feel bad, especially after publicly signing that pledge not to have a second helping of mash.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2010)

Clagg is said to be reaching out to 'hidden' voters- 3.5 million of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Doesn't appear to be a thread specifically about school cuts so i'll just park this here for now - hidden away in the bit of the paper no one reads yesterday:

Rich schools to get richer under spending plans



> Schools in better-off neighbourhoods are expected to be the winners under coalition plans for education spending, which will see money shifting from councils in "more deprived" areas to richer ones, according to research published today.
> 
> Despite government claims to have protected school budgets in England, the research also shows the real levels of funding per pupil will fall by around 2.4% because of a demographic bulge that will see greater numbers of primary-age children in coming years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2010)

Todays gaurdian has done OK on making the coalition look like cunts- cuts to greater manchester police, the above mentioned and a scrapping of accountable stop-searches.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't appear to be a thread specifically about school cuts so i'll just park this here for now - hidden away in the bit of the paper no one reads yesterday:
> 
> Rich schools to get richer under spending plans



This was on the radio as well; at least one of the Radio 4 news programmes. So what we have is a double whammy of dishonesty; no extra money for education and some 'take from the poor and give to the rich' with the introduction of the regressive pupil premium. 

The Lib Dems not so much the dented shield of the coalition more their cowardly, lying, pickpocket.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## mauvais (Nov 16, 2010)

Whither the Lib Dems on legal aid? They'll protect it won't they. It says so here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Good spot/find. Law it seems now is not only _by_ the rich but also only _for_ the rich.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2010)

mauvais said:


> Whither the Lib Dems on legal aid? They'll protect it won't they. It says so here.


 (in response to something in the article)
how's it such an expensive legal aid system when it works out at less than £40 per person (man woman child) per year? seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

mauvais said:


> Whither the Lib Dems on legal aid? They'll protect it won't they. It says so here.


well what a surprise, another sellout


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> well what a surprise, another sellout


 
Now now, I'm sure this is merely another example of tactical positioning by the Lib-Dems, and that they're still truly opposed to cuts in Legal Aid.

Yes, that's bound to be it!


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 16, 2010)

Don foster (libdem for bath) just removed his pre election pledge to vote against tutition fee increases from his website.

The lying scumbag.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2010)

nice to see the legal aid cut affecting people who feel that they have been fucked over by the DWP. Progress. New politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

It's great, they've launched an attack that will potentially lead to legal challenges to various decisions whilst removing the ability of those effected to use the law.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 16, 2010)

It's the big society in action: if you want to get help with court costs, pass the hat around everyone you know. They all become stakeholders in the outcome of the trial and that is something we can all be rightly proud of. Progressive. Fair. Legal representation.. </sarcasm>

Except it bloody well isn't


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now now, I'm sure this is merely another example of tactical positioning by the Lib-Dems, and that they're still truly opposed to cuts in Legal Aid.
> 
> Yes, that's bound to be it!


oh but, of course, silly me, they're actually _stopping the tories from doing far worse_


----------



## moon23 (Nov 17, 2010)

Glegg is going down in my estimation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11764157 
Rolling back the Database State, my arse.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 17, 2010)

The electoral register that is open to all kinds of debt-chasing scumbags. Nice move, fuckface.


----------



## strung out (Nov 17, 2010)

"He also suggested the Lib Dems had just one chance to change the voting system." hmmm... i wonder why that might be?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 17, 2010)

the more people they get to vote, the more people who can't complain.


----------



## Santino (Nov 17, 2010)

More on their mendacious approach to winning power: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/lib-dems-labour-cuts-pledge


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

Santino said:


> More on their mendacious approach to winning power: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/lib-dems-labour-cuts-pledge


 
These aren't ordinary lies, these are exclusive Lib-Dem lies, larded with the finest clarified pork fat, and packaged in a crispy rhetoric of progressive politics.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now now, I'm sure this is merely another example of tactical positioning by the Lib-Dems, and that they're still truly opposed to cuts in Legal Aid.
> 
> Yes, that's bound to be it!


 

Is _anyone_ opposing this shit?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is _anyone_ opposing this shit?



Massively unpopular and hugely concerning amonst the welfare rights advice/benefits information giving professional community I've been told by festivaldeb, who knows ...  

I appreciate this is niche opposition ....


----------



## articul8 (Nov 17, 2010)

A certain former LD of this parish is now calling for Clegg to resign I see :
http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2010/11/former-preston-libdem-councillor-calls.html


----------



## Santino (Nov 17, 2010)

that link said:
			
		

> Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem negotiators called for a "a commitment not to raise the cap on tuition fees" (a watered-down version of their manifesto pledge to phase out tuition fees over six years), a cut in the number of government ministers, a four year fixed-term parliament and "a commitment to no public subsidy for nuclear power stations". All of these pledges have since been broken by the government.



Oh moooooOOOOoooooon...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is _anyone_ opposing this shit?


 
Anyone in the three main political parties? A handful of solitary MPs.

In the wider community? Just about every CAB, law centre and other advice-giving organisation out there. Doesn't matter though. However many representations are made against the legal aid cuts, they're unlikely to be reversed. Legal aid has been the source of far too much legislation that's inimical to poor employment practices and bad practice by central and local government to be allowed to carry on. And it's mostly used by the working class and the underclass. What makes us think *we* deserve access to something that makes our lives easier, ffs?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Massively unpopular and hugely concerning amonst the welfare rights advice/benefits information giving professional community I've been told by festivaldeb, who knows ...
> 
> I appreciate this is niche opposition ....


 
Not really "niche", Will. It affects any and all advice-giving organisations across the board, from local law centres to national ones like Age UK, anyone who refers cases from people who have no money up the legal food-chain.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A certain former LD of this parish is now calling for Clegg to resign I see :
> http://riversstream.blogspot.com/2010/11/former-preston-libdem-councillor-calls.html


 
bless.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

posted simply to subscribe cos somehow i seem to have offed this one by mistake.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 18, 2010)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/osborne-alexander-awards

Last night was apparently the Spectator Parliamentary Awards - Clegg won their 'Politician of the Year Award', while Danny Alexander and George Osborne were awarded 'Best Double Act' (although I suspect my interpretation of 'double act' is somewhat different to theirs!)

The Tory assimilation is complete!


----------



## Combustible (Nov 18, 2010)

Lib Dems are apparently moaning about how nasty Bell and Rowson are being to them.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 18, 2010)

the welsh lib dem on qt is a car crash


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2010)

link please?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 18, 2010)

bbc1 now innit froggie


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2010)

i dont have a telly


----------



## Santino (Nov 18, 2010)

Watch live on iPlayer.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 18, 2010)

Live now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_one_london/watchlive

Or it should be up here not too long after QT finishes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w9jfw/Question_Time_18_11_2010/


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i dont have a telly


rob one from a lib-dem


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2010)

Or watch live on tv catch up


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 18, 2010)

I so want to fucking punch Kelvin MacKenzie every time I see him


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 18, 2010)

Combustible said:


> Lib Dems are apparently moaning about how nasty Bell and Rowson are being to them.


Embarrassingly pathetic, how can anyone support these clowns


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2010)

david steel's still bitter.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2010)

vince cable looked like a right cunt on the Daily Politics.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 22, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> vince cable looked like a right cunt on the Daily Politics.


 
He always does on that show, Brillo Pad is obviously vile but he's the only presenter who properly grilled Cable ahead of the election, in the DP chancellors' debate; the alarm bells should have started ringing then.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 23, 2010)

i'm aiiming to mark the 100 pages of why the lib dems of shit, let it be me!!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i'm aiiming to mark the 100 pages of why the lib dems of shit, let it be me!!


which, given that you voted for them, is completely surreal!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2010)

Still 38 pages off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 23, 2010)

and yet I suspect the LibDems will provide enough shit to keep us running


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 23, 2010)

Combustible said:


> Lib Dems are apparently moaning about how nasty Bell and Rowson are being to them.




Martin Rowson and Steve Bell are the greatest,but the political cartoon as been around ages.Martin should change his photo it does him no justice


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 23, 2010)

Depends upon your page settings, i am on page 99 of why THE LIBS ARE SHIT!  I do hope they get some shit tomorrow.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 23, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i'm aiiming to mark the 100 pages of why the lib dems of shit, let it be me!!


 
Will butchers hold his keyboard up to the crowd to mark his century after all he started the thread


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 23, 2010)

Smurker said:


> Depends upon your page settings, i am on page 99 of why THE LIBS ARE SHIT!  I do hope they get some shit tomorrow.


 
You're on page 100 where I am!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2010)

im on old page settings so i'm only on page 62


----------



## moochedit (Nov 23, 2010)

I expect it will be part 2 soon.


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2010)

Let's celebrate when there are more posts on this thread than there are Lib Dem voters. About two weeks?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 23, 2010)

Smurker said:


> I do hope they get some shit tomorrow.


 
So does he


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 23, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You're on page 100 where I am!


 
Page 100, fuck yea, it's confirmed, the LIBS ARE SHIT!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 23, 2010)

Im Jealous.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 23, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Im Jealous.


 
Hey Frog, don't feel bad, i believe you will get your turn fairly soon!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> So does he


eww! you revolting individual, you had to go there, didn't you?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 24, 2010)

\o/ page 100!

Indeed they are truly shit...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

Clegg last night had the sheer effrontery to claim the condems will increase social mobility
The bloke's beyond parody


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 24, 2010)

Feedback to that article online is almost universally hostile ...


----------



## ericjarvis (Nov 25, 2010)

Coming up...post #2500 on this thread. Can we make 5 thousand?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

yes we can


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Clegg last night had the sheer effrontery to claim the condems will increase social mobility


 
They will. Downwards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> They will. Downwards.


 
The question is: Will the descent remain at the same pitch as under "new" Labour, or will the decline become sharper?

I'm guessing, given the scope of the CSR cuts, and other policies that the coalition has, that it's the latter.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2010)

Anyone remember that astute commentator Julian Glovers spot-on advice to Nick Clegg:



> "Hug students close"



He's now been warned by his security team not to go cycling or he's likely to be physically attacked by students.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh but, of course, silly me, they're actually _stopping the tories from doing far worse_


 
I've got a great idea. Instead of forming a coalition with the Labour Party, we'll let the Tories have a crack at it and just water down the nastiness...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.



> However, I also believe that all of us involved in this debate have a greater responsibility to ensure that we do not let our genuinely held disagreements over policy mean that we sabotage an aim that we all share - to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university.
> 
> Like me I am sure you have regularly spoken to people who believe that the new proposals will mean them having to pay before they go to university or say that they cannot afford the fees. As you know, there is no upfront charge and the repayments only apply to graduates who earn over £21,000. If the proposals are passed by Parliament I believe it is crucial that all of us are able to ensure that people know the true picture.



And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.
> 
> 
> 
> And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.


 
Damn it, why didn't I think of that


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone remember that astute commentator Julian Glovers spot-on advice to Nick Clegg:
> 
> 
> 
> He's now been warned by his security team not to go cycling or he's likely to be physically attacked by students.


 
Great pic!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.
> 
> 
> 
> And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.


 
I hope someone punches him in the face.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

chilango said:


> Great pic!


I nicked it off Bone's blog


----------



## Quartz (Nov 30, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Clegg last night had the sheer effrontery to claim the condems will increase social mobility



Jebus. What utter crap Clegg's uttering.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

I thought he was in total control Quartz and cameron was in trouble?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 2, 2010)

on QT now. the man is a vacuous airheid who uses words in ways which defy comprehension.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 4, 2010)

Vince is now a one man coalition of all the diffent ideas in his head.


> In an interview published in the Richmond and Twickenham Times, Cable said he had "no doubt" that he should vote in favour of the fees rise, in an apparent reversal of his comments last week that he might abstain in next Thursday's vote. "Obviously I have a duty as a minister to vote for my own policy – and that is what will happen," Cable told the paper.
> 
> But last night the minister appeared to reverse his decision, when questioned about the local paper story on student radio. "I didn't announce anything. I think there might have been some slight misunderstanding," Cable said in the interview, which was also broadcast on the Today programme this morning.



What are the symptoms of senile dementia again?


----------



## Santino (Dec 6, 2010)

Opposing an increase to statutory maternity pay: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703377504575650882413327998.html

Because giving women on low pay more money is socially regressive if women on higher pay also receive more. 

Stupid cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2010)

"...secretly cutting funding for the disabled to get free walking sticks, wheelchairs and hearing aids."


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> "...secretly cutting funding for the disabled to get free walking sticks, wheelchairs and hearing aids."


 
Fucking hell, first the state declares everyone on sickness benefits well,  and now this!



> Former work and pensions secretary David Blunkett, himself blind, described the decision, coinciding with International Day of Disabled People yesterday, a disgrace. He added: “The Government is throwing new hurdles in the way of enabling disabled people – already four times as likely to be unemployed – to find work.”



I'm not sure how he's got the nerve to say anything, since Labour wanted to pretend that disabled people not being in work was their own fault when they were in power.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 6, 2010)

Lib Dem MP with sizeable student population in his constituency wants to delay the tuition fees vote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11927905

Meanwhile, another Lib Dem MP threatening to resign over it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11929128

Why not just get a fucking backbone and vote _against_


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 6, 2010)

But ... but ...


----------



## moochedit (Dec 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> "If we got Rage against the Machine to No. 1 we can get the lib dems to office"


 


killer b said:


> they did it too. they must be so proud.


 
Doesn't look like it. They've changed it to a closed members only page now (you have to request an admin to join)


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 6, 2010)

stephj said:


> Meanwhile, another Lib Dem MP threatening to resign over it:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11929128
> 
> Why not just get a fucking backbone and vote _against_


tbf, lib dem MPs who are also ministers have to resign if they vote against govt policy, so baker could be indeed growing a spine


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 6, 2010)

Yeah, see that. I think I've just got zero tolerance/patience with the Lib Dems over all this constant dilly-dallying - might vote against, might abstain, might for, might resign...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, lib dem MPs who are also ministers have to resign if they vote against govt policy, so baker could be indeed growing a spine


 
They don't _have_ to. It's the done thing in _single party_ govts though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 6, 2010)

stephj said:


> Yeah, see that. I think I've just got zero tolerance/patience with the Lib Dems over all this constant dilly-dallying - might vote against, might abstain, might for, might resign...


 
Some of that is not meant for our ears, but to send a message to those presenting this Bill that some little changes might persuade more LibDems to vote for it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They don't _have_ to. It's the done thing in _single party_ govts though.


 
Th PM would sack them if they didn't resign.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Th PM would sack them if they didn't resign.


 
He might, he might not. Considering the paucity of lib-dem MPs, and especially considering the paucity of talented or experienced lib-dem MPs plus the precarity of one component of the coalition govt this is not something that should just be assumed would happen.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 6, 2010)

It's inconcievable to imagine that a PM could retain a Minister who has voted against the government's policy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2010)

I just conceived of how it's possible. In that post that you're replying to.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I just conceived of how it's possible. In that post that you're replying to.


 
Not really clever, butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2010)

Well done there, you almost sustained a discussion over more than two posts. So close!

It's quite simple, ministers resigning if they vote against govt legislation is mere convention, and it's mere convention that developed out of single party govts where the need for a united face was seen to be paramount. In a coalition govt reliant on keeping the lib-dems propped up and feeling like they're getting something out of it the resignation of an unknown minor or junior minister might well be overlooked for the sake of the bigger picture. That's what politics is like - it's doesn't operate on any principle other than self-preservation - if the judgment is that a convention needs to be ignored for this to take place then that will happen.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 6, 2010)

It would be an interesting Cabinet meeting next day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> It's inconcievable to imagine that a PM could retain a Minister who has voted against the government's policy.


 
how the fuck is it inconceivable to imagine that? it's a fucking piece of piss to imagine such a situation. you have no imagination, lock&light.

now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 7, 2010)

I've tried to imagine a useful post from Pickman's model, but I'm afraid that is beyond me.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.


 
Not in Hebden Bridge it isn't.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They don't _have_ to. It's the done thing in _single party_ govts though.


Yes, I can see why it usually applies to single party govts, but I would have thought it would also apply to coalitions, or otherwise, any minority party minister can break ranks  any time s/he chose, without comeback. I also thought not having that convention (i.e. you can't vote down govt policy and stay a minister) would cause huge problems with govt members of the larger party in coalition, who would see that as unrerasonable and unfair? especially as its' their policy at risk?
so are you saying that the fragility of the coalition, the need to keep their stooges onside, and the overriding priority given to maintaining the majority (and the govt) means that the leader of the larger party would be prepared to overlook the occasional minister breaking ranks to vote against govt policy?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2010)

Yes


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He might, he might not. Considering the paucity of lib-dem MPs, and especially considering the paucity of talented or experienced lib-dem MPs plus the precarity of one component of the coalition govt this is not something that should just be assumed would happen.


Apols! I didn't see this answer before asking the questions in my last post, so feel free to negotiate the answer between the two, as it were. Let's say however that the fragility of the coalition (and the majority), and the need to keep LDs sweet drove the PM to overlook a minister voting against coalition publicity; wouldn't his own party's ministers and backbenchers go apeshit? And wouldn't it have all the makings of a spinners'/press nightmare?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2010)

I think they'd swallow it as well.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes


apols for confusion created by me not seeing your earlier answer before posting - see post 2527 for where I see the problem with that


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think they'd swallow it as well.


really? THAT shamelessly? That really will take front.
 must admit, I'd've thought it would cause a near-riot
e2a: actually, that's what I hope will happen, at some stage in the coalition, simply for the sheer fun of seeing them talk their way through that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2010)

What other option have they?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What other option have they?


well, If by 'they' you mean 'the tories', the only other one is to tough it out with the Libdems, insist on collective responsibility/toeing a joint policy line, even at the price of ministerial resignations, and risk everything on it not breaking the coalition (in other words, on clegg & co blinking first).
Catch 22; they either give a green light to mass libdem rebellion at any time, putting (in theory) any govt policy 100% at risk of being voted down....or they risk EVERY policy, by risking the abrupt end of the coalition


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 8, 2010)

Nick Clegg interview on Five Live now.


----------



## belboid (Dec 8, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Nick Clegg interview on Five Live now.


 
the first words I heard him say were 'with little baby dragons'

Sadly, it turned out to be Radio 4.  But it was a lot more interesting than the crap he is coming out with now


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2010)

Apologies if this has been posted already. 

Tuition fees could still be out of next Lib Dem manifesto, claims MP



> Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat MP and party president who rebelled in the tuition fees vote, says the next Lib Dem manifesto could still contain a renewed pledge to abolish tuition fees in some form.



Yes really.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

I really hope it is, everyone would piss themselves laughing.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

Simon Hughes, my local MP and the deputy leader of the LibDem party has just said on Radio's 4 World at One: 'I _wish _I could have voted against the fees rise.' What a loser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> Simon Hughes, my local MP and the deputy leader of the LibDem party has just said on Radio's 4 World at One: 'I _wish _I could have voted against the fees rise.' What a loser.


 
it was a straight choice and he fluffed it


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

he also mentioned that he is unsure about the _control orders_. he may have to vote against abolishing them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> he also mentioned that he is unsure about the _control orders_. he may have to vote against abolishing them.


for the straight candidate he is rather twisty and turny


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

_straight_  i see what you did there.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

Hughes started it! 

Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:



> Mr Clegg has traded for too long on platitudes about fairness and what it means to be "progressive". That phase is over. He can still prove that Britain is better off with Lib Dems in government, but only by the old-fashioned method of delivering liberal policies. His claim to represent "new politics" is dead.


----------



## binka (Dec 12, 2010)

sunday mirror today had an article about clegg being lined up to be britain's next eu commissioner 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...may-have-to-leg-it-to-the-eu-115875-22777683/
good to see the pic of sad nick making another appearance.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.



what an extraordinary imagination you have!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

andrew Rawnsley actually nailed it quite well in today's Observer The tories really are getting the best of this


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

copliker said:


> Apologies if this has been posted already.
> 
> Tuition fees could still be out of next Lib Dem manifesto, claims MP
> Yes really.


 
christ alive, is Farron currently orbiting Mars or summink? 
These people have completely lost touch with reality!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hughes started it!
> 
> Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:


 
They make it pretty clear that they still support the Lib Dems and their participation in the coalition:



> This newspaper supported Nick Clegg's party at the last election, not because of their pledges on higher education, but on the grounds that a substantial Lib Dem presence in parliament would make more likely the enactment of a wide range of liberal policies and a definitive break from the tribal duopoly of British politics.
> 
> The crisis around tuition fees should not prevent the Lib Dems from driving that agenda further. There are key battles to be won on restoring civil liberties and modernising Britain's constitution, reforming the voting system and the House of Lords. Meanwhile, a Conservative backlash is brewing against plans drawn up by Ken Clarke for a more enlightened prison policy. The Lib Dems should be reinforcing the Tory justice secretary's position. Next year, the Lib Dems must lobby more effectively for budget changes that clearly benefit the many not the few.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

Sure, they're not going to abandon them, but an editorial with that tone would have been impossible at any point from the election up until last week. For the spineless morons who decide on what the line will be that constitutes a very definite change in approach -from the lib-dems participation _reflecting_ modern liberal values blah blah blah to demanding that continued participation takes place on a _return to_ liberal values blah blah blah


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

Could be that they are responding to the growing anger/unease of their readers. after all, all sensible publishers keep themselves attuned with their readership, for fear of haemorrhaging circulation


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hughes started it!
> 
> Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:


I don't know if it's just my mental filters working spectacularly well, but Glover seems to have had much less presence for the last few weeks. They do seem to have come through a mildly apologetic stage to a more outright critical stance.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 13, 2010)

Alastair Campbell did a drawing for the Great Ormond Street Hospital hare styling draw: 







http://www.harestyling.com/canvas/alastair-campbell/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Here's a masterpiece of self-delusion that i meed last week - and this sort of stuff seems increasingly prevalent amongst these clowns - what's even better is that it comes from one of the 'good' lib-dems, one of the ones people on the left here thought might be on their side, Evan Harris

If you want to get rid of fees vote more Lib Dems into power



> If you want to get rid of tuition fees, the answer is to vote more liberal democrats into power, not less, because the only way… If you want to get rid of tuition fees realistically the only way to do it…
> 
> “If students want to get rid of tuition fees it’s more Liberal Democrats they need, not Tory and Labour.


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

Yeah, Harris has been shit - he's had a few pieces like that in the Guardian recently. I briefly regretted not registering to vote for him when that rabid Tory took his seat, but not any more. Fuck him. Fuck them. Oh, they are fucked. Jolly good.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Pupil premium an actual cut:



> Nick Clegg confirms for the first time in a letter to the shadow schools secretary Andy Burnham, seen by the Guardian, that the government is protecting per-pupil funding only in cash terms, not real terms, a de facto cut of millions of pounds.


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

Cutting funding to the poorest council areas whilst increasing it for the richest is the new definition of fairness.



> The councils that face the biggest cuts are still overwhelmingly the poorest in the country, including many London boroughs and northern towns. In contrast, many of the "shire" councils face negligible cuts. Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Manchester, Rochdale, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Doncaster and South Tyneside are among the 36 local authorities that take the maximum cut of 8.9%.
> 
> Meanwhile, Dorset gets a 0.25% increase in funding and Windsor and Maidenhead, West Sussex, Wokingham, Richmond upon Thames and Buckinghamshire all get cuts of 1% or below.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/13/eric-pickles-council-budget-cuts?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Yep, Eric Pickles’ cuts target Britain’s poorest areas 



> In London, there is a strong correlation between the two variables. Poor areas like Hackney (-8.9%), Newham (-8.9%), Tower Hamlets (-8.9%), and Islington (-8.8%) find themselves with the deepest cuts while richer areas like Richmond (-0.61%), Havering (-1.71%), and Harrow (-1.9%) are best off.



...and this is their first toe in the water.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> "In contrast, many of the "shire" councils face negligible cuts"


 
Hamp(shire) is facing 14% cuts in the first year!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

buckinghamshire nhs is facing cuts despite being 16% below the national average funding


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 14, 2010)

Why are the Lib Dems shit? Because the NHS isn't safe in their hands.

Revised inflation estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility, combined with increasing health care demands at both ends of the population age spectrum, and the knock on effects of cuts to local authority social care budgets, will see the NHS 'enjoy' shrinking real expenditure over this parliament.

So much for the coalition's promise 'that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms'.

Who will pay for this broken promise? Generally all of us, as service delivery is squeezed and cut. In particular NHS staff who are seeing their wages effectively reduced by a so called pay freeze.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Smug lib-dem face, coat and cafe



Colin Firth: I no longer support the Liberal Democrats


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2010)

good stuff , 35 pages to go for me still, unfortunately


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Travel grant for poorest pupils may be scrapped



> The government is considering abolishing a £20m grant that has helped the poorest pupils afford the cost of travelling to school, it emerged today.
> 
> Michael Gove, the education secretary, appearing before the Commons education select committee, also admitted there will not be a real-terms rise in school budgets, as he had previously claimed. The travel grant is given to pupils in primary and secondary schools and sixth-form colleges who cannot afford their daily bus fare or train journey. These pupils go to schools and colleges some distance from their homes for reasons of religious faith or to study particular subjects.



+EMA going. Forget it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2010)

This is all part of a deliberate plan to exclude a section of the working class from education - they despise us this much.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

They don't just have to travel for religious faith or particular subjects! They have to travel because their local schools have been hijacked by the middle-classes. There was a documentary recently - can't remember who fronted it - which went to a 'sink' school in Wimbledon where pupils were being bused in from miles around.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Travel grant for poorest pupils may be scrapped
> 
> 
> 
> +EMA going. Forget it.


 
This means fucking war.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

For cutting 19 minute response targets for the ambulance service in order to make their coming cuts appear less damaging.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 15, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This is all part of a deliberate plan to exclude a section of the working class from education - they despise us this much.



Yep they do. Also, they appear to want the lower middle classes out of universities as well as working classes. I think they only want those that can afford private schools in Universities now.


----------



## Bethany_Vile (Dec 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> good stuff , 35 pages to go for me still, unfortunately


 About 100 plus and i have to go to work in a minute!


----------



## Maidmarian (Dec 15, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Yep they do. Also, they appear to want the lower middle classes out of universities as well as working classes. I think they only want those that can afford private schools in Universities now.



Yep. No room at the top you see !


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

*Control Orders*

This is what the lib-dems said in their manifesto regarding Control Orders:



> Scrap control orders, which can use secret evidence to place people under house arrest.



This is them attacking the tories before the election for *"saying one thing, voting another way"* on the use of Control Orders.



> You can’t get much clearer than that, can you? “Morally objectionable”, “deny due process”, “costly” (in reverse order of Tory concerns, I suspect). The trouble is, Baroness Neville-Jones’s words do not match the Tories’ actions.
> 
> You see, Parliament has to vote to renew control orders every year – and, in 2007, the Tories voted for their renewal.



Can anyone guess what their position is today?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is what the lib-dems said in their manifesto regarding Control Orders:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
barking


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Can anyone guess what their position is today?


all over the place, as with everything else, and preparing to use the anti-terror review (publication in december?) as cover to queitly u-turn


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

Well well.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

...and i'm holding back on the u-turn on the Green Bank commitment as well...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2010)

nice one. I googled roughly the same thing! interesting they now apparenly _won't_ publish the review until after christmas (it said on the beeb link)


----------



## ymu (Dec 15, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Yep they do. Also, they appear to want the lower middle classes out of universities as well as working classes. I think they only want those that can afford private schools in Universities now.


 
They certainly don't want any graduates who can afford to work for the public sector...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 15, 2010)

I don't know. I think there's an argument to be made that creating new sources of debt is in the interests of finance capital and hence of our present government. After all, one of the causes of the recent financial crisis was arguably lack of good investment opportunities to absorb all the extra profits that have been mounting up since Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan (and the movement they represented) started rolling back the post-war progressive gains. 

Looked at as an opportunity to invest, vastly increased student debt (as long as most of them eventually pay it back) probably does seem like a good thing to them in and of itself, to say nothing of any social engineering effects.


----------



## ymu (Dec 15, 2010)

That's absolutely true. A graduate tax would come in at about 3%, loan repayments come in at 9%, albeit for 'only' 30 years instead of 40 odd (the 30 lowest earning years, but only if you're not earning enough to pay it back quicker, so the highest earners pay back less than they would with a graduate tax and the rest pay more). The extra money paid back is interest - interest paid to a student loans company which Osborne is privatising (can't be keeping assets that make money for the state, any more than we can be employing tax inspectors, now can we?).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

There's a fascinating interview with Silivia Federici here (despite the wanky title) that contains a brief discussion about the uses of student debt in the US system as a weapon of social control and planned insecurity as well as it's potential strategic use as a unifying _social_ demand i.e



> Indebtedness is already a site of struggle, but until now, at least in the US, it is a struggle that has taken place silently, under the radar, articulated through hidden forms of resistance, escape, and defaults, rather than an open confrontation. The default rate on federal student loans is continuing to rise, especially at for-profit colleges where it has topped 11.6%.
> ...
> 
> A key step towards it is an education campaign about the nature of debt as a political instrument of discipline, dispelling the assumption of individual responsibility and demonstrating its collective dimension. The moralism that has been accumulated over the question of indebtedness must be exposed. Acquiring a degree is not a luxury but a necessity in a context where for years education has been proclaimed at the highest institutional levels as the fault line between prosperity and a life of poverty and subordination. But if education is a must for future employment, it means that employers are the beneficiaries of it. From this viewpoint, student debt is a work issue that unions should take on, and not academic unions alone. Teachers too should join a debt abolition movement, for they are on the frontline: they must save appearances and pretend that for the university, cultural formation is of the essence. Yet, they have to accommodate to profitability requirements, like oversized classes, the gutting of departments, overworked students, carrying at times two or three jobs. Debt is also a unifying demand; it is everybody’s condition in the working class worldwide. Credit card debt, mortgage debt, medical debt: across the world, for decades now, every cut in people’s wages and entitlements has been made in the name of a debt crisis. Debt, therefore, is a universal signifier and a terrain on which a re-composition of the global work force can begin.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 15, 2010)

Yep, that's what I meant about 'social engineering' above more or less.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

Clegg humilated and branded a liar over the forgemaster loan by _his own_ Commons committee. 

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee composed of six coalition to four labour members - report in full here.


----------



## where to (Dec 15, 2010)

http://twitter.com/LibDemFailLolz

This thread is gold.  Anyone want a p/w we can post up these titbits.  Will take off imo.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2010)

Because Danny Alexander is giving transport secretary Phillip Hammond the thumbs up over privatisation of the Coast Guard service.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2010)

they actually want to privatise everything. EVERYTHING. cunts


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

I wonder what Mr Richard Dawkins as someone with an admirable interest in getting the wider public involved in academic study thinks of the lib-dems today?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2010)

Dawkie is Lib-Dem? I thought he was New Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Nope, celeb lib-dem now - or then at least.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2010)

Well, that mutation wasn't very adaptive.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Very good!


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2010)

They do have selfish genes though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Rebranding Child detention



> Nick Clegg was accused of "rebranding detention" by children's groups concerned over his plans to hold the children of failed asylum seekers in supervised accommodation as an alternative to immigration detention centres.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Selling off 2% of bristol green (read common) land.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Child poverty to worsen under coalition, says IFS



> But the IFS said it expected both absolute and relative poverty among children and working-age adults to rise between the 2010-11 and 2013-14 financial years.
> 
> "Among all children and working-age individuals, we forecast a rise in relative poverty of about 800,000 and a rise in absolute poverty of about 900,000 between 2010-11 and 2013-14," said Robert Joyce, author of the IFS report.
> 
> ...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 16, 2010)

"increasing social mobility" - moon23, December 2010.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 16, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> "increasing social mobility" - moon23, December 2010.


 
Guess he forgot to mention it's all in one direction ... down.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Attempting to water down anti-banker bonus regulation.


----------



## Edie (Dec 17, 2010)

I really don't think anyone could of been more _right_ about anything as you were about the Lib Dems  And I bloody voted for them


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Attempting to water down anti-banker bonus regulation.


oh, what a surprise - not!


----------



## strung out (Dec 18, 2010)




----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 18, 2010)

In Sheffield the Lib Dems are so committed to consultation that they've just abandoned it; consultation procedures much trumpeted in the authority's Sheffield Compact have been ditched, so that 15% cuts to the voluntary sector can be pushed through for the coming year (these are disproportionate to the 28% overall budget cuts handed down from central government over the next three years).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## audiotech (Dec 18, 2010)




----------



## cointreauman (Dec 18, 2010)

audiotech said:


>




Love it and sending link to all the suck arse LDs I know

C


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2010)

This is how you cut back on public spending via cuts - unemployment goes up, tax revenue goes down, more is paid out in social security, less is spent on shops and serives, more unemployed = public borrowing higher than expected at £23.3bn - up from £17.4bn in same period last year. Of course, for these winter-fuel allowance cutting fuckwits this can only mean one thing - the cuts haven't been deep or broad enough.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Child poverty to worsen under coalition, says IFS


 
Don't worry, they'll just change the definition of poverty to make it seem better.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 21, 2010)

Edie said:


> I really don't think anyone could of been more _right_ about anything as you were about the Lib Dems  And I bloody voted for them


 
My sister did too, whilst having a go at me not for voting and saying she was voting libdem because "we can't let the tories in"  all round.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> My sister did too, whilst having a go at me not for voting and saying she was voting libdem because "we can't let the tories in"  all round.


She shouldn't blame herself. To a large swathe of the voters, especially those who are understandably disgusted with Labour but can't bear the thought of a Tory govt - they sounded _incredibly_ plausible and credible. Fortunately, you can only really play that trick once.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is how you cut back on public spending via cuts - unemployment goes up, tax revenue goes down, more is paid out in social security, less is spent on shops and serives, more unemployed = public borrowing higher than expected at £23.3bn - up from £17.4bn in same period last year. Of course, for these winter-fuel allowance cutting fuckwits this can only mean one thing - the cuts haven't been deep or broad enough.


a repeat of the early 1990s all over again, with the exception that Clarke was more of a keynesianite reflationist


----------



## Santino (Dec 21, 2010)

Cutting finding to the census so that urban consituencies are under-represented and receive less funding.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 22, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

You are dead you book cutting freaks.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2010)

it get's worse. they really are weird, deceptive fantasists,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12064969


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.

"She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


----------



## Athos (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.



That actually makes me feel sick.


----------



## embree (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


 
She didn't join the government and vote through new repressive measures in the name of fighting apartheid though


----------



## Combustible (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


 
I'm actually getting worried that the Lib Dems might believe this nonsense.


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


 
I suppose calling himself (the more appropriate) a kind of Pik Botha wouldn't have gone down that well.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

Combustible said:


> I'm actually getting worried that the Lib Dems might believe this nonsense.


what's the betting Moon23 is here, spinning away madly, and attempting to explain away this latest unholy f-up within 1 page of your post?


----------



## Santino (Dec 23, 2010)

The Guardian has taken this opportunity to remind its readers that David Cameron visited South Africa in 1989 on a jolly paid for by an anti-sanctions lobby group.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


 
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*picks self up off the floor*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Remind me, did she join the National party govts?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Taking advantage of the weather to deliver their shit leaflets when they know there's no one out and about.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Here be rats


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Fm dug this out at the start of the year:



> Speaking to Liberal Democrat activists last night, Mr Clegg, blamed Baroness Thatcher for creating a "brutal" and "soulless" Britain, and condemned the former leader for her brand of "cut-throat, sink-or-swim materialism"...
> 
> ..."When the right won out, the reality was brutal," he said in a speech ahead of the Liberal Democrats' spring conference in Harrogate. "I remember very distinctly this sense that we were being told we should all place money above morality; put profit ahead of people; that we shouldn't worry about selling out. Because, at the end of the day, there was no such thing as society. But I looked around me and thought: no, there has to be more to life than this. There is more to us than this. Justice, fairness, community. We weren't ready to give in to that soulless, unforgiving Britain. That dog-eat-dog, get-rich-quick, look-after-number-one Britain. We didn't want to live in Thatcher's Britain.
> 
> "The false idols of trickle-down economics worshipped by Tories and New Labour alike have turned to dust."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Says it all:



> Oliver Letwin, the government's policy chief, today launches a passionate defence of the coalition, hailing "the deep bonds of trust formed" between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and asserting that _the two parties together have achieved more in the first months than would have been possible under a Tory government with a small majority._


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 23, 2010)

The 'off the record'  ministers, following their apologies and retractions, are now damaged goods (in terms of any authority they might claim as principled politicians); the Conservative leadership must be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of having these whipping boys to hand for the next four and a bit years. Full steam ahead!

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

blimey, the rtories are getting their token 'sophisticated intellectual' out to shore the libs up! they are RATTLED!


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2010)

In a generous and brave attempt to stop Nick Clegg looking the biggest twat in Sheffield (if not the country), council leader Paul Scriven has kindly put himself forward for the position, with his appearance for a promo video for the hotel hosting the Liberal Scum conference next year.

(Please ensure there is something soft between your chin and the floor before watching, as I wouldn't want anything to get broken)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Oh wow. He's almost got grinning picannies.


----------



## Voley (Dec 23, 2010)

Jesus.


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2010)

The staff shown are actually real staff.  The poor cunts.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 26, 2010)

They did a good job of playing along with that degrading mess whilst also managing to look faintly embarrassed.  

That was really quite hellish.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the conversations, Mr Baker likened himself to Helen Suzman, the South African MP who fought the apartheid regime.
> 
> "She got stuck in there in the South African parliament in the apartheid days as the only person there to oppose it... she stood up and championed that from inside," he said.


 
jesus wept


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)

Jon-of-arc said:


> They did a good job of playing along with that degrading mess whilst also managing to look faintly embarrassed.
> 
> That was really quite hellish.


 
very alan patridge in places.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 26, 2010)

belboid said:


> In a generous and brave attempt to stop Nick Clegg looking the biggest twat in Sheffield (if not the country), council leader Paul Scriven has kindly put himself forward for the position, with his appearance for a promo video for the hotel hosting the Liberal Scum conference next year.
> 
> (Please ensure there is something soft between your chin and the floor before watching, as I wouldn't want anything to get broken)




Jesus, is that real?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

That, is real.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 26, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2010)

No,


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 26, 2010)

belboid said:


> The staff shown are actually real staff.  The poor cunts.


 
And i bet their all on minimum wage


----------



## killer b (Dec 26, 2010)

sweet jesus. that's incredible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)

imagining scriven guiltily ordering a late nigh tug film on this expense bills at the hotel...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 26, 2010)

belboid said:


> In a generous and brave attempt to stop Nick Clegg looking the biggest twat in Sheffield (if not the country), council leader Paul Scriven has kindly put himself forward for the position, with his appearance for a promo video for the hotel hosting the Liberal Scum conference next year.
> 
> (Please ensure there is something soft between your chin and the floor before watching, as I wouldn't want anything to get broken)




You people should be thankful for small mercies. That video at least has some creativity and wit. Here in Canada, we are treated to seeing our Conservative Prime Minister singing Jumpin' Jack Flash.


----------



## cointreauman (Dec 27, 2010)

Oh dear - Scriven you total twat

My first reraction when I saw this pile of shite was "Fuck Me Noooooooo"

People of Sheffield - you have nothing to lose except your integrity - You will be able to cease this prick's nonsense in 2011......

C


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

Another u-turn



> A commitment to a free vote is in the coalition agreement but is not seen as a priority given bigger issues relating to the economy and public services.



Watch this 'not seen as' gain momentum. Odd that to the lib-dems the agreement _was_ seen as sacrosanct. You fucking double mugs - and we pay.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

I feel quite sick. In the bad way.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 27, 2010)

Didn't they try this before with the spending challenge?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Didn't they try this before with the spending challenge?


 
They all got caught lying though


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 27, 2010)

what a surprise


----------



## Santino (Dec 27, 2010)

Just the thing to counter the internet-savvy kind of protesters who recently annoyed them. There is literally no way this can go wrong.


----------



## Bear (Dec 27, 2010)

It totally is.

The public can understand that they can't have all the Lib Dem manifesto, but the Lib Dems went much further than merely putting no tuition fees in their manifesto.  Every single one of the personally and very publicly pledged to vote against any increase in tuition fees.  That's way beyond a manifesto commitment, it is a promise to their constituents from them as an individual.  A person's word is their bond - at least an honourable person's word is. If Clegg and Cable really couldn't keep their promise due to events outside their control then they should have done the honourable thing and resigned, they could have fought to keep their seats in the ensuing by-elections if they wanted.  But they didn't, and they're not honourable.

I'm looking forward to seeing that lying party get a kicking in the Scottish Parliament elections, and I used to be a card carrying Lib Dem...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2011)

I've got a killer one, i just can't post it yet.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I feel quite sick. In the bad way.



Patrick Wintour is being SUCH a fackin spindoctor for the 'coalition' right now. Pissing me off massive time. Not all Graun people are quite so blatant, but he in particular is a total embarassment at the mo IMO.

As for that linked Sheffield vid, I can't even contemplate trying to watch it for now, I blame excessive NYE beer for my cowardice ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2011)

Bear said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing that lying party get a kicking in the Scottish Parliament elections, and I used to be a card carrying Lib Dem...



Don't have to wait quite so long outside Scotland. Oldham East and Saddleworth here we come ....  

(And Patrick Wintour's been spinning hard for the Lib Dems in his 'report' for that one too ... 

(At least Martin Wainwright, an actual Northerner, was a little bit better -- all the same, even he was still too 'objective'/'evenhanded'  about the likely outcome .....)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2011)

Excellent, amongst those shortlisted for the lib-dems official and oh so _prestigious_ 'liberal of the year' award are David Cameron and Ken Clarke...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 4, 2011)

and Cameron is winning!


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 4, 2011)

As time passes the separate identitys are fadeing the lib dems will cease to be ,and history tells of the demise of the liberals


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

Just a little reminder:







Clegg said at the time:



> "We see absolutely no reason to raise VAT because we have done our homework, we have identified where money can be generated and where money can be saved."



He might not even have been lying for once at that point. The circa £12 billion that this regressive tax increase is expected to raise is only neeeded to cover the £12 billion worth of tax cuts Clegg and Cameron gave their mates.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

Last week:

Clegg wins control order victory

This week 

oops, no i didn't,


----------



## mauvais (Jan 4, 2011)

Nice one-two. I was just going to post that. Didn't see the earlier article.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 5, 2011)

On the plus side, Clegg quite possibly has Cameron by the balls: it's mutually assured destruction if the LDs quit the alliance. Of course, this presupposes that Clegg has the wit to realise this and the talent to use it to his advantage. Alas, the perks of office are sweet indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Quartz said:


> On the plus side, Clegg quite possibly has Cameron by the balls: it's mutually assured destruction if the LDs quit the alliance. Of course, this presupposes that Clegg has the wit to realise this and the talent to use it to his advantage. Alas, the perks of office are sweet indeed.


 
Why are you so mental?


----------



## Quartz (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you so mental?



Which bit of 'Of course, this presupposes that Clegg has the wit to realise this and the talent to use it to his advantage' did you miss? Do you  deny that the ConDems would lose big if an election were held now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

I didnt miss any of it. Saying something mental like "Clegg quite possibly has Cameron by the balls" stands on its own. Your mad idea that this is the truth and may be manipulated by Clegg if he gets  his skates on has nothing to do with me. It's your responsibility.

Your last line appears to have nothing to with anything either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Last week:
> 
> Clegg wins control order victory
> 
> ...



Yeah, i really didn't mean that.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 6, 2011)

It seems like only yesterday that any time Clegg returned to his constituency town of Sheffield, he would be paraded in front of the (Lib-Dem controlled) town hall and greeted by hoards of cheering local well wishers.

His latest visit to the Town hall (to meet with Lib Dem Cllrs yesterday) was kept secret, but word got out and an impromptu demo ensued - Clegg was quietly whisked away in his car looking worried. And he should be. (full story)


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 6, 2011)

Quartz said:


> On the plus side, Clegg quite possibly has Cameron by the balls: it's mutually assured destruction if the LDs quit the alliance. Of course, this presupposes that Clegg has the wit to realise this and the talent to use it to his advantage. Alas, the perks of office are sweet indeed.


No he doesn't; if the coalition breaks up and the govt falls, Cameron may be able to run in a GE on a "this is a national emergency, so give us the majority necessary to do the job properly, as you can't trust Labour after they got the nation's finances into this mess", whilst also blaming the libdems for the govt's fall. the LDs however, would be annihilated at the GE, absolutely no doubts. And both men know this.
I'm not saying such a strategy would automatically pay off, but it would prolly be worth the risk, in Cameron's eyes.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 6, 2011)

Quartz said:


> Which bit of 'Of course, this presupposes that Clegg has the wit to realise this and the talent to use it to his advantage' did you miss? Do you  deny that the ConDems would lose big if an election were held now?


 
That's exactly what they want you to think you fucking pawn.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 6, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No he doesn't; if the coalition breaks up and the govt falls, Cameron may be able to run in a GE on a "this is a national emergency, so give us the majority necessary to do the job properly, as you can't trust Labour after they got the nation's finances into this mess", whilst also blaming the libdems for the govt's fall. the LDs however, would be annihilated at the GE, absolutely no doubts. And both men know this.
> I'm not saying such a strategy would automatically pay off, but it would prolly be worth the risk, in Cameron's eyes.


 
If the LibDem vote totally disintigrates, it will improve Labour's chances more than the Tories. IMO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2011)

i wonder why that could be


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 6, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> If the LibDem vote totally disintigrates, it will improve Labour's chances more than the Tories. IMO.


quite possibly, but not enough to make GE victory impossible for the tories


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> quite possibly, but not enough to make GE victory impossible for the tories


 
there'd just need to be a campaign of assassination of tory candidates. after the first six deaths i think you'd find a sudden reluctance on the part of the remainder to stand.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jan 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> there'd just need to be a campaign of assassination of tory candidates. after the first six deaths i think you'd find a sudden reluctance on the part of the remainder to stand.


 
I don't like that idea. What about all the people who would like to assasinate a tory candidate and wouldn't get the chance? It should be all 600 plus on the same day. Let us all have a go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I don't like that idea. What about all the people who would like to assasinate a tory candidate and wouldn't get the chance? It should be all 600 plus on the same day. Let us all have a go.


 
if it's the same day as local elections there'll be enough candidates for everyone.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 7, 2011)

belboid said:


> In a generous and brave attempt to stop Nick Clegg looking the biggest twat in Sheffield (if not the country), council leader Paul Scriven has kindly put himself forward for the position, with his appearance for a promo video for the hotel hosting the Liberal Scum conference next year.
> 
> (Please ensure there is something soft between your chin and the floor before watching, as I wouldn't want anything to get broken)




Apparently Paul Scriven was treated to a rendition of 'Perfect Day' from the public gallery and Labour members at this weeks full council meeting.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> there'd just need to be a campaign of assassination of tory candidates. after the first six deaths i think you'd find a sudden reluctance on the part of the remainder to stand.


 I must admit, I'm quite taken by this idea


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 7, 2011)

This been posted yet:



> The YouGov poll for The Sun newspaper gave the Conservatives a 39% approval rating, 43% for Labour and* 7% *for the Liberal Democrats


----------



## Santino (Jan 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This been posted yet:


 
Over in the other thread it has  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-in-Sunday-Times-You-Gov-poll-(update-now-10-)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

Here's some good news from the lib-dems on the civil liberties front:



> The government is to tighten up the rules that allow councils to seize empty homes, claiming the current system, introduced under Labour, infringes civil liberties
> 
> Local authorities will have to wait two years before attempting to take charge of an empty property, instead of the present six months, and they will only be able to seize buildings that are run-down "vandal magnets".
> 
> ...



Hurrah for liberty!


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2011)

Yeah, Pickles thinks councils have been far too heavy handed - by seizing a grand total of 44 houses in four years.

The twat


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 7, 2011)

that change to the rules on housing makes my blood boil 
these people simply have no fucking idea


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

Removing employment rights in the name of liberty - the bosses liberty.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

Nick Clegg caught lying again on R4 this morning.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 10, 2011)

Whatever happened to moon?  Did he get sick of having his idiocy pointed out?


----------



## Santino (Jan 10, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Whatever happened to moon?  Did he get sick of having his idiocy pointed out?


 
He foolishly promised never to leave and after that he had no choice but to go.


----------



## ymu (Jan 10, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

Look at this weaseling from Clegg (1pm/8.47):



> Nick Clegg has said dismissed suggestions that the Lib Dems face a wipeout in the May local elections. "The idea that we are giving up is an absolute nonsense. We've got a lot of good things to say come May," he said in an interview on the Today programme. (See 8.47am.)



You weren't asked if you are 'giving up' you devious freak. It was put to you that you're heading for an electoral wipeout - not that you're 'giving up'.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg caught lying again on R4 this morning.


 
Jesus, even slower-than-slow Flanders has managed to work out that there isn't a sovreign debt crisis for the UK...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

Oh dear, Clegg caught out lying for the 2nd time in day (albeit on the same program - concentrated lying), this time even more shockingly. He'd do well not to take on Faisel Islam:



> <snip the bit where he's caught red-handed>
> 
> So, in his attempt to appeal to our alarm clock instincts, the DPM either mis-spoke, or he told the truth, in which case he appears to have substantially widened the deficit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

Lib-dem manifesto:



> Ensure that the bonus system can never again encourage banks to behave in a way that puts the financial system at risk or offers rewards for failure.





> Doesn’t it make you angry that the banks have been allowed to ride roughshod over our economy, and are still handing out bonuses by the bucket load?



Tonight:

Banks given go-ahead to pay unlimited bonuses



> Britain's banks were given the go-ahead tonight to pay unlimited bonuses, drawing to a close a two-year political battle to rein in the City.
> 
> After months in which a series of government ministers of all parties have threatened a toughening in the stance over City bonuses, Downing Street said the government did not intend to intervene in the pay of the UK's top bankers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 11, 2011)

Fucked up again the scumbags


> Nick Clegg was embroiled in a row on the eve of his final visit to the Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection amid allegations that the Liberal Democrats may have broken strict electoral rules.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

Two lies, one u-turn and a breaking of the rules in one day (and the last fuck up was a lie as well, see Pickles making it even harder for councils to take back empty properties). 

What a shambles.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

Another lib-dem u-turn - (from The Times so behind paywall):



> For the Lib Dems, it is becoming increasingly clear that the perceived lack of independence is turning into a disaster. And slowly but surely, Mr Clegg is shifting strategy. To begin with, the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised that his party would "own" everything that the coalition did ... Now a subtle but important change is under way. Senior Liberal Democrats have started to emphasise with more and more vigour their areas of disagreement with Conservative colleagues. On bank bonuses, control orders, electoral reform and the House of Lords, Mr Clegg has begun to emphasise his own distinct agenda.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2011)

they're all over the shop. cracks have to start appearing in the coalition - not just itsy-bitsy lines, but whopping great, government-rocking, revolt-fuelling cracks


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2011)

Anyone got a picture of Cable's face during Osborne's statement about bankers' bonuses this afternoon?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> they're all over the shop. cracks have to start appearing in the coalition - not just itsy-bitsylines, but whopping great, government-rocking, revolt-fuelling cracks



It's like watching a train crash in very slow motion.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 11, 2011)

Much underpublicised** recent polls for Thursday's upcoming Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election

**Not least by much of the Guardia's own 'far too close to call'  'coverage' of it so far 

If those polls are even half way accurate, the Lib Dems are going to get fuckin steamrollered  

(Was going to post on the Woollas/by-election-specific thread, but that seems to have sunk a long long way down ...  )


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Anyone got a picture of Cable's face during Osborne's statement about bankers' bonuses this afternoon?


 
Why? Was his head split open with an axe on live TV? If not, I don't care.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Much underpublicised** recent polls for Thursday's upcoming Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election
> 
> **Not least by much of the Guardia's own 'far too close to call'  'coverage' of it so far
> 
> ...


 
The trouble with the article that this links to is that it gives a free reign to Milliband to make out that this is somehow a referendum on the coalition without him actually saying what Labour would have done differently. this is the same Milliband who has urged for strikes not to take place against the cuts.

The smart money is on lab/Lib dems/Tories in that order


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Another lib-dem lie? Lord Oakeshott, the Libdem Treasury spokesman claimed on newsnight yesterday that Cable had personally asked Bob Diamond to forgo his bonus. Bob Diamond in his testimony to the Treasury select committee yesterday said that no one at all from the govt has asked him to do so. One of them is lying.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Another lib-dem lie? Lord Oakeshott, the Libdem Treasury spokesman claimed on newsnight yesterday that Cable had personally asked Bob Diamond to forgo his bonus. Bob Diamond in his testimony to the Treasury select committee yesterday said that no one at all from the govt has asked him to do so. One of them is lying.


 
Oakeshoot seemed to think that Diamond was specifically referring to Cameron and Osborne, and maybe Clegg.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

Also: fuck me, he was a bell-end.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Tbh, i didn't see newsnight, i was going from Paul Mason's blog. According to the Guardian(3.14):



> Johnson is also likely to ask about Bob Diamond's revelation, when he gave evidence to the Commons Treasury committee this morning, that, despite all the rhetoric we've heard from ministers about bonuses, Diamond has not been asked by the government to cut his own bonus.



Was he questioned over this then? Sounds like it from what you say.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

It definitely came up but I don't know exactly what he said. I can't find a transcript of it online.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

I'll have a look on iplayer later.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 12, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> It's like watching a train crash in very slow motion.


indeed!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Oldham by-election contest is 'really close' says Clegg



> Nick Clegg has insisted that the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election remains a "really close contest" as campaigning enters its final stages.



Will the lies never stop?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oldham by-election contest is 'really close' says Clegg
> 
> 
> 
> Will the lies never stop?


it's not a lie. will derek adams beat elwyn watkins? it's going to be close.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Depends on if the tories pull out realising the game is up or stick by the lib-dems. 

I noticed this earlier:



> Mr Watkins was ridiculed on the hustings yesterday after claiming the Lib Dems were “still the only party against tuition fees”


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

Apparently some Tories are tactically voting Labour to shaft the Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Apparently some Tories are tactically voting Labour to shaft the Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Lib-dem (head of policy with Coventry Liberal Democrats.) caught overcharging students - fraud.



> A Sky News investigation claimed students and parents who gave their bank details when booking lessons through ICUT found they were charged more than they had expected.
> 
> But McKee today denied any wrongdoing. In a rebuttal issued by his company, he said the broadcaster's investigations were conducted in a "very partial and prejudiced way".
> 
> ...


----------



## co-op (Jan 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Apparently some Tories are tactically voting Labour to shaft the Lib Dems.





Any evidence?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


>



It looks like he's straining to push out a hard stool.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Lembit is trying to get the london mayoral candidacy


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2011)

Lembit? Lembit of married to a fucking cheeky girl fame? Snowballs chance in hell.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

He's the hard stool above


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

co-op said:


> Any evidence?


 
From the Guardian:



> According to PoliticsHome, one Tory told the programme that some party supporters would be voting tactically for Labour because they don't like the Lib Dems. This is what Pam Byrne, the Tory chairwoman in Uppermill, Saddleworth, had to say:
> 
> Some people have said there is no way that they want the Liberal Democrat candidate to be our MP and if they thought the Liberals might get in, they might vote tactically, they might vote Labour.
> 
> Asked who she regarded as the enemy locally, Byrne said: "The Liberals. We fight the Liberals tooth and nail."



I can't find the original source though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Lembit? Lembit of married to a fucking cheeky girl fame? Snowballs chance in hell.


 
London would be the only place in the world to get an asteroid shield if he were mayor tho.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> From the Guardian:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find the original source though.



Double bluffing to make the result look better.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Double bluffing to make the result look better.





I am shocked.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

I bet that tory was a lib-dem as well.


----------



## Santino (Jan 12, 2011)

I've found a picture of the alleged person but it's FAQ-bustingly huge.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tbh, i didn't see newsnight, i was going from Paul Mason's blog. According to the Guardian(3.14):
> 
> 
> 
> Was he questioned over this then? Sounds like it from what you say.



Yep, Diamond's questioning was part of the Today in Parliament last night. Some old man asked Diamond: "Have you been approached by the PM or the Chancellor about your bonus?" to which Diamond replied: "I've never been approached by either of them".


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 12, 2011)

According to political pundits on twitter, today was the first time since 97 that no lib had a question during pmq's, a sign that there issue is with the leadership perhaps?

I posted the same in the other thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> It looks like he's straining to push out a hard stool.


 
Or to accommodate Gideon's fist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

> Former leader Menzies Campbell reckons that "the outlook is increasingly fair, to borrow a meteorological parallel", and tells me all is enthusiasm and good cheer in Oldham


.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

Genius, the lib-dems lie are now extrending into the past.

Vince Cable - "Keynes would be on our side"



> Cable argues in this week's New Statesman that the famous economist would back the coalition's economic policy.



Despite 50 years of arguing the exact opposite in word and deed. 

Bit of choice red-baiting from the most popular politician in the land as well - not new territory for this one. No giggling girls to upset him this time mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

Excellent - Clegg might not even have won the Lib-dem leadership contest.



> EASTLEIGH MP Chris Huhne has said he stands by the result of the Lib Dem leadership election despite reports uncounted votes would have made him winner.
> 
> Mr Huhne, pictured above, lost the race to Nick Clegg by just 511 votes cast by more than 41,000 party members in one of the closest contests in political history.
> 
> It was claimed yesterday that he would have won had about 1,300 postal votes not got caught up in the Christmas post and missed the deadline.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - Clegg might not even have won the Lib-dem leadership contest.


 
that's awesome lol.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 14, 2011)

Labour win Oldham East with majority of 3558




			
				Debbie Abrahams said:
			
		

> January 13 is with the anniversary of the formation of the independent Labour Party in 1893. That's appropriate. The ILP was formed when working people decided that the Liberals could not be trusted to represent their interests.




Labour: 14,718 - 42.1%
Lib Dems: 11,160 - 31.9%
Tories: 4,481 - 12.8%


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

Chatshow Charlie on Question Time last night said when the Libs are "in power" with Labour they don't get what they want and when they are in power with the Tories they can implement what he described as "liberal values" (sic). When were the Libs in power with Labour? The Lib-Lab pact was not a coalition but a confidence and supply arrangement. In my mind, they have never shared power with Labour. Is he talking dreck again?


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2011)

local councils?  Otherwise he was talking wholly through his arse


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> local councils?  Otherwise he was talking wholly through his arse


 
Yes, this is what I was thinking. Locally yes, but nationally, no. It's never happened. I'm surprised no one pulled him up on it.


----------



## ymu (Jan 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Chatshow Charlie on Question Time last night said when the Libs are "in power" with Labour they don't get what they want and when they are in power with the Tories they can implement what he described as "liberal values" (sic). When were the Libs in power with Labour? The Lib-Lab pact was not a coalition but a confidence and supply arrangement. In my mind, they have never shared power with Labour. Is he talking dreck again?


 
That's not quite what he said though. He said that when Liberals go into power with Tories, the Liberals get destroyed - but that they don't even get a sniff of power if they make a pact with Labour. It was a very confused point - as were most of his contributions.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's not quite what he said though. He said when Liberals go into power with Tories, the Liberals get destroyed but that they don't even get a sniff of power if they make a pact with Labour. It was a very confused point - as were most of his contributions.


 
I was well aware that I was paraphrasing as I don't have a transcript of the show to hand. Though he did say "implement liberal values" - whatever those are.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

Your paraphrase said something quite different from the words that ymu has reported.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

Please fuck off, you tiresome wee shit.


----------



## ymu (Jan 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I was well aware that I was paraphrasing as I don't have a transcript of the show to hand. Though he did say "implement liberal values" - whatever those are.


 
Yes. He said:

1. Going into a pact with the Tories destroys us (historically speaking)
2. Going into a pact with Labour never gives us any real power
3. We are in a pact with the Tories that will destroy us but might conceivably allow us to implement liberal values
4. ???
5. Profit


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, this is what I was thinking. Locally yes, but nationally, no. It's never happened. I'm surprised no one pulled him up on it.


 
There was a Lib-Lab coalition in Scotland, (where Charlie comes from, after all) for a number of years prior to the SNP taking over.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

Not the same as the Westminster government though, is it? Where the Libs have never been in a power sharing arrangement with Labour.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

Changing the goal-posts is always very obvious to the spectatators.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2011)

Being weak can make liberals stronger, so says idiot

Even more desperate than the Glover article...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

"Changing the goal-posts"? You really have lost the plot.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Chatshow Charlie on Question Time last night said when the Libs are "in power" with Labour they don't get what they want and when they are in power with the Tories they can implement what he described as "liberal values" (sic). When were the Libs in power with Labour? The Lib-Lab pact was not a coalition but a confidence and supply arrangement. In my mind, they have never shared power with Labour. Is he talking dreck again?


 
I don't see any mention of Westminster in that, admittedly inacurate, paraphrase of Charlie's words.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2011)

Gentlemen - direct your fire towards the lib-dems please.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

But I like Chatshow Charlie, and will stand up for him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I don't see any mention of Westminster in that, admittedly inacurate, paraphrase of Charlie's words.


 
So what?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2011)

Brian	Brothers, brothers. We should be struggling together.
PFJHead We are!
Brian	We musn't fight each other. Surely we should be united against the
	common enemy.
All	The Judean People's front!!!
Brian	No. No. The Romans!
All	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes.
Someone Yeah. He's right.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2011)

you deliberately attempting to invoke the P&P equivalent of Godwins Law, ks?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> So what?


 
So your dismissal of local and Scottish examples of Lib-Lab power-sharing is based on the condition of secretly knowing that Chatshow Charlie was only talking about Westminster.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> you deliberately attempting to invoke the P&P equivalent of Godwins Law, ks?


 
It's Friday. I'm allowed to be lazy in my comedic stylings on Friday. Plus I couldn't find an apposite quote from Citizen Smith.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 14, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Being weak can make liberals stronger, so says idiot
> 
> Even more desperate than the Glover article...


God, the _Guardian_ sound so desperate these days....


----------



## laptop (Jan 14, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Being weak can make liberals stronger, so says idiot
> 
> Even more desperate than the Glover article...


 
Is Kettle _deliberately_ misunderstanding "liberal"? Last time I looked, the German FDP was "liberal" in a US-only sense: fundamentalist free-market.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> God, the _Guardian_ sound so desperate these days....


 
i saw this too and was like WTF?! this is right after John Harris' piece in G2 of Jan. 13 which I thought was a decent assessment of the LibDems' positition http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/12/liberal-democrats-oldham-saddleworth-byelection


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2011)

little_legs said:


> i saw this too and was like WTF?! this is right after John Harris' piece in G2 of Jan. 13 which I thought was a decent assessment of the LibDems' positition http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/12/liberal-democrats-oldham-saddleworth-byelection



Exactly. Harris's thing was good I thought, he's getting more and more on the ball with his political stuff I think. In that one, he predicted the Oldham result (albeit just in advance of it) far better than various Graun 'too close to call' loser-'reporters' had done earlier. 

Luckily though, not all the Guardian's contributors are Lib Dem apologists.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2011)

More Oldham East byelection-specific chat in this thread ....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2011)

Kettle's article is a prime example of lazy writing, and it is also mostly bollocks - however it is legitimate to describe the FDP as liberal, they are part of the same international as the Libdems, and are an influence on the Orange Book wing of the party.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 14, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Being weak can make liberals stronger, so says idiot
> 
> Even more desperate than the Glover article...


Jesus Christ, it's like they've joined some shitty cult.


----------



## strung out (Jan 14, 2011)

it's like political homeopathy. the more you water them down, the stronger they become.

all but the most gullible realise it's just a big con though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Jesus Christ, it's like they've joined some shitty cult.


 
It is a cult.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 15, 2011)

I hope they all end up in the South American jungle with Clegg handing out the Kool-Aid.....


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2011)

They will. Have faith


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 15, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Jesus Christ, it's like they've joined some shitty cult.



Those two perhaps, they're loons. Not Harris though, and he's not the only one who 's non cultist. See my other post


----------



## toblerone3 (Jan 15, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I hope they all end up in the South American jungle with Clegg handing out the Kool-Aid.....


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Those two perhaps, they're loons. Not Harris though, and he's not the only one who 's non cultist. See my other post


 
What are they doing? Playing along? How shitty does the party have to get before they say 'Er, actually, I don't believe in fucking the workers for a sniff of Downing Street carpet'?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Those two perhaps, they're loons. Not Harris though, and he's not the only one who 's non cultist. See my other post



John Harris is a pluralist toad, one of the cheerleaders for the Lablib project, which there is no evidence for his having abandoned yet.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 19, 2011)

So did any Lib Dems vote against abolishing EMA?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 19, 2011)

Simon Hughes voted for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2011)

Fantastic.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 20, 2011)

Combustible said:


> So did any Lib Dems vote against abolishing EMA?


 
Only 2 rebelled

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2011-01-19&number=176


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2011)

for cutting the 200mill waste and landfill management project in our county despite us having already spunked 2 mill of council money on it. Northampton is a fucking joke for landfill, we even built a damn commercial zone of cinemas and eateries on the site of an old landfill.

fucked.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 20, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Only 2 rebelled
> 
> http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2011-01-19&number=176


 
Fucking cunts. Nazi stooges. Hope they all die of AIDS.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

In the seat next to Oldham and Saddleworth the lib-dem are likely to be taken to court for libel for this leaflet


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Only 2 rebelled
> 
> http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2011-01-19&number=176


the utter wankers. They've just fucked over every bright working class schoolkid


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

...and the thick ones.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

yeah I shoulda said 'academically skilled", but yeah, the not-so-bright too.
Lynne Featherstone, we are gonna make your life even more hellish...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> What are they doing? Playing along? How shitty does the party have to get before they say 'Er, actually, I don't believe in fucking the workers for a sniff of Downing Street carpet'?


i'd say it's most likely to be part of a comical attempt to recover credibility after saying 'vote libdem' in the GE. comical cos it just makes things worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2011)

Too late too late

Liberal Democrats to fight next election as totally independent party


----------



## Voley (Jan 20, 2011)

> The executive statement reveals a party that still supports the May 2010 decision to form the coalition, as well as what is described as Clegg's "strong leadership"



Fucking hell!


----------



## Lakina (Jan 20, 2011)

Everyone I know who supports the yellow sandal club is an arsehole.  Smug too.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 21, 2011)

over a hundered pages of hate rant

Materful


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

More later!


----------



## Dan U (Jan 21, 2011)

278 on tapatalk


----------



## strung out (Jan 21, 2011)

hipipol said:


> Materful


 
are you saying clegg has an unresolved oedipus complex too?


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Too late too late
> 
> Liberal Democrats to fight next election as totally independent party


 
Oh I hope so

I will sit up all night again to watch the faces of the LDs as they don't even make 3rd place in every seat they fight....... Simon Huughes first please!

C


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

hipipol said:


> over a hundered pages of hate rant
> 
> Materful


more glee at seeing the nasty little fuckers getting their just desserts, actually!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> Simon Huughes first please!


actually, he's one of the ones I'd bet will survive


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, he's one of the ones I'd bet will survive


 
I agree but imagine - Bermondsey and Old Southwark first to declare and.... he is 4th (still ahead of the vile BNP mind)! Then I would believe a Total Wipe Out of the Orange Tories is more than wishful thinking.

C


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> I agree but imagine - Bermondsey and Old Southwark first to declare and.... he is 4th (still ahead of the vile BNP mind)! Then I would believe a Total Wipe Out of the Orange Tories is more than wishful thinking.
> 
> C


 
Cointreau has orange in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> more glee at seeing the nasty little fuckers getting their just desserts, actually!


 
And hate rant.


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

When the Lib Dems are erased from history, the text of this thread will be carved in a spiral onto a giant triumphal column which will be raised in Trafalgar Square.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> I agree but imagine - Bermondsey and Old Southwark first to declare and.... he is 4th (still ahead of the vile BNP mind)!


Unless there's a huge green influx to SE1 and SE17 - some ecohippy commune - there's no way he'd get lower than 3rd, though. I don't think there are _any_ actual tories in that part of town


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Cointreau has orange in it.


 
The nickname came from an old girlfriend - she was not thinking of the drink - rather that it was a fancy liquor............. I think that might be the right spelling ;-)  Nowt to do with the Oranges....

C


----------



## hipipol (Jan 21, 2011)

strung out said:


> are you saying clegg has an unresolved oedipus complex too?



Its quite pos that Cleggy has a desire to fill his mother with something

Its hard to tell though

As the low cost Blair Clone Leader now on offer - Cameron being stocked by only Top Stores - though the eyes and lips move the voice is muffled - probably because the sound is emitted from the arse of the Cleggy Doll as opposed to brayed out on 11 from the top of the head of the Cameron


----------



## hipipol (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> more glee at seeing the nasty little fuckers getting their just desserts, actually!



Oh tsk, how can you not feel sorrow for a group of softy bean knitters dropped in with the horrid ranter mad toffs crew?

These people NEVER wanted power, well they wouldn't be in that party if they did really, now they've had it thrust upon em and they are unsure what to do.

I expect many more will be carrying bags of rent boy poo round in their briefcases, getting pissed 24/7 and going all Kennedy Sausage red or maybe just having a few Thorpe Bay dogs shot than is the historical norm for Top Liberals as the tension of having 'Traitor' shouted at them everywhere they go.

I may start a poll to see who thinks which will happen first


----------



## Combustible (Jan 21, 2011)

It seems like coalition with the Tories hasn't completely dampened their enthusiasm for dirty campaigning.  In what was previously a safe ward for them, they won by only 8 votes.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jan 22, 2011)

Santino said:


> When the Lib Dems are erased from history, the text of this thread will be carved in a spiral onto a giant triumphal column which will be raised in Trafalgar Square.


 
Damn. I was counting on it being carved in a spiral onto Danny Alexander.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2011)

hipipol said:


> Oh tsk, how can you not feel sorrow for a group of softy bean knitters dropped in with the horrid ranter mad toffs crew?
> 
> These people NEVER wanted power, well they wouldn't be in that party if they did really, now they've had it thrust upon em and they are unsure what to do.
> 
> ...



Keep talking dirty big boy ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I hope they all end up in the South American jungle with Clegg handing out the Kool-Aid.....


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2011)

From :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-sell-despite-market-September.html?ITO=1490

"Mr Clegg's spokesman said the house was being marketed in a 'more subtle' way  and added: 'It is still on the market. There has been a bit of interest but nobody has made a formal offer on it yet."


In October, (a month after the house went on the market) Mr Clegg gave an interview to Esquire magazine that was picked up by the national media in which he said "Yes, people are very angry. You don’t have to tell me. *I’m getting dog excrement through my letterbox*. People are spitting at me...". 

Lib Demz have a really fucked up idea of USP


----------



## Santino (Jan 26, 2011)

Because a pledge to get rid of control orders now means control orders but you can use a mobile phone. 

It's like John Stuart Mill never died.


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

Combustible said:


> It seems like coalition with the Tories hasn't completely dampened their enthusiasm for dirty campaigning.  In what was previously a safe ward for them, they won by only 8 votes.


 
Still won though


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2011)

fuck you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2011)

Proof that they're down to the hardcore now, the open neo-liberals, the extremists - 79% of the current polling figure of 8% think Nick Clegg is doing a good job and 75% think the coalition is 'working well'. (figures here - pdf)


----------



## ymu (Jan 30, 2011)

So 6% is their floor. Any bets on when they'll hit it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2011)

6% at this point! The actual floor could be a bit lower quite soon bearing in mind that of that 8% 59% of them also _expect_ the polices they support to lead to a second recession, so that's a chunk of that 75-79% as well...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2011)

i think they've got a lot further to fall than 6% tbh. I mean they're neo-liberal extremists but it's not as if they're like, competent or anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2011)

For this flim-flammery - _look i'm really tearing it:_



> The Liberal Democrats' president Tim Farron publicly ripped apart a copy of the government's controversial bill to sell of England's forests at a rally in the heart of the Lake District today.








edit: he's the one on the right


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2011)

Is anyone on this thread actually admitting to be a member of the Lib Dems by the way?


----------



## killer b (Jan 31, 2011)

just moon, i think.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2011)

killer b said:


> just moon, i think.


 
Ta - in that case as a previous libdem voter i have a favour to ask him if he appears again.


----------



## creak (Jan 31, 2011)

A few voters 'fessed up, too. Most have repented for their sins though.


----------



## ymu (Jan 31, 2011)

Aye. Many sinners, only one unrepentant (moon23).


----------



## jannerboyuk (Jan 31, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Still won though


 
Christ i'm so going to enjoy seeing you yellow tory cunts get your comeuppance. As a party you are so fucked. Next time take a moment to read your own history.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2011)

jannerboyuk said:
			
		

> Christ i'm so going to enjoy seeing you yellow tory cunts get your comeuppance. As a party you are so fucked.



I'd love to see moon23 attempt a 'prediction' on the likely outcomes (for him  ) of the May local elections for the LDs.



> Next time take a moment to read your own history.



And try seeing the LD future through a more realistic lens ..... ALL the current evidence points to them getting absolutely stuffed in May, and that's everywhere, and especially the North. Take that likelihoiod on now, moon, otherwise your shock/disappointment levels will be entertaining to see ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2011)

Because the cunts are robbing our fucking libraries, the total fucking arseholes. Heres our list |(I'm sure each region has its own)

The libraries identified for closure are:

*        Finedon
*        St James
*        Irchester
*        Danesholme
*        Woodford Halse
*        Roade
*        Moulton
*        Wollaston

Finedone is a nowheresville that means bus rides to a library. So is St. James (St. James is in a pocket of urban sprawl but is still increasingly expensive busrides away from a library if it closes)

The rest, I don't know to look at but by the names I recognize places that I wouldn't even try to get to on public transport. Cos I am lazy and the bus journeys are long and expensive.

They've nicked all the money we were promised for landfill management. 

Oh, and this is good. Funding cuts have led to the closure of a fair few hostel type places for 16-25 yo's. I'll elucidate on this cuntery further when I speak to the person who informed of the closures, one place including where I resided post HMP....google throws me this http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/ymca_funding_cuts_defended_1_900013


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

Out of interest how much would we save if we closed all  libraries and gave everyone an ebook who could be bothered to apply?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2011)

There is a vast body of literature and information that is not and will neve be kindled. Seriously, its a lovely bit of kit but the mass vs recency equation means so far human history has put down more words to print or write than e-stuff.

This is the point, even a tiny library branch has people who will gladly ship books in from bigger branches, let you keep them for months so long as you keep renewing them. They have many forms of media and a massive library (lol) that stretches back nigh a century. You already pay for it out of your taxes and it is ace if you care to use it.

And these cunt are taking that away. The sort of cunts who never used libraries, only bookshops are telling us we can't have it. Proles just watch x factor anyway.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

Seriously dude, if we chucked all that cash at google and the like to get everything online I think it would increase material. My mum sells second books that are out of print, they'll never be reprinted cos there isn't enough demand. Good OCR software on the other hand?

How many people actually use libraries....it's cheaper for me just to buy second hand cos I always forget to take them back and would be cheaper to buy online even in hard copy.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

_you_ don't use libraries. been in one lately? they're busy. massive community resource which are about far more than the books.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

Yeah, but it was filled with old people who smelled of wee and those who didn't have net connections at home.

I'm not saying this cash should be taken away, but maybe look at how its spent?


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

oh, and loads of people can't even afford to buy second hand. cock.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

G_S said:


> Yeah, but it was filled with old people who smelled of wee *and those who didn't have net connections at home*.
> 
> I'm not saying this cash should be taken away, but maybe look at how its spent?


Bingo!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

Did you read my first post...I was talking about using the same cash spent to reach a wider audience?

I'm on JSA and bought a pack of K Cider tonight...that's a few books if you wonder round markets.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> Bingo!


 
So do we need to keep these physical buildings or can could same cash be used in making sure they did?


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

How are they going to download ebooks without an internet connection?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

Public funded 4g is one thought. I'm sure there are many others.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

how about having easily accessible buildings full of learning materials, newspapers and the like that people could visit?


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

And associate with each other? The very thought!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

How is a bus ride in to town more accessible then sitting on my sofa? Granted its different living in a town again, but when I was in the sticks it was a half hour drive with no bus routes to the local library.

The amount these buildings cost could pay for huge amounts of data.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

_why do we need pubs, when we can just sit at home with an internet connection and a 4-pack of k cider?_


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

How is a bus ride in to town more accessible then sitting on my sofa? Granted its different living in a town again, but when I was in the sticks it was a half hour drive with no bus routes to the local library.

The amount these buildings cost could pay for huge amounts of data.


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

_no point in schools - you can get a teacher app for your iphone now. _


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> _why do we need pubs, when we can just sit at home with an internet connection and a 4-pack of k cider?_


 
False analogy. The only time I've seen people properly socialize is in uni libaries when we're avoiding work.

And yes K Cider and a net connection has stepped in for a social life for me.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

G_S said:


> The amount these buildings cost could pay for huge amounts of data.


Is that where the money is going, then? Why haven't we been told?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

I guess all I'm saying is that building filled with books that are hard to get to for many people, cost a lot to maintain and we could distribute information more efficiently.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is that where the money is going, then? Why haven't we been told?


 
It's not rocket science to work out that to keep a library going with resources and staff must cost a fair bit.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

So, the money _is_ going to provide everyone with an ebook reader and free WiFi?


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2011)

something about knowing the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

g'night.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, the money _is_ going to provide everyone with an ebook reader and free WiFi?


 
Nah I'm a fucking hippy. It's what I think it should do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2011)

G_S said:


> Yeah, but it was filled with old people who smelled of wee and those who didn't have net connections at home.
> 
> I'm not saying this cash should be taken away, but maybe look at how its spent?


 

oh come on, spending review in the public sector means how can we trim it to the bone, in this climate more so than it was even under labour misrule. It's symptomatic of the belt tightening 'we're all in this together' bullshit. Only during the boom times I was still on minimum wage, big society seemed noticeably quiet then. And now they want to cut back on the scraps we are fed. Brilliant.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> something about knowing the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
> 
> g'night.



Not meaning to be a cunt about this, its more about how can we deliver as much data as possible to those who want it for the cash there is to spend on it. It should be more. 

In an ideal world I'd see both.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> oh come on, spending review in the public sector means how can we trim it to the bone, in this climate more so than it was even under labour misrule. It's symptomatic of the belt tightening 'we're all in this together' bullshit. Only during the boom times I was still on minimum wage, big society seemed noticeably quiet then. And now they want to cut back on the scraps we are fed. Brilliant.



Sorry dude, maybe wrong thread?

I don't think public spending should be cut, but see nowt wrong with looking how it is spent.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

G_S said:


> Nah I'm a fucking hippy. It's what I think it should do.


It just seems a bit weird to argue in favour of cutting libraries by coming up with better uses for the money, when you know fine well the money is being used to reduce the deficit. What's your point?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It just seems a bit weird to argue in favour of cutting libraries by coming up with better uses for the money, when you know fine well the money is being used to reduce the deficit. What's your point?


 
I started this on the wrong thread. 

I don't think the money should be cut.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2011)

Fair dos.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Lib-dem manifesto:



> We will crack down on tax havens which allow individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes to developing countries.



Today:



> Multimillionaire foreigners prepared to invest their money in Britain will find it easier to make a home in the UK under government plans to relax immigration rules for the *super-rich.
> 
> The Home Office will shortly propose changes to “investor visas” to encourage more rich people to live and invest in the UK.



To see how this dovetails with other moves towards tax haven status see this.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> It just seems a bit weird to argue in favour of cutting libraries by coming up with better uses for the money, when you know fine well the money is being used to reduce the deficit. What's your point?


 
Does anyone think local libraries have had their day? I haven't been in one for about 15 years


----------



## killer b (Feb 7, 2011)

Does anyone think schools have had their day? I haven't been in one for about 15 years.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

Hospitals have definitely had their day, I mean, I can't remember the last time I went into one in this country!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Clegg, the week before the election:



> Everyone wants change, it just depends what kind. It’s a two-horse race between fake change under David Cameron and the real change offered by the Liberal Democrats.



Also, from the same week:



> Nick Clegg was greeted by hundreds of students at an outdoor rally at Leicester De Montfort University, his largest crowd yet, despite a widespread view that his performance in the previous night’s televised leaders’ debate had been his weakest.


----------



## strung out (Feb 7, 2011)

they'll steal your kittens http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tine-hemming-denies-kitten-theft-2206654.html


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> they'll steal your kittens http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tine-hemming-denies-kitten-theft-2206654.html


tbf, that's an MP's wife...but he's an adulterer


----------



## laptop (Feb 7, 2011)

...




			
				MP's wife said:
			
		

> ...or the kitten gets it!


----------



## two sheds (Feb 7, 2011)

I'm really looking forward to when Google's digitised all documents and because of their monopoly starts charging £1 a sheet to view.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2011)

thieving my buses now, as well

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...d_full_list_of_at_risk_bus_services_1_2385099

So not only are they nicking my sub librtary outlets they are nicking the transport to get to the libraries that are staying open.

wankers


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2011)

Becuase of fairly blatant attempts to pretend that they're really against the cuts as the May elections approach - _it wasn't us miss, a bigger boy did it and ran away_



> "These cuts will have an undoubted impact on all frontline council services, including care services to the vulnerable," they wrote.
> 
> "Rather than assist the country's recovery by making savings to the public in a way that can protect local economies and the front line, the cuts are structured in such a way that they will do the opposite."


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2011)

promising sign, tho'-cracks are beginning to appear in the edifice,at the grassroots...


----------



## se5 (Feb 10, 2011)

...because they circulate apparently anonymous leaflets in local byelections - see http://s418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/stopsatgreen/?action=view&current=anon-leaflet-outside.jpg and http://s418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/stopsatgreen/?action=view&current=anon-leaflet-inside.jpg with miniscule attribution 

ok so one or two of the Camberwell Labour councillors _appear_ to be dodgy but there are wrong 'uns in all the parties


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> promising sign, tho'-cracks are beginning to appear in the edifice,at the grassroots...


 
or a desparate attempt to make it appear there's a difference between the parliamentary & local parties in time for the upcoming council elections? put away your wishful thinking...


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2011)

killer b said:


> or a desparate attempt to make it appear there's a difference between the parliamentary & local parties in time for the upcoming council elections? put away your wishful thinking...


to me,they indicate similar things; their municipal power-base is shitting themselves....


----------



## killer b (Feb 10, 2011)

it isn't cracks though - it's clearly a deliberate policy to attempt to salvage what they can from the locals. do you think the letter wasn't endorsed by the leadership?


----------



## Santino (Feb 10, 2011)

killer b said:


> it isn't cracks though - it's clearly a deliberate policy to attempt to salvage what they can from the locals. do you think the letter wasn't endorsed by the leadership?


 
That does suggest at least modicum of base cunning among the Lib Dems at odds with the utter ineptitude we've come to expect from them.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 12, 2011)

Reading lib dem councillor tweets unfunny "satirical" racist remark about Chukka Umunna (streatham MP), foced to resign as lead for environment, gets slated by Council for Racial Equality, then dismissed row as "complete bullshit"

e2a, more of this cumps "satirical genius" http://www.muckspreading.com/ - blog (forced to stop due to an earlier row)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

from the comments: 



> Putting aside his looks as so many people wrote, his remarks - racist or not, his own party's acceptance of problems in him, his sense of humour, etc., you look deeper to see his contribution and you can't see anything outstanding.
> 
> You look into the wording of his blogs, you will see that he is obsessed with his hatred of Labour party. He sees a conspiracy in anything he commented on, which is perceived to be linked to Labour party. I think perhaps he is taking this as a War? And against who?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> do you think the letter wasn't endorsed by the leadership?


difficult to say-the LDs are V DeCentralist,and LD councillors often not that subservient.
Also-wot Santino said


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

They've got a carefully constructed image of decentralisation. It's not real. This decentralisation was the safeguard that would stop there ever being a tory-lib-dem coalition remember? It's bollocks and they're all cunts.


----------



## Santino (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's bollocks and they're all cunts.


 
You make a good point.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> You make a good point.


 
I think he holds back a little though.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's bollocks and they're all cunts.


agreed


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 14, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Reading lib dem councillor tweets unfunny "satirical" racist remark about Chukka Umunna (streatham MP), foced to resign as lead for environment, gets slated by Council for Racial Equality, then dismissed row as "complete bullshit"
> 
> e2a, more of this cumps "satirical genius" http://www.muckspreading.com/ - blog (forced to stop due to an earlier row)


 
I can't work out from that pic from getreading if it's a weird camera angle, or if he's a thalodomide victim - his right arm looks out of perspective:







Maybe he was thinking it was OK because 'I is a disabled'* or something

* note to idiots - I am lampooning the language he used in a blatantly racist insult so don't get too hung up on that comment


----------



## killer b (Feb 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> difficult to say-the LDs are V DeCentralist,and LD councillors often not that subservient.


 
this again. you've been repeating it like a nun with a roseary for 10 months now... as yet, no lib-dem footsoldiers appearing on white steeds to rescue us all. clue as to why that hasn't happened: _because it's not going to_.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 14, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> I can't work out from that pic from getreading if it's a weird camera angle, or if he's a thalodomide victim - his right arm looks out of perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've met him - he's able bodied (though his mother is sri lankan, so he can be as racist as he likes - some of his best friends....have anglo-saxon features, names and upbringings but might be a bit "ethnic" etc).  

No, it just seems to be his mental processes which are disadvantaged...


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> this again. you've been repeating it like a nun with a roseary for 10 months now... as yet, no lib-dem footsoldiers appearing on white steeds to rescue us all. clue as to why that hasn't happened: _because it's not going to_.


I would certainly not reach that judgement too soon - it's early days as yet


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

The lib-dem _victory_ on trident in full effect:

Government ramps up Trident work despite coalition pledge



> Last month a Freedom of Information (FoI) request exposed Ministry of Defence plans to purchase so-called ‘long lead’ items for building Trident replacement submarines. That would be all very well if construction had been agreed, but as the government announced last autumn, the ‘main gate’ decision on whether to go ahead or not will not be taken until after the next election - 2016 in fact.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Alphonsus Jack (Feb 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> You make a good point.


 
I have to agree that it is all bollox and we better hope that we will survice the decimation of the country. And they can shove the 'Big Society' up their collective arseholes. Clegg should have no probs as he has be getting fucked by his big brother ever since he jumped into bed with the bastard.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2011)

Martin Mullaney
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...a-yaqoob-of-islamic-extremism-97319-28116718/

Ashamed to say, I used to share a pint or two with him, way back when.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 18, 2011)

Bunnies can, and will go to France !


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

The edl were all over that on their forums the other week - they, like MM mistook a piss-take article for a political program (not that i fully trust SY either). Nice company.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The edl were all over that on their forums the other week - they, like MM mistook a piss-take article for a political program (not that i fully trust SY either). Nice company.


 
Yeah but the issue with Yakoob is that she is a closet liberal Labour type, not some closet Islamist.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh God, party broadcast by lib dems where Nick Clegg was notable by his absence!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

Prescription charges to go up in England...only in England; thanks to the coalition.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 4, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Prescription charges to go up in England...only in England; thanks to the coalition.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
They're going to be free in Scotland aren't they?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> They're going to be free in Scotland aren't they?


 
Yes they are.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 6, 2011)

I know its "old news", but clegg "forgetting" he was in charge whilst cameron was in the middle east surely deserves honourable mention...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2011)

Police spend £2m to protect Liberal Democrats 



> Police are spending an estimated £2m to protect this weekend's Liberal Democrat conference, with measures including a 2.5m high steel and concrete fence to deter up to 10,000 protesters.
> 
> A thousand officers will be on duty or standby from Friday until Sunday to shield the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, in his own city from anger over public spending cuts and his party's U-turn on student fees.
> 
> Initial glee at a successful bid two years ago to host the spring conference of 3,000 Lib Dem delegates has turned to concern in Sheffield at the cost both to the public purse and in lost business.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 11, 2011)

Lib dem candidate jailed for battering cat to death
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...ed-for-battering-cat-to-death-97319-28316921/


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

What is it with lib-dems and killing / torturing animals? I suppose they are all SOCIOPATHS mind.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

> “I didn’t think he was actually going to kill the cat. I noticed Mike holding the walking stick in his hand. My mother-in-law looked a bit panicked – she screamed: ‘No, Mike no’.
> 
> “It was at this point I felt worried. My mother-in-law came in the room and said: ‘He’s going to kill her’. I heard repeated banging upstairs. I thought Mike was smashing the place up. Mike came into the room looking calm – almost spaced out. He said: “I’ve killed the cat’.”
> 
> Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...-cat-to-death-97319-28316921/2/#ixzz1GIOdh3Fe



fuckers.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2011)

> A Lib Dem insider added: “His career is toast. He could stand again but no-one wants to be represented by a man who beats his cat to death with a stick.”



Person states obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

He actually looks like you'd expect one of their convicted-paedo councillors to look like more than one of their cat-killing candidates:


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Police spend £2m to protect Liberal Democrats


 
The bunch of sixth formers they showed Nick Clegg talking to, looked less than impressed it has to be said.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 11, 2011)

What are the chances of Clegg losing his seat at the next election?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

A real possibility if decides to stand there. He might seek a safe seat elsewhere but there's going to be very few safe_ lib-dems_ seats next time - always the option of the Lords or a safe tory seat though. David Laws seat i think is the only 100% safe lib-dem one right now. Or he could stand in sheff and rely on being propped up by Tory voters as the lib-dems were in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. That latter option is bang in line with the logic of the coalition and the YES campaign for AV. Yesterday Mark Harper (tory) snuck through legal chnages that make it easier for different parties to stand joint candidates in elections. (This, of course, also shows that articul8 has been incredibly naive in claiming this is impossible on the AV threads).


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A real possibility if decides to stand there. He might seek a safe seat elsewhere but there's going to be very few safe_ lib-dems_ seats next time - always the option of the Lords or a safe tory seat though. David Laws seat i think is the only 100% safe lib-dem one right now. Or he could stand in sheff and rely on being propped up by Tory voters as the lib-dems were in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. That latter option is bang in line with the logic of the coalition and the YES campaign for AV. Yesterday Mark Harper (tory) snuck through legal chnages that make it easier for different parties to stand joint candidates in elections. (This, of course, also shows that articul8 has been incredibly naive in claiming this is impossible on the AV threads).



In the end, I suspect, if Clegg is ousted - and no matter what happens in the years before that, people won't forget his duplicity - he'll just see it a shorter-than-anticipated actively political phase in his career path towards a cushy and financially acceptable seat on a board or two.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 11, 2011)

I presume that £2m police bill is being paid for by us, the public


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A real possibility if decides to stand there. He might seek a safe seat elsewhere but there's going to be very few safe_ lib-dems_ seats next time - always the option of the Lords or a safe tory seat though. David Laws seat i think is the only 100% safe lib-dem one right now. Or he could stand in sheff and rely on being propped up by Tory voters as the lib-dems were in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. That latter option is bang in line with the logic of the coalition and the YES campaign for AV. Yesterday Mark Harper (tory) snuck through legal chnages that make it easier for different parties to stand joint candidates in elections. (This, of course, also shows that articul8 has been incredibly naive in claiming this is impossible on the AV threads).


 
But the disaggregation


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I presume that £2m police bill is being paid for by us, the public


 
the council tax payer of sheffield, i think...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A real possibility if decides to stand there. He might seek a safe seat elsewhere but there's going to be very few safe_ lib-dems_ seats next time - always the option of the Lords or a safe tory seat though. David Laws seat i think is the only 100% safe lib-dem one right now. Or he could stand in sheff and rely on being propped up by Tory voters as the lib-dems were in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. That latter option is bang in line with the logic of the coalition and the YES campaign for AV. Yesterday Mark Harper (tory) snuck through legal chnages that make it easier for different parties to stand joint candidates in elections. (This, of course, also shows that articul8 has been incredibly naive in claiming this is impossible on the AV threads).


Cable may also be safe,and I've the horrible feeling that Slime-on Hughes may survive YET AGAIN


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

What an astonishing insult to the electorate from Clegg - does he really think are so stupid as to fall for this?

Nick Clegg on bankers: "I want to wring the neck of these wretched people" 

Why haven't you then?


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

We shall squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What an astonishing insult to the electorate from Clegg - does he really think are so stupid as to fall for this?
> 
> Nick Clegg on bankers: "I want to wring the neck of these wretched people"
> 
> Why haven't you then?



Because he couldn't lay straight in bed with a curtain pole up his blue pyjamas?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115949945 My friend just sent me this. Nice one, lying lib-dem scum.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What an astonishing insult to the electorate from Clegg - does he really think are so stupid as to fall for this?
> 
> Nick Clegg on bankers: "I want to wring the neck of these wretched people"
> 
> Why haven't you then?


Any minute now,betcha Moon23 pops up with:
"Oh but we didn't win a majority, the Conservatives won more seats,so although we'd like to wring their necks,we'll let them get and keep massive bonuses and let them off loads of tax,after all, coalitions are about compromises"


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 11, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What are the chances of Clegg losing his seat at the next election?


 
Surely they will move him out of Sheffield, he is not going to win there.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115949945 My friend just sent me this. Nice one, lying lib-dem scum.


 
Fuck me, i mentioned he'd been caught defrauding students earlier in the thread - to do it again a few months later...looks like the chose the right party at least.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

I hate the lib dems. I did not think it was possible to hate them any more than I do


----------



## Random (Mar 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I hate the lib dems. I did not think it was possible to hate them any more than I do


 
So you love Tories then? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

Yeah.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Surely they will move him out of Sheffield, he is not going to win there.


There's precious few other places he stands a chance


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

Random said:


> So you love Tories then? Is that what you're saying?


 
She must do, she's voting against AV.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2011)

Random said:


> So you love Tories then? Is that what you're saying?


 
The thing is, there is on the whole something healthy and honest about the Tory hatred of the working class and their wish to destroy us, the Libdems on the other hand are slimy dishonest two faced tricky weasel cunts. 

It's like the difference between a gentleman jewel thief and a viscious necrophile rapist.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2011)

yep - at least the tories have principles, even if they're wrong and evil ones.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 11, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The thing is, there is on the whole something healthy and honest about the Tory hatred of the working class and their wish to destroy us, the Libdems on the other hand are slimy dishonest two faced tricky weasel cunts.
> 
> It's like the difference between a gentleman jewel thief and a viscious necrophile rapist.


 
I don't think the Tories hate the working class as such. It's the politically uppity working class that bothers them, but as long as most working class people keep their heads down and do their duty as workers and consumers, there's no real hatred, even if there is probably a large amount of disdain and condescension. With the Lib Dems (and the higher reaches of Labour actually) it's exactly the same. In no way do they want to 'destroy' us; why destroy the very consumers and wage slaves that keep the economy going? What they wanted was to destroy effective political opposition from the working class. In this they largely succeeded.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep - at least the tories have principles, even if they're wrong and evil ones.




However wrong Tory governments have been and are, by no stretch of the imagination were they the rule of evil.


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

Oh dear.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Oh dear.




Oh dear what?


----------



## fogbat (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He actually looks like you'd expect one of their convicted-paedo councillors to look like more than one of their cat-killing candidates:


 
As opposed to Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, who has the look of a pet molester about him.






Of course, I'm not saying he does molest dogs, cats and guinea pigs. And equally I'm not saying that he doesn't. We just don't have the evidence to decide one way or the other.


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

fogbat said:


> As opposed to Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, who has the look of a pet molester about him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Are you suggesting that you're not allowed to say? Perhaps because of some court order?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2011)

The Libdem manifesto of 2010 said:

_We will tackle tax avoidance and evasion, with new powers for HM Revenue & Customs and a law to ensure properties cannot avoid stamp duty if they are put into an offshore trust._

This week, the Libdems said they were going to continue focusing on the issue, saying: 

_We will tackle tax avoidance and evasion, with new powers for HM Revenue & Customs._

Notice the difference in the two pledges? More http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/have-the-lib-dems-kept-their-promises/5980


----------



## fogbat (Mar 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Are you suggesting that you're not allowed to say? Perhaps because of some court order?


 
I have no knowledge of any court order that Tim Farron has applied for, which might prevent someone from suggesting he's an animal fucker.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 12, 2011)

Unfortunately, the Lib Dems may be needed to form a coalition with Labour after the next election. Especially after the resounding Yes vote to the alternative voting system. I doubt Clegg will be leading them though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 12, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Especially after the resounding Yes vote to the alternative voting system.


 
You reckon?


----------



## embree (Mar 12, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unfortunately, the Lib Dems may be needed to form a coalition with Labour after the next election. Especially after the resounding Yes vote to the alternative voting system. I doubt Clegg will be leading them though.


 
surely Labour would want to form a coalition with a party who actually have seats in Parliament?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 12, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> You reckon?


 
No idea really. Most people I've asked seem to be voting yes. That's mainly teachers and lecturers though.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 12, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The thing is, there is on the whole something healthy and honest about the Tory hatred of the working class and their wish to destroy us, the Libdems on the other hand are slimy dishonest two faced tricky weasel cunts.
> 
> It's like the difference between a gentleman jewel thief and a viscious necrophile rapist.


yup-the tories know they're evil (in our terms) and are quite comfortable with it.They are an oddly honest Enemy


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What they wanted was to destroy effective political opposition from the working class. In this they largely succeeded.



Yes, that's what I meant by destroy - break us like a cowboy breaking in a mustang.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 12, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unfortunately, the Lib Dems may be needed to form a coalition with Labour after the next election. Especially after the resounding Yes vote to the alternative voting system. I doubt Clegg will be leading them though.


Balls said in the Guardian today he couldn't see Labour working with Clegg in the future,but was careful to leave the door open for the Libdems as a party


----------



## moon23 (Mar 13, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yes they are.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Well free at the point of delivery. It’s not really fair that English tax payers have to subsidise this  perk of living north of the border.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> the council tax payer of sheffield, i think...



It's good value. Back in 2008 it cost £6.5 Million to police Labour conference in Manchester, and Tory conference was about £4.5 Million. Most of the police I saw around Sheffield were not really doing much today. There was a complete over-reaction to the march which was about 5,000 strong. It's a nice bit of over time for South Yorkshire police though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Astonishing - Simon 'how many faces' Hughes to the Lib-dem conference this morning:



> Don't believe just what you read in the Guardian. Don't believe that people on the progressive forces of politics aren't looking to us. Our job is to be, yes, an alternative to the Tories. But our job is to replace Labour as the radical alternative to the Tories in Britain.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2011)

Is Simon Hughes the honourable member for cloud cuckoo land now?
Delusional bullshit worthy of Colonel Gadaffi.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't think the Tories hate the working class as such. It's the politically uppity working class that bothers them, but as long as most working class people keep their heads down and do their duty as workers and consumers, there's no real hatred, even if there is probably a large amount of disdain and condescension. With the Lib Dems (and the higher reaches of Labour actually) it's exactly the same. In no way do they want to 'destroy' us; why destroy the very consumers and wage slaves that keep the economy going? What they wanted was to destroy effective political opposition from the working class. In this they largely succeeded.


 If they want to  keep the working classes with enough money in their pockets to keep the economy going, they are going around it in an odd way. At best I think tories are really just indifferent to - not only working classes, but some middle classes. This bunch are not the same as the old lot who at least tried to do some appeasing. Maybe they're just clueless, I don't know.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

The lib-dems gave Clegg a standing ovation  His speech claimed



> We "are not on the left and not on the right". We "own the freehold of the centre ground of British politics"





> Cannon to right of them,
> Cannon to left of them,
> Cannon in front of them
> Volley'd and thunder'd;
> ...





> Then they rode back, but not, not the six hundred"


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 13, 2011)

Just flicking over a minute ago and caught Clegg going on about how they were the radicals of British politics, and that they weren't really the government of cuts and it was all Labour's fault


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Yes, they are, in his words the  "true radicals of British politics".


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2011)

"Governing from the middle, for the middle".


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2011)

Radically middle!


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 13, 2011)

Innit Ed


----------



## 19sixtysix (Mar 13, 2011)

So he supports that crap English system of property ownership by claiming freehold.
So what's that saying to all those stuck in leasehold flat system being ripped off by the freeholders of middle england.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> If they want to  keep the working classes with enough money in their pockets to keep the economy going, they are going around it in an odd way. At best I think tories are really just indifferent to - not only working classes, but some middle classes. This bunch are not the same as the old lot who at least tried to do some appeasing. Maybe they're just clueless, I don't know.




It isn't odd if they genuinely believe that if we swallow the tough medicine, the consumer economy will eventually start to boom again (even though it can only ever be an artificial boom in the kind of economy we now have.) 

Labour would do exactly the same thing even if they presented it in a different way. The 'appeasing ' was mostly done before the crash of 2008. 

The hard fact is that there are no clear political alternatives in the mainstream and no chance of any emerging from outside the mainstream.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 13, 2011)

> Pupil Premium



Lol.



> We own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics.



The fuck?



> We're on the side of the people I call Alarm Clock Britain. The side of everyone who wants to get up and get on. People who, unlike the wealthy, have no choice but to work hard to make ends meet.



Lol.



> I never forget that we are a party of fairness, freedom, progress and reform. We cherished those values in opposition. Now we're living by them in government. So yes, we've had to toughen up. But we will never lose our soul.



The fuck?



> So yes, we have to tackle the deficit. But we are not a cuts government.



The fuck?



> The choice is simple. If you want more duck houses: vote no. If you want more democracy: vote yes.



The fuck?



> Use my arsehole as a cunt.



Lol.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 13, 2011)

Are they really going to try to run with "alarm clock Britain"? I really thought they'd put that one to bed.

Edit: I actually thought Cameron had come out with it originally.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't odd if they genuinely believe that if we swallow the tough medicine, the consumer economy will eventually start to boom again (even though it can only ever be an artificial boom in the kind of economy we now have.)


 Right so basically you're saying they're even more clueless than I already think they are then 


> Labour would do exactly the same thing even if they presented it in a different way. The 'appeasing ' was mostly done before the crash of 2008.


I know. It'd be interesting to see what opposition they would get (particularly in welfare reform) simply because it's being implimented by the tories, suddenly there's an interest. No wonder Labour are so quiet, they must be really pleased it's a tory admin that's doing all the unpopular stuff.





> The hard fact is that there are no clear political alternatives in the mainstream and no chance of any emerging from outside the mainstream.


 vote labour


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 13, 2011)

editor said:


> "Governing from the middle, for the middle".


 
There are not enough of these  in existence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

More astonishing stuff - this time from the Guardian (that anti-lib-dem rag that lib-dems slag off to get cheap claps fopr some odd reason)  -this is what the conference has told us about the member of the coalition govt imposing aggressive cuts aimed at the poorest and benefiting the richest through right-wing free market ideology:



> The Lib Dems are a leftish public sector party, rather than rightish free marketeers. This is what we've always known, but it's helpful to have the perception confirmed.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Edit: I actually thought Cameron had come out with it originally.


yeah,so did I


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

More from Clegg's speech - the one that got a standing ovation at start and end - in the list of enemies of the lib-dems (the 'leftish public sector party' according to the Guardian above  remember)



> The unions standing in the way of reforms to give patients and parents more power



and what's going to happen?



> All looking out for themselves, protecting their turf, trying to close the doors against change.
> 
> Well, we're not having it.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Radically middle!


That was actually the old Liberal line,in the 80s "party of the radical Centre"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

It gets better:




			
				Clegg said:
			
		

> "The old political establishment, on the left and on the right, hate what's happening to our politics. The old left screaming betrayal every time politicians work across party lines or make a compromise. The old right simply horrified to see Liberal Democrats in government at all. *We are showing that new politics, plural politics, coalition politics, can work for this country*. And it terrifies them. There are enemies of reason across the political spectrum."



For the tories and labour you mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Actually, doesn't matter, the lib-dems just voted to try and say what 'victories' were theirs (child benefit cut for example) in the coalition. *They are back people!*


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Clegg said:
			
		

> "Alarm Clock Britain - People who, unlike the wealthy, have no choice but to work hard to make ends meet"



That would be the 22 millionaire members of your cabinet? Alarm Clock Britain doesn't include you does it Nick? A good Mirror journo would be on that like a shot.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Is Simon Hughes the honourable member for cloud cuckoo land now?
> Delusional bullshit worthy of Colonel Gadaffi.


He's the member for a (mostly) working-class seat he's deeply worried about losing,that's for sure


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's good value. Back in 2008 it cost £6.5 Million to police Labour conference in Manchester, and Tory conference was about £4.5 Million. Most of the police I saw around Sheffield were not really doing much today. There was a complete over-reaction to the march which was about 5,000 strong. It's a nice bit of over time for South Yorkshire police though.


Spin alert!
That was their MAIN(autumn) conferences-this is your "mini-conference"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

At least this raft of govt measures the lib-dem conference has rejected means they will now oppose them. They are pledges aren't they?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> At least this raft of govt measures the lib-dem conference has rejected means they will now oppose them. They are pledges aren't they?



On a more serious note, it will be interesting to see the ramifications of distances opening up between the membership and theministers...pressures on party unity and that


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The lib-dems gave Clegg a standing ovation  His speech claimed


 
A few other people have claimed to be "neither on the left or on the right" - although i think the lib dems are fucked enough not to invoke godwins law


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yeah,so did I


 
I think it was Clegg. He went on a visit to see the little people- some builders and that- and came out with it.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Spin alert!
> That was their MAIN(autumn) conferences-this is your "mini-conference"



The Lib Dems have two big conferences a year, so to be fair the cost of both spring and autumn conferences probably add up to about as much as Labour's autumn conferences when they were in power. It costs a lot of money to provide security at big events like this, but £2 Million is not abnormally high or atypical.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems have two big conferences a year, so to be fair the cost of both spring and autumn conferences probably add up to about as much as Labour's autumn conferences when they were in power. It costs a lot of money to provide security at big events like this, but £2 Million is not abnormally high or atypical.


 
It's too much.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *The Lib Dems have two big conferences a year*, so to be fair the cost of both spring and autumn conferences probably add up to about as much as Labour's autumn conferences when they were in power. It costs a lot of money to provide security at big events like this, but £2 Million is not abnormally high or atypical.


 
Which is significantly bigger the three day spring conference or the five day autumn one? 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Are they really going to try to run with "alarm clock Britain"? I really thought they'd put that one to bed.
> 
> Edit: I actually thought Cameron had come out with it originally.



here it is, from when clegg meet some shiftworkers in january:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabinetoffice/5345619895/

it was around the same time Cameron penned an open letter to the sun basically encouraging everyone to hate people on benefits. So this could be where the confusion sets in.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

stephj said:


>


 





Compared to a music festival, it's nothing.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2011)

Is it to keep the Lib Dems in, or to keep everyone else out?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which is significantly bigger the three day spring conference or the five day autumn one?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I agree the Autumn conference is a bigger conference but the spring conference is big too. I actually think the policing was rather excessive for what was needed. Walking around Sheffield there seemed loads of officers just stood standing around doing nothing. Not just around the conference hall, but sat around in vans in case it kicked off. South Yorkshire police to tend to over react to things, and they probably got spooked by reading the wildly optimistic ravings of riots, revolution and direct action on Indymedia. The protestors were peaceful, and even walking through with my conference pass on I didn't get any abuse or feel threatened.

Unlike some of the Labour conferences when I was down in Brighton, or Tory conference in Brum there were not patrols of police with machine guns or snipers.


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> even walking through with my conference pass on I didn't get any abuse or feel threatened.


 
shame that.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> Is it to keep the Lib Dems in, or to keep everyone else out?



It's to provide a security screen so delegates can be channelled like cattle through the security gates where they get subjected to bag searched, metal detectors etc. The main space where the protestors were was where there was actually a much smaller fence then pictured above.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> shame that.


 
Why in a democracy would you possibly want people to feel threatened? It's good I had an interesting discussion about NHS reform with some of the people outside. I think the efforts of those people who got up early to lobby delegates on the way into conference helped persuade a lot of delegates to vote for Shirley's motion.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's to provide a security screen so delegates can be channelled like cattle through the security gates where they get subjected to bag searched, metal detectors etc. The main space where the protestors were was where there was actually a much smaller fence then pictured above.


 
Yes, I'd certainly subject delegates to a thorough search of misleading leaflets and manifestos on extrance.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> even walking through with my conference pass on I didn't get any abuse or feel threatened.


 
Shame you weren't in Cardiff, I basically spent my weekend hurling abuse at anybody with a delegate pass on.

Japes.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Why in a democracy would you possibly want people to feel threatened? It's good I had an interesting discussion about NHS reform with some of the people outside. I think the efforts of those people who got up early to lobby delegates on the way into conference helped persuade a lot of delegates to vote for Shirley's motion.


 
The economic policies that you support are threatening people, in a very real way.


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2011)

right wing extremists should feel threatened, by the disgust people feel for their policies & views.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I agree the Autumn conference is a bigger conference but the spring conference is big too. I actually think the policing was rather excessive for what was needed. Walking around Sheffield there seemed loads of officers just stood standing around doing nothing. Not just around the conference hall, but sat around in vans in case it kicked off. South Yorkshire police to tend to over react to things, and they probably got spooked by reading the wildly optimistic ravings of riots, revolution and direct action on Indymedia. The protestors were peaceful, and even walking through with my conference pass on I didn't get any abuse or feel threatened.
> 
> Unlike some of the Labour conferences when I was down in Brighton, or Tory conference in Brum there were not patrols of police with machine guns or snipers.


 That's because even the police know you're already dead/not worth saving.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Why in a democracy would you possibly want people to feel threatened? It's good I had an interesting discussion about NHS reform with some of the people outside. I think the efforts of those people who got up early to lobby delegates on the way into conference helped persuade a lot of delegates to vote for Shirley's motion.


 
Because of what you're doing to people. Democracy demands that you feel threatened. Or is democracy one big unaccountable game to you?


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

Come on, give him some slack. They've made difficult decisions.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> Come on, give him some slack. They've made difficult decisions.


 
Leading from the middle...


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

Radically moderate.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2011)

Centre-ground revolutionary.


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2011)

Fanatical conservative


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 14, 2011)

Militantly middle-of-the-road.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

.





> Then they rode back, but not
> Not the six hundred.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Compared to a music festival, it's nothing.



Except the security at music festivals is not funded by the taxpayer.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 14, 2011)

Subservient boat-wobbler.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems have two big conferences a year, so to be fair the cost of both spring and autumn conferences probably add up to about as much as Labour's autumn conferences when they were in power. It costs a lot of money to provide security at big events like this, but £2 Million is not abnormally high or atypical.


er,yeah right,they're HUUUUGE,aren't they?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Except the security at music festivals is not funded by the taxpayer.


 
Fair point it was just an example of how the fence was nothing more then you might expect at a football match, music festival or any other event with large crowds.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Fair point it was just an example of how the fence was nothing more then you might expect at a football match, music festival or any other event with large crowds.


 
At a football match lol


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> The economic policies that you support are threatening people, in a very real way.


 
You see I think the reckless spending coupled with the economic crisis is what has threatened people's lives and that the current economic policy that attempts to reduce the deficit is what’s needed to try and get the economy back on track so as to improve people’s lives.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> reckless spending



So was it 'reckless spending' or the bankers bail-out which created the deficit?

And how do the changes to corporation tax help with deficit reduction?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Back already? Chased form the streets i expect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More from Clegg's speech - the one that got a standing ovation at start and end - in the list of enemies of the lib-dems (the 'leftish public sector party' according to the Guardian above  remember)
> 
> 
> 
> > The unions standing in the way of reforms to give patients and parents more power.



I see they're falling back on the Major-era cant that it's the unions who've blocked that, rather than whichever neo-libs have been in power.

Something we know from the Major era and since is that the reforms they tout very seldom result in an actual better deal for service users, but rather for govt's friends in business.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Fair point it was just an example of how the fence was nothing more then you might expect at a football match, music festival or any other event with large crowds.


 
You haven't been to many football matches, have you?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You see I think the reckless spending coupled with the economic crisis is what has threatened people's lives and that the current economic policy that attempts to reduce the deficit is what’s needed to try and get the economy back on track so as to improve people’s lives.


 
What reckless spending?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What reckless spending?


 
Public health i assume. Or maybe he means the bank bailout.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You see I think the reckless spending coupled with the economic crisis is what has threatened people's lives and that the current economic policy that attempts to reduce the deficit is what’s needed to try and get the economy back on track so as to improve people’s lives.


 
Ah, the "reckless spending" trope again, the one that most non-ideologically motivated professional economists have laughed at.
It's odd that serious professionals will state that the spending was mostly consonant with the phase of the economic cycle, and yet a bunch of power-hungry yahoos have to fixate on tropes in order to worm their way into power.

BTW, what's needed to get the economy back on track is simple, tried and tested - public spending. Keynesianism is a proven solution, the neo-Hayekian spending cuts that the coalition have put in place have *never* been proven to work. They've failed everywhere they've been tried.

You're not only disgusting in the way you excuse the actions of a political elite who're intent on resiling from the social compact, you're disgustingly ignorant too. That or you simply don't give a fuck about anyone except yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> What reckless spending?


 
In moon-world, the fact that the PSBR took an upward sweep in 2006-2007, *before* the bail-out, is proof-positive of "reckless spending", and never mind the fact that you can map such upward sweeps to *many other* governments at that particular phase of the economic cycle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Public health i assume. Or maybe he means the bank bailout.


 
Well, everyone knows that public health is a needless frippery that prevents the weakest and sickest from dying off and cleansing the gene pool of their worthless presence. It causes surplus population, damn it! Surplus population that don't work, and can't afford to consume to the degree we need them to!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2011)

That's what they mean by neither from the left or right. Kind of like a "third position" ...


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> That's what they mean by neither from the left or right. Kind of like a "third position" ...


 
It's a third way.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

What is? Enabling ans supporting an extreme right wing agenda? Bang in the middle and the third way.


----------



## JimW (Mar 14, 2011)

Could you maybe try the third rail instead?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, the "reckless spending" trope again, the one that most non-ideologically motivated professional economists have laughed at.
> It's odd that serious professionals will state that the spending was mostly consonant with the phase of the economic cycle, and yet a bunch of power-hungry yahoos have to fixate on tropes in order to worm their way into power.
> 
> BTW, what's needed to get the economy back on track is simple, tried and tested - public spending. Keynesianism is a proven solution, the neo-Hayekian spending cuts that the coalition have put in place have *never* been proven to work. They've failed everywhere they've been tried.
> ...


 
Keynesian economics the idea is that you repay the loans required for a stimulus during a bad time back during a good time. During Labour's good times they ran a deficit. As the OECD hav said the UK's structural deficit went from second best in the G7 in 2000 to the worst in 2007. The actual debt is even worse as PFI and much of our pension committable are off the books. 

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said _"Labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world." _. 

The cuts will only reduce the level of public spending increases, they are  now an economic necessity because we had so little room for financial manoeuvring. Perhaps if the coalition had inherited a better economic situation, things would be different.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *Keynesian economics the idea is that you repay the loans required for a stimulus during a bad time back during a good time.* During Labour's good times they ran a deficit. As the OECD hav said the UK's structural deficit went from second best in the G7 in 2000 to the worst in 2007. The actual debt is even worse as PFI and much of our pension committable are off the books.
> 
> As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said _"Labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world." _.
> 
> The cuts will only reduce the level of public spending increases, they are  now an economic necessity because we had so little room for financial manoeuvring. Perhaps if the coalition had inherited a better economic situation, things would be different.


 
You'd have been better off spending more time in education rather than walking to and from it, if you think that is currently the most important aspect of Keynesianism.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's a third way.


 
You didn't get that at all did you?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You'd have been better off spending more time in education rather than walking to and from it, if you think that is currently the most important aspect of Keynesianism.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Louis this is a typical post of yours - where do I say it's the most important aspect of Keynesianism? Why if I did think this (which I don't) would it be incorrect.

You really need to do better then misrepresentation and insult.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

It's your primary characterisation.  If it's a minor part why did you list it as it's defining core? 

As noted before, you can't even lie honestly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Louis this is a typical post of yours - where do I say it's the most important aspect of Keynesianism? Why if I did think this (which I don't) would it be incorrect.
> 
> You really need to do better then misrepresentation and insult.



You cite none of the other characteristics of Keynesian economics; which means you place your repayment of loans point centre stage, so no misrespresentation. If it isn't the most important point for you what is? What might the advantages of Keynesiansim's other charcateristics be at this time of dampened demand and squeezed credit? Oh and if you don't want to be called a twit don't write like a fool.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Keynesian economics the idea is that you repay the loans required for a stimulus during a bad time back during a good time.



Nope, that's a small element of Keynesianism, and scarcely the most important one. 



> During Labour's good times they ran a deficit. As the OECD hav said the UK's structural deficit went from second best in the G7 in 2000 to the worst in 2007.



And as I said, the spending was consonant with the phase of the economic cycle. Your plucking of figures out of their context notwithstanding. 



> The actual debt is even worse as PFI and much of our pension committable are off the books.



Ah, the pensions trope again.
How many times does it need to be explained to you that pension liabilities are an ongoing liability, not a liability where payment is due imminently, that only a percentage of that liability comes due wvery year, and that any quantification of current overall liabilities is therefore economically irrelevant?



> As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said _"Labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world." _.



Yes, and...?

Quoting single sentences divorced from the overall context is the work of an idiot.



> The cuts will only reduce the level of public spending increases, they are  now an economic necessity because we had so little room for financial manoeuvring. Perhaps if the coalition had inherited a better economic situation, things would be different.


 
That last paragraph is another prime example of your ignorance of economics. There is plenty of room to manouvre economically. What there isn't is *ideological* room to manouvre, so the people of the UK are in imminent danger of a buttfucking based on the Tory need to firm up their support in their heartlands, and the Lib-Dem desire to cling onto power regardless of the cost to the electorate.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 14, 2011)

Its obvious to anyone with a the barest understanding of politics that the tories siezed on the financial 'crises' as an excuse to push through an indeological based 'shrinking of the state' as argued for by the chicago school - moon you can either argue that such ideologly driven policies are right and good for the nation or you can argue that its demented dogma that serves only entrcenched wealth at the expense of everyone else - which is it to be? 

Wibbling on that its 'unavoidable' is demonstrably nonsense - sound bite economics only swallowed by those with limited attention spans.

So either defend the vile neo-liberal  policies of your government or take your pathetic propagandor elsewhere - no one is buying your shit here.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2011)

This one is hilarious



> The mayor of Wolverhampton has been arrested after cannabis plants were found by police at an industrial unit.
> 
> Liberal Democrat Malcolm Gwinnett was detained by Staffordshire Police on Saturday on suspicion of growing cannabis after the raid in Wombourne.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-black-country-12750609


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> This one is hilarious
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-black-country-12750609


can't even grow marijuana properly


----------



## creak (Mar 17, 2011)

It's from the Standard but still:

Nick Clegg's effort at team-building with Tory MPs ends in farce


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 17, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> This one is hilarious
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-black-country-12750609


 
Shit. I've been inadvertently funding the fucking Liberals. And here was me thinking it was just Vietnamese organised crime syndicates. I'm fucking appalled.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its obvious to anyone with a the barest understanding of politics that the tories siezed on the financial 'crises' as an excuse to push through an indeological based 'shrinking of the state' as argued for by the chicago school - moon you can either argue that such ideologly driven policies are right and good for the nation or you can argue that its demented dogma that serves only entrcenched wealth at the expense of everyone else - which is it to be?
> 
> Wibbling on that its 'unavoidable' is demonstrably nonsense - sound bite economics only swallowed by those with limited attention spans.
> 
> So either defend the vile neo-liberal  policies of your government or take your pathetic propagandor elsewhere - no one is buying your shit here.



KT's the primary anti-Tory/anti--Lib-Dem** man with this post. Excellent!  

**Positions 100% indistinguishable from each other, correctly ....


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its obvious to anyone with a the barest understanding of politics that the tories siezed on the financial 'crises' as an excuse to push through an indeological based 'shrinking of the state' as argued for by the chicago school - moon you can either argue that such ideologly driven policies are right and good for the nation or you can argue that its demented dogma that serves only entrcenched wealth at the expense of everyone else - which is it to be?
> 
> Wibbling on that its 'unavoidable' is demonstrably nonsense - sound bite economics only swallowed by those with limited attention spans.
> 
> So either defend the vile neo-liberal  policies of your government or take your pathetic propagandor elsewhere - no one is buying your shit here.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its obvious to anyone with a the barest understanding of politics that the tories siezed on the financial 'crises' as an excuse to push through an indeological based 'shrinking of the state' as argued for by the chicago school - moon you can either argue that such ideologly driven policies are right and good for the nation or you can argue that its demented dogma that serves only entrcenched wealth at the expense of everyone else - which is it to be?
> 
> Wibbling on that its 'unavoidable' is demonstrably nonsense - sound bite economics only swallowed by those with limited attention spans.
> 
> So either defend the vile neo-liberal  policies of your government or take your pathetic propagandor elsewhere - no one is buying your shit here.


 
Word


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2011)

Fantastic stuff  - the lib-dem led coalition is not the lib-dms fault, it's labour voters fault for not voting lib-dem. Not the labour party even, but labour voters.


----------



## creak (Mar 22, 2011)

What was that about the Lib Dem penchant for abusing animals?



> Former Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten, who quit parliament after cheating on his wife with a rent boy, has taken a job promoting the fur trade.
> 
> Mr Oaten, 47, is now the chief executive of the Surrey based International Fur Trade Federation that promotes the industry and gives it a "factual image".
> 
> ...



Link


----------



## Fruitloop (Mar 22, 2011)

Holy crap.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2011)

The shit has hit the fan.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 22, 2011)

Inspector of mink scats.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2011)

The coalition is the political equivelant of two girls one cup.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The coalition is the political equivelant of two girls one cup.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its obvious to anyone with a the barest understanding of politics that the tories siezed on the financial 'crises' as an excuse to push through an indeological based 'shrinking of the state' as argued for by the chicago school - moon you can either argue that such ideologly driven policies are right and good for the nation or you can argue that its demented dogma that serves only entrcenched wealth at the expense of everyone else - which is it to be?
> 
> Wibbling on that its 'unavoidable' is demonstrably nonsense - sound bite economics only swallowed by those with limited attention spans.
> 
> So either defend the vile neo-liberal  policies of your government or take your pathetic propagandor elsewhere - no one is buying your shit here.


 
So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?



The only cut that is needed is to your throat with a large serrated knife.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?


 
Where does he say that? You dishonest shit. You completely miss the point that one of the consequences of your sadistic economic policy will be to shrink the economy, causing benefits bills increase and tax receipts plummet, resulting in an increased deficit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?



The deficit is a lie, or at least it was until your lot got their hands on power and forced the Tories to the right.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?


 
Come on chicken, justify your stance on poverty and freedom.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The deficit is a lie, or at least it was until your lot got their hands on power and forced the Tories to the right.


 
Yes the deficit is a lie which is why the outgoing chief  secretary to the treasury left a note saying there was no more money left.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Another two good Lib Dem influences, ensuring the student visa's aren't capped and that we signed up to the EU directive on human trafficking. 

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/24644/the_quiet_lib_dem_wins_continue.html


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes the deficit is a lie which is why the outgoing chief  secretary to the treasury left a note saying there was no more money left.


 
That's all you've got left isn't it? A jokey note from the previous government. Give yourself a peanut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's all you've got left isn't it? A jokey note from the previous government. Give yourself a peanut.


 
i'm sure he could stretch to a ligature, or even a proper rope, instead of trying to choke himself to death.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Another two good Lib Dem influences, ensuring the student visa's aren't capped and that we signed up to the EU directive on human trafficking.
> 
> http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/24644/the_quiet_lib_dem_wins_continue.html


 
You poo deluded fool. I left he r off on purpose.

Wit.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure he could stretch to a ligature, or even a proper rope, instead of trying to choke himself to death.


in austerity Britain a peanut is all we can spare.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

i'll chip in a quid for a pair of laces moon23 can use to hang himself with.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)

Another quid here. It's good to see the Dunkirk spirit alive and well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Another quid here. It's good to see the Dunkirk spirit alive and well.


 
on second thoughts, we could keep our pounds and simply drown the fucker 

all we need's an inch of water to thrust his unsightly face in


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 22, 2011)

I could piss an inch, no problem.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll chip in a quid for a pair of laces moon23 can use to hang himself with.


 
Fuck it, here's £20 (passes dosh) - buy him a tow rope, that way it can be put to good use afterwards.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)

Another inch (*snigger*) here. Good to see the Dunkirk spirit alive and well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck it, here's £20 (passes dosh) - buy him a tow rope.


 
fucking a tenner for the tow rope, a couple of quid for raffle tickets, and £8 for petrol.

we can raffle off the chance to drag moon23 to his death.

or we could get a tyre and some petrol and bring an old south african tradition to moon23's street.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fucking a tenner for the tow rope, a couple of quid for raffle tickets, and £8 for petrol.
> 
> we can raffle off the chance to drag moon23 to his death.
> 
> or we could get a tyre and some petrol and bring an old south african tradition to moon23's street.


 

Even Moon must be in favour of this - Liberals are all about choice you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Even Moon must be in favour of this - Liberals are all about choice you know.


 
yeh. and if it was good enough for mandela (winnie) then it should be good enough for moon23.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fucking a tenner for the tow rope, a couple of quid for raffle tickets, and £8 for petrol.
> 
> we can raffle off the chance to drag moon23 to his death.
> 
> or we could get a tyre and some petrol and bring an old south african tradition to moon23's street.



Nice to see the Left wing tradition of murdering your political opponents is alive and well.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Pretty sure it's your lot driving people to death.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Nice to see the Left wing tradition of murdering your political opponents is alive and well.


 






Louis MacNeice


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Nice to see the Left wing tradition of murdering your political opponents is alive and well.


 
You aren't a "political opponent". You are vermin.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?


for the umpteenth time, Tax the RICH,tax the BANKERS, close the tax gap


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> You aren't a "political opponent". You are vermin.


 
Oh yea, and Jews are "sub-human" lest we forget.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh yea, and Jews are "sub-human" lest we forget.



Who said that? Or is this more of your lib-dem incoherence? This time with a very public nasty edge.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

This thread has got unbelievably childish, I’m not in the mood to entertain your make believe lynch mob fantasies today. So I’ll leave your to your rantings.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Nice to see the Left wing tradition of murdering your political opponents is alive and well.


Moon,get used to it.This *genuine* anger is caused *100%* by the thatcherite policies you are so dismally defending.You deserve every bit of it


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who said that? Or is this more of your lib-dem incoherence? This time with a very public nasty edge.


 
Just pointing out how people on the board are engaging in the process of dehumanisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Just pointing out how people on the board are engaging in the process of dehumanisation.


 
No, you made a specific claim of anti-semitism against a particular poster, you essentially called him a nazi. Grow up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> This thread has got unbelievably childish, I’m not in the mood to entertain your make believe lynch mob fantasies today. So I’ll leave your to your rantings.


 
Well, thanks for your 210 posts showing how and why the lib-dems are shit.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Moon,get used to it.This *genuine* anger is caused *100%* by the thatcherite policies you are so dismally defending.You deserve every bit of it



It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 23, 2011)

There are occasions when hatred is the emotionally healthy response.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, you made a specific claim of anti-semitism against a particular poster, you essentially called him a nazi. Grow up.


 
Grow-up? I'm not the one talking about lynching people, drowning people in piss and firebombing them etc. Take a reality check.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.


 
Your misanthropy came first and in spades; did you expect a pat on the back for your anti-social posts?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.


 
You think the anger at the lib-dems is an invention? You think Barnsley didn't happen? That the sub 10% poll ratings aren't happening? That the nick Clegg effigies didn't happen? That the police telling Nick Cl;egg that he's not allowed out in public on his own didn't happen? That the collapse in the South west stronghold isn't happening? That none of this and more is happening? Take a reality check.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.


No you pathetic tory dickhead, it's caused by anger at the people whose lives you are _ruining_.
The whole country hates you and yours,Moon23 -you can live with that?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Grow-up? I'm not the one talking about lynching people, drowning people in piss and firebombing them etc. Take a reality check.


 
What you're seeing is the perfectly normal defensive reaction of society to attacks on it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Grow-up? I'm not the one talking about lynching people, drowning people in piss and firebombing them etc. Take a reality check.


 
But you are the one posting childish ahistorcial 'freemarket if onlys' and expecting people to accept them as fact.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.



You really are a pompous arse, aren't you? Your slavish dedication to a party who, far from acting as a brake for the more heinous Tory policies, are in fact in lockstep with them, marks you down as the enemy.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Grow-up? I'm not the one talking about lynching people, drowning people in piss and firebombing them etc. Take a reality check.


Millions of people out there feel the same way,Moon23. Can you think why they do?


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Seems to me that the folk who were rabidly criticising everything the previous labour government did, without thought or implication, have got us into this sorry mess.

And yet when asked it's interesting how few people are willing to accept their share of any responsibility.

You delighted in attacking, with propaganda, misinformation and rumour, the few decent(ish) folk that were trying to run the country and now we have this shower of shite.

Well done. Idiots.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2011)

vote labour!


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Until further notice!


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Seems to me that the folk who were rabidly criticising everything the previous labour government did, without thought or implication, have got us into this sorry mess.


 Go and cry into your beer elsewhere, you whining no mark. While your Labour friends are licking the boots of the City of London and driving forward thatcherite policies, those who've been criticising them from the left on u75 are _still_ fighting against attacks on the working class. The parties may change, but the enemy remains the same.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Then you made it worse.

Please stop fighting for us.

You are just shit at it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Please stop fighting for us.



Fighting badly is better than just accepting your fate.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Rubbish. You end up shooting your own troops.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Then you made it worse.
> 
> Please stop fighting for us.
> 
> You are just shit at it.


REALLY?and who might "us" be?
I mean, who do YOU speak for?


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Rubbish. You end up shooting your own troops.


 
Getting troops and civilians shot, that was another thing your Labour party was good at.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Rubbish. You end up shooting your own troops.



That's either a shit joke or a shit metaphor.


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

the idea that you shouldn't attack one bunch of cunts because the people who replace them might be even bigger cunts is a completely moronic point of view anyway


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

Given that this thread is about the LD's shitiness, I thought I'd create a new space for discussion of New Labour's execrable performance; so here it is.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/345701-Why-New-labour-were-shit?p=11618714#post11618714

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Random said:


> Getting troops and civilians shot, that was another thing your Labour party was good at.


 
Sometimes words just tumble from your keys with almost no forethought, eh, Random?

For all the sense that made you may as well have been typing at random.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Nice one Louis.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

strung out said:


> the idea that you shouldn't attack one bunch of cunts because the people who replace them might be even bigger cunts is a completely moronic point of view anyway


 
Might be?

Are you truly that dense?


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Might be?
> 
> Are you truly that dense?


 
i'll rephrase it then...

the idea that you shouldn't attack one bunch of cunts because the people who replace them will be even bigger cunts is a completely moronic point of view anyway


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Given that this thread is about the LD's shitiness, I thought I'd create a new space for discussion of New Labour's execrable performance; so here it is.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/345701-Why-New-labour-were-shit?p=11618714#post11618714
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Yes. Separate the issues so that you can once again shirk taking responsibility.


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Sometimes words just tumble from your keys with almost no forethought, eh, Random?
> 
> For all the sense that made you may as well have been typing at random.


 
Ènough of this attempt to defend your Lib Dem friends. Off to the other thread, please.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yes. Separate the issues so that you can once again shirk taking responsibility.


 
Look, your rather pathetic and pompous attempt to wind people up has been rumbled. Off you go to the other thread with this nonsense.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

strung out said:


> i'll rephrase it then...
> 
> the idea that you shouldn't attack one bunch of cunts because the people who replace them will be even bigger cunts is a completely moronic point of view anyway


 
I'm sure that sounded impressive in your head while you were writing it... but it's not.

It's bollocks that you could never defend.


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Away with you, plastic yoghurt hippie


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Look, your rather pathetic and pompous attempt to wind people up has been rumbled. Off you go to the other thread with this nonsense.


 
You misunderstand.

I don't wish to defend Labour or even attack the lib-dems. My problem is with the folk who display that idiotic behaviour.

So, in reality, I couldn't care less where we have this argument.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yes. Separate the issues so that you can once again shirk taking responsibility.


 
Shirking responsibility; now there is something that New Labour continues to excell at. 

You don't score highly for courage of your convictions or sense of irony. Go on, stop letting the Lib Dem apologist off the hook and go and defend your party's record.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You misunderstand.
> 
> I don't wish to defend Labour or even attack the lib-dems. My problem is with the folk who display that idiotic behaviour.
> 
> So, in reality, I couldn't care less where we have this argument.


Off you fuck then.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Random said:


> Away with you, plastic yoghurt hippie


 
Sorry, was I getting in the way of another 'justified' ganging up session on a single poster... ?


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You misunderstand.
> 
> I don't wish to defend Labour or even attack the lib-dems. My problem is with the folk who display that idiotic behaviour.
> 
> So, in reality, I couldn't care less where we have this argument.


 
what idiotic behaviour?


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Shirking responsibility; now there is something that New Labour continues to excell at.
> 
> You don't score highly for courage of your convictions or sense of irony. Go on, stop letting the Lib Dem apologist off the hook and go and defend your party's record.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Not my party. Just my vote.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not my party. Just my vote.


 
As I said lacking the courage of your convictions; something you could easily remedy with a couple of mouse clicks and some typing...go on be brave.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> My problem is with the folk who display that idiotic behaviour.


 'Folk'. FFS.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> As I said lacking the courage of your convictions.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
You are, as yet, unaware of my convictions.

Please feel free to make them up for me, rather than ask. I know that will be much easier for you.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Random said:


> 'Folk'. FFS.


 
Folk is not a word I'd have thought you'd have trouble with, beardy.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Let's all just ignore this creepy attention seeking arse-grabber shall we?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You are, as yet, unaware of my convictions.
> 
> Please feel free to make them up for me, rather than ask. I know that will be much easier for you.



'You delighted in attacking, with propaganda, misinformation and rumour, the few decent(ish) folk that were trying to run the country and now we have this shower of shite....

[Vote Labour]

...Until further notice!'​
So it's a coward and a liar then.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Of course I'm seeking attention, you dickless prick.

I want idiots to listen when I call them idiots.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 'You delighted in attacking, with propaganda, misinformation and rumour, the few decent(ish) folk that were trying to run the country and now we have this shower of shite....
> 
> [Vote Labour]
> 
> ...


 
In your mind, probably. But that's because you've got all the integrity of a compensation lawyer at an accident scene...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Sometimes words just tumble from your keys with almost no forethought, eh, Random?
> 
> For all the sense that made you may as well have been typing at random.


That's funny,that's what every one of your posts seems like to me.
That,or you just talk utter shite


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Let me simplify - for the hard of thinking...

You're an idiot. Partly because of the guff you wrote above about who I'm speaking for, and partly because I think you were probably dropped on your head as a baby.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Let me simplify forth hard of thinking...
> 
> You're an idiot. Partly because of the guff you wrote above about making it worse being better than nothing, and partly because I think you were probably dropped on your head as a baby.


 
Seeking the reasons for Streatamite's idiocy is like counting the grains of sand on the beach.


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Disgusting Lib Dem stalker warned by police "Coun Grant, a Liberal Democrat who represents Whalley Range, will also face a probe by Manchester council’s standards committee. He has been given a warning by police and banned from any further contact with the resident."
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...range_lib_dem_councillor_over_explicit_emails


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

As usual... when the finger of blame points to those responsible the reaction is to pretend they hear nothing......


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

who are you blaming for being responsible for what?


----------



## Santino (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> As usual... when the finger of blame points to those responsible the reaction is to pretend they hear nothing......


 
Do you think posters here made Labour unpopular?


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

I think I was quite clear in my first post.

Unfortunately the cap will never fit on some people because their heads are way too big.


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

nothing to say then. move along.


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Do you think posters here made Labour unpopular?


 
He's just jumping on a popular thread to have fun. It could have been about labour, PG tips or Bradd pitt and he'd have trolled it. Just ignore him.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Let me simplify - for the hard of thinking...
> 
> You're an idiot. Partly because of the guff you wrote above about who I'm speaking for, and partly because I think you were probably dropped on your head as a baby.


WTF?To whom _precisely_ do you refer,and what 'guff'?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Shit-boy oaten now the face of the international fur trade.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

Random said:


> He's just jumping on a popular thread to have fun. It could have been about labour, PG tips or Bradd pitt and he'd have trolled it. Just ignore him.


Great.dwyer has a rival for "tosser" of the year


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Do you think posters here made Labour unpopular?


 
I think there was an awful lot of spin, misinformation, short-sightedness, propaganda and stupidity spread that led to this horrific result.

And I think there are several posters who idiotically assisted in the spread of all that horsecrap.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

Fuck off knob


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Do you think posters here made Labour unpopular?


 
Obviously. Urban75 holds the opinion of the electorate in the palm of its hand.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Great.dwyer has a rival for "tosser" of the year


 
The more you insult me the greater the compliment I take it as.

Because no-one wants to be a friend to arseholes... you just end up smelling of shit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The more you insult me the greater the compliment I take it as.


 
Nonce


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off knob


 
Blow me.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think there was an awful lot of spin, misinformation, short-sightedness, propaganda and stupidity spread that led to this horrific result.
> 
> And I think there are several posters who idiotically assisted in the spread of all that horsecrap.



Labour started the kicking of the long term sick and disabled, and it's only been since the tories have enacted their policies that anyone seems to care about it. They started most of this. Their complete silence on, just about everything, is more or less because they would have done most of the same things (maybe more slowly) and are quite happy to see the tories getting flak for it.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Labour started the kicking of the long term sick and disabled, and it's only been since the tories have enacted their policies that anyone seems to care about it. They started most of this. Their complete silence on, just about everything, is more or less because they would have done most of the same things (maybe more slowly) and are quite happy to see the tories getting flak for it.


 
More slowly would have been much better with much less suffering.

Labour were no angels, but this lot are as close to evil as humans can get.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

Lesser evilism


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lesser evilism


 
Remember PT if it wasn't for those nice liberals things would be even worse.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

I hope that sad face is for the people who are suffering at the hands of these deep, largely unnecessary and savage cuts.

That would at least show some tiny amount of awareness.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> More slowly would have been much better with much less suffering.
> 
> Labour were no angels, but this lot are as close to evil as humans can get.


 
They paved the way for all this crap that's happening to sick and disabled people. If they hadn't started it, I doubt IDS would be able to continue it...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I hope that sad face is for the people who are suffering at the hands of these deep, largely unnecessary and savage cuts.
> 
> That would at least show some tiny amount of awareness.


 
Yeah, because Labour wouldn't have made the same cuts.

And if only Urban had swung behind the LP it would all be so different.

'Vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out'. That's you that is. Jizzmat.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

More 'Proper Charlie', than 'Proper Tidy'....


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

You seem to have a mental glitch, though. I think it's because you have no real idea how to debate.

I didn't come on here to defend labour or the lib dems.. I've been reading and watching a number of you gang up on someone with an alternative point of view. Nasty and ruthless.

And I've seen this time and time again over the years.. whenever an argument has come up about some aspect of governmental policy the same old suspects are there, shouting the odds, beating down anyone trying to provide a reasonable or rational counterargument with insults designed to inflame the argument. Spreading bullshit, misinformation and/or propaganda liberally just to 'win' the argument.

It turns my stomach. Especially to see these same people never show the slightest hint that their stupid bullish behaviour led indirectly to this shower of shite and the situation getting much worse for the most vulnerable people.

Blowhards, we used to call them... people who love to shout about how much everyone else fucks things up while all the time fucking everything up themselves.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 23, 2011)

oh fuck off you twat


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You seem to have a mental glitch, though. I think it's because you have no real idea how to debate.
> 
> I didn't come on here to defend labour or the lib dems.. I've been reading and watching a number of you gang up on someone with an alternative point of view. Nasty and ruthless.
> 
> ...


 
balls


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> They paved the way for all this crap that's happening to sick and disabled people. If they hadn't started it, I doubt IDS would be able to continue it...


 
Two people can schedule a review of a system that is failing... one may intend to repair it as best they can, the other to dismantle it. The point being that IDS is intent on fucking people up... intentionally.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> oh fuck off you twat


 
Was I talking to you?

You seem to think so.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Fucking hell, it takes some doing to ride a a white horse whilst nailed to a cross. He's managed it though.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2011)

need bigger nails.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

.... and one by one they come, numbers swelling, confidence growing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Just ignore him and he'll go back to his sex-pestery elsewhere.


----------



## strung out (Mar 23, 2011)

lol


----------



## Santino (Mar 23, 2011)

So, how about those Lib Dems then?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> So, how about those Lib Dems then?


 
They've just voted to flog off loads of green space to private companies in bristol. They seem to be trying to provoke a wipeout in may. They acting like they actually want to be political-suicides.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

they're shit


----------



## Santino (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They've just voted to flog off loads of green space to private companies in bristol. They seem to be trying to provoke a wipeout in may. They acting like they actually want to be political-suicides.


 
Intentionally accelerating the contradictions of capitalism in order to precipitate a workers' revolt


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 23, 2011)

Just like most bullies, when faced up to, they run. Leaving behind nasty little sexual-based insults.

Which only goes to prove how very tiny their own dicks must be.

You have your wish, I had my say. Please feel free to continue your circle jerk at your leisure.

x.


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2011)

you sure showed us.


----------



## Santino (Mar 23, 2011)

Yep, those Lib Dems are shit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

They're shit because they think this proves they're on the up again:

Just been sent this by a Lib Dem. A Labour councillor has switched to the Lib Dems in Manchester. The Lib Dem who sent it me said it was symptomatic of the demise of Labour, yet seemed to miss the fact that he didn't jump - he was pushed: (from the link) "Councillor Spellen admitted that he had been pushed out of the Labour Party, having received a letter from the regional Labour Party saying he no longer met the criteria for a Labour councillor."

Anyone know why he was pushed?


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2011)

my lib dem cousin was telling me on friday that free prescriptions and no tuition fees (she lives in scotland) are 'populist policies, at the expense of the economy'.

weren't they both lib dem policies last year?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> They're shit because they think this proves they're on the up again:
> 
> Just been sent this by a Lib Dem. A Labour councillor has switched to the Lib Dems in Manchester. The Lib Dem who sent it me said it was symptomatic of the demise of Labour, yet seemed to miss the fact that he didn't jump - he was pushed: (from the link) "Councillor Spellen admitted that he had been pushed out of the Labour Party, having received a letter from the regional Labour Party saying he no longer met the criteria for a Labour councillor."
> 
> ...


 I bet they didn't mention the lib-dem coincillor who just moved across to the tories - or the derby one who stood down.


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Four thousand students remind the lib dems that they still hate them



> Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Margaret Smith was heckled by thousands of students who descended on Holyrood yesterday.
> 
> The MSP’s voice was practically drowned out as she outlined her party’s policy on higher education in Scotland at a rally outside the Scottish Parliament where politicians, student leaders and unions addressed the marchers.


http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2191744


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2011)

why the fuck was she even invited to speak? that's deranged...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They've just voted to flog off loads of green space to private companies in bristol. They seem to be trying to provoke a wipeout in may. They acting like they actually want to be political-suicides.


That's what confuses me.it's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.
it'snot like the Tories,who cheerfully enrage areas where they never expect votes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I bet they didn't mention the lib-dem coincillor who just moved across to the tories - or the derby one who stood down.


 
Funny enough he neglected to mention that 

Edit: Where was the one who went to the Tories? Manchester?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> why the fuck was she even invited to speak? that's deranged...


 
It was supposed to be an opp for Scottish lib-dems to boast about how they still oppose tuition fees. How could they not know what's happening? Looks like lib-dem official are as much in denial as moon was above.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2011)

The only conclusion that seems logical is just that they are shit at party politics and have no idea how to weild power effectively without pissing of voters. Just straight incompetence.


----------



## Santino (Mar 23, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> straight incompetence


----------



## killer b (Mar 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It was supposed to be an opp for Scottish lib-dems to boast about how they still oppose tuition fees. How could they not know what's happening? Looks like lib-dem official are as much in denial as moon was above.


 
it isn't a ringing endorsement of liam burns of the NUS scotland either...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Nice to see the Left wing tradition of murdering your political opponents is alive and well.


 
Who's been murdered?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh yea, and Jews are "sub-human" lest we forget.


 
Fuck you, you unprincipled _goy_ dick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's caused by your own hatred and self-righteous behaviour.


 
Yeah, damn us all for being self-hating, self-righteous non-Lib-Dems, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> You really are a pompous arse, aren't you? Your slavish dedication to a party who, far from acting as a brake for the more heinous Tory policies, are in fact in lockstep with them, marks you down as the enemy.


 
"In lockstep"? 

The Lib-Dems are nitrous oxide in the Tory internal combustion engine!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Seems to me that the folk who were rabidly criticising everything the previous labour government did, without thought or implication, have got us into this sorry mess.



I'm not aware of that many people, even in the Trot grouplets, who "rabidly criticised everything the previous labour government did". Care to point out to whom you're referring?

A lot of people did, however, criticise some of Labour's actions, just as they praised those policy elements that worked. Problem is that for every SureStart, there was a PFI, which didn't help.



> And yet when asked it's interesting how few people are willing to accept their share of any responsibility.



That's a fairly usual response. *However*, it doesn't, as some would imply, mean that if people had swallowed the problems that Labour caused, and voted them in again, that everything would be ticketty-boo. It merely means we'd still have the "nice" neo-liberal party governing us, rather than a coalition made up of useful idiots and the "nasty" neo-liberal party.



> You delighted in attacking, with propaganda, misinformation and rumour, the few decent(ish) folk that were trying to run the country and now we have this shower of shite.



And boy, were they a few!

Oh, and don't blame humble internet users for the political situation we find ourselves in. Blame the parliamentary representatives that shot themselves in the foot with their own greed. Blame the lack of representative democracy or the way in which it became obvious that our political masters were going to roll over again for "big business". Hey, even blame the poor choices of the electorate, but don't make out that it was anything other than that which brought "us" to this pass. 



> Well done. Idiots.


 

Feel better now? Is your moral superiority keeping you warm?

Didn't think so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

strung out said:


> the idea that you shouldn't attack one bunch of cunts because the people who replace them might be even bigger cunts is a completely moronic point of view anyway


 
Labour and Tory supporters used to laugh at the idea that the British parties could ever become a European version of the nice neo-lib party/nasty neo-lib party dichotomy that is party politics in the US.

And yet lo and behold, we are indeed faced with the choice between smaller and bigger cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> As usual... when the finger of blame points to those responsible the reaction is to pretend they hear nothing......


 
Surely, if you're sure that your hypotheses regarding the current political situation are credible, you'll do other board-users the courtesy of setting them out, rather than making gnomic and mostly irrelevant side-swipes?

Thanks awfully!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Do you think posters here made Labour unpopular?


 
Posters on urban75 have so much more influence on political thinking than actual politically-influenced events, Chino-boy. I'd have thought that was obvious!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think there was an awful lot of spin, misinformation, short-sightedness, propaganda and stupidity spread that led to this horrific result.



Such as?



> And I think there are several posters who idiotically assisted in the spread of all that horsecrap.


 
So it wasn't the long-established right-wing tendency in the media that tipped the balance, but rather "several posters" who helped the "horsecrap" achieve critical mass?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Two people can schedule a review of a system that is failing... one may intend to repair it as best they can, the other to dismantle it. The point being that IDS is intent on fucking people up... intentionally.


 
He's not.

His intentions are far worse than they would be if they merely resulted from his adherence to a Hayekian world-view.

His intentions are those of the morally-upright paternalists of the Victorian era that he mimics. He *believes* that he has a moral imperative for what he does. That's far worse for the likes of a disabled person such as myself than a mere ideologue whose view can be argued against rationally, believe me.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> ...Jews are "sub-human"


 
The Liberal Democrats, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Two people can schedule a review of a system that is failing... one may intend to repair it as best they can, the other to dismantle it. The point being that IDS is intent on fucking people up... intentionally.


 
They AGREE WITH EACH OTHER that is why most of Labour voted with the Tories. That is why they got somebody- Lord Freud -to write their "report" who then defected to the tories. How many more times does this need to be said. There is virtually no opposition coming from labour on this, and the bits there are are mainly peripheral - like arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic.

The only difference is for James Purnell it was opportunistic careerism, IDS actually believes this crap. I am not sure who is worse but we couldn't have had IDS if labour hadn't made a good start on the onslaught onto sick and disabled people.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You seem to have a mental glitch, though. I think it's because you have no real idea how to debate.
> 
> I didn't come on here to defend labour or the lib dems.. I've been reading and watching a number of you gang up on someone with an alternative point of view. Nasty and ruthless.
> 
> ...


----------



## teccuk (Mar 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That's what confuses me.it's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.
> it'snot like the Tories,who cheerfully enrage areas where they never expect votes.


 
Bloody hell you managed to put in words what i'd been thinking.

Locally the lib dems are great. Fucking hilarious, hellish electioneering going on now.  Even though they are all 'green' voted in an incinerator, sold off half the open spaces and are desperately shoving any old crap press release out. Half of them seem to spend all day on twatter.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 23, 2011)

Or the Sheffield cllr that defected to Labour and thus removed the LB's council majority.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That's what confuses me.it's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.
> it'snot like the Tories,who cheerfully enrage areas where they never expect votes.


Because they aren't just scum they're inept scum, as this thread has shown us.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Just straight incompetence.


 
Where does "straight" come into it? Not only are they Lib Dems, but they are part of a government led by a batch of Old Etonians.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2011)

Here's the lib-dems holding back the tory tide:

Clegg to Cameron off camera during a joint Q and A:




			
				clegg said:
			
		

> If we keep doing this we won't have anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.




Vid at above link - 43 secs. How cynical.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 24, 2011)

I love you Dave


----------



## moon23 (Mar 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Labour and Tory supporters used to laugh at the idea that the British parties could ever become a European version of the nice neo-lib party/nasty neo-lib party dichotomy that is party politics in the US.
> 
> And yet lo and behold, we are indeed faced with the choice between smaller and bigger cunts.


 
There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


 
why aren't you dead yet?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 24, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


 
That's nice dear.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


Wow, you are _really_ really mental aren't you?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why aren't you dead yet?


 
Good evening to you too Pickman


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you are _really_ really mental aren't you?


 
not at all (and i'm surprised at you, butchers) i just don't like moon23.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Good evening to you too Pickman


 
it was...


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the lib-dems holding back the tory tide:
> 
> Clegg to Cameron off camera during a joint Q and A:
> 
> ...



Have you come to defend your wonderful leader, moon?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> Have you come to defend your wonderful leader, moon?


 
Obviously not then!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the lib-dems holding back the tory tide:
> 
> Clegg to Cameron off camera during a joint Q and A:
> 
> ...



Mrs. S☼I found this a bit ago, a couple of hours after I'd seen it. When I started singing "Cleggy's gonna get booted" to the tune of "I'm coming to find you" she said "baby, baby - please stop being politicky".  

And she had no idea of what's happening Sat. None whatsoever. I love the woman for all sorts of reasons, but she's exasperating.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


utter bollocks.Neo-liberalism is their "intellectual"wing.
And are you saying Nick Clegg isn't "anywhere near power"?


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> utter bollocks.Neo-liberalism is their "intellectual"wing.
> And are you saying Nick Clegg isn't "anywhere near power"?


 
That depends entirely on how you define power. If you define it as having the ability to affect government policy in any way, then Clegg isn't anywhere near power. On the other hand, if you define it as crawling so far up Cameron's arse that he'd in danger of banging his head on Cameron's tonsils, then Clegg is your man.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There aren't any neo-liberals anywhere near power. Neo-conservative, technocratic and big-state corporatist is a better description of the dominant parties and the administrative ethos of the US.


 
Once again, you prove your ignorance. Neo-conservatism isn't an opposing ideology to neo-liberalism, it's a manifestation of it. To have neo-cons wielding power is to have neo-liberals wielding power, and _vice versa_.

Can't you get *anything* right?


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 25, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

Clegg's going to have a real fight to keep him away from the selection process - he really is


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Once again, you prove your ignorance. Neo-conservatism isn't an opposing ideology to neo-liberalism, it's a manifestation of it. To have neo-cons wielding power is to have neo-liberals wielding power, and _vice versa_.
> 
> Can't you get *anything* right?



neo-conservatism is no more a manifestation of neo-liberalism than Stalinism is of Marxism.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> That depends entirely on how you define power. If you define it as having the ability to affect government policy in any way, then Clegg isn't anywhere near power. On the other hand, if you define it as crawling so far up Cameron's arse that he'd in danger of banging his head on Cameron's tonsils, then Clegg is your man.


 
Clegg isn't a neo-liberal, for starters he thinks we need the NHS.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> neo-conservatism is no more a manifestation of neo-liberalism than Stalinism is of Marxism.


 
Go on, explain this post. With arguments and that.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg's going to have a real fight to keep him away from the selection process - he really is



London Lib Dems won't select him.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Clegg isn't a neo-liberal, for starters he thinks we need the NHS.


 
That's why he went private and endorsed a book that argued we don't need the NHS - and in fact has said many dodgy things as regards the NHS - see this thread. 

You simply can't defend yourself by pointing to some even worse nightmare than we face currently and saying that this, this alone is neo-liberalism, not when you're setting go the process that will lead to and are designed to lead to lead to that nightmarish outcome. In short, this new tack is no defence.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> neo-conservatism is no more a manifestation of neo-liberalism than Stalinism is of Marxism.


 
Agreed.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> London Lib Dems won't select him.


 
Says who?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Too clever Louis, he won't get it.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Go on, explain this post. With arguments and that.


 
People on the left rightly object when the USSR is held up as an example of Marxist ideology, the same is true with neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. For starters neo-liberals believe that the state shouldn't interfere in people's private lives, whereas neo-cons think things like abortion should be illegal. They occasionally espouse market liberalism but only as a cover for them to regulate and control markets and hand services over to their mates in private companies to make a profit from. They are not liberals in any sense, they don't believe in personal liberty and don't really believe in a free market.

I think most of the time when people rail against neo-liberalism they are actually railing against a form of big state corporatism where a few technocratic bureaucrats and self-selecting leaders get to choose which of their mates get lucrative contracts. It’s a protectionist  stitch-up between state regulators and big business  that has nothing to do with free markets or liberalism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

Where does neo-conservatism "espouse market liberalism but only as a cover for them to regulate and control markets"?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's why he went private and endorsed a book that argued we don't need the NHS - and in fact has said many dodgy things as regards the NHS - see this thread.
> 
> You simply can't defend yourself by pointing to some even worse nightmare than we face currently and saying that this, this alone is neo-liberalism, not when you're setting go the process that will lead to and are designed to lead to lead to that nightmarish outcome. In short, this new tack is no defence.


 
I think the nightmarish outcome you fear is a society in which the political class have complete control of dishing out contracts to private companies,  I fear that too.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where does neo-conservatism "espouse market liberalism but only as a cover for them to regulate and control markets"?


 
Well the alcohol licensing trade for starters. Big states declare they want a free market, but then setup a regime of regulation and licensing control, from which they blood suck a living on the back of working people's trade.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I think the nightmarish outcome you fear is a society in which the political class have complete control of dishing out contracts to private companies,  I fear that too.


 
Don't tell me what i fear. I'll tell you what i fear - what you and what your party are supporting right now - the attacks on the poorest, the attacks on the NHS, the attacks on the post office, the attacks on society - the fetishing of the market and economics rather than humans - not the bollocks isolated nutter shit that you fear.


----------



## past caring (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Well the alcohol licensing trade for starters. Big states declare they want a free market, but then setup a regime of regulation and licensing control, from which they blood suck a living on the back of working people's trade.



Is this the David Bowie school of posting, or something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> neo-conservatism is no more a manifestation of neo-liberalism than Stalinism is of Marxism.


 
Neo-Conservatism couldn't manifest as a force until neo-liberalism's erosion of the social-democratic consensus gave it breathing room. That's why Strauss was held to be a marginal looney-tune, and his acolytes to be extremists until "Reaganomics" and "Thatcherism" came along.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ave-to-be-liberal--with-a-small-l-507402.html




			
				Clegg said:
			
		

> When his colleague David Laws MP, in an article in the now notorious Orange Book broached the question of reforming the NHS, he was almost lynched by his colleagues. But Nick Clegg isn't content to hide behind the safe prosaic rhetoric that surrounds most health service debates. He rejects old platitudes and, in a refreshingly honest and outspoken intervention, declares bluntly the NHS should be "broken up".
> 
> "One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service." Then he goes further, even refusing to rule out the insurance-based models used in mainland Europe and Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Well the alcohol licensing trade for starters. Big states declare they want a free market, but then setup a regime of regulation and licensing control, from which they blood suck a living on the back of working people's trade.


 
Oh i get it, not only do you not know what neo-liberalism is, you don't know what neo-conservatism is either. What shall we have for the hat-trick? Oh, that's right, you don't know what liberalism is either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People on the left rightly object when the USSR is held up as an example of Marxist ideology...



In the main that's incorrect. What "people on the left" tend to object to is when the USSR is held up as an example of *communism*. 



> ....the same is true with neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. For starters neo-liberals believe that the state shouldn't interfere in people's private lives...



I think you'll find that you're confusing _laissez faire_ Conservatism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has little objection to the state interfering in peoples' lives, as long as the interference benefits Capital.



> whereas neo-cons think things like abortion should be illegal.



Fatuous.
While *some* neo-Conservatives may "think things like abortion should be illegal", it's hardly a matter of neo-con principle.



> They occasionally espouse market liberalism but only as a cover for them to regulate and control markets and hand services over to their mates in private companies to make a profit from. They are not liberals in any sense, they don't believe in personal liberty and don't really believe in a free market.
> 
> I think most of the time when people rail against neo-liberalism they are actually railing against a form of big state corporatism where a few technocratic bureaucrats and self-selecting leaders get to choose which of their mates get lucrative contracts. It’s a protectionist  stitch-up between state regulators and big business  that has nothing to do with free markets or liberalism.


 


There's no such thing as a "free market". The very concept is one of theose "stitch ups" you appear keen to rail against.

As for "big state corporatism", I'd suggest you learn what Corporatism actually is, and why the only "big state" that Corporatism can properly function in is an ultra-authoritarian one.

Do the world a favour - stop using words and phrases you clearly don't understand the meaning of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i get it, not only do you not know what neo-liberalism is, you don't know what neo-conservatism is either. What shall we have for the hat-trick? Oh, that's right, you don't know what liberalism is either.


 
Or corporatism.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't tell me what i fear. I'll tell you what i fear - what you and what your party are supporting right now - the attacks on the poorest, the attacks on the NHS, the attacks on the post office, the attacks on society - the fetishing of the market and economics rather than humans - not the bollocks isolated nutter shit that you fear.


 
Raising the tax threshold for the poorest and the pupil premium are hardly attacks on the poor. I don't want to see the poor hurt unfairley by any cuts that need to be made either.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2011)

Desperate.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Raising the tax threshold for the poorest and the pupil premium are hardly attacks on the poor. I don't want to see the poor hurt unfairley by any cuts that need to be made either.


 
Raising the tax threshold by cutting taxes for the well off. Funding the premium by removing funding from elsewhere. Both are attacks on society. Doesn't matter what you want (or pathetically claim to want whilst acting in a way that ensures that the attacks do happen), it's happening, it's happening right now, not only with your and your parties support but *driven along* by your parties ideological commitment to it happening.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the main that's incorrect. What "people on the left" tend to object to is when the USSR is held up as an example of *communism*.



This doesn't affect the point I was making though. What we are discussing whether manifestations of ideologies represent the actual ideology. If you complain that a free market isn’t possible then you also have to accept that perhaps neither is communism. 




> I think you'll find that you're confusing _laissez faire_ Conservatism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has little objection to the state interfering in peoples' lives, as long as the interference benefits Capital.



I think it is  you who confused as to what neo-liberalism actually means. It appears as if you only understand it in terms of a simplisitic bogeyman to blame for socieites ills.  Most neo-liberals believe that economic liberalism leads to personal liberty and freedom from state interference.





> Fatuous.
> While *some* neo-Conservatives may "think things like abortion should be illegal", it's hardly a matter of neo-con principle.



It is an example of the belive that traditional conservative values should be defended and upheld by the state. This has nothing to do with neo-liberalism. 







> As for "big state corporatism", I'd suggest you learn what Corporatism actually is, and why the only "big state" that Corporatism can properly function in is an ultra-authoritarian one.


 That's not true it can function in a technocratic or bureaucratic society such as that envisioned by Weber.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Raising the tax threshold for the poorest and the pupil premium are hardly attacks on the poor. I don't want to see the poor hurt unfairley by any cuts that need to be made either.


 
The pupil premium is an exercise in shifting money from one account to another, the tax threshold is pretty much the reversal of a mistake that Labour made that even your bunch of dim cunts could see was foolish, and knew would play well to the socially-concerned liberalati at next to bugger-all cost.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Raising the tax threshold by cutting taxes for the well off. Funding the premium by removing funding from elsewhere. Both are attacks on society. Doesn't matter what you want (or pathetically claim to want whilst acting in a way that ensures that the attacks do happen), it's happening, it's happening right now, not only with your and your parties support but *driven along* by your parties ideological commitment to it happening.


 
The 50% tax threshold for the well off has stayed in place though. How are taxes for the well off being cut?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Raising the tax threshold for the poorest and the pupil premium are hardly attacks on the poor. I don't want to see the poor hurt unfairley by any cuts that need to be made either.


 
moon23

Your trite statements culled from the LibDem handouts on policy are no answer on a bulletin board. The pupil premium is a con. The money which goes to schools came out of the existing school budget. It amounts to about £400 a year per pupil to schools that accept pupils whose parents earn less than £16,000. It doesn't benefit those parents financially. It is also part of the historic Tory policy of schools choosing pupils which is what they really mean by 'choice' in education.

The raising of the tax threshold is useful to the lowest paid but also works up to those on middle incomes so the tax income which is reduced, causes cuts elsewhere and is not directed predominately at the poorest. This is another con.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The pupil premium is an exercise in shifting money from one account to another, the tax threshold is pretty much the reversal of a mistake that Labour made that even your bunch of dim cunts could see was foolish, and knew would play well to the socially-concerned liberalati at next to bugger-all cost.


 
There isn't much money to play with ViolentPanda, so the pupil premium ensures what money there is is shifted towards helping those that need it the most. If we were going through an economic boom rather than the consequences of a global financial meltdown then more money would have been pumped into the scheme.

Raising the tax threshold is about simplifying things, it's wrong that such poor people were taxed by the state and made to jump through complex hoops to then try and claim it back through tax credits and benefits.

I do accept that the VAT increase negates it's benefit, and I strongly oppose the VAT increase as what I see is a regressive tax. I'm annoyed the Lib Dems didn't try to do more to prevent it.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 25, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> moon23
> 
> The raising of the tax threshold is useful to the lowest paid but also works up to those on middle incomes so the tax income which is reduced, causing cuts elsewhere is not directed predominately at the poorest. This is another con.



You right it does also benefit the 'squeezed middle' earners but any system that tried to distinguish would have cost more money to administer. Raising the lower tax threshold affects those on lower pay more as they get a bigger proportion of their pay tax free.

If there was more money available then things would be different.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You right it does also benefit the 'squeezed middle' earners but any system that tried to distinguish would have cost more money to administer. Raising the lower tax threshold affects those on lower pay more as they get a bigger proportion of their pay tax free.
> 
> *If there was more money available then things would be different*.



There is more money available. Tomahawk missiles don't come in cornflakes packets.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The 50% tax threshold for the well off has stayed in place though. How are taxes for the well off being cut?


 
Actually, never mind that, cuts in benefits and services (plus inflation and wage drop) more than account for any gain here


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> 1. This doesn't affect the point I was making though. What we are discussing whether manifestations of ideologies represent the actual ideology. If you complain that a free market isn’t possible then you also have to accept that perhaps neither is communism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. The second sentence simply doesn't follow logically from the first.

2. Neo-liberals aren't against state interference per se; just some forms of it. Where they are happy for it to operate (e.g. in industrial disputes) then the state can be very assertive and coercive.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> This doesn't affect the point I was making though. What we are discussing whether manifestations of ideologies represent the actual ideology.



The USSR wasn't a "manifestation of an ideology", it was the result of a *practice or set of practices* that bore little relation to the ideology they espoused.

The dynamic between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism isn't one of mis-labelled practices, it's a dynamic of synergy. 



> If you complain that a free market isn’t possible then you also have to accept that perhaps neither is communism.



The former is an economic model (i.e. a simplified theoretical construct that cannot actually be made manifest in reality, due to the simplification and the fact that the model cannot cope with "real life" complexity), the latter is an ideology and philosophy that has been attempted and *can/is amenable to* being attempted within the complexity of "real life". To complain that because the latter isn't possible because the former isn't shows an ignorance the depth of which the Marianas Trench would envy.




> I think it is  you who confused as to what neo-liberalism actually means. It appears as if you only understand it in terms of a simplisitic bogeyman to blame for socieites ills.  Most neo-liberals believe that economic liberalism leads to personal liberty and freedom from state interference.



You've been reading Wikipedia again, rather than politics and economics journals, haven't you?

Neo-liberalism is a systematic process, a socio-economic ideology and an economic imperative. What "most neo-liberals believe" is irrelevant in the face of the major effects of neo-liberalism, even if neo-liberal cocks get hard over some of the *transient* effects of neo-liberalism in the current economic mode (those that lead idiots to believe that neo-liberalism leads to "personal liberty and freedom from state interference", for example.




> It is an example of the belive that traditional conservative values should be defended and upheld by the state. This has nothing to do with neo-liberalism.



Except that it does. You appear to be labouring under the illusion that because neo-liberalism as currently constituted allows you to believe that it enhances your access to personal liberty (a dubious belief, by the way), that neo-liberalism _per se_ also has that meaning: It doesn't.



> That's not true it can function in a technocratic or bureaucratic society such as that envisioned by Weber.


 
And what is a properly-functional technocratic or bureaucratic society, if not one that manifests a high degree of authoritarianism? 

BTW, as Weber himself would tell you, were he alive, the societies he envisioned were "models", or what he himself called "ideal types", and weren't meant to be extrapolated to "real world" situations.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i get it, not only do you not know what neo-liberalism is, you don't know what neo-conservatism is either. What shall we have for the hat-trick? Oh, that's right, you don't know what liberalism is either.


 
Maybe we could ask if moon23 can define "arse" and "elbow".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There isn't much money to play with ViolentPanda, so the pupil premium ensures what money there is is shifted towards helping those that need it the most.



Quoted for posterity, so that next time you claim that the pupil premium represents some form of new spending by the ConDems, you can be made to eat your own words. 



> If we were going through an economic boom rather than the consequences of a global financial meltdown then more money would have been pumped into the scheme.



really? Care to indicate any hard evidence (as opposed to political flatus) that supports your claim.

By the way, it is interesting that when it suits you to acknowledge the fact, you mention the *global* nature of the economic problems, but you're still happy to claim elsewhere that the economic issues reside mostly in spending by the previous government.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 25, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There is more money available. Tomahawk missiles don't come in cornflakes packets.


 
They don't?

Bugger! We'll have to postpone the revolution folks.

What breakfast cereal should I be buying then?


----------



## Fruitloop (Mar 25, 2011)

Global financial meltdown is a load of old cock. Get a grip, moon.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 25, 2011)

past caring said:


> Is this the David Bowie school of posting, or something?


 
He's no actual points or argument, so has to rely exclusively on 3rd hand rhetoric lifted from the Daily Express.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 25, 2011)

hocus eye. said:


> there is more money available. *tomahawk missiles don't come in cornflakes packets*.


 
what! Noooooo!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 25, 2011)

The term 'neo-liberal' causes confusion because it leads some to think that it relates to Liberal politics. In fact it is shorthand for 'neo-liberal _economics_'. It is only the economics that are liberated. It is really a revival of the ideas of Adam Smith as a contrast to the fairly pervasive ideas of Maynard Keynes. In its 'neo' version it takes the more reactionary aspects of Smiths ideas and has been propagated by Hayek and slightly more recently by Milton Friedman. It invaded the world from via Chicago school of economics and Reagan and Thatcher made their political careers on it. The phrase 'neo-liberal' is relatively new in this history but it is really just a reaction against what in Britain was 'Consensus Politics' that enabled the Welfare State to survive even through Tory governments. In short it is reactonary, and not good for you if you are not a millionaire.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 25, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. The second sentence simply doesn't follow logically from the first.
> 
> 2. Neo-liberals aren't against state interference per se; just some forms of it. Where they are happy for it to operate (e.g. in industrial disputes) then the state can be very assertive and coercive.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



To be fair, they do *talk* as though they're in favour of state non-intervention in general, while vigorously using the coercive powers of the state in support of business.


----------



## Combustible (Mar 27, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-amid-rumours-of-leadership-challenge.html



> The rebranding exercise due to get under way next month will involve a total rethink of the party's direction and could even include changing the name and logo, insiders said.
> 
> Some party strategists believe the name should change to include the word "social", in order to reassure members and voters that it is more left wing.
> 
> ...



One involving drinking Kool-Aid perhaps?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2011)

Combustible said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-amid-rumours-of-leadership-challenge.html
> 
> 
> 
> One involving drinking Kool-Aid perhaps?


 
How about making the colours more striking, with, say, a white circle on a red background, with some sort of funny shaped cross inside it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2011)

Combustible said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-amid-rumours-of-leadership-challenge.html
> 
> 
> 
> One involving drinking Kool-Aid perhaps?


 
If only!

fantastic that he's doing a Blair though. It took Blair 4 years as PM before he started worrying about his personal popularity. It's taken Smegg less than one year!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 27, 2011)

A nice picture of his bird landing in a tree. Being shot.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 28, 2011)

Cable abandoning the 50p tax rate, now considering a 'mansion tax'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/cable-confirms-ending-50p-tax-rate


----------



## ovaltina (Mar 28, 2011)

Combustible said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-amid-rumours-of-leadership-challenge.html


 
Didn't take very long did it? 



> Insiders say senior party figures including Chris Huhne, a former leadership contender, have been jockeying for position behind the scenes.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 28, 2011)

ovaltina said:


> Didn't take very long did it?




LOL! Not seen that before. Look at Clegg's fucking face.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2011)

Beautiful.


----------



## magneze (Mar 28, 2011)

This one probably goes here too:

First of the new universities announces it's fees for 2012 ... £8,500

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12879817


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

Cheers Nick

Support for disabled children cut in half under Universal Credit



> In a surprise announcement made in a DWP policy briefing note released at the end of last week, the Government has announced that support for all but the most disabled children, currently provided through the disability element of child tax credit, will be halved under the Universal Credit.  Calculations suggest that the loss could amount to substantially more than £20,000 across the childhood of a disabled child.
> 
> This change could cost a family with a disabled child up to £1366 per year. The loss for a family over the course of the childhood of a child born with a disability could amount to substantially more than £20000 – or more than £40000 for parents with two disabled children.






> In our briefing note on this issue Family Action estimates that around 100,000 families with disabled children could lose support as a result of this change.  This includes many of the very poorest families, already struggling to make ends meet whilst caring for a disabled child.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So you think the deficit isn't a problem at all then, and that we don't need to make any cuts?


 
Sorry if someone's already done this, but I have a lot of catching up to do and this ignorant prick is irritating me.

Moon, before you dare to post one more word about economics, read this and the articles it links to in the text - and as much else as you can be bothered to drill down for.

And then come back and tell us why you back these idiotic, suicidal, economy destroying cuts when the beneficiaries will fuck off to ASEAN as soon as they've sucked our bleeding corpse dry.

I mean it. Fucking read it or I will devote the rest of my life to following you round and calling you a cunt.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2011)

lol


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The term 'neo-liberal' causes confusion because it leads some to think that it relates to Liberal politics. In fact it is shorthand for 'neo-liberal _economics_'. It is only the economics that are liberated. It is really a revival of the ideas of Adam Smith as a contrast to the fairly pervasive ideas of Maynard Keynes. In its 'neo' version it takes the more reactionary aspects of Smiths ideas and has been propagated by Hayek and slightly more recently by Milton Friedman. It invaded the world from via Chicago school of economics and Reagan and Thatcher made their political careers on it. The phrase 'neo-liberal' is relatively new in this history but it is really just a reaction against what in Britain was 'Consensus Politics' that enabled the Welfare State to survive even through Tory governments. In short it is reactonary, and not good for you if you are not a millionaire.


 
To be fair to Adam Smith, he recommended a land tax to raise revenue because land ownership is unproductive and parasitic, it can't be taken out of the country, and was both more equitable and stable in terms of paying for the economy that its owners benefited from. In other words, you should ONLY tax the rich.

His followers seem to have conveniently forgotten that bit though.


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> I will devote the rest of my life to following you round and calling you a cunt.


 
it's a new religion tbf. growing faster than islam.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> His followers seem to have conveniently forgotten that bit though.



Inivisble hand is invisible.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

Cat murderer Mike Dixon still on a lib-dem party website after killing his cat with a stick. http://www.libdems.org.uk/people_de...ixon&pPK=69a5cc22-4b01-4a0c-9955-067b01e05b36


----------



## DeadRussian (Apr 4, 2011)

LOLs:

Lib Dem freepost address "sabotaged" after 300 empty envelopes posted

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Lib-Dem-freepost-address-sabotaged-300-envelopes-posted/article-3398787-detail/article.html



> Both incidents have been reported to Notts Police – but no crime has been committed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Mr Sutton said: "It ought to be a crime, it's stealing from us. It's really sad because the genuine concerns that people are expecting us to see, we won't."



embarrassing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 5, 2011)

Another classic from Corporal Clogg:



> Nick Clegg has admitted he was wrong to employ an unpaid intern, on the day he launched the Government’s flagship social mobility strategy.



http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...g_Admits_He_Was_Wrong_To_Employ_Unpaid_Intern


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)




----------



## Nylock (Apr 6, 2011)

heheh Clegg got owned pretty royally on newsnight tonight


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers Nick
> 
> Support for disabled children cut in half under Universal Credit


 
Anyone that thought swapping tax credits for the universal credit wasn't going to result in this is a fucking idiot to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Another classic from Corporal Clogg:
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...g_Admits_He_Was_Wrong_To_Employ_Unpaid_Intern



Is there anything he can't fuck up or turn to shit jut by being involved? On top of that embarrassment around the 'social mobility' launch (and jut how revealing is it that their focus is on the tiny amount of interns rather than mass youth unemployment) we also had:



> The old boys' network has to stop, he said. Internships in what he sees as fun careers like politics and journalism should not be passed from the socially powerful to the sons and daughters of friends. They must be advertised and open to all.
> 
> Excellent. Except that within hours came the London Evening Standard front page headline: 'Daddy Got Clegg Bank Intern Job'.




...and on top of that, on what was a busy day for him embrassing himself he went on elsewhere to claim that Oliver Letwin is:



> the most unpopular politician in Sheffield and should "tread with care" if he ever visits the city.



want to put some money on that Clegg?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 6, 2011)

> The old boys' network has to stop, he said.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is there anything he can't fuck up or turn to shit jut by being involved? On top of that embarrassment around the 'social mobility' launch (and jut how revealing is it that their focus is on the tiny amount of interns rather than mass youth unemployment) we also had:
> 
> ...and on top of that, on what was a busy day for him embrassing himself he went on elsewhere to claim that Oliver Letwin is:
> 
> ...


 
Clegg is so welcomed in Yorkshire that the police operation to repel Sheffield people from the Lib Dem Conference cost over £2 Million pounds for just one day. 

NC takes part in his own old boys network 
Google: siteldwestminster.org.uk "nick clegg"
There looks to be more than one visit.

He is happy to continue the tradition, sending his own children to private school in the future.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4748815.ece


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2011)

And i thought i had it bad with publci transport, guy i work with is having all their bus services scrapped after 6pm (and they usually dont go very much anyway). No trains in that part of the world either. Well I guess we're all part of the big society ...


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2011)

My work finishes at 6pm btw.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And i thought i had it bad with publci transport, guy i work with is having all their bus services scrapped after 6pm (and they usually dont go very much anyway). No trains in that part of the world either. Well I guess we're all part of the big society ...


 
That's crazy, that's the height of commuting time, loads of people won't be able to get home!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2011)

Ah well. Maybe they can get volunteers to drive people home.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 7, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/06/nick-clegg-home-students



> Nick Clegg at home: 'Why are the students angry, Papa?'


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2011)

feelings, eh


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Another classic from Corporal Clogg:
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...g_Admits_He_Was_Wrong_To_Employ_Unpaid_Intern


 
Many Lib Dem offices are staffed by Interns. I think the point here is that Clegg wants to try and change this system, whether he has been a part of it or not is irrelevant in that regard. I doubt there are many MPs who have not had some kind of leg up to get into Westminster. I'd still rather they challenged the system, even if this did led to cries of hypocrisy from the Murdoch press.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 7, 2011)

lol


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

sihhi said:


> Clegg is so welcomed in Yorkshire that the police operation to repel Sheffield people from the Lib Dem Conference cost over £2 Million pounds for just one day.


 
This tells me just as much about South York's finest ability to secure lot's of overtime payments as it does Nick Clegg.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2011)

clutching at straw's


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Many Lib Dem offices are staffed by Interns. I think the point here is that Clegg wants to try and change this system, whether he has been a part of it or not is irrelevant in that regard. I doubt there are many MPs who have not had some kind of leg up to get into Westminster. I'd still rather they challenged the system, even if this did led to cries of hypocrisy from the Murdoch press.


 
Bollocks - it's entirely he's doing exactly what he attacks other for doing, for what he considers to be unjustifiable. Are you so blinded that you cannot even recognise this as hypocrisy any more? I expec that you can't see that this hypocrisy brilliantly exposes the campaign as just a PR trick either.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bollocks - it's entirely he's doing exactly what he attacks other for doing, for what he considers to be unjustifiable. Are you so blinded that you cannot even recognise this as hypocrisy any more? I expec that you can't see that this hypocrisy brilliantly exposes the campaign as just a PR trick either.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/04/is_nick_clegg_a_hypocrite.html

"_Indeed, it would be tempting to suggest that the accusations of hypocrisy over his internship come from some of those who would rather not see that particular route of middle-class privilege closed: a case of playing the man, not the ball._"


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bollocks - it's entirely he's doing exactly what he attacks other for doing, for what he considers to be unjustifiable. Are you so blinded that you cannot even recognise this as hypocrisy any more? I expec that you can't see that this hypocrisy brilliantly exposes the campaign as just a PR trick either.


 
Herein lies a paradox of Westminster, you have to play the system to get into the club and have infulence then when you do change the route you were lucky enough to follow people accuse you of hypocrisy.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Herein lies a paradox of Westminster, you have to play the system to get into the club and have infulence then when you do change the route you were lucky enough to follow people accuse you of hypocrisy.


 
We're not on about him _*being*_ an intern (three times - which wasn't even at westminster but at Banks) but about him *using* unpaid interns whilst criticisng the use of unpaid interns. Get it now? On the same page as the rest of us?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/04/is_nick_clegg_a_hypocrite.html
> 
> "_Indeed, it would be tempting to suggest that the accusations of hypocrisy over his internship come from some of those who would rather not see that particular route of middle-class privilege closed: a case of playing the man, not the ball._"



Not him *being* an intern - his *use* of upaid interns. You don't even know what we're talking about do you?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Herein lies a paradox of Westminster, you have to play the system to get into the club and have influence then when you tinker at the margins people accuse you of hypocrisy.



Open internships are not the answer to Westminster's useless politics or youth unemployment; it's irrelevant tinkering done for PR value.

You trying to big it up is just more of the same rubbish.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We're not on about him _*being*_ an intern (three times - which wasn't even at westminster but at Banks) but about him *using* unpaid interns whilst criticisng the use of unpaid interns. Get it now? On the same page as the rest of us?


 
Yes every party in Westminster relies on unpaid interns to one extent or another. The Lib Dems probably even more so as they don't have the Tories wealthy backers or Labour's Union money. The point is he is trying to change this system. There sheer volume of MPs casework, and lack of stafff they have is part of the problem here.

Just becuase you are part of a system it doesn't mean you can't try to change it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

There's an upcoming  interview with Clegg in the New Statesman (and can anyone give a good reason why Jemima Khan is guest-editing? Are they low on funds?) in which he makes an embrassring attempt to get some sympathy including the claim that in the evenings he "_cries regularly to music_" feeling "quite miserable' when his son asks him why eveyone hates him.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We're not on about him _*being*_ an intern (three times - which wasn't even at westminster but at Banks) but about him *using* unpaid interns whilst criticisng the use of unpaid interns. Get it now? On the same page as the rest of us?



I know your not talking about him being an intern. In the current political system parties would struggle to function without interns. The point is you need to change the system so everyone is affected at the same time, otherwise you get placed at a massive political disadvantage.


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

I wonder what music he cries too?  Hmm, I smell a #hashtag.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's an upcoming  interview with Clegg in the New Statesman (and can anyone give a good reason why Jemima Khan is guest-editing? Are they low on funds?) in which he makes an embrassring attempt to get some sympathy including the claim that in the evenings he "_cries regularly to music_" feeling "quite miserable' when his son asks him why eveyone hates him.


 

As a complusive bully it's no surprise you take pleasure from this.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes every party in Westminster relies on unpaid interns to one extent or another. The Lib Dems probably even more so as they don't have the Tories wealthy backers or Labour's Union money. The point is he is trying to change this system. There sheer volume of MPs casework, and lack of stafff they have is part of the problem here.
> 
> Just becuase you are part of a system it doesn't mean you can't try to change it.



Wow, you genuinely can't spot the hypocrisy - they all fiddled their expenses, why shouldn't i? He's not trying to change it, he's taking part in a PR opp whilst doing exactly what hes attacking? He's a millionaire and ona whacking great wage - he can afford to pay someone to work for him without even thinking about it twice. But he's so used to the hypocrisy that he doesn't even notice it. he at least says it was wrong when caught out, whereas you defend it (when you eventually work out what we're talking about that is).


----------



## TruXta (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's an upcoming  interview with Clegg in the New Statesman (and can anyone give a good reason why Jemima Khan is guest-editing? Are they low on funds?) in which he makes an embrassring attempt to get some sympathy including the claim that in the evenings he "_cries regularly to music_" feeling "quite miserable' when his son asks him why eveyone hates him.



_Daddy, why are the students angry at you?_


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

TruXta said:


> _Daddy, why are the students angry at you?_


 
I think you'll find it's 'Papa'.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> As a complusive bully it's no surprise you take pleasure from this.


 
Yes, i'm sure it's true. You as a compulsive shiteater (lib-dem tradition) swallow it all.

It's more PR bollocks which he's fucked up because all he's ended up with are people laughing at him for his pathetic lies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2011)

I bet he cries along to scorpions _Wind of Change_.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you genuinely can't spot the hypocrisy - they all fiddled their expenses, why shouldn't i? He's not trying to change it, he's taking part in a PR opp whilst doing exactly what hes attacking? He's a millionaire and ona whacking great wage - he can afford to pay someone to work for him without even thinking about it twice. But he's so used to the hypocrisy that he doesn't even notice it. he at least says it was wrong when caught out, whereas you defend it (when you eventually work out what we're talking about that is).


 
You carry on playing the man, i'll go elsewhere and find someone who is actually prepared to work at changing the system.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 7, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet he cries along to scorpions _Wind of Change_.


 
Oi! Don't hate on WoC, dude!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

On money, the greedy lib-dems tried to make it part of their coalition negotiations that they continue to receive short money (the money paid to opposition parties) even whilst in government.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think you'll find it's 'Papa'.


 
Oh, right, he's wife's Spanish, no?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> On money, the greedy lib-dems tried to make it part of their coalition negotiations that they continue to receive short money (the money paid to opposition parties) even whilst in government.


 
Serious? Wow, that's some fucking cheek!


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You carry on playing the man, i'll go elsewhere and find someone who is actually prepared to work at changing the system.


 
like nick clegg?  

actual LOL


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, right, he's wife's Spanish, no?


 
I was imagining it as pa-paaaa, as the privately educated child of a millionaire might pronounce it,


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> On money, the greedy lib-dems tried to make it part of their coalition negotiations that they continue to receive short money (the money paid to opposition parties) even whilst in government.


 
Oh yea 'Greedy' lib-dems who are skint and had to sack half of Cowley street on entering the coalition. Where did they try to make it part of the coalition negotiations butcheraspron? Did you have special access to the meetings?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> like nick clegg?
> 
> actual LOL


 
Innit


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh yea 'Greedy' lib-dems who are skint and had to sack half of Cowley street on entering the coalition.


 
You don't deny it then?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh yea 'Greedy' lib-dems who are skint and had to sack half of Cowley street on entering the coalition. Where did they try to make it part of the coalition negotiations butcheraspron? Did you have special access to the meetings?



You really cannot remember any thing about the election can you?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 7, 2011)




----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You really cannot remember any thing about the election can you?


 
I'm asking you to provide proof, yet you are still unable to do. I suspect there might have been a discussion about party funding, but it's not something that is likely to change given the status quo suites both Labour and the Conservatives.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

stephj said:


>




Party membership is up.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm asking you to provide proof, yet you are still unable to do. I suspect there might have been a discussion about party funding, but it's not something that is likely to change given the status quo suites both Labour and the Conservatives.


 
What, you mean something like a photo of Nick Clegg going into coalition talks with a negotiating note that actually says 'short money' on it? Would that do do you think?


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What, you mean something like a photo of Nick Clegg going into coalition talks with a negotiating note that actually says 'short money' on it? Would that do do you think?


 
I can't make out much on that note other than AV. I carry notes around me all the time, if I open my notebook now there is something that says Salsa + Dips it doesn't mean i'm going to be demanding Salsa + Dips.


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I can't make out much on that note other than AV. I carry notes around me all the time, if I open my notebook now there is something that says Salsa + Dips it doesn't mean i'm going to be demanding Salsa + Dips.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/11/election-2010-coalition-nick-clegg


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I can't make out much on that note other than AV. I carry notes around me all the time, if I open my notebook now there is something that says Salsa + Dips it doesn't mean i'm going to be demanding Salsa + Dips.


Bye



> The Lib Dems have announced tonight that they are seeking taxpayers' money to bolster their finances whilst serving in a coalition government.
> 
> This follows a story earlier today on this blog, when I reported strong rumours that the Liberal Democrats were trying to keep receiving Short money - the annual payment to opposition parties to help them with their costs. But as the Lib Dems are now a governing party they should no longer be entitled to it.




 Bye



> The list also includes:
> 
> • The adoption of reforms to party funding proposed by Sir Hayden Phillips but shelved by Labour and the Tories.
> 
> ...


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

The coalition has been a massive financial loss to the party, to try and portray it as some greedy money grabbing thing is just more bonkers ranting.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

It says a lot that the lib-dem need to write down their lunch in case they forget it.


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The coalition has been a massive financial loss to the party, to try and portray it as some greedy money grabbing thing is just more bonkers ranting.


 
You're not even making a point here. No one's accusing the Lib Dems of going into politics to get Short Money.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The coalition has been a massive financial loss to the party, to try and portray it as some greedy money grabbing thing is just more bonkers ranting.


 
Oh so it did happened then? 

It's greed and hypocrisy and you want the taxpayer to pay for it.


----------



## Random (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The coalition has been a massive financial loss to the party.


 Despite the thousands of new members straming in? How so?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Party membership is up.


 
No it's not - it's down.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bye
> 
> 
> The list also includes:
> ...


 
So the notes suggest that party funding was part of the discussion. That's hardly a surprise seeing as Lib Dem policy is to reform party funding 

_*There has been much talk of political reform from the other two parties, but
nothing has happened. They have worked together to block reform, even
voting against a proposal to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs.
Dependent on money from the unions and big business, they have blocked
changes to party funding. And determined to protect the secrecy of the
House of Commons, they had to be pushed into revealing the details of MPs’
expenses in the fi rst place. Only Liberal Democrats are able to break open
this system and deliver real change.*_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

Salsa _is_ a dip anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So the notes suggest that party funding was part of the discussion. That's hardly a surprise seeing as Lib Dem policy is to reform party funding


 
It seemed to be a surprise to you at least.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

Random said:


> Despite the thousands of new members straming in? How so?


 
Becuase the party lost Million in short money that is given to opposition parties which was worth £1.75 Million a year. I've had a search at the party was asking for some tax payer money whilst in government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/05/the_lib_dems_respond_on_short.html

A Liberal Democrat spokesman just told me:

"We are no longer in receipt of Short Money as its current formulation is for opposition parties only.The current system of Short Money does not account for the complexity of situations where there is not a majority government. We are looking to existing precedents, such as that established by the previous Labour Government, in Scotland, to ensure that, as the smaller of the two coalition parties, the Liberal Democrat are able to maintain their operational independence in parliament. Recognising their role in government, the Liberal Democrats believe any such financial support for parliamentary functions should be less than received in opposition. "

I think that's fair enough/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

So after denying it he's now defending it. All is good.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Salsa _is_ a dip anyway.


 
I know but I make my own Salsa that is very good, and the + Dips were for the shop brought ones I was getting. All for a Lib Dem fundraiser


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 7, 2011)

That's great Moon - if you could continue to post your Lib-Dem HQ C+Ps in bold type, I can easily identify them and save myself the trouble of reading them.

Has anyone actually got a ref for Lib Dem membership btw - I'd be interested to have a read.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So after denying it he's now defending it. All is good.


 
I asked you to prove it, which you have done. The loss of the opposition money has decimated the Lib Dem staff, I think it does raise question about the funding of political parties. Particulary as we are talking about interns as well. How is any party meant to fund it'self without Union or big buisness backing? How are those vested interests in politics health for democracy?


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> That's great Moon - if you could continue to post your Lib-Dem HQ C+Ps in bold type, I can easily identify them and save myself the trouble of reading them.
> 
> Has anyone actually got a ref for Lib Dem membership btw - I'd be interested to have a read.



It was a quote from a news story


----------



## moon23 (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It says a lot that the lib-dem need to write down their lunch in case they forget it.


 
Eh? I was making a shopping list. Are shopping lists now proof of how bad the lib-dems are too now?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I asked you to prove it, which you have done. The loss of the opposition money has decimated the Lib Dem staff, I think it does raise question about the funding of political parties. Particulary as we are talking about interns as well. How is any party meant to fund it'self without Union or big buisness backing? How are those vested interests in politics health for democracy?


 
I don't want to fund your party. I want your party to die. I note that you exclude your party from the laws of the free market which you wish to aggressively impose on all others of society. Yet more hypocrisy. if your party is what people want they'll fund it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Eh? I was making a shopping list. Are shopping lists now proof of how bad the lib-dems are too now?


 
...and you even fucked that up.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It was a quote from a news story


 
Really. You do know 'Focus' isn't a real newspaper don't you? Lets have the link if you wouldn't mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Really. You do know 'Focus' isn't a real newspaper don't you? Lets have the link if you wouldn't mind.


 
Fantastic, he quoted the lib-dem election manifesto as 'a news report' 

Anything on those claimed rising membership figures moon?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

Lib-dem standing less candidates than the last tranche of elections in these wards as they can't find enough mugs to stand for them. Turning into a party of the wealthy ares of the South east.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

Yet more evidenc of the 'impossible', could never happen situation (according to the u75 pluralist - singular) actually forming in front of our eyes:
Lib Dems deny Tory poll pact


----------



## killer b (Apr 7, 2011)

how can you struggle to find 20 candidates? are there less than 20 members in warrington? 


actually, that's not such a fantastic notion...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's an upcoming  interview with Clegg in the New Statesman (and can anyone give a good reason why Jemima Khan is guest-editing?



I can't even give you a good reason why Jemima Khan *exists*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet he cries along to scorpions _Wind of Change_.


 
And Foreigner's _More Than A Feeling_.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's an upcoming  interview with Clegg in the New Statesman (and can anyone give a good reason why Jemima Khan is guest-editing? Are they low on funds?) in which he makes an embrassring attempt to get some sympathy including the claim that in the evenings he "_cries regularly to music_" feeling "quite miserable' when his son asks him why eveyone hates him.


 
read this in my ma parents toryraph today.  actually, I think its thread worthy in its own right...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

Cut in the min wage


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2011)

That says it is a rise- are you saying its because its not in line with inflation it is in effective a cut?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

Of course it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2011)

I suppose it beats camerons 'leave it alone entirely'. Cheers for the crumbs vince etc.

also apprentice wage is how much? thats indenture ffs


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

A few miles from me the tories are going to get in automatically at this election in 6 seats because the lib dems (or any other party for that matter) didn't put any candidates


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

Fuck, it seems that in my ward, I might have nobody to vote for as well except for one guy, a tory. I don't know whether he's now elected by default or what. Not that SP or anyone else would stand here but even so. I'm now really pissed off, I still want a choice ffs 

for gods sake. this is hopeless, unless ive got it wrong, but thats what it appears to say on the councils website. 

eta: Hes not a tory hes a lib dem, even worse


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 10, 2011)

It might soften the blow of an unopposed Tory getting in if he is beaten by the number of spoiled ballots I suppose. But he still gets in regardless.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2011)

No election - they get in as unopposed returns.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

Fuck's sake. Will the election on AV still be happening then assuming that i have got this right (we only moved in a few months ago and im not sure that ive got th right ward)


----------



## embree (Apr 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Fuck's sake. Will the election on AV still be happening then assuming that i have got this right (we only moved in a few months ago and im not sure that ive got th right ward)


 
Yeah, referendum is everywhere


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 10, 2011)

Lib Dems?  Money from dodgy sources?  Never!  Don't believe this anti-Clegg propaganda! : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/10/conman-lib-dems-hiding-caribbean


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

OK good i would hate not to have a chance to vote against that and have it pass by like one vote or something


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Lib Dems?  Money from dodgy sources?  Never!  Don't believe this anti-Clegg propaganda! : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/10/conman-lib-dems-hiding-caribbean


 
They have already simply refused to give the money back and have been doing so for many years now. More evidence of the greedy nature of the lib-dems after the short money scandal.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No election - they get in as unopposed returns.


 
Durr - yeah - of course.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

god. Im well pissed off at the prospect of (probably) not being able to vote, not that i would have been able to vote for anyone i liked anyway


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 10, 2011)

butchersapron - Yeah, it seems that the so-called party of fairness and transparency (no laughing!) has feet of financial clay too.  Plus ca change.

OK - I'm gonna throw in a q to moon23 here, about the Lib Dems in days of old - essentially irrelevant to their recent form, but still something they've never really accounterd for.  Here goes:  Dear moon23, if you know your Lib Dem history, you'll remember a certain by-election in 1993 in Millwall, where ther LDs put out a blatantly racist pamphlet about housing allocations (it was in the news at the time, I think the Graun covered it if memory serves).  Why has your party never apologised for this?  (Reference be here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/local-elections-bnp-failure-masks-growth-in-support-1434135.html)


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 11, 2011)

...and back to the matter at hand:  Clegg say's "I'll listen" to the NHS reforms combatants:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/11/nhs-reform-nick-clegg-concession-gp-consortiums

A couple of  things here - first of all, Clegg claims he won't be imposing GP-based commisioning by 2013 on all GPs, but will undertake a series of measures to induct GPs who do want to opt in, to ensure that they are fit for purpose.  Hmm.  Won't this leave a two-tier system of GPs who opt in (who would be a minority, by my understanding) and GPs (the majority) who'd be on the outside?  Will both grouplets be treated exactly the same for funding, admin etc, or will those who opt in be given priority?  I suspect the latter myself.  This would cause a huge logistical mess, divide GPs, and fracture the way that GPs work on both a local and national basis.

2nd up - on the future status of primary care trusts (do they stay or go?), the article says:



> Asked whether the government would reconsider the plan to scrap primary care trusts, Clegg said there was no point having a "pause" in the legislation unless there was a proper rethink. "I think it's a good thing that we are listening," he said



Not exactly a straight answer, is it?  Is this going to be "listening" a la New Labour's "Big Conversation" (we speak, you listen, any uppity questions back ignored etc)?  

Meanwhile, as Clegg "listens" to the great masses, the NHS cuts are already kicking in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/11/nhs-cuts-first-areas

I'm personally appalled to see mental health/addiction services already being given the boot as described - Christ knows they've been underfunded for aeons anyway.  Are you listening to the most vunerable, Nick?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Btw Lamb's posturing is dictated by him knowing that 5-8000 of his vote are anti-tory labour voters.


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2011)

I like how he expressed his concerns with the NHS Bill by voting for it twice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

It's almost like it's self-interested bollocks that reveals the underlying conflicts that a NO vote could blow apart.


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's almost like it's self-interested bollocks that reveals the underlying conflicts that a NO vote could blow apart.


 
Almost as if, yes.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 11, 2011)

English local elections: Clegg urged to end coalition



> The Lib Dem former leader of Liverpool City Council has urged Nick Clegg to pull out of coalition government in a confidential letter seen by the BBC.
> 
> Warren Bradley urged his party leader to act before it "disappears into the annals of history".
> 
> He said Lib Dem councillors were set to lose seats in 5 May's local elections and the coalition was to blame.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Btw Lamb's posturing is dictated by him knowing that 5-8000 of his vote are anti-tory labour voters.


 
Of course - just as cable, huhne, Kennedy and others rely on these people. Clegg can't keep the LDs positioned where they are.  He'll be dragged back or be thrown overboard.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

And AV will help him avoid it


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

Not at all - he's getting what's coming to him either way


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 11, 2011)

"In a confidential letter seen by the BBC" that turns out to be an email. How did the Beeb get this 'letter'? Are they up to News of The World style tactics? Or more likely is there a LibDem spy at Clegg's office with motives of their own? This looks to my like disarray at the top in the LibDem camp. It is funny how pending elections help to focus minds. What a pity there isn't a coherent organised opposition to pick up the votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not at all - he's getting what's coming to him either way


 
What exactly precisely the same amount either way? Grow up.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What exactly precisely the same amount either way? Grow up.


 
That doesn't mean anything. 

Has the Emperor no clothes?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

It means that the negative consequences for Clegg are not the same for a yes vote and no vote. Saying things will be bad either way is no reason not  to pursue the course that will do the most damage.

Was that so hard?

Now say something.Something of substance or content. I fucking dare you.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

And not a word in reply. As expected.

More trouble for Clegg - Sheffield University are charging the full 9 grand tuition fees.

And on top of that lib-dems in his own constituency have refused to let him appear on their election leaflets.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And not a word in reply. As expected.
> 
> More trouble for Clegg - Sheffield University are charging the full 9 grand tuition fees.
> 
> And on top of that lib-dems in his own constituency have refused to let him appear on their election leaflets.


 
Lets see what Sheffield Hallam University end up charging. That's thousands and thousands more students, and if Leeds Met are charging a bargain £8,5000 there's no reason to suspect SHU won't charge similar.

I live in said constituency - so far the only leaflet I've had has been from Labour.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And on top of that lib-dems in his own constituency have refused to let him appear on their election leaflets.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2011)

Just stumbled on this gem from last week: Nick Clegg was claiming that the NHS reforms were the Lib Dems' idea just three months ago


----------



## magneze (Apr 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Just stumbled on this gem from last week: Nick Clegg was claiming that the NHS reforms were the Lib Dems' idea just three months ago


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

If you look through google news archive in 2010 for "nick clegg" + almost any issue he's pretending his party on holding back the tories on you can find supportive statements from him or any of the other lib-dem _leaders_ - i.e another one on the NHS reforms from July last year 



> “Conservative thinking on choice and competition with the Liberal Democrat belief in local democracy”.



Of course, Clegg said before the election that he felt it was important to keep an open mind over wholesale privatisation of the NHS:



> "One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service." Then he goes further, even refusing to rule out the insurance-based models used in mainland Europe and Canada.
> 
> "I don't think anything should be ruled out. I think it would be really, really daft to rule out any other model from Europe or elsewhere. I do think they deserve to be looked out because frankly the faults of the British health service compared to others still leave much to be desired."


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Gillian Duffy takes on Nick Clegg



> Following her confrontation with Gordon Brown during the election campaign, she had a go at Nick Clegg this morning when he was visiting Rochdale.





> Duffy: Can you honestly tell me now, look me in the eye, and say that you're quite happy with all these policies that have gone wrong for your party?
> 
> Clegg: I'll tell you what, whoever was in power now, whether it was Labour ... any government now would have to take difficult decisions. If anyone is telling you from the Labour party that somehow there's a magic wand solution, that we can do this without any controversy, they are frankly fibbing to you.
> 
> Duffy: I'm asking [you].



More

edit: vid here


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 12, 2011)

David Mills - Advice for a deputy Prime Minister

This is from the New Statesman. I reckon that's sound advice. Not that he'll take it of course.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Just stumbled on this gem from last week: Nick Clegg was claiming that the NHS reforms were the Lib Dems' idea just three months ago



Have only got as far as reading the first bit of the Marr interview (haven't got to the NHS stuff yet), but his answers and statements on students fees is pure doublethink and bullshine.  For example, he says that although student fees are going up, your average student will be paying less back in loans etc.  Hmm.  Paying back "£7 a month" may be all fine and dandy, except with as with any loan, you'd still have to pay back the full whack eventually, surely?  And paying back "£7 a month" on a near £30,000 loan (for example) would frankly terrify me.  I don't buy the whole "we'll write if off for the worse-off" line either - what's to stop the student loan people demanding payment in full at any time in the future?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Fuck, it seems that in my ward, I might have nobody to vote for as well except for one guy, a tory. I don't know whether he's now elected by default or what. Not that SP or anyone else would stand here but even so. I'm now really pissed off, I still want a choice ffs
> 
> for gods sake. this is hopeless, unless ive got it wrong, but thats what it appears to say on the councils website.
> 
> eta: Hes not a tory hes a lib dem, even worse


If it's any consolation, from what I know of your part of the world (If |I have my bearings right), They could pin a blue rosette on a basset hound and it would still get in


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not at all - he's getting what's coming to him either way


Not so - a "YES" vote buys him loads of time. It's his figleaf


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If it's any consolation, from what I know of your part of the world (If |I have my bearings right), They could pin a blue rosette on a basset hound and it would still get in


 
i'm thinking of voting 'yes' because david cameron's a bigger wanker than nick clegg, though there's not much in it


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 15, 2011)

What wanker criterion are you using?  It's a close run thing but I'd be inclined to say clegg is the bigger wanker.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm thinking of voting 'yes' because david cameron's a bigger wanker than nick clegg, though there's not much in it


   noooo....listen not to the dark side...,.voting 'no' totally destabilises the lib dems, the Tories can live with 'yes'.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm thinking of voting 'yes' because david cameron's a bigger wanker than nick clegg, though there's not much in it


 
What are you using to measure their wankerhood? My wankermeter registers them both as off the scale, though it may not be working properly since I attempted to measure how much of a wanker George Osborne is, it made some very strange noises and then refused to give a reading at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> What are you using to measure their wankerhood? My wankermeter registers them both as off the scale, though it may not be working properly since I attempted to measure how much of a wanker George Osborne is, it made some very strange noises and then refused to give a reading at all.


typical shoddy bloody british workmanship


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> What are you using to measure their wankerhood? My wankermeter registers them both as off the scale, though it may not be working properly since I attempted to measure how much of a wanker George Osborne is, it made some very strange noises and then refused to give a reading at all.


 


Streathamite said:


> typical shoddy bloody british workmanship



Those machines can be disrupted if someone in the near vicinity is actually wanking when you switch it on.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Have only got as far as reading the first bit of the Marr interview (haven't got to the NHS stuff yet), but his answers and statements on students fees is pure doublethink and bullshine.  For example, he says that although student fees are going up, your average student will be paying less back in loans etc.  Hmm.  Paying back "£7 a month" may be all fine and dandy, except with as with any loan, you'd still have to pay back the full whack eventually, surely?  And paying back "£7 a month" on a near £30,000 loan (for example) would frankly terrify me.  I don't buy the whole "we'll write if off for the worse-off" line either - what's to stop the student loan people demanding payment in full at any time in the future?


 
Seven quid a month is 84 quid a year. 30,000 divided by 84 is roughly 357.

In other words, it would take a student _357 years_ to pay back a 30000 pound student loan. Is Clegg really this thick?


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Seven quid a month is 84 quid a year. 30,000 divided by 84 is roughly 357.
> 
> In other words, it would take a student _357 years_ to pay back a 30000 pound student loan. Is Clegg really this thick?


 
He's making Tough Decisions, goddammit!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

He's a sort of hero.


----------



## killer b (Apr 15, 2011)

you haven't included interest... in fact, you would never pay off a £30000 loan at £7 a month.


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

Remember when he nobly lied about his economic policies?


----------



## creak (Apr 15, 2011)

What's the interest going to be like on these loans, too? Baseline?


----------



## magneze (Apr 15, 2011)

creak said:


> What's the interest going to be like on these loans, too? Baseline?


Commercial rates I believe. Another innovation from the coalition.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2011)

creak said:


> What's the interest going to be like on these loans, too? Baseline?


 
RPI. Another mini-scandal in itself:



> As today’s Telegraph reports, TUC analysis demonstrates that despite CPI now being the Government’s preferred measure of inflation RPI remains its measure of choice for calculating the interest on student loans. This hypocrisy allows the Goverment to ask households to accept lower tax credit payments, faster moves into higher tax rates, reduced pensions and lower benefits while continuing to uprate payments that are due to the state by the higher RPI inflation measure. Over the long-run the Government calculate the difference is 0.87 percentage points annually: the costs for working, workless and retired households will soon start mounting up.
> 
> http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/04/which-inflation-measure-does-the-government-prefer/


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Those machines can be disrupted if someone in the near vicinity is actually wanking when you switch it on.


ahhh...fess up eric, you was having "a quick jodrell"!


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> typical shoddy bloody british workmanship


 
British? What would I want a British wankmeter for? Mine is French. Always get something made by the real experts.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Those machines can be disrupted if someone in the near vicinity is actually wanking when you switch it on.


 
I was aware of that problem. I had it recalibrated when the teenage boy next door reached puberty.


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

Nick Clegg keeps his promise of a new kind of politics:



> The Liberal Democrats are offering lobbyists face-to-face meetings with ministers, including Nick Clegg, if they pay £25,000 a year. The cash-strapped party has launched a club offering privileged access to the Deputy Prime Minister and senior Liberal Democrats.
> 
> The Leaders' Forum will be restricted to an elite of 50 individuals who will be invited to "exclusive dinners" and debates with frontbenchers in return for an annual £25,000 donation, payable into the party's Royal Bank of Scotland account. They are promised "unrivalled networking opportunities".



I don't which is worse, the transparent offer of lobbying opportunities, or the fact that they're asking for so much less than the other parties.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ub-ndash-for-16325000-annual-fee-2269225.html


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

Well, the LibDems have been so effective in government so far it seems like an absolute bargain.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If it's any consolation, from what I know of your part of the world (If |I have my bearings right), They could pin a blue rosette on a basset hound and it would still get in


 
yep.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 18, 2011)

i met someone from the "pirate party" the other day going back on the train who started telling me how much respect they had for nick clegg becasue "it couldnt have been easy having to alienate most of his supporters".


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

So basically, the lib-dems greed has now reached such heights that they're openly putting their willingness to be corrupted up for public sale? The sheer arrogance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> Nick Clegg keeps his promise of a new kind of politics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hardly a "new kind of politics" for Liberals, to be fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So basically, the lib-dems greed has now reached such heights that they're openly putting their willingness to be corrupted up for public sale? The sheer arrogance.


 
You call it arrogance, they call it "conformity with party history".


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Can't wait for Clegg to be caught _Gladstoning_...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Even the ones who are supposed to be 'good' are shit.



> WARREN Bradley has resigned as leader of the Liverpool Lib Dems after media reports today pointing to involvement in a possible election fraud.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Even the ones who are supposed to be 'good' are shit.


 
He remained as a fireman and always went on strike, if this is what their 'credible' elected reps are like what is under the stome......


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i met someone from the "pirate party" the other day going back on the train who started telling me how much respect they had for nick clegg becasue "it couldnt have been easy having to alienate most of his supporters".


 
anyone who joins anything called a 'pirate party' is bound to be a weirdo


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 18, 2011)

they're the latest m/c electoral pisstakers like monster raving. Round here the japesters are 'Bus Pass Elvis' which is marginally funnier.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 18, 2011)

he seemed to be quite serious about it. it's about digital freedom issues iirc. apparently its got all sorts of people from socialists to right wingers because "Its not that sort of party".


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Even the ones who are supposed to be 'good' are shit.


Still, suspicious timing for that story to come out, no?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, local smears are their stock-in-trade and have been for decades now...


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Lets see what Sheffield Hallam University end up charging. That's thousands and thousands more students, and if Leeds Met are charging a bargain £8,5000 there's no reason to suspect SHU won't charge similar.
> 
> I live in said constituency - so far the only leaflet I've had has been from Labour.


 
As you predicted, King, SHU have announced today that they're going for 8,500 too.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So basically, the lib-dems greed has now reached such heights that they're openly putting their willingness to be corrupted up for public sale? The sheer arrogance.


 
yeah its being depicted as having the guts to go against the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Absolutely shameless:

We stopped the Tories putting 'offensive' policies into action, says Vince Cable

And there was me thinking that you facilitated and supported them and that none of their policies - 'offensive' or otherwise - would have got through without you, your party and your votes. Silly old me. 

Cable And Huhne both positioning themselves for Cleggs fall. The desperation as the lost referendum approaches is pretty evident.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

I wonder if Clegg could lose the leadership but stay on as Deputy Prime Minister (I assume constitutionally he is appointed by the PM).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Yep, appointed at PM's discretion (oddly enough before the election the lib-dems argued forcefully for the abolition of the position as one that was a meaningless post used only to flatter puffed up old politicians who would cause trouble if left out of the inner circle). But it would def be a Ramsay Macdonald moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, appointed at PM's discretion (oddly enough before the election the lib-dems argued forcefully for the abolition of the position as one that was a meaningless post used only to flatter puffed up old politicians who would cause trouble if left out of the inner circle). But it would def be a Ramsay Macdonald moment.


 i'd rather see a spencer perceval moment, myself.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> I wonder if Clegg could lose the leadership but stay on as Deputy Prime Minister (I assume constitutionally he is appointed by the PM).


 
Thing is, if he lost the leadership at a point where this was relevant (ie long before the next election is due) it would surely be to a candidate that promised to leave the coalition? I can't see a challenge coming on any other basis before the end of this parliament, when they start jockeying for position in the next election.

So, they could keep him on as Deputy PM, but only until they lost the election which was caused by his losing the leadership. Keeping him as Deputy PM if a Cable or Huhne challenge was successful nearer to the next election, would, presumably, depend on what sort of relationship the Tories wanted to maintain with the Lib Dem party and what their battle plan for the election was.

If that makes sense.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thing is, if he lost the leadership at a point where this was relevant (ie long before the next election is due) it would surely be to a candidate that promised to leave the coalition? I can't see a challenge coming on any other basis before the end of this parliament, when they start jockeying for position in the next election.
> 
> So, they could keep him on as Deputy PM, but only until they lost the election which was caused by his losing the leadership. Keeping him as Deputy PM if a Cable or Huhne challenge was successful nearer to the next election, would, presumably, depend on what sort of relationship the Tories wanted to maintain with the Lib Dem party and what their battle plan for the election was.
> 
> If that makes sense.



If there was a new Lib Dem leader, they would probably do some polling to work out whether they should a) stay in the coalition (possibly with a new agreement), b) leave the coalition but prop up a minority Tory govt on a case-by-case basis, c) cause a general election. Under (a) and (b) it would be quite possible for Clegg to remain where he is, possibly supported by a rump of Orange Book Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

If he loses a lib-dem leadership election and then splits and stays on as Deputy prime Minister he'll take some MPs with him (Laws etc) there may be enough to staple the coalition together for a bit longer and see off an immediate general election. I forget the actual figures right now but from memory i think about 10-15 might be enough.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If he loses a lib-dem leadership election and then splits and stays on as Deputy prime Minister he'll take some MPs with him (Laws etc) there may be enough to staple the coalition together for a bit longer and see off an immediate general election. I forget the actual figures right now but from memory i think about 10-15 might be enough.


 
And then they all run as Liberal Conservatives (unopposed by Classic Conservatives) at the next election, and the Lib Dem rump has a nice narrative about getting rid of the nasty Orange element of their party and now everyone who wants to seem principled can vote for them again.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thing is, if he lost the leadership at a point where this was relevant (ie long before the next election is due) it would surely be to a candidate that promised to leave the coalition?
> .........................................
> Keeping him as Deputy PM if a Cable or Huhne challenge was successful nearer to the next election,


neither of those 2 could pull that one off - they're as tainted as he is. Right now, I'm thinking only Hughes or - hic! - Kennedy could be a credible "we repent on our coalition!" candidate


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> And then they all run as Liberal Conservatives (unopposed by Classic Conservatives) at the next election, and the Lib Dem rump has a nice narrative about getting rid of the nasty Orange element of their party and now everyone who wants to seem principled can vote for them again.


betcha that's what happens


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> neither of those 2 could pull that one off - they're as tainted as he is. Right now, I'm thinking only Hughes or - hic! - Kennedy could be a credible "we repent on our coalition!" candidate


 
Huhne or Cable could build a story if they wanted. 'It was the right thing to do to go into government at that time.... national uncertainty... credit agency ratings... the Tories have gone too far... NHS... etc.'


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Huhne or Cable could build a story if they wanted. 'It was the right thing to do to go into government at that time.... national uncertainty... credit agency ratings... the Tories have gone too far... NHS... etc.'


they certainly could try that -as to whether anyone would buy that, that's a different matter.
e2a: It strikes me the above could be scuppered by saying "well, Lansley had been going on about what his plans were for years before 2010 - why weren't you aware?" "why didn't you vote down all they'd gone too far with?" - and they'd be stuck, because they supported all of it


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

I was looking for a batten holder on the screw-fix site yesterday. Today i go to the lib-dem voice  site and there are adverts for batten holders from screw-fix. Are the greedy lib-dems making money off me?


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> If there was a new Lib Dem leader, they would probably do some polling to work out whether they should a) stay in the coalition (possibly with a new agreement), b) leave the coalition but prop up a minority Tory govt on a case-by-case basis, c) cause a general election. Under (a) and (b) it would be quite possible for Clegg to remain where he is, possibly supported by a rump of Orange Book Lib Dems.


 
I'm pretty sure that to get elected as leader, mid-term, this would have to be part of their core promises to the party, not something they promised to think really, really hard about if they won. It would be the primary reason why Clegg was being challenged at that point, after all.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> neither of those 2 could pull that one off - they're as tainted as he is. Right now, I'm thinking only Hughes or - hic! - Kennedy could be a credible "we repent on our coalition!" candidate


 
That's what I meant. Cable and Huhne are 'more of the same' candidates - so they would only be challenging closer to a general election, on the basis that Clegg was a shit leader, but not on the basis that the coalition was a terrible fucking betrayal.

Tim Fallon is the front-runner for the 'left' of the party, I think. Should there be an early challenge to the leadership.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I was looking for a batten holder on the screw-fix site yesterday. Today i go to the lib-dem voice  site and there are adverts for batten holders from screw-fix. Are the greedy lib-dems making money off me?


 
Yes.

I don't use adblock any more because I think it's unfair on sites that aren't getting my clicks counted in return for free content. But I have a separate browser for cunt sites that deserve not a penny. 



Sorry. I seem to have come over all Canuck there. Apologies for the string of posts.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's what I meant. Cable and Huhne are 'more of the same' candidates - so they would only be challenging closer to a general election, on the basis that Clegg was a shit leader, but not on the basis that the coalition was a terrible fucking betrayal.
> 
> Tim Fallon is the front-runner for the 'left' of the party, I think. Should there be an early challenge to the leadership.


Fallon...hmm, interesting idea....


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I was looking for a batten holder on the screw-fix site yesterday. Today i go to the lib-dem voice  site and there are adverts for batten holders from screw-fix. Are the greedy lib-dems making money off me?


Only if you click on the advert.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

magneze said:


> Only if you click on the advert.


 
The value of the advert itself is based on page views. Unless you use an ad-blocker, they make money from it.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> betcha that's what happens


 
there's already the old liberal party and sdp though. any more of this, and they will be starting to make trots look unified.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> there's already the old liberal party and sdp though. any more of this, and they will be starting to make trots look unified.


altogether now...
"there was one trot meeting in the great big hall
one trot meeting in the great big hall
and if that one trot meeting should have an ugly brawl,
There'll be four trot meetings in the great big hall"
- sung to the tune of _Ten Green Bottles_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Clegg today - 'i'm a massive liar'



> The deputy prime minister also explained his much-quoted remark before the election that AV was a "miserable little compromise".
> 
> "What I was actually referring to was Gordon Brown's suggestion very late in the day in his government of making changes which everyone knew would not come into effect," he said.
> 
> "I was talking about the Labour party's offer in the latter days of its government which it had no way of implementing."



Original quote:




> "The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party."



No suggestion of anything like what he lied about today. Can the man _not_ lie? Is he missing a gene or something?


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

ymu said:


> The value of the advert itself is based on page views. Unless you use an ad-blocker, they make money from it.


It's normally based on clicks.



> Pay only for results
> You're charged only if someone clicks your ad, not when your ad is displayed.
> 
> Payment options vary by country and currency. Learn more


https://www.google.com/accounts/Ser...ogle.co.uk/um/gaiaauth?apt=None&error=newacct
(Click on costs & payment)
Not sure if they are using Google though, but that is the normal model.


----------



## ymu (Apr 20, 2011)

magneze said:


> It's normally based on clicks.
> 
> https://www.google.com/accounts/Ser...ogle.co.uk/um/gaiaauth?apt=None&error=newacct
> (Click on costs & payment)
> Not sure if they are using Google though, but that is the normal model.


Fair dos. It may not affect google ads, but it does affect sites that rely on page clicks to get advertisers in the first place. Ad-block is creating real problems for sites which have no other source of revenue.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Either way - lib-dems are greedy cunts that feed on my/our lighting desires.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 20, 2011)

How many Orange Bookers does it take to change a light bulb? None - the free market will take care of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Save my job pleads lib-dem MP - and this before they lose the referendum:



> Mr Sanders said: ‘We now face the brutal realisation that we have fractured our core vote, lost a generation of young voters, and alienated thousands of tactical voters in seats where it makes the difference between electoral success or failure.’
> 
> The MP went on: ‘We managed to split almost four ways on tuition fees and, to come, we have the challenge of unity over an NHS policy that should never have  seen the light of day.’


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Seers:



> The source also insisted that Mr Cable would ‘remain in the Cabinet’ and had already defected from Labour years ago because he realised ‘there was a better future with the Liberal Democrats’.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Finger on the button:



> The Lib Dem leader was also accused of wrongly claiming that The X Factor used the AV system.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Finger on the button:


 
X Factor uses a round based system, AV is sometimes called instant run-off because it simulates all the rounds at once. He probably should have explained that better.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 21, 2011)

So, he was wrong then, you desperate spinning cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

moon23 said:


> X Factor uses a round based system, AV is sometimes called instant run-off because it simulates all the rounds at once. He probably should have explained that better.


 
Probably should have explained himself better in the sense of being totally wrong? In that there's no preference voting, no transfer of vote and there's a re-ballot each round. Yeah, that sense of _should have explained that better._

The Lansley sense.


----------



## magneze (Apr 21, 2011)

Desperate stuff from Clegg now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Have we done his desperate 'i'm young!!!' hair dying yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

A stroll down memory lane:

Nick Clegg: we have taken Labour's place in UK politics



> Liberal Democrat leader rejects tactical voting, and says the race for PM is between him and Cameron





> In a Guardian interview, Clegg accuses David Cameron of having no agenda for progressive reform of the country, and says the Lib Dems and Labour come from the same historical tradition.
> 
> He says he is rejecting all talk of tactical voting and is instead "going for broke" to maximise his party's share of the vote.
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2011)

He's deluded. He's actually, finally, completely lost the plot.


----------



## killer b (Apr 21, 2011)

that's from last year before the general election ymu.

mind you, we all said the same then too...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's from last year before the general election ymu.
> 
> mind you, we all said the same then too...



 Only some of have the 'april-may 2010 combat badge'.


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's from last year before the general election ymu.
> 
> mind you, we all said the same then too...


 
Damn! I glimpsed a route to victory via getting him sectioned.

It is way past my bedtime. Apologies for the misread.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 21, 2011)

thats bullshit. i knew their whole election campaign was gona revolve around them being a different party.


----------



## FreddyB (Apr 22, 2011)

They're deluded today, they've no idea of the massacre that's coming on May 5th. I can't wait


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 22, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> They're deluded today, they've no idea of the massacre that's coming on May 5th. I can't wait


I'd say the councillors in question, and their grassroots activists - prolly _have_ got a good idea of what's coming, and secretly they are shitting themselves. All hell will break loose on May 6th


----------



## ymu (Apr 22, 2011)

Prepare the barricades comrades, D-Day is approaching.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Apr 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Only some of have the 'april-may 2010 combat badge'.


 
I'd wear that with pride. There's nothing better than being proved right. Apart from the country going to shit in the process.


----------



## killer b (Apr 22, 2011)

in this case, i would have been utterly delighted to be proved wrong.


----------



## embree (Apr 22, 2011)

ymu said:


> Prepare the barricades comrades, D-Day is approaching.


 
We've already got the barricades up here and we set light to them last night...


----------



## ymu (Apr 22, 2011)

An excellent start, comrade. Rebuild them forthwith and gather your troops. Our time is coming.


----------



## Santino (Apr 22, 2011)

ymu said:


> Prepare the barricades comrades, D-Day is approaching.


 
LD-Day


----------



## ymu (Apr 22, 2011)

LD Death Day

LD D Day





What our forefathers and mothers really fought for.


----------



## embree (Apr 22, 2011)

ymu said:


> An excellent start, comrade. Rebuild them forthwith and gather your troops. Our time is coming.


 
Depends whether they've replaced the bins yet tbh


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 22, 2011)

Lib Demath.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 26, 2011)

I noticed in one of the papers today that the libdems are crying about being ignored by the tories and that the tories refer to them as 'yapping dogs'... Comedy gold


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm only in work today to make sure I can get May 6th off.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2011)

_I'm fucked after May 5th, aren't I. Please don't hang me._


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2011)

Notice the difference in hair colour on the latest one?


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2011)

Least he doesn't need to work on his accent.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

ooh yeah he's been at the _Just for Men_


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 26, 2011)

Just discovered the LibDems are not even putting up one candidate here, where we get 2 votes to return 2 ward Councillors, when they normally always come second to the Tories.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

Clegg at it again - doing a "meet the great unwashed" gig to explain the NHS meddling/cuts ("reforms"): http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/27/gp-consortium-plans-nick-clegg

One thing that Clegg keeps saying I notice is this, with regard to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs):



> Clegg told his audience: "At the moment the people who decide [on NHS services] aren't accountable. [Primary care trusts] are not a model of accountability or transparency. Most people who use GPs don't even know they exist … They are locally unaccountable decision makers who decide where your money goes, and the line of responsibility goes right back to the top of the tree."



This is a joke, right?  Has Clegg even bothered to read the "NHS Accountancy" document? PCTs are overseen by Strategic Health Authorties, whose role is this:



> Strategic health authorities are the regional headquarters of the NHS and carry out functions delegated to them by the Secretary of State. They are accountable for the performance and management of the healthcare system. Each strategic health authority is responsible for ensuring that patients have access to high-quality services in its area. *Strategic health authorities oversee the performance of primary care trusts and NHS trusts, and are responsible for supporting NHS trusts to reach foundation trust status. They hold primary care trusts to account and are themselves directly accountable to the Department of Health*.



So it's Department of Health oversees the Strategic Health Authorities, who then oversee PCTs.  Sure, I would imagine there's issues involved here, but unaccountable?  There's also an entire section explaining local level accountability.  Again, I'm sure this system has it's flaws, but the fact that there's no GP/local authority etc input is a lie.

E2A:  NHS Accountability document in full here: http://www.eoe.nhs.uk/nhs_constitution/downloads/statement_of_nhs_accountability.pdf


----------



## ymu (Apr 27, 2011)

Pointing out that the purchaser-provider split doesn't work well in its current incarnation,or in any previous incarnation, is a weak argument for making it even worse.

Here's a novel idea - cut out all the purchaser-provider contracts by running it as one big efficient organisation. No sane business sets up its departments to compete with each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

He's going private, what does he care.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

The really do think the world is made of mugs - here's Tim Fallon jockeying for post-Clegg position with Huhne.

Lib Dem president attacks 'wicked' Thatcherism at AV event

Hey, he said he dislikes thatcher! That means that AV is good and the lib-dems are too!













> He also claimed first past the post had made possible the "organised wickedness" of unemployment under years of Thatcherism.



_It's FPTP that has allowed us to behave so wickedly, to attack the poorest and help the richest and most powerful - please, stop us before we do it again._


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

Nick Clegg - it's labour and the tories fault we u-turned and lied on tuition fees, they made us sign that public pledge then burn it a few months later (aside from the claim making no sense - pay fees forever?):



> "I'd like to wave a magic wand and say we can pay fees forever. I was stuffed as both of the larger political parties were determined to see fees go up.



Jesus christ, just get killed.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Liverpool 2008: Nick Clegg's Leader's Speech



> I was elected leader, Mr Cameron suggested we join them.
> 
> He talked about a “progressive alliance”.
> 
> ...



(ta to this person)


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

I just got this leaflet through my door for the Lib Dems. 

Among other things it says this: 




			
				lib dems said:
			
		

> Our main reason for being in the Coalition Government is to deal with the current economic situation. However, at local level we have pursued different priorities to the Conservatives. That is why in 2009 we proposed a lower council tax increase (3% as opposed to 3.3%) whilst prioritising money to local community groups, and in 2010 we proposed that there be no increase at all (instead of the 1.6% implemented by the Conservatives) by using surplus reserves to further support local groups.





> Whilst of course we cannot be isolated from the impact of national events we do promise you that, irrespective of party label, we will always place the needs of [redacted] above all other issues.





> XXXX and XXXX are fully aware of the impact changes to the current benefit system will have on disabled people: their daughter has MS



I do have time for one of the candidates actually tbh (they go to my local synagogue) to be honest tho im a bit disppointed .....


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

We had the same distancing drivel.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

Bear in mind also that this is one of the safest tory seats in the country and a good amount of people getting these leaflets are (were!) solid tory voters.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 1, 2011)

Before the General Election, the Lib Dems were talking about how they wanted to abolish Council Tax and replace it with a local tax that is based on one's ability to pay. Funny how they've gone all quiet about it.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

Observer interview with Clegg (in "trust me, I'm a straightforward kind of guy" mode): http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/01/nick-clegg-andrew-rawnsley-interview

I dunno what's worse - Clegg's patented snake-oil salesman act, or Andrew bloody Rawnsley dishing up loads of pro-Lib Dem "comment".  Get this though, peeps:



> If we hadn't gone into coalition with the Conservatives, as night follows day there would have been another election within a few months. You probably would have had an outright Conservative victory."



So to save us from Tory neo-liberalism, Clegg selflessly sacrified himself into a collaborationist role that, er, pushes a Tory neo-liberalist agenda.  Truly, I'm humbled by his sacrifice and modesty.

And also:



> So will it be Lib Dem policy at the next election not to raise tuition fees above £9,000? He laughingly refuses to answer: "I think I've learnt from my mistake."



Such hilarity - lumbering students with a £27,000-plus debt is a "mistake".


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

It's getting caught.


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 2, 2011)

3 claimants die after being found fit for work by ATOS.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/demand-for-fairer-benefits-tests-as-two-die-1.1085915


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> 3 claimants die after being found fit for work by ATOS.
> 
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/demand-for-fairer-benefits-tests-as-two-die-1.1085915



Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.

There are problems with ATOS though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.



Astonishing - now you're defending someone dying with a deteriorating chronic illness, who did in fact die of that illness being declared fit to work and having their benefits cut.

Lib-dem ideology in real life action - and they dare moan about right wing cliques and thatcherite 'wickedness'.


----------



## embree (May 3, 2011)

No you arrogant fool, we don't need to show anything. What we're seeing is people who are sick and dying being given huge amounts of stress in their last months as their benefits are threatened.

Whether ATOS exacerbated their illnesses isn't the issue. It's that people who are very sick are being made miserable too and live out their last days in far more discomfort than is necessary.

You're a sociopath aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

I think that reply from moon (back from his flounce - another lib-dem promise broken) is actually the most clear example on this whol thread of why the lib-dems ar shit. Laid bare for all to see. Psycho stuff, it really is.


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing - now you're defending someone dying with a deteriorating chronic illness, who did in fact die of that illness being declared fit to work and having their benefits cut.
> 
> Lib-dem ideology in real life action - and they dare moan about right wing cliques and thatcherite 'wickedness'.



I'm not defending that their benefits where  wrongfully cut, or defending ATOS. Just pointing out that you need to asses these things on proper facts and statistics. I don't for instance know from this article whether less people are being wrongfully assessed under ATOS then the previous system.


----------



## Nylock (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.


 
...and what are the chances that some will die in the waiting period? Clearly this doesn't seem to matter to the likes of yourself as long as it helps to facilitate cheap, petty political pointscoring. Elections coming up soon and, if there's any justice in this world, your party will get wiped out in a 'scorched earth' fashion. All your pre-election whining about being treated so badly by the howwible tories will not save you from getting your arses handed to you.


----------



## smokedout (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.





they were found fit for work, under the current system, they clearly weren't

the death rate of those on benefits is completely irrelevent


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 3, 2011)

A few more need to die first.


----------



## embree (May 3, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A few more need to die first.


 
We need to get a good sample. Let the deaths without benefits continue


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm not defending that their benefits where  wrongfully cut, or defending ATOS. Just pointing out that you need to asses these things on proper facts and statistics. I don't for instance know from this article whether less people are being wrongfully assessed under ATOS the previous system.



Yes you are - a bloke died of a deteriorating  chronic illness. He was passed fit to work whilst dying. That's your extremist-psycho-ideology in action. There can be no other possible sane response other than to condemn it and the policies that not only allowed this to happen, but made it happen. That you didn't react like that, but instead offered some mumb-jumbo obfuscation tells us all we need to know the lib-dems and you.


----------



## fractionMan (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.


 
fuck me you're a cunt


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? *If you are going to get outraged by this*, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.



Not only did he not react correctly, he pre-emptively sneered at those who did. Proper psycho stuff.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's getting caught.


yup, the burglar who's not at all sorry he tried to clean out your house, but is so tearfully sorry he got fingered


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.


Has it never occurred to you that the new, bold-as-brass policy of "get claimants OFF benefits and declared fit to work AT ALL COSTS"- or, if you prefer, an all-out tory war on claimants - may be a significant factor affecting claimants health.
if it doesn't, you're either mental, or actually evil.
either way, you're a Tory in all but name


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you are - a bloke died of a deteriorating  chronic illness. He was passed fit to work whilst dying. That's your extremist-psycho-ideology in action. There can be no other possible sane response other than to condemn it and the policies that not only allowed this to happen, but made it happen. That you didn't react like that, but instead offered some mumb-jumbo obfuscation tells us all we need to know the lib-dems and you.


 
I do condemn that a wrongful decision was made in this instance, I also have serious concerns about ATOS. What I do not know from this story is whether ATOS are worse then their predecessors' or not. I'm just stating that you can't base policy decisions on emotive news stories without considering the statistical evidence. You need to base such things on things like the Harrington review that did contain criticisms of ATOS.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I do condemn that a wrongful decision was made in this instance, I also have serious concerns about ATOS. What I do not know from this story is whether ATOS are worse then their predecessors' or not. I'm just stating that you can't base policy decisions on news storand look at the statistical impact. ies that contain a few emotive examples. You need to base such things on things like the Harrington review that did contain criticisms of ATOS.


 
Bollocks. You immediately took up a defensive position, suggesting that there may be something missing from the 'outrage' (nicely sneered there) over someone dying being declared fit to work. You failed to ask what's driving cases like this - and you failed to do so because it's your extremist ideology (one shared by all the main parties) being put into  action. You reacted like a bureaucratic self-justifying robot.


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Has it never occurred to you that the new, bold-as-brass policy of "get claimants OFF benefits and declared fit to work AT ALL COSTS"- or, if you prefer, an all-out tory war on claimants - may be a significant factor affecting claimants health.
> if it doesn't, you're either mental, or actually evil.
> either way, you're a Tory in all but name


 
Yes I have considered that a political drive to reduce the budget for benefit claimants could negatively impact upon some people. However to determine whether this was the case It would probably also be useful to look at the death rates/standard of living among those who did not appeal but went out and looked for work.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I do condemn that a wrongful decision was made in this instance, I also have serious concerns about ATOS. What I do not know from this story is whether ATOS are worse then their predecessors' or not. I'm just stating that you can't base policy decisions on emotive news stories without considering the statistical evidence. You need to base such things on things like the Harrington review that did contain criticisms of ATOS.


Moon  - HELLO? The policy has changed, there is now a frantic drive to get sick people off benefits and decared fit for work - regardless of whether they are or not - whilst simultaneously using the meejah to demonise them. That's the _policy_, regardless of ATOS or whoever. 
It isn't ATOS's policy - it's _yours_


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bollocks. You immediately took up a defensive position, suggesting that there may be something missing from the 'outrage' (nicely sneered there) over someone dying being declared fit to work. You failed to ask what's driving cases like this - and you failed to do so because it's your extremist ideology (one shared by all the main parties) being put into  action. You reacted like a bureaucratic self-justifying robot.


 
Yes I object to moral outrage based on emotive news stories that don't give one the full picture or facts. In this instance I happen to think there is a problem with ATOS.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes I have considered that a political drive to reduce the budget for benefit claimants could negatively impact upon some people. However to determine whether this was the case It would probably also be useful to look at the death rates/standard of living among those who did not appeal but went out and looked for work.


SOME people? SOME? 
and we also  need to look at those who simply gave in to endless DWP bullying? 
You sick fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes I have considered that a political drive to reduce the budget for benefit claimants could negatively impact upon some people. However to determine whether this was the case It would probably also be useful to look at the death rates/standard of living among those who did not appeal but went out and looked for work.


 
You mean all those reports and investigations into how the benefits cuts you have supported and introduced (in fact led the call for, acting as the hard right of the coalition) would negatively impact on people - and not just any people, but the poorest and least able to deal with those negative consequences. You manged to miss all them and when the consequences start happening exactly as predicted you say - but how do we know? That's not approaching being honest.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes I object to moral outrage based on emotive news stories that don't give one the full picture or facts. In this instance I happen to think there is a problem with ATOS.


 
You object to people being outraged that a bloke dying of a deteriorating chronic illness that killed him was declared fit to work on the basis of your own extremist benefit reduction policy?

I think that's all we need to know about you and your party.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

just reading the last page or so is enough for a red mist moment. I'm truly sickened


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 3, 2011)

I'm with Moon23. Before we decide whether it's bad that someone died from an illness that it was claimed shouldn't have stopped them working, we must look at this "rationally". We need to check how it impacted on house prices - if he was a scruffy sort the prices in his area may have gone up after he died. We also need to look at stocks and shares - what happens to them when unemployed people die? And if it turns out to be positive we may well have to enshrine the eradication of useless eaters into law. This knee jerk "killing the vulnerable is bad" response is childish - you need to grow up and be rational like Moon23 and the Lib Dems.


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> just reading the last page or so is enough for a red mist moment. I'm truly sickened


 
Oh get of your fucking moral high horse Streathamite, I know lefties thrive on such anger but read what i'm saying. I'm actually saying I think there are problems with ATOS. I'm just not basing this on one emotive press story.


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm with Moon23. Before we decide whether it's bad that someone died from an illness that it was claimed shouldn't have stopped them working, we must look at this "rationally". We need to check how it impacted on house prices - if he was a scruffy sort the prices in his area may have gone up after he died. We also need to look at stocks and shares - what happens to them when unemployed people die? And if it turns out to be positive we may well have to enshrine the eradication of useless eaters into law. This knee jerk "killing the vulnerable is bad" response is childish - you need to grow up and be rational like Moon23 and the Lib Dems.


 
You an idiot that is misrepresenting my position. House prices, stock and shares have nothing to do with this. It is unwise to present an evidence based approach to policy making as unsympathetic or inhuman.


----------



## fractionMan (May 3, 2011)

you are unsympathetic and inhuman.  and a cunt.


----------



## moon23 (May 3, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> you are unsympathetic and inhuman.  and a cunt.



I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh get of your fucking moral high horse Streathamite, I know lefties thrive on such anger but read what i'm saying. I'm actually saying I think there are problems with ATOS. I'm just not basing this on one emotive press story.


Bollocks. ATOS are NOT the story, and you damn well know it. This is NOT about ATOS - they're just the fall guys, and the lightning rods. This is all about ONE thing that you haven't even had the guts or honesty to acknowledge - the endless pressure, coming from the very top of the government you are such a dismal apologist for, to slash away at IB/DLA/whatever and to drive the sick and disabled back to work, endless crucifying them in the press as you do so. Regardless of the suffering, indead the DEATHS caused, just for condem ideological and fiscal gain, and it's far worse than anything thatcher ever did. That is the real outrage, but to you - oh no, that's not happening, it's the subbie's fault.
Moral high horse? compared to you, most of the career criminals in my area have a moral _Sea The Stars_.


----------



## fractionMan (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


 
Keep going, this is making you look great.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You an idiot that is misrepresenting my position. House prices, stock and shares have nothing to do with this. It is unwise to present an evidence based approach to policy making as unsympathetic or inhuman.


 
"You" a cunt and we all know it's what you were thinking - worth it if we close the deficit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


 
No, you go around arguing the necessity of policies that lead to people dying being declared fit to work and having their benefits cut - whilst your party does it in real life practice. That you think calling someone a cunt is worse than this yet again tells us all we need to know about you and your party.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


 
I know, imagine having an emotional reaction when someone dies after your government takes away their benefits, making the last days of their lives a misery. How irrational of us!


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


but you aren't - you are totally glossing over the REAL issue - what's driving the policy, from the top of government - and 
 acting as if it doesn't exist, whilst pretending this is all about some technical issue with ATOS. they're also cunts, but it isn't that. You are actually being staggeringly dishonest, as well as sociopathically callous. It's like watching a tory politician of the 1980s


----------



## _angel_ (May 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Bollocks. ATOS are NOT the story, and you damn well know it. This is NOT about ATOS - they're just the fall guys, and the lightning rods. This is all about ONE thing that you haven't even had the guts or honesty to acknowledge - the endless pressure, coming from the very top of the government you are such a dismal apologist for, to slash away at IB/DLA/whatever and to drive the sick and *disabled back to work,* endless crucifying them in the press as you do so. Regardless of the suffering, indead the DEATHS caused, just for condem ideological and fiscal gain, and it's far worse than anything thatcher ever did. That is the real outrage, but to you - oh no, that's not happening, it's the subbie's fault.
> Moral high horse? compared to you, most of the career criminals in my area have a moral _Sea The Stars_.



Can people stop repeating the myth that these people will actually get jobs, because it's not very likely in a lot of cases... it'll be JSA and workfare or homelessness. And it started under Labour, who have no plans to stop this.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Can people stop repeating the myth that these people will actually get jobs, because it's not very likely in a lot of cases... it'll be JSA and workfare or homelessness. And it started under Labour, who have no plans to stop this.


actually, yes - great point, I totally missed that one. so it should be "to drive the sick and disabled to an even harsher benefits regime, with the State refusing to acknowledge that their special incapacity needs even exist".
which is even more disgusting.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.


If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.


 
Do you understand the nature of progressive illness, of permanent disabilities? 
I ask because even Harrington established that the majority of those being refused ESA who had previously received it, were people with those issues. That is, we're never going to get better, so for those of us suddenly to be found fit to work after years of repeatedly being found unfit (and some of us also went through our employer's occupational health system, which attempts to find you a redeployment in keeping with your health issues, previous to being on IB/ESA), we don't need to show anything except the tragedy of this new system and it's effects.

I'd ask you to kill yourself, but you're already dead, Moon. You're already fucking dead.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains



.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I do condemn that a wrongful decision was made in this instance, I also have serious concerns about ATOS. What I do not know from this story is whether ATOS are worse then their predecessors' or not. I'm just stating that you can't base policy decisions on emotive news stories without considering the statistical evidence. You need to base such things on things like the Harrington review that did contain criticisms of ATOS.


 
One of my fields of "expertise" (i.e. it's a subject I've studied extensively) is social policy. A glaring error on your part is to assume that policy is being formulated at all on these matters.
Let me illustrate what I mean: A policy is formulated (and I'm using the widely accepted definition of policy formulation here) through representations to government from interested parties (which may be businesses, public organisations or individuals). The government takes on these ideas and shapes policy in conformity with fulfilling these needs and it's own.
In the case of the "welfare reform" policies, this is emphatically not the case. These "policies" haven't been formed because of a public requirement for them (dig deep, you'll find very little quantifiable call for harsher welfare policy, except from the governments themselves), but because *government*, in it's role as the executor of neo-liberal economics, requires them.

So pleas don't rattle on about "policy decisions", because this isn't about policy, it's about ideology pure and simple.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> SOME people? SOME?
> and we also  need to look at those who simply gave in to endless DWP bullying?
> You sick fuck.


 
It's a matter of well-researched fact that the government annually assesses the probable percentage rate of "surrender" by claimants in order to estimate what resources to commit to reviews of decisions and appeals against decisions.
Bearing this in mind, even the DWP were taken by surprise (and bear in mind their estimates are undertaken by the Government Actuary) by the volume of appeals on ESA.

Now, what does that tell you? That moon is right, or that it is indeed bullying of the vulnerable?


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, what does that tell you? That moon is right, or that it is indeed bullying of the vulnerable?


the latter, certainly - and he'll never, ever admit it


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Tens of thousands of claims must be on appeal. What are the chances that no appellants will die in the waiting period? If you are going to get outraged by this, then you need to show that the death rate is significantly lower among those continuing on benefits.
> 
> There are problems with ATOS though.



Obvious troll is a psychopath.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 3, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Obvious troll is a psychopath.



Suspect more of a regurgitator of ill-digested right-wing shite (after all, Lib Dems are famous for liking the taste) from the usual propaganda outlets ... 

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Stockholm_Network


----------



## ericjarvis (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I do condemn that a wrongful decision was made in this instance, I also have serious concerns about ATOS. What I do not know from this story is whether ATOS are worse then their predecessors' or not. I'm just stating that you can't base policy decisions on emotive news stories without considering the statistical evidence. You need to base such things on things like the Harrington review that did contain criticisms of ATOS.


 
Right. Some basic advice from somebody with over 30 years experience in politics. If you don't want to appear a complete dickhead, moon23, do at least a modicum of basic research before you wade into an argument. At present you just look like an arrogant self-righteous twat because with next to no knowledge of the subject you are being ludicrously patronising to posters who have shown over a long time a high level of understanding of the issues around disability and incapacity benefits.

Now. Start by looking at the government's Labour Force Surveys over the last two decades. That's where the basic information is about the health and fitness for work of the people of the UK. You will find there evidence of a large increase in stress related illnesses that begins in the early 90s with people still able to work but registering stress related conditions with their GPs. That has continued increasing but from ten years ago the LFS now includes the statement that since mental health morbidity (the suicide rate) has not increased it should be assumed that there isn't in fact any increase in stress related illness at all. A rather ludicrous assertion added AFTER a number of government (and opposition) statements to the effect that the large increase in people claiming Incapacity Benefit due to stress related illness could only be due to claimants faking illnesses. Not only an illogical idea that is thoroughly debunked by the government's own statistics, but one that was then used to alter the conclusions published with those statistics.

Next look at the records of the Tribunals Service for appeals against decisions finding those on incapacity or disability benefits to be fit for work. These really have increased dramatically since ATOS took over responsibility for the assesments. No wonder really, since when the DWP used to run their own medical assesments they were all done by qualified doctors using a proper medical examination related to the claimant's medical conditions. ATOS assesments are done by nurses, paramedics, and even allegedly some people without any medical qualifications at all. Under the old system the DWP had complete access to the qualifications of the person running the assesment, the ability to monitor the reliability of that particular doctor's judgements, and a vested interest in saving money by getting the assesment right first time. Under the current system the DWP can't even monitor the assesments to the  extent of having a signed bit of paper to show that a qualified medical professional has even looked at the report. ATOS do not have to pay a penny back in the case of an appeal to a tribunal  being won. They have no financial incentive to get the assesments correct, merely to meet the targets they are given for claimants being declared fit to work.

Take a look at the basics. Statistics related to the health of the UK's workforce over the last few decades. Statistics for tribunal appeals won before and after ATOS. The methods of monitoring the accuracy of assesments before and after ATOS. Then you might be in a position to join the debate. Until then you would be well advised to SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU GET A CLUE!


----------



## ericjarvis (May 3, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh get of your fucking moral high horse Streathamite, I know lefties thrive on such anger but read what i'm saying. I'm actually saying I think there are problems with ATOS. I'm just not basing this on one emotive press story.


 
The problem is NOT with ATOS. The problem is that the contract with ATOS and the instructions given to ATOS mean that large numbers of sick people will wrongly be declared fit to work. A multinational company that donates large sums to the main political parties will receive a very large sum of money for doing this, and the British taxpayer will foot the bill for all the appeals.

The problem is not with ATOS. The problem is with the blue, yellow, and red Tory parties that are so desperate for money that they are complicit in what amounts to a large scale defrauding of the taxpayer that is already resulting in people dying. The problem is with ignorant and self important party hacks, like you, in all three main parties, who don't give a flying fuck who dies and who pays so long as their party gets plenty of large donations.


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 3, 2011)

From the progressive unelected voice of the people with his fist in the air to defending the Tories.


----------



## Blagsta (May 4, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Right. Some basic advice from somebody with over 30 years experience in politics. If you don't want to appear a complete dickhead, moon23, do at least a modicum of basic research before you wade into an argument. At present you just look like an arrogant self-righteous twat because with next to no knowledge of the subject you are being ludicrously patronising to posters who have shown over a long time a high level of understanding of the issues around disability and incapacity benefits.
> 
> Now. Start by looking at the government's Labour Force Surveys over the last two decades. That's where the basic information is about the health and fitness for work of the people of the UK. You will find there evidence of a large increase in stress related illnesses that begins in the early 90s with people still able to work but registering stress related conditions with their GPs. That has continued increasing but from ten years ago the LFS now includes the statement that *since mental health morbidity (the suicide rate) has not increased * it should be assumed that there isn't in fact any increase in stress related illness at all. A rather ludicrous assertion added AFTER a number of government (and opposition) statements to the effect that the large increase in people claiming Incapacity Benefit due to stress related illness could only be due to claimants faking illnesses. Not only an illogical idea that is thoroughly debunked by the government's own statistics, but one that was then used to alter the conclusions published with those statistics.
> 
> ...



Just a point of accuracy - morbidity in this context does not mean death, but a state of ill health, i.e. if mental health morbidity has not increased, it means there are not more people diagnosed mentally ill.

[edited to add]
an explanation for the lack of increase in morbidity (i.e. diagnoses) of mental health problems may be that stress is not (afaik) classified as a mental health illness


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2011)

It most likely means that diagnoses of stress replaced an alternative diagnosis - ie it was always obvious something was wrong, but now there's a new name for it, so the new condition becomes common in the statistics, but the old diagnosis is getting rarer as a result.

Same thing that happened with autism, basically:







A diagnostic shift, with no actual increase in the burden of disease. (There is an increase in learning difficulties overall, probably because we know how to keep severely premature babies alive, the majority of whom will have some disability if they survive.)


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Just a point of accuracy - morbidity in this context does not mean death, but a state of ill health, i.e. if mental health morbidity has not increased, it means there are not more people diagnosed mentally ill.
> 
> [edited to add]
> an explanation for the lack of increase in morbidity (i.e. diagnoses) of mental health problems may be that stress is not (afaik) classified as a mental health illness


 
Whilst true on both counts, there was an actual increase in mental health morbidity over that period, however the statistics used by the Labour Force Surveys to justify the claim were for suicide. The second point is crucial though, stress related illnesses are physical illnesses and not mental, so their whole argument is completely bogus.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

So let's have it in basic terms why the lib-dems are shit.


----------



## Garek (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So let's have it in basic terms why the lib-dems are shit.


 
How about "They aspired to be something different, they tasted power, they proved be just the same". Though that's a bit weak.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

ymu said:


> It most likely means that diagnoses of stress replaced an alternative diagnosis - ie it was always obvious something was wrong, but now there's a new name for it, so the new condition becomes common in the statistics, but the old diagnosis is getting rarer as a result.


 
Not when there is an increase in the number of people being diagnosed with stress related illnesses, followed by an increase in the overall number of people found unfit to work that is much the same as the increased number of people found unfit to work because of stress related illnesses.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So let's have it in basic terms why the lib-dems are shit.


 
Because it's a party that appeals to people who don't actually believe in anything other than they are right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Because it's a party that appeals to people who don't actually believe in anything other than they are right and everyone else is wrong.


 
Indeed. Evan Harris picked up on one of my tweets the other day and tried to engage me on the politics of the coalition. So I sent him some stuff from Stiglitz and Krugman on why austerity is a disastrous economic strategy and he came back scoffing at my 'extreme ideology'. "My extreme ideology", I queried. "You mean Keynesianiam. You're a liberal, right?"

He didn't get back to me after that.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So let's have it in basic terms why the lib-dems are shit.


they're economic tories who pretend they're something better


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Chitter-chatter on the "NHS Blog" on the Graun:  looks like the hapless Andrew Lawnsley could well be replaced as Health Secretary by arch-Orange Book David Laws: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2011/may/04/nhs-reforms-live-blog

From the blog, here's what Laws said of the NHS in 2004:



> The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world, running a bureaucratically driven system which is driven by central diktat from Westminster and Whitehall. The NHS is a system that fails to allow for the disciplines of choice, diversity and competition which can help to ratchet up standards.



Law's "remedy" for the NHS sounds about as reasonable as Harold Shipman's terminal cures for his eldery patients.

And this from Wikipedia too:



> Around the time of the 2010 general election, Laws told a Conservative colleague that he would have become a Conservative politician had it not been for the Thatcher government's introduction of Section 28, which forbade local authorities from "promot[ing] homosexuality".



So if it wasn't for the ignorant homophobia personifed by Section 28, Laws would've happily signed up to Thatcher's savage neo-liberalist agenda, and also been happy to join a party who often toyed with overt (Thatcher's "swamping" remarks) and covert racism?  Nice to know he has his "principles"...


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 4, 2011)

The Lib Dems are shit becasue they combine Tory 'fuck you scum' economics with Nu Labour's sanctimonious sense of moral superiority.

moon 23 being a case in point.


----------



## Nylock (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So let's have it in basic terms why the lib-dems are shit.


 
Because of everything that has been, is, and will be discussed on this thread.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

The Lib Dems - if politics was a real-life version of Orwell's "Animal Farm", then they'd be Napoleon.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The Lib Dems - if politics was a real-life version of Orwell's "Animal Farm", then they'd be Napoleon.


nope, they haven't the balls for that, more like squealer


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> nope, they haven't the balls for that, more like squealer



:drumroll and cymbal smiley:


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> :drumroll and cymbal smiley:


I thangyew!


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't go around labelling people as 'cunts' or 'inhuman' because they argue for evidence based policy making over emotive knee-jerk reactions to news stories. Your moral self-righteousness is a danger.



Please come back.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Please come back.


 
I'm not 100% sure, but sarcasm detector says no. And if so, I agree. For all his silly ideas and lazy 'research', moon23 has endured the very worst abuse I've ever seen Urban dish out, by a very large margin, and over a sustained period of time. I don't doubt that he 'deserves' most if not all of it, but what impresses me is that he has never once lost his rag. He appears to have left because of the (fullfilled) threats of outing him because he was naive enough to be honest with us.

We would have nothing to bounce certain sorts of ideas off without posters like moon and d-b. But d-b couldn't take what he dished out, whereas moon never dished it out and always took it with good grace and occasionally, surprisingly witty humour.

We need him back. And not just for the pointing and laughing, although no doubt that will be part of the fun, and he'll respond in good humour.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 8, 2011)

I think I know Moon on a personal level. Worked with him on No2ID stuff. No worse than many LDs who should know better and pretty sad if he has been driven away. I withheld judgement on them for a while, I think it makes judgement a little more credible when it is eventually formed. I took some mild stick for that. Butchers said I had been naive about them and I admitted he was right. I hadn't been aware of the full extent to which the Orange book coup had succeeded, but I wonder if many LDs had either. They have, of course, ballsed up good and proper and there is little going back in the medium term. The amount of spineless tory apologism and cliches I have seen come from specific individuals has been an object lesson. They are not short on economic ignorance either. They will deserve all the bad fortune they are likely to get, and more. Why are they shit? Because they are spineless and jumped at power too easily. Did they learn the lesson of the Irish Greens and so many other junior partners who back up right wingers? Did they fuck. Who did they send in to bat on the coalition deal as a prime negotiator? A squirt barely out of school trousers. The tories have run rings round them from day one. So it is not just powergrabbing and arrogance but political ineptitude. The handling of the AV thing is probably the prime example. Instead of achieving a generational objective they screwed up the objective for a generation - the timing, presentation and offer itself were utterly limp.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, but sarcasm detector says no. And if so, I agree. For all his silly ideas and lazy 'research', moon23 has endured the very worst abuse I've ever seen Urban dish out, by a very large margin, and over a sustained period of time. I don't doubt that he 'deserves' most if not all of it, but what impresses me is that he has never once lost his rag. He appears to have left because of the (fullfilled) threats of outing him because he was naive enough to be honest with us.
> 
> We would have nothing to bounce certain sorts of ideas off without posters like moon and d-b. But d-b couldn't take what he dished out, whereas moon never dished it out and always took it with good grace and occasionally, surprisingly witty humour.
> 
> We need him back. And not just for the pointing and laughing, although no doubt that will be part of the fun, and he'll respond in good humour.



I wouldn't want anyone to be driven away.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I wouldn't want anyone to be driven away.


 
I would agree with that. But d-b does need occasional enforced holidays for his own sake, never mind anyone else's. I've also posted about why he should come back. I have a lot of time for the guy (well, you have to if you're gonna try arguing the toss with him ) and he is a loss.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I would agree with that. But d-b does need occasional enforced holidays for his own sake, never mind anyone else's. I've also posted about why he should come back. I have a lot of time for the guy (well, you have to if you're gonna try arguing the toss with him ) and he is a loss.


 
if he comes back he'd be gone again quickly because of his unseemly habit of issuing threats by pm. he's not a loss, he's a loser.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

He will always be a yo-yo poster. Not entirely unlike yourself. But he's good to have around, on the whole. He needs to understand that threats issued by a former police officer still deeply embedded in the system are really quite disturbing for the target, and he has to learn to apologise when he's wrong.

But he's PMed me with helpful information and offers to help personally every step of the way to show up some fucking cunty racists that monkey-chanted my boyfriend - right in the middle of the most blazingest row we ever had.

He's a lot better than most of us give him credit for, but he does have some stuff to deal with himself. On the occasional forced break.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> He will always be a yo-yo poster. Not entirely unlike yourself. But he's good to have around, on the whole. He needs to understand that threats issued by a former police officer still deeply embedded in the system are really quite disturbing for the target, and he has to learn to apologise when he's wrong.
> 
> But he's PMed me with helpful information and offers to help personally every step of the way to show up some fucking cunty racists that monkey-chanted my boyfriend - right in the middle of the most blazingest row we ever had.
> 
> He's a lot better than most of us give him credit for, but he does have some stuff to deal with himself. On the occasional forced break.


 
i'm not so sure it's just a break


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

I think it's a ban. I think it should be lifted at a sensible time of the mods' choosing. And I'll happily say so.

_<reports own post so the mods see it>_


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I think it's a ban. I think it should be lifted at a sensible time of the mods' choosing. And I'll happily say so.
> 
> _<reports own post so the mods see it>_


 
yeh. i think it's a permaban. and rightly so.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, but sarcasm detector says no. And if so, I agree. For all his silly ideas and lazy 'research', moon23 has endured the very worst abuse I've ever seen Urban dish out, by a very large margin, and over a sustained period of time. I don't doubt that he 'deserves' most if not all of it, but what impresses me is that he has never once lost his rag. He appears to have left because of the (fullfilled) threats of outing him because he was naive enough to be honest with us.
> 
> We would have nothing to bounce certain sorts of ideas off without posters like moon and d-b. But d-b couldn't take what he dished out, whereas moon never dished it out and always took it with good grace and occasionally, surprisingly witty humour.
> 
> We need him back. And not just for the pointing and laughing, although no doubt that will be part of the fun, and he'll respond in good humour.


 
agreed on nearly all counts, about both DB and moon.  Exception being that I never saw moons "surprisingly witty" streak, and would have been surprised if I did, but he certainly took his slaggings with more grace than I could ever hope to muster.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

I've complimented him on his witty response a couple of times - IIRC where he was being somewhat self-aware rather than just flinging cliches back. It wasn't a common feature, but I think worth noting about his style.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2011)

nah, fuck em both.


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2011)

indeed, i wouldn't want him to be driven away. i always tried to be polite to him, i didn't always succeed though. some of the stuff he did say did make me very angry.


----------



## _angel_ (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I think it's a ban. I think it should be lifted at a sensible time of the mods' choosing. And I'll happily say so.
> 
> _<reports own post so the mods see it>_


 
Don't normally like to say this cos I think slagging banned posters off, is a bit off, but d-b drove scores of people away from threads in the end, can just do without being randomly screamed at and abused, sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

Fuck 'em both and talk about why the lib-dems are shit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

Simon Hughes pretty much just said on the politics show that the lib-dems are poised to wipe-out labour in the next general election - provided the lib-dems play their cards right within the coalition, voters will flock to them as the only _progressive_ (ugh) force left on the national level. Absolutely snooker loopy.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Simon Hughes pretty much just said on the politics show that the lib-dems are poised to wipe-out labour in the next general election - provided the lib-dems play their cards right within the coalition, voters will flock to them as the only _progressive_ (ugh) force left on the national level. Absolutely snooker loopy.


 
i wonder what sort of hallucinogens he's on.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2011)

I just heard clegg on the radio trying to position himself as a defender of the NHS. 'Changes need to be an evolution and not a destructive revolution.' Clearly an attempt to highlight the things 'we are doing in government'.

This is another reason they are shit-this is no more than a dishonest attempt to make it look like they are halting the bad tories like fucking heros. Coming on the heels of a fucking pasting over AV. Desperate cunts.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

I have a tendency to lose my rag IRL much quicker than I do here, so I find them useful practice in staying calm when it actually matters. 

I post somewhere that most of my posts on urban would have me insta-banned for excessively bad language or directing an insult at another poster. I got my first (unofficial tbf) warning for enquiring if a certain arsehole had to work hard at being an arsehole or was he born that way?

It leaves Urban in the fucking dust for spats, bad blood, beef running across too many threads for too many years to consider tracing the origin. Advice threads where there is no useful advice because everyone needs to prove that there is only one way to do things and it is the way that suits their lifestyle best. Threads insta-locked for genuine immediate libel concerns, instantly followed by a follow-up how fare you thread, including all the original content. The mods are absolutely wonderful to the very last one of them, but they don't half get abused as weapons to deploy against other posters, and woe betide the mod who doesn't agree to be used like that. Target, lock acquired ... hunt.

Banning aggressive posting styles is the single most counter-productive idea I've ever come across. I don't mind d-b calling me a cunt. I'll call him a cunt, and we'll be friends tomorrow - just like every time I call someone a cunt because they're being a cunt.

What I mind is urban fulfilling _his_ self-fulfilling prophecy about urban. The Cunt Collective really could just become a monothought clique that never does anything but argue sophisticated political points without ever testing them on someone who just doesn't get it. There are millions of people who just don't get it and we could do with a few of them on our side. That even excludes perfectly decent but not that politically engaged people who really want to get it, but feel excluded by the unnecessary aggression. The aggression that isn't just a safety valve, but a need to pour scorn on anyone who so obviously hasn't read as many of the right books as you have.

I can be guilty of this, I know. I get a bit manic, and forget to check names and what I know of a poster before launching into yet another flying kick on completely the wrong target.

No, it's not your responsibility to make P&P a safe haven for kittens, but Davey Boy Cameron declared Class War some time ago and the battle lines are being drawn. The stupid fucking twat is drawing his about 95% of the way too close to himself for sanity. 

The well paid lackies stuck on the 'wrong' side of Cameron's line can fucking hear them laughing about it when Boris drops round with the boys from the Bully to check out how the trenches are coming along. He's saying all sorts of shit to them about sorting out the rear defences first and moving forward, but he's running out of time for that. They know there's something up.

What I'm saying is that nearly all off the battlefield is ours. We know more about economics and he's left his troops wide open to a right good bit of education from a position of _come and join us, you know you want to really_ comradery. If we could just treat them with a bit more respect ande credit a few more people with the intelligence to 'get' this stuff, well ... we've already won. Quick nip out to plant the flag whilst they're sleeping off the good flowerpotting they gave their own defences last night, and we're free to start bickering over a new constitution and telling the Royal Family to start cleaning their filthy pits up because the servants are moving in to their quarters and we want them out by midnight, _after_ the security check for valuable items being removed from the premises.

Just an idle thought.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

Clegg has said his party will ensure there'll be no _return to Thatcherism_ - this is him not 3 months ago. Even his lies are lies.:




> But he justifies this by pointing to an unlikely lodestar: the Thatcher government. ‘If the Conservatives had any imagination or verve, they would look back at their own history and realise the last time capital gains and income was equalised was under Nigel Lawson,’ he says. ‘What I am advocating is a Lawson policy.’ From someone who used to denounce Baroness Thatcher with some passion, this sounds remarkably odd.
> 
> But, he claims, age has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration. ‘I’m 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don’t want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed. And what has now happened to the British economy? It has gone belly-up because, once again, we have allowed a vested interest to run riot.’


----------



## Plumdaff (May 8, 2011)

They are also shit because they're now going on about blocking the NHS reforms despite being whipped to vote for it in the Commons and two-thirds of the changes having already been implemented. Not going to get any of the 650 jobs at Barts and the London back, to name but one example.

Disingenuous bastards.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 8, 2011)

And so it comes to pass - the Orange Books shouting long and hard about how AV will be the panacea for democracy, and now post-referendum, wanting us to look at the "real issues", how "they're listening" (to who - the ghost of Richard Nixon?), and the Goebbels-strength lie that they are the progressive force in politics.  Dishonest, duplicitous and patronising - fuck the Orange Books to death.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I have a tendency to lose my rag IRL much quicker than I do here, so I find them useful practice in staying calm when it actually matters.
> 
> I post somewhere that most of my posts on urban would have me insta-banned for excessively bad language or directing an insult at another poster. I got my first (unofficial tbf) warning for enquiring if a certain arsehole had to work hard at being an arsehole or was he born that way?
> 
> ...


 fyi(1): the plural of 'lackey' is 'lackeys'. 

fyi(2): there is no 'cunt collective'


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> They are also shit because they're now going on about blocking the NHS reforms despite being whipped to vote for it in the Commons and two-thirds of the changes having already been implemented. Not going to get any of the 650 jobs at Barts and the London back, to name but one example.
> 
> Disingenuous bastards.


 

whats so transparent about it is the timing. After a kicking over AV they are desperately repositioning as champions of the NHS despite already having been party to reforms. Despite clegg himself talking about competition being good for the nhs not so long ago. The volte-facing must be making the cunts dizzy.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 8, 2011)

...and at the end of the day, if Disco demands that the NHS "reforms" carry on at full speed, then Clegg will do his master's bidding and talk once again of "choice", "diversity" and "tackling bureaucracy".  Anyway, he believes in the neo-liberalist tearing down of the NHS, so what's a bit of temporary flannel for public consumption/Lib Dem members going to matter?  He'll spend the next while banging on about House of Lords "reform", all while Disco stuffs the Lords with hand-picked allies, and naively believing that Cameron will let him reform even the Downing Street tea rota, let alone anything else.


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2011)

people did try and argue these points rationally and reasonably with moon, yourself and me included ymu . i agree some of what has been said has been out of order and i have been out of order on occasion. however if someone doesn't want t listen and persists in saying inaccurate, insulting nad offensive bollocks - in many cases insulting people he had once known personally, while cheeringn on the actions of a government which is attacking the poorest people and affecting the lives of many on here it's no surprise that some people are going to react in rather out of order ways themselves. i think our only concern should really be how this comes across to other people reading on here tbh and while i don't think that the spectacle of someone being ganged up on is particularly edifying, it's a "by their own words shall you know them" sort of thing if you get what i mean.


----------



## stethoscope (May 8, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13325442



> "Where we achieve Liberal Democrat policies in government, we've got to tell people about it," he said.
> 
> "There's no point delivering fairer taxes, better pensions, more apprenticeships... all of those things wouldn't have happened without Liberal Democrats [and] we've got to tell people.
> 
> ...



Hard to know what to believe... well, actually none of it!


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> whats so transparent about it is the timing. After a kicking over AV they are desperately repositioning as champions of the NHS despite already having been party to reforms. Despite clegg himself talking about competition being good for the nhs not so long ago. The volte-facing must be making the cunts dizzy.


 
NC's real crime was gullibility. He did a deal with the most potent and enduring political force in Western Europe of the last 100 years. A party populated almost entirely by icy pragmatists utterly unburdened by even a scrap of moral rectitude and backed by vast financial resources. He must have known we'd destroy him for no other reason than we could.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 8, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> He must have known we'd destroy him for no other reason than we could.









A Tory, yesterday.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, but sarcasm detector says no. And if so, I agree. For all his silly ideas and lazy 'research', moon23 has endured the very worst abuse I've ever seen Urban dish out, by a very large margin, and over a sustained period of time. I don't doubt that he 'deserves' most if not all of it, but what impresses me is that he has never once lost his rag. He appears to have left because of the (fullfilled) threats of outing him because he was naive enough to be honest with us.
> 
> We would have nothing to bounce certain sorts of ideas off without posters like moon and d-b. But d-b couldn't take what he dished out, whereas moon never dished it out and always took it with good grace and occasionally, surprisingly witty humour.
> 
> We need him back. And not just for the pointing and laughing, although no doubt that will be part of the fun, and he'll respond in good humour.


 

That's the thing that I hate most about politics and why I NEVER post here.

Any disagreement and you're a "cunt".

Why?

Cos you are.

Great argument people!

*slow clap*


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What I mind is urban fulfilling _his_ self-fulfilling prophecy about urban. The Cunt Collective really could just become a monothought clique that never does anything but argue sophisticated political points without ever testing them on someone who just doesn't get it. There are millions of people who just don't get it and we could do with a few of them on our side. That even excludes perfectly decent but not that politically engaged people who really want to get it, but feel excluded by the unnecessary aggression. The aggression that isn't just a safety valve, but a need to pour scorn on anyone who so obviously hasn't read as many of the right books as you have..


 

I completely agree.  You will never got anyone on side by dehumanising someone and then calling them a cunt.  Or visa versa.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I completely agree.  You will never got anyone on side by dehumanising someone and then calling them a cunt.  Or visa versa.


 
sometimes you don't want them onside. sometimes you want to dehumanise them. and sometimes it works very nicely.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> sometimes you don't want them onside. sometimes you want to dehumanise them. and sometimes it works very nicely.


 
Well,  that's lovely.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well,  that's lovely.


 
i'm pleased you think so.


----------



## _angel_ (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I completely agree.  You will never got anyone on side by dehumanising someone and then calling them a cunt.  Or visa versa.


 
Db's posts had more cunts than the vagina monologues tho. (Tbf he's not alone in this, dubversion racked up an impressive mileage on the old cunt-o-meter).


----------



## Idris2002 (May 8, 2011)

Ah, Dubversion. Whatever became of him?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I completely agree.  You will never got anyone on side by dehumanising someone and then calling them a cunt.  Or visa versa.


 
What about when they actually genuinely are massive cunts by any reasonable definition of the word? Should we lie and pretend they aren't?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah, Dubversion. Whatever became of him?


 
had enough of this old place and left in disgust with a number of old hands.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> What about when they actually genuinely are massive cunts by any reasonable definition of the word? Should we lie and pretend they aren't?


 
Well no.  Obviously is someone rapes your mother and then burns her in a field. Or goes on some kind of racist tirade, they are a cunt.

But someone having a differing opinion to the urban mass consensus does not a cunt make.  And quite often, that's the only name calling I see here.


----------



## Blagsta (May 8, 2011)

ahhhh, the urban mass consensus...


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2011)

i prefer to think of it as a hive-mind.


----------



## Blagsta (May 8, 2011)




----------



## killer b (May 8, 2011)

did butch give you permission to post that?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> ahhhh, the urban mass consensus...


 
Ah yeah...  I forgot the defensive urban non-conformist bingo card.  I should have been aware





would you like to play vegan bingo too?










Perhaps we can make an urban one.


----------



## Blagsta (May 8, 2011)

We are all butchersapron.


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2011)

did he tell you you could say that?


----------



## Blagsta (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Ah yeah...  I forgot the defensive urban non-conformist bingo card.  I should have been aware
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would you like to make an actual point?


----------



## stethoscope (May 8, 2011)

We Are Collective.


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Ah yeah...  I forgot the defensive urban non-conformist bingo card.  I should have been aware
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Some of those bingo squares are fairly good arguments to be fair.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 8, 2011)

Here we go....


Exactly what I'm talking about.


As opposed to har-har-har-ing old urban myths, legends, and running jokes, and general back patting,  why do you not actually say something reasonable?


Cos you can't.  The behaviour has become so ingrained you just can't help to do anything else.


Anyway.  ON that note I unsubscirabe cos I can't be arsed with another bun-fight thread, or reasoning with the unreasonables.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2011)

you voted lib dem didn't you flb?


----------



## Blagsta (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Here we go....
> 
> 
> Exactly what I'm talking about.
> ...



You're not making an argument, just indulging in a load of context free  generalisations.  What response did you expect?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2011)

In revelation space the Conjoiners are a hive mind of sorts- autonomy is possible but the embedded looms of medichinery that operate from birth weave you into a sensorium of communication that would make you feel like you'd lost a limb if you were away from a Nest.

wait, am I on the right thread


----------



## embree (May 8, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Here we go....
> 
> 
> Exactly what I'm talking about.
> ...


 
Well thanks for coming anyway. It's been special


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 8, 2011)

Obviously FabricBabyLive! has uncovered a plot on Urban so fiendish only ZOG Mossad the Bilderburg Owls the new Capitalist Marxist order is repsonsible.

Comrades, we all await the re-education camps.


----------



## Lakina (May 8, 2011)

nick clegg on his knees sucking cameron's cock what a cunt


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

We've got the prospect of them trying to whitewash David Laws the thief late this week as well. Let's see how badly they fuck this one up.


----------



## shagnasty (May 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We've got the prospect of them trying to whitewash David Laws the thief late this week as well. Let's see how badly they fuck this one up.


 
The graun says a light rebuff but mail says different.We will have to see


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

Oddly enough the Guardian - who supported the thief Laws - piece only says 'mild' in the google news and twitter link, the actual article doesn't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2011)

Chris Huhne's wife claims that he committed a  criminal offence and punishable with a possible prison sentence btw. 

Here's Glover's desperate defence of the lib-dems after he himself has now been shown to be spectacularly wrong and naive on every single thing he has ever written about the lib-dems, about the coalition, about the cuts and what it means for the lib-dems as a party.








> I don't, as it happens, think the Lib Dems are quite finished. The election results were awful, but not so apocalyptic as to presage extinction. The Scottish party has lost its point and the northern cities have returned to Labour, as was always likely, but there is still an opportunity in suburban England for a reformist centrist party with a keen young leader not afraid of standing up to conservative traditions, on the left as well as right, and able to appeal to people who want to get on in life. That man was once the version of Tony Blair voters liked. I'm not sure he can ever fully be David Cameron or Ed Miliband. Maybe he can still be Nick Clegg.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 8, 2011)

^^^so basically, never mind those damn lefties, let's play to that mythical Middle England, where Dixon of Dock Green is on the beat, headmaster imposes his benign dictatorship over eager pupils, the small businessman is seen as a paragon of virtue, the Government gives us the best army in the world, and none of the those damn "immigrants" are getting uppity and demanding (they can always go back, can't they?).  Pure Thatcherite swill from another scum quisling - I'm sure the Graun are loving their Orange Books friends whilst fretting about "fairness"....


----------



## Sgt Howie (May 8, 2011)

Glover really is delusional now. Or, more likely, desperate.


----------



## shagnasty (May 8, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> Glover really is delusional now. Or, more likely, desperate.


 
He's the one who's making himself look a fool


----------



## strung out (May 9, 2011)

“Nick Clegg is putting some clear yellow water between us and the Conservatives.” Lembit Opik
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/lembit-opik-clear-yellow-water/


----------



## frogwoman (May 9, 2011)

that's brilliant


----------



## redsquirrel (May 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> you voted lib dem didn't you flb?


IIRC they're a New Labour dick


----------



## redsquirrel (May 9, 2011)

More deluded bullshit in the Guardian this time from Ashley


> Yet there is a slightly centre-left, liberal majority in the country. The question is whether, with an unreformed voting system and a redrawn constituency map, the Conservatives will be able to stay in the saddle during the next few decades as they did in the 1980s and 1990s. And anyone who doesn't start with the assumption that this is likely is living among clouds and cuckoos


You're the one in the clouds you twat.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

I think there's one thing the last 12 months (The lib-dem vote in May 2010 and the AV defeat) shows pretty clearly is that the pluralists, the progressives, the nice clever people have never been so isolated from the mass of people as they are today - effectively speaking a different language with few shared experiences or perceptions.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

strung out said:


> “Nick Clegg is putting some clear yellow water between us and the Conservatives.” Lembit Opik
> http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/lembit-opik-clear-yellow-water/


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Well no.  Obviously is someone rapes your mother and then burns her in a field. Or goes on some kind of racist tirade, they are a cunt.
> 
> But someone having a differing opinion to the urban mass consensus does not a cunt make.  And quite often, that's the only name calling I see here.


 
I don't see that. To a very large extent my political views are well outside the urban norm. That gets me into the odd spat here and there, but generally I simply back away if I'm clearly fighting a losing battle, and it's all fine and dandy.

The problem comes when somebody not only tilts at windmills, but also doesn't come up with evidence to back up their case. That way they don't have ANY allies, because even the people who might otherwise agree with them can see their case being torn apart. I'm afraid that ANYWHERE that leads to what looks like a mass of people ganging up on one person, it isn't. It's one person standing in front of a crowd yelling "come and have a go if you think your hard enough". I have some sympathy for a person who does that and then runs away. I have next to no sympathy for somebody who does it and then moans that they've been attacked by a mob.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I have next to no sympathy for somebody who does it and then moans that they've been attacked by a mob.


detective-boy is no longer with us


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

More self-deluding tripe from Evan Harris -_ the good lib-dem_:



> Vince Cable for example said the Tories were tribal and calculating and ruthless, I don't think that's an insult in political terms. *The Liberal Democrats are a political party, we're calculating and ruthless.*



More!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

oh dear oh dear


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah, Dubversion. Whatever became of him?


injured, retired hurt ooop norf I think, but I saw him at the last-ever PROD


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> injured, retired hurtt ooop norf I think, but I saw him at the last-ever PROD


 
on the decks no doubt


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I completely agree.  You will never got anyone on side by dehumanising someone and then calling them a cunt.  Or visa versa.


There are some people you want to try and win over - and some who are so clearly The Enemy, that to even try is counterproductive, and that you betray your own beliefs to do so


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> There are some people you want to try and win over - and some who are so clearly The Enemy, that to even try is counterproductive, and that you betray your own beliefs to do so


 
and it's much more productive in those cases to use what bernard cornwell calls the efficacious word


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and it's much more productive in those cases to use what bernard cornwell calls the efficacious word


exactly.
When Moon23 debated reasonably, I was reasonable with him. It was only when his ideas on economics were surgically dissected and reasonable torn apart, and he STILL came up with the same old discredited, refuted shite that people got angry


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> on the decks no doubt


probbaly, but by the time I saw him i was so hammered you could've convinced me an iguana was on the decks....


----------



## frogwoman (May 9, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> More deluded bullshit in the Guardian this time from Ashley
> You're the one in the clouds you twat.


 
How the hell is supporting the lib-dems centre left? Whatwould you (not you, but glover) consider right wing? Hitler?


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

Can we get back to outlining the lib-dem shitness and ongoing self-delusion please?

edit: ah FG did just that whilst i was posting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> Glover really is delusional now. Or, more likely, desperate.


 
He's desperate because he realises that he's marked his card for years to come.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fyi(1): the plural of 'lackey' is 'lackeys'.
> 
> fyi(2): there is no 'cunt collective'


 
Thank you and that's my fucking point you overly-pedantic moron who never fails to ignore a context when he wants to make himself look like an utter fucking moron for the umpteenth time.

If that's what floats your boat ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thank you and that's my fucking point you overly-pedantic moron who never fails to ignore a context when he wants to make himself look like an utter fucking moron for the umpteenth time.
> 
> If that's what floats your boat ...



 You need to calm the fuck down and start posting about why the lib-dems are shit.


----------



## FreddyB (May 9, 2011)

Nick Clegg's a born again hardman that's going to stop the evil Tories and their evil health reform bill which I believe the fucking cretin actually signed. 

They're beyond pathetic.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> Nick Clegg's a born again hardman that's going to stop the evil Tories and their evil health reform bill which I believe the fucking cretin actually signed.
> 
> They're beyond pathetic.


 
actually signed, claimed it was all in their manifesto, and praised fulsomely until a couple of months ago - when, presumably, someone actually got round to reading it


----------



## FreddyB (May 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> actually signed, claimed it was all in their manifesto, and praised fulsomely until a couple of months ago - when, presumably, someone actually got round to reading it



Liberal Democrats elected this man to be their leader.


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 9, 2011)

Two former Lib Dem Councillers for Waltham Forest have deserted the sinking ship and joined the Red Tories.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne...AM_FOREST__High_profile_Lib_Dems_join_Labour/


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 9, 2011)

Lib Dems lose another council:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-13333931


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Two former Lib Dem Councillers for Waltham Forest have deserted the sinking ship and joined the Red Tories.
> 
> http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne...AM_FOREST__High_profile_Lib_Dems_join_Labour/


yup, ex-leyton councillors. Interestingly, ther's been a huge row in WF LD's over which way the party was going


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 10, 2011)

As the NHS "reforms" farrago rumbles on, there's an article in Tribune online about all this: http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/05/private-malpractice-profit-and-loss/

Some points of interest: 



> This has led to a culture whereby managers are employed in many practices to devise ways of providing the minimum care to patients. Reception staff are given strict guidelines of when a patient can see a doctor and emergency appointments are kept to a minimum number a day. Urgent cases are encouraged to go to NHS walk-in centres or hospital accident and emergency departments.



This has been happening at my GPs for years - anyone else find this?

And:



> The rationale for this may be to convert GP commissioning groups into the equivalent of health maintenance organisations. These private bodies were introduced in the US by  Richard Nixon’s administration in order to drive down health costs by limiting access. They ration healthcare for the middle and working classes. They restrict the choice of patients to a few specialists and a limited number of hospitals.



So the scrapping of Primary Care Trusts for "autonomous" new local boards is a failed policy thought up under the watch of arch-scumbag and war criminal Nixon?  Brilliant.

What Tribune fails to mention, is that these reforms are being bandied around by both Tories and Orange Books, with the Bookers being particularly evangelical in wanting to deliver "choice" to our health system.


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2011)

oh dear, poor old David _Breaks_ Laws has been found guilty of not one, but six breaches of Commons rules.  Hopefully that'll rule out the corrupt cunt getting anywhere near office for the rest of his miserable life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13347619


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 10, 2011)

^^^From the Beeb article:



> Mr Laws resigned after just 17 days as a cabinet minister, following reports he had claimed about £40,000 to pay rent to his partner, the lobbyist James Lundie. Such payments have been against parliamentary rules since 2006.
> 
> Mr Laws apologised, *saying the claims had been part of an effort to conceal his homosexuality rather than make financial gain*, and promised to pay back the money.



What a load of utter bullshit - "I'm gay but not out of the closet - I couldn't help myself".  Thanks for being a shining example to the gay community, you squirming fuck.  Tell you what, don't ever open your yap about gay issues etc. - you have no right to speak for us, ever.

David Laws - _the straight choice_.


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> sometimes you don't want them onside. sometimes you want to dehumanise them. and sometimes it works very nicely.


Says the man who never knowingly misses a chance to post an irrelevant dig, but never quite gets around to posting any content.

Useful, eh?


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Db's posts had more cunts than the vagina monologues tho. (Tbf he's not alone in this, dubversion racked up an impressive mileage on the old cunt-o-meter).



100% utterly irrelevant. If you're (^^^ someone up there "you're") squeamish about bad language, grow the fuck up and work out that other people use words in different ways than you do.

It was nothing to do with d-b's cunt count. That has never been anywhere close to a banning issue on a grown-up place like this (and the board I post on that bans swearing and personal insults is ten times nastier and stalkinger and mod-bothering than here). It's a huge mistake to try and make a random group of adults on the internet play nicely. They just put more energy into getting around the rules in inventive ways than they do posting content. Which is a bad thing for a specialist content board ... especially when it makes it impossible for anyone to work out who is actually giving good advice.


----------



## Santino (May 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> oh dear, poor old David _Breaks_ Laws has been found guilty of not one, but six breaches of Commons rules.  Hopefully that'll rule out the corrupt cunt getting anywhere near office for the rest of his miserable life.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13347619


 
Beautiful.


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> oh dear, poor old David _Breaks_ Laws has been found guilty of not one, but six breaches of Commons rules.  Hopefully that'll rule out the corrupt cunt getting anywhere near office for the rest of his miserable life.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13347619


 
Good - although I expect like most politicians he'll be bought back into the fold somehow


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2011)

He's a thief. Even his mates agree.


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2011)

ymu said:


> Says the man who never knowingly misses a chance to post an irrelevant dig, but never quite gets around to posting any content.
> 
> Useful, eh?


eh? I thought that was a good point by pickman's - there's no point in convincing some people, they're simply The Enemy i.e. scum


----------



## Sgt Howie (May 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> Hopefully that'll rule out the corrupt cunt getting anywhere near office for the rest of his miserable life.


 
I wouldn't count on it, unfortunately.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> oh dear, poor old David _Breaks_ Laws has been found guilty of not one, but six breaches of Commons rules.  Hopefully that'll rule out the corrupt cunt getting anywhere near office for the rest of his miserable life.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13347619


 
Doubt it, from the same link 





> The commissioner will conclude Mr Laws acted to protect his privacy, it is further understood.
> 
> The Liberal Democrats are refusing to comment until the report is officially published.
> 
> In a statement the party said: "Mr Laws has always maintained that his decisions were driven by his desire for privacy, rather than to benefit in any way from the expenses system.


Whole piece reads to me as a bit of advanced publicity for his return.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 11, 2011)

David Laws was independently financially able to keep his private life private; the fact that he thought the public should foot bill rather compromises both his claim re. the imporatance of his private life and his judgement more generally. He's shown himself to be greedy and selfish to a 'criminal' degree; these aren't the qualifications I'd be looking for in a politician.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2011)

Exactly. The privacy stuff is just cover up for a greedy little fuck who thinks it's OK to steal our money. Yellow Tory through and through.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Says the man who never knowingly misses a chance to post an irrelevant dig, but never quite gets around to posting any content.
> 
> Useful, eh?


 
more proof, as if it was required, that not only are you full of shit you're also a liar.


----------



## Streathamite (May 13, 2011)

Ymu, pickman's - chill, comrades. Yer both sound, and fundamentally on the same side.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

I apologise. I just wish Picky could post more of that good content he is more than capable of producing, instead of wasting his and our time pointlessly sticking the boot into someone for an irrelevance. It's a waste of a well-stocked brain. And that, for me, is a button issue.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2011)

Government to keep wine cellar with a stock value estimated at 2 million pounds; I thought the LDs (and George Osborne in opposition) were against this sort of thing?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (May 13, 2011)

while pushing forward hikes in the price of super strength white poverty cider. I hope they choke on it.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> while pushing forward hikes in the price of super strength white poverty cider. I hope they choke on it.


I'd make it whatever price makes Dotty stay with us for as many years as possible. ie always well out of his price range so he has to substitute for weed and save his life for the future generations that would be gutted not to have him around.

If you ever need anything Dotty, you only ever give, so ask, yeah?


----------



## _angel_ (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> 100% utterly irrelevant. If you're (^^^ someone up there "you're") squeamish about bad language, grow the fuck up and work out that other people use words in different ways than you do.
> 
> It was nothing to do with d-b's cunt count. That has never been anywhere close to a banning issue on a grown-up place like this (and the board I post on that bans swearing and personal insults is ten times nastier and stalkinger and mod-bothering than here). It's a huge mistake to try and make a random group of adults on the internet play nicely. They just put more energy into getting around the rules in inventive ways than they do posting content. Which is a bad thing for a specialist content board ... especially when it makes it impossible for anyone to work out who is actually giving good advice.


 
You think I am trying to ban swearing? That's not what I'm saying. That's not why he was banned either, is it?


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You think I am trying to ban swearing? That's not what I'm saying. That's not why he was banned either, is it?


No. It was a more general post.

And I was hallucinating on many days no sleep, so basically scratch anything I said from 5th to 11th, because I wasn't here -  it was some lunatic imposter that keeps stealing my brain when I'm not looking.


----------



## Streathamite (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> scratch anything I said from 5th to 11th, because I wasn't here -  it was some lunatic imposter that keeps stealing my brain when I'm not looking.


I gotta try that excuse sometime....


----------



## _angel_ (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. It was a more general post.
> 
> And I was hallucinating on many days no sleep, so basically scratch anything I said from 5th to 11th, because I wasn't here -  it was some lunatic imposter that keeps stealing my brain when I'm not looking.


 Ok then. Sleep deprivation can do weird stuff to people.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Ok then. Sleep deprivation can do weird stuff to people.


 

Oh yeah!

Days 2-3: Amazing clean coke-style high.
Days 4-5: Psychedelics start
Days 6-7: Feel fine, but when you try to do anything it's like being drunk with a completely clear head

That was the third time it's got to Day 7. I can't afford to let it go any further. The first time it was three weeks, and I was a goner. The whole world was like a confusing slow motion world of disconnected move clips that you only make sense of months later. But I'd section myself on Day 8 after that, because it took a year to recover.

So now I just tell people, you don't get to work with me if you put me under stress, cos I don't have to work with counter-productive jealous inadequates any more. One strike and that is it. You don't get my work if you can't even respect who I am.

I did a first test tell to a client I totally let down this week, and they are fucking delighted, because the flexibility of having someone who is always free for a meeting because there's a limit to the in-person work she can do is perfect for them. I have been told I am their easiest author. And I've only ever been "difficult to manage" before.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You think I am trying to ban swearing? That's not what I'm saying. That's not why he was banned either, is it?


 
it was a pm threatening legal action


----------



## southside (May 14, 2011)

Lookng back over the local election, it strikes me that the Lb-Dems have reverse engineered themselves out of British politics. The AV referendum was a bad idea, Cablegate was a serious misjudgment by a man I'd describe as a gutless, monatone blithering dullard, David Laws is an embarrassment and the Nick Cleggs back peddle on tuition fees was a complete joke.

Considering the situation with the party being in power (Although it remains to be seen if they have any actual influence atall) for the first time in 65 years (or what ever the figure is) and the devastating decision to align themselves with the Tories makes me realise that they are probably the most self harming party I have ever seen with an incredible amount of diminishing influence in politics ever. I really do think that voters hold them in such low regard that I can't see them ever being taken serously and their whole existance is untenable.

They are the party of fail and only a complete idiotic fool would vote for them ever again, now we know why they have not had any real influence in British politics for almost 100 years.

They should flush themselves down the nearest bog IMVHO for they are the morris dancers of British politics.

Ths is about bashing the Lib-Dumbs.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2011)

The problem with liberal elitists is that they don't fucking listen to anyone. They're too clever for their own good. Too nice to be Tories, too posh to be Labour, means you can't connect with anyone for the wall of smug superiority that divides you from the world.

They frequently put out contradictory messages, because they just don't get it.

May 2010: _democracy demands we form a coalition with the party with the popular mandate_
May 2011: _we can't form a coalition with the largest party in Brum because we hate Labour_

May 6th 2011: _Why do people give us all the blame when we're the minority party with no power?_
May 6th 2011: _The BBC says more of our policies are in the coalition programme than the Tories, so we do have influence, see!_

They've had so many years of only really mattering locally, they haven't even worked out that we can all hear everything now. And even if they had, I'm not sure their arrogance would let them see why it was a problem. That's why the YES campaign blamed the shitty voters and not their shitty campaign. They're the liberal elite, so they're never wrong, it's just that we're too stupid to understand.

Which is why they're held in the same contempt as they hold us in.


----------



## embree (May 16, 2011)

> Solihull Lib Dem switches to the Greens



All three seats in that ward were in Lib Dem hands in May 2010. Now all three councillors have defected - one Green, one Tory, one Labour


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 16, 2011)

embree said:


> All three seats in that ward were in Lib Dem hands in May 2010. Now all three councillors have defected - one Green, one Tory, one Labour


 
Kind of sums up where the Libdems natural votes come from


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2011)

Fantastic, they can't even win seats in the welsh assembly without fucking it up - 40% of their AMs have been disqualified and are now being investigated by the police for electoral fraud - their elections are very highly to be declared void.

And does anyone know which Scottish town/paper this refers to?



> Front page of local paper tonight featured former lib-dem cllr in handcuffs after being sentenced to a year for fraud.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 20, 2011)

Brilliant


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 20, 2011)

Shame they'll just be automatically replaced by their number twos

(Oaten Pic)


----------



## southside (May 20, 2011)

It's time to say fuck the LibDumbs and target the real cunts.  I now they're brokup mashup an twis but that slimey fucker Disco Dave the king of tefflon, policy U-turning shit should not be left to swerve the fact that every single one of the major policies that they have proposed in their manifesto have been reversed out of because they haven't realised yet the idiotic bastards?. Amazingly he has not been brought to task on any one of a huge number of monumental fuckups?  Anyideas?  Lets leave the feeble LibDems for a while and target the real cunt in all of this shall we?


----------



## killer b (May 20, 2011)

are you suggesting the lib dems aren't real cunts?


----------



## southside (May 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> are you suggesting the lib dems aren't real cunts?



Nope not at all, they have become an easy target while tefflon boy seems to be getting away with moida.


----------



## southside (May 20, 2011)

It needs its own why the coalition are shit thread.


----------



## killer b (May 20, 2011)

by all means start one. 

the lib dems deserve every kick targeted at them on this thread though.


----------



## southside (May 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> by all means start one.
> 
> the lib dems deserve every kick targeted at them on this thread though.



I personally think the mileage of plonkerdom bequethed upon the LibDumbs has pretty much been had, although I can see it could go on forever, I can't believe that in this heavily political vehicle there is no coalition is shit thread, but you're bang on, and I should at least start something about all the U-turns that have been made.  I understand we're in the shit as a country? but does this now mean that any manifesto presented in future should not be questiond because the fuckers can say what ever they like only to shit on the public with "we didn't know blah blah then." That to me says that not one of the fuckers who run should be given any kind of voice because everything that's said is full of carrot danglers and means absolutly fuck all?  That's what it is yet no one in the country ever says hang on a minute, last time you said a load of shit and did not deliver on a single policy?  it's all bollocks yet the great british public are still falling for it, incredible really.


----------



## shagnasty (May 21, 2011)

Youguv sunday times CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%.

libs at the low end of their spread


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Youguv sunday times CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%.
> 
> libs at the low end of their spread


 
i can't understand what 2 out of every 25 people see in the lib dems.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't understand what 2 out of every 25 people see in the lib dems.


 
The party that listens, the party that is squeaky clean, the party that has always been strongly against neo-liberalism, the party that is the only progressive force left in UK politics, *the party that saved us from the Tories, and continues to save us*.

The 8%'ers are the shepherds, the rest of us mere sheeple waiting to be guided.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The party that listens, the party that is squeaky clean, the party that has always been strongly against neo-liberalism, the party that is the only progressive force left in UK politics, *the party that saved us from the Tories, and continues to save us*.
> 
> The 8%'ers are the shepherds, the rest of us mere sheeple waiting to be guided.


 
i'm waiting for them to be the 1%ers.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm waiting for them to be the 1%ers.


 
The only thing that can save them is a name change, for them to remove the stain of the very name of the Liberal Democrats from the sheeple.

Maybe they'll rebrand themselves as National Democrats.  A fitting tribute to that great radical statesman, Ian Anderson.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The only thing that can save them is a name change, for them to remove the stain of the very name of the Liberal Democrats from the sheeple.
> 
> Maybe they'll rebrand themselves as National Democrats.  A fitting tribute to that great radical statesman, Ian Anderson.


 
they could go one better and become the notional democrats, which will recognise reality when they lose another load of councillors next year.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> they could go one better and become the notional democrats, which will recognise reality when they lose another load of councillors next year.


 
"As the councillors went into no-man's land and were annihilated by the enemy Hunnish voters, word came through of a breakthrough - Hoxton had gained 1 more Lib Dem councillor.  Corporal Clegg announced to his battle-weary troops, "Gentlemen - Victory is at hand - we will be partying in Berlin before the week's out, and history will judge us that We Were Right!""


----------



## shagnasty (May 22, 2011)

A change of name well are they not supposed to be two parties liberals and democrates .I think that the old SDP as been well and truely killed of by this coalition the thirty year history of the sdp as finally died


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 22, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The only thing that can save them is a name change, for them to remove the stain of the very name of the Liberal Democrats from the sheeple.
> 
> Maybe they'll rebrand themselves as National Democrats.  A fitting tribute to that great radical statesman, Ian Anderson.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2011)

Have you seen this one Huhne?



> A former police officer has been jailed for six months for falsifying documents to avoid speeding fines.



or this one



> Lying BMW chief is jailed after making his son, 19, take blame for speeding


----------



## shagnasty (May 23, 2011)

I keep waiting for the headline !!!For huhne the bell tolls!!!
the evidence against him is mounting up ,and i think his wife is helping his enemies ,he's a loathesome toad


----------



## Pickman's model (May 23, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> For huhne the bell tolls!!!


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I keep waiting for the headline !!!For huhne the bell tolls!!!
> the evidence against him is mounting up ,and i think his wife is helping his enemies ,he's a loathesome toad


I think vicky Pryce is discovering just how good revenge tastes, when eaten properly chilled, with consomme!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think vicky Pryce is discovering just how good revenge tastes, when eaten properly chilled, with consomme!


no, revenge is best served with gazpacho


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I keep waiting for the headline !!!For huhne the bell tolls!!!
> the evidence against him is mounting up ,and i think his wife is helping his enemies ,he's a loathesome toad


 
V.good! It's a slow burner this one, but it's burning slow because all concerned know exactly what happened.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, revenge is best served with gazpacho


actually, yup, they're the sort of revoltingly Islingtonified types who probably would serve gazpacho. and guacamole.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 24, 2011)

On the Graun politics blog today, Clegg has been giving the usual waffle and spin about the NHS "reforms" at Deputy PMQ's, with unintended consequences:



> Nick Clegg has just suggested that Labour are being dishonest over the health bill. Harriet Harman raised health towards the end of the session, when MPs are allowed "topical questions" (ie, they can ask about anything they want, not just the questions tabled in advance). She challenged Clegg to oppose the parts of the bill introducing private sector competition. Clegg gave a broadbrush reply, accusing Labour of rigging the market in favour of private providers when it was in government. Labour's John Cryer than asked Clegg why he signed the health bill given that he was now threatening to veto parts of it. Clegg said the bill would introduce more patient choice, more control for GPs, greater accountability and less centralisation.
> 
> "These are, firstly, worthwhile reforms and, secondly, they build on many of the reforms the Labour party itself had introduced in government. If [Cryer] and his colleagues were more honest, they would actually back our attempt to listen to the British people and reform the NHS so it is safeguarded for future generations."
> 
> This prompted John Bercow to deliver a mild reprimand, saying that he hoped Clegg was not accusing anyone of being dishonest (which is banned under parliamentary rules).


----------



## ericjarvis (May 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think vicky Pryce is discovering just how good revenge tastes, when eaten properly chilled, with consomme!


 
Nononono!

Revenge is sweet. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Revenge is basically a cheesecake. (with apologies to John Thompson)


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Nononono!
> 
> Revenge is sweet. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Revenge is basically a cheesecake. (with apologies to John Thompson)


hadn't marked you for a gastronome, eric...


----------



## shagnasty (May 24, 2011)

Miss Pryce leaves herself open to charges ,my hope is that she will be dealt with leniently and they throw the book at him,maybe revenge is wrong but i can well understand her feelings of betrayal and rejection


----------



## shagnasty (May 26, 2011)

More meat on the bone miss pryce signs paper saying she took the points

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-wife-signs-confession-over-points-claim.html


----------



## ymu (May 26, 2011)

I remember thinking how quietly he'd managed to leave his wife when it happened, in the background of a Laws indiscretion I think. But nope, they can't even get that right.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2011)

It's been a great month for the Lib Dems!




			
				Simon Hughes said:
			
		

> It’s been a great month for Liberal Democrats, who are setting the pace on the green agenda!



http://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-...simon-hughes-updates-party-members-24230.html


----------



## Santino (May 27, 2011)

I'm looking forward to a period in which Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, desperately try to do the Right Thing to appease leftish voters and their own members, and still get a kicking in the polls and local elections.


----------



## Streathamite (May 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'm looking forward to a period in which Lib Dems, and Clegg in particular, desperately try to do the Right Thing to appease leftish voters and their own members, and still get a kicking in the polls and local elections.


you're in luck - that's pretty much the narrative from now till May 2012


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2011)

Baroness Hussein-Ece, lib-dem member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and with a history of work in equality related issues:



> "Help. Trapped in a queue in chav land. Woman behind me explaining latest EastEnders plot to mate while eating largest bun I've ever seen."


----------



## FreddyB (May 31, 2011)

Equality isn't for _those _people


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 31, 2011)

God I've been agreeing with Toynbee a lot lately


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> God I've been agreeing with Toynbee a lot lately


yer doomed; from here on in it's one long slippery slide into hampstead liberalism....


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Deputy PM's office ineffective, report on coalition government finds



> The Constitution Unit said it did not find the two parties were at ideological odds or involved in frequent personal disagreements.





> In some of its harshest criticism, the report found: "The deputy PM's office has not established recognisable priorities for the Lib Dems; Lib Dem junior ministers struggle to play the cross-departmental role envisaged for them; special advisers do little to help, because (outside Cabinet Office and No 10) they do not have the confidence or experience to operate as coalition brokers."
> 
> Discussing the failure of Liberal Democrat ministers to follow policy across their departments, the unit found that "in practice, many Lib Dem junior ministers have been unable to perform this role: they lack the capacity to monitor policy across a whole department".



Cocks


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Even worse, they're imcompetent, impotent cocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Basically the lib-dems winged it - _these_ cuts came because these 'people' winged it.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Basically the lib-dems winged it - _these_ cuts came because these 'people' winged it.


 
How so? I was under the impression that as long as the tories came to power there would be a wholesale rehashing of granny Maggie-type politics, of which cuts is a fundamental ingredient. Lib-dems or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Because they a) they based their General election campaign on opposing _these_ cuts and b) they were not compelled to join a tory govt - without the lib-dems there would not have been one.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Does anyone believe anything parties say during election campaigns anymore? As to your point b, fair enough, but I doubt any of them thought deep down that they'd be more than meat-puppets for the tory beast.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Does anyone believe anything parties say during election campaigns anymore? As to your point b, fair enough, but I doubt any of them thought deep down that they'd be more than meat-puppets for the tory beast.


willing meat-puppets, as far as the 'neo-libdems' go. They believe in slashing the state/public sector


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Does anyone believe anything parties say during election campaigns anymore? As to your point b, fair enough, but I doubt any of them thought deep down that they'd be more than meat-puppets for the tory beast.


 

a)Large parts of the electorate at least do - hence the lib-dems being murdered for lying. 

b)This should not be gone over so lightly (and you're wrong on the expectations) - they did not have to do this.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Does anyone believe anything parties say during election campaigns anymore? As to your point b, fair enough, but I doubt any of them thought deep down that they'd be more than meat-puppets for the tory beast.


 
Such was the height of their aspiration.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> a)Large parts of the electorate at least do - hence the lib-dems being murdered for lying.
> 
> b)This should not be gone over so lightly (and you're wrong on the expectations) - they did not have to do this.


 
a) maybe they do. Tho for the life of me I cannot understand why. Of course they didn't have to do this, but they were pretty desperate to get into position. Bending over, so to speak.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Why?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why?


 
Why what? Why bending over?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Why do it?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why do it?


 
Hunger for power? I dunno, you tell me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2011)

Because they're in agreement with the tories and always were.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because they're in agreement with the tories and always were.


 
Could be, you'd likely know much better than me, frankly.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Could be, you'd likely know much better than me, frankly.


have you read the 'Orange book'? it's a collection of essays by the likes of Clegg, huhne, Cable, Laws _et al_ and it more or less gives a neo-liberal prescription to every social and economic issue.
Or, to put another way, the major difference between thatcherism and neo-liberalism, as far as I can see is the social liberalism aspect, which can be boiled down to "we've realised the gays, the darkies and women can be every bit as much venal, capitalist bastards as we can!"
e2a: i've been reading and studying it heavily since the start of this year, and it dovetails horrifically with cameron's brand of sanitised thatcherism


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> have you read the 'Orange book'?


 
Is that a trick question? Of course I haven't.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Is that a trick question? Of course I haven't.


then it's worth doing so, because it is just about the best guide to the beliefs of the LDs leadership


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> then it's worth doing so, because it is just about the best guide to the beliefs of the LDs leadership


 
Actions speak louder than words IME.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> have you read the 'Orange book'?


 
"have you heard of a man called Trotsky?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Does anyone believe anything parties say during election campaigns anymore?



For any position taken by any political party, there'll always be a core of people willing, usually because of emotional political affiliation, to give more credence to what the parties say during election campaigns than they're worth.



> As to your point b, fair enough, but I doubt any of them thought deep down that they'd be more than meat-puppets for the tory beast.


 
Why would they care to be more than willing meat puppets? That narrow little group of shit-sacks will still reap the benefits of power long after they've been replaced, and that's all that matters.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> For any position taken by any political party, there'll always be a core of people willing, usually because of emotional political affiliation, to give more credence to what the parties say during election campaigns than they're worth.


 
Sure, but isn't that group fairly small and shrinking? Every supporter of Lib, Lab and Cunts have been royally shafted one way or the other. I honestly don't understand (well I do, but...) why the hell anyone believes anything they say anymore, unless it's something along the lines of "I am living piece of shit and will kill your parents for power".


----------



## ymu (Jun 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sure, but isn't that group fairly small and shrinking? Every supporter of Lib, Lab and Cunts have been royally shafted one way or the other. I honestly don't understand (well I do, but...) why the hell anyone believes anything they say anymore, unless it's something along the lines of "I am living piece of shit and will kill your parents for power".


 
That's why we'll win. Labour Can't pretend be an alternative just by existing any more. Their first serious shot at sustained power broke that illusion for good. It's useful that the Tories are fucking up whilst the memory of New Labour is still fresh, I think.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

We? Who's we?

There's no we.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> We? Who's we?
> 
> There's no we.


there fucking should be though. This lack of a we really is the crux of the problem.


----------



## ymu (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> We? Who's we?
> 
> There's no we.


 
Why do you say that? The majority want something better than is on offer. Protests and strikes are getting loads of mainstream support.

If you're talking about prescriptive ideological alternatives, there's no we - or a party like the BNP or TUSC would win an election. But wanting broadly socially and economically progressive change for the better, that would be a we.

I'm not rejecting the need for ideology, I just think there's more work to be done first. Like the fireman on M26 when he heard about the black bloc actions. "It's too soon."

I think we have to unite on bringing down any govt which tries cuts. Then we can see what empowerment of the people can do to the polity.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

Hopeful bollocks, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.


----------



## embree (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Hopeful bollocks, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.


 
And without hope we have...?


----------



## ymu (Jun 4, 2011)

I am a hopeless optimist. I'll never know if meaningful change is possible unless I try, and it's more depressing to give in so fuck it, I'm gonn talk up the chances.

We've never had such a good chance to bring down a government whilst putting the next one on probation.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 4, 2011)

This government is weak. They are trying to force through deeply unpopular policies without  a popular mandate and with the underlying instabilty of a coalition government. They are in a far weaker position than thatcher in 1979. They can be stopped and thier policies reversed if faced with widespread and determined opposition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sure, but isn't that group fairly small and shrinking? Every supporter of Lib, Lab and Cunts have been royally shafted one way or the other. I honestly don't understand (well I do, but...) why the hell anyone believes anything they say anymore, unless it's something along the lines of "I am living piece of shit and will kill your parents for power".


 
Because some people would rather believe than accept the responsibility for themselves that goes along with acknowledging that the parties are festering swamps people by venal, dishonest cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

embree said:


> And without hope we have...?


 
...cities on fire, death, murder and mayhem, cats raping dogs and dogs raping cats, and David Bowie wearing mink legwarmers.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

embree said:


> And without hope we have...?


 
Clarity of vision.


----------



## embree (Jun 4, 2011)

VP's sounds more fun


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

Really?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...cities on fire, death, murder and mayhem, cats raping dogs and dogs raping cats, and David Bowie wearing mink legwarmers.


 
all signs of the end of days according to the revelations of simon magus.


----------



## embree (Jun 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Really?


 
yes


----------



## TruXta (Jun 4, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> all signs of the end of days according to the revelations of simon magus.


 
If that was the case the 70s should've been the end of us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> all signs of the end of days according to the revelations of simon magus.


 
Trust a Jew to be pessimistic!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2011)

Green travel:



> Chris Huhne blew more than £46,000 on chauffeur-driven cars and taxis during his first year in office.
> 
> ...
> 
> The spending, which works out at £177 per weekday, does not include the travel of officials and advisers, just Mr Huhne's own car journeys.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 5, 2011)

Fucking hell


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 5, 2011)

Huhne is fucked IMO on his way out and the saviour of the Libdems LOL!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Or, to put another way, the major difference between thatcherism and neo-liberalism, as far as I can see is the social liberalism aspect, which can be boiled down to "we've realised the gays, the darkies and women can be every bit as much venal, capitalist bastards as we can!"





So true ....


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 5, 2011)

They aren't even bothing with the mask any more



> *Vince Cable warns unions strikes could spark clampdown on industrial action*
> 
> _Coalition might legislate if national strike action goes ahead, business secretary tells GMB union conference_
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/05/vince-cable-union-strike-warning


----------



## ymu (Jun 6, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Huhne is fucked IMO on his way out and the saviour of the Libdems LOL!


 
This is them briefing against Huhne to hug the Orange Bookers closer. They're looking for the numbers when the Lib Dems split. And providing Laws with media cover.


----------



## ymu (Jun 6, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> They aren't even bothing with the mask any more
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/05/vince-cable-union-strike-warning


 
Backfired quite badly in Wisconsin and Michigan and a few other states now, prompting national demos in support. Wisconsin alone turned out more than the Tea Party's biggest rally. For weeks on end too..... We could do with that sort of boost to momentum.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> This is them briefing against Huhne to hug the Orange Bookers closer. They're looking for the numbers when the Lib Dems split. And providing Laws with media cover.


 
Yes interesting if they did split how many do the anti condem people need to destroy their majority


----------



## ymu (Jun 6, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Yes interesting if they did split how many do the anti condem people need to destroy their majority


 
Too tired to work it out. They could hang onto enough, but that means Lib Dems faced with a split having to choose between being seen to prop up the govt or being seen to help bring it down.

The Tories could try the unionists for numbers in an emergency, too.


----------



## ymu (Jun 6, 2011)

I seem to be posting random post icons for no apparent reason. Sorry.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Yes interesting if they did split how many do the anti condem people need to destroy their majority


37, I think, but probably more to win a no-confidence


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> They aren't even bothing with the mask any more


 
they haven't bothered with it since 12th may, 2010


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2011)

They even fucked up the rotten little deal they cooked up with the tories in return for their stupid referendum:

Boundary change battle: Lib Dems could be biggest losers



> When the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, agreed to the biggest review of constituency boundaries since the 1950s, it was in exchange for his party's prized goal of electoral reform. Both issues sit side by side in the coalition agreement and are locked together in the legislation.
> 
> Now Clegg, the biggest loser of the alternative vote referendum, hammered in the local elections and beleaguered in the polls, must implement a policy which, according to a new model of how the boundary review will play out, could lose the Lib Dems a quarter of their seats.



They can't even manage a minimum basic level of political competence.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?"


well, as it happened, Truxta _hadn't_ read it.....


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They even fucked up the rotten little deal they cooked up with the tories in return for their stupid referendum:
> 
> Boundary change battle: Lib Dems could be biggest losers
> 
> They can't even manage a minimum basic level of political competence.


 
I bet Davo and Gideon fair wet themselves in private over this one. Straight out of the top drawer.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They even fucked up the rotten little deal they cooked up with the tories in return for their stupid referendum:
> 
> Boundary change battle: Lib Dems could be biggest losers
> 
> They can't even manage a minimum basic level of political competence.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 6, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/03/deputy-prime-ministers-office-coalition-report




			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> Deputy PM's office ineffective, report on coalition government finds
> 
> *The deputy prime minister's office is ineffective, Liberal Democrat junior ministers are spread too thinly, and many policy decisions are made in regular evening phone calls between Nick Clegg and David Cameron, according to one of the most thorough studies of the coalition's workings so far undertaken.*
> 
> ...



Naive Lib Demmers and hangers-on might note the bits in bold!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 6, 2011)

butchersapron - what's the odds of the "Yes to AV" people turning up and insisting to us all "you've got it all wrong" and "_you don't understand_"?

Personally, I'm glad the Lib Dems have got what they deserve - they tried to sell us a corrupt and spineless "reform", stamped their feet and frothed when they lost, and now are being stabbed in the front by Lord Snooty and his pals.  Good.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2011)

i've never heard of democratic audit before. do they have an agenda? not really convinced by that article tbh - it's almost as if they've chosen the worst possible scenario for the coalition and fit their data into it...


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2011)

particularly heartwarming for me - as an erstwhile haringey anti-cuts activist - to see Lynne Featherstone so comepletely fucked over in her ministerial role.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2011)

killer b said:


> i've never heard of democratic audit before. do they have an agenda? not really convinced by that article tbh - it's almost as if they've chosen the worst possible scenario for the coalition and fit their data into it...


 
DA piss in the same pluralist pot as the lib-dems, they're from the same sort of 'democracy professionals' that fucked up the AV vote - if anything that, i would suggest, would make them more likely to play down the damage the boundary changes might do to their mates - given that they were arguing it was a deal worth doing.


----------



## killer b (Jun 6, 2011)

looks more like an attempt to persuade the government to water down or cancel the boundary changes imo. or at least create a bit of pressure from the back benches to make it a bit harder...


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 7, 2011)

Link to DA report


http://www.democraticaudit.com/democratic-audit-modelling-of-boundary-changes


----------



## ymu (Jun 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They even fucked up the rotten little deal they cooked up with the tories in return for their stupid referendum:
> 
> Boundary change battle: Lib Dems could be biggest losers
> 
> ...


The staggeringly stupid thing is, it was obvious that this would happen if they'd looked at the evidence. The structural disadvantage to the Tories is primarily because rich people ghettoise themselves. The difference in constituency sizes has an effect, but it's very small.

Anyone interested in electoral reform should know that. And the Lib Dems fight twice as many seats against Tory rivals as Labour, They had to know that the Tory gerrymandering would cripple them. It beggars belief.

Reminds me of this blog article:



> *Prime Minister Osbourne vows to defend Welsh Union as Tories approach 20th year in power *
> 
> Prime Minister George Osborne, has vowed to fight with “every last breath” to defend the English-Welsh Union, following the passing of a referendum bill in the Welsh Parliament to determine Wales’s constitutional future.
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 7, 2011)

Simon Hughes won a safe labour seat but kept it by a local following, if they change his seat to bring a large labour area in he is fucked ,serves the bastard right ,he is the one libdem i would love to see bite the dust


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 7, 2011)

I first read that as "Simon Hughes won a slave labour seat" and was just about to cheer, when I saw my mistake.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 7, 2011)

Before cheering at the likely further discomfiture of the Liberals as a result of the proposed boundary changes, have a think about what it means in terms of Parliamentary seats. The LibDems will lose seats under the new arrangement, but it will be the Tories who take up the slack. This could mean that the Tories after the next election will be able to achieve a majority on their own in the old way. Careerists in both the LibDem and so called 'Labour' parties will likely break ranks and cross the floor before the election so as to get a crack at being selected in potentially new Tory seats.


----------



## ymu (Jun 7, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Before cheering at the likely further discomfiture of the Liberals as a result of the proposed boundary changes, have a think about what it means in terms of Parliamentary seats. The LibDems will lose seats under the new arrangement, but it will be the Tories who take up the slack. This could mean that the Tories after the next election will be able to achieve a majority on their own in the old way. Careerists in both the LibDem and so called 'Labour' parties will likely break ranks and cross the floor before the election so as to get a crack at being selected in potentially new Tory seats.


 
1. I don't think it's possible for them to gerrymander it enough. They are trying to rush it through to outflank the boundaries commission, but they've already had some desperate stuff turned down, like a constituency split by the Mersey. 

2. Tory hegemony would eventually destroy them. A more progressive party would benefit from sheer hatred of them, much as Labour did in 1997. It won't be a lasting change. Especially as the richer the rich get, the more they ghettoise themselves.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2011)

What happened to moon23? Not seen him on here for ages


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jun 7, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> What happened to moon23? Not seen him on here for ages


 
Moonie baby surrendered at the locals - he even surrendered to the BNP


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 7, 2011)

I heard that, I thought he had enough neck to come back and tell us all how the voters are fucktards who don't know what's good for em. I was looking forward to it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 7, 2011)

*Too much beer  makes you elitist. Fact.*



FreddyB said:


> the voters are fucktards who don't know what's good for em.



I've spent the last 30 yeas trying to kick myself hard enough to stop thinking that !! 

<  and  at self >

Happily the Lib Dems many and various collapses and reverses in opinion polls and actual polls help me rise above that unworthy thought  ATM! ..... 

Fer now anyway ....


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> What happened to moon23? Not seen him on here for ages


 
Someone posted up his name,  address and picture. Quite sensibly, he left.


----------



## Roonster (Jun 8, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Simon Hughes won a safe labour seat but kept it by a local following, if they change his seat to bring a large labour area in he is fucked ,serves the bastard right ,he is the one libdem i would love to see bite the dust


Simon Hughes is now in a safe Lib-Dem seat ..Labour are along way behind and the tories have no chance...but the bloke has gone from a left wing Lib in oppostion to a cowering tory puppet in the space of a year.. I reckon Hughes will retire before the next Election .. if not he will loose the Libs a safe seat.


----------



## ymu (Jun 8, 2011)

His successor will definitely lose it.

Win-win!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> What happened to moon23? Not seen him on here for ages


 
No one posted his name, address and picture at all, he just couldn't handle coming back here after coming  behind even a poorly performing BNP in his own election. He couldn't handle being here before that frankly.


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2011)

He also came behind a handful of leaflets advertising pizza that were accidentally dropped into one of the ballot boxes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2011)

.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

Roonster said:


> Simon Hughes is now in a safe Lib-Dem seat.


you think Bermondsey is a lib-dem safe seat? bollocks is it. It's a safe Simon Hughes seat, the blokes worked miracles to hold it every time, he has a huge personal vote, but it's fraying right now cos the people on the walworth and bermondsey estates are the ones shafted by the condem cuts. If he stands next time, it will be his toughest battle since '83 (even after allowing for the fact that Bermondsey CLP are a bunch of useless fuckwits)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you think Bermondsey is a lib-dem safe seat? bollocks is it. It's a safe Simon Hughes seat, the blokes worked miracles to hold it every time, he has a huge personal vote, but it's fraying right now cos the people on the walworth and bermondsey estates are the ones shafted by the condem cuts. If he stands next time, it will be his toughest battle since '83 (even after allowing for the fact that Bermondsey CLP are a bunch of useless fuckwits)


 
it'll be a straight fight between the lib dems and labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Someone posted up his name,  address and picture. Quite sensibly, he left.


 
link or stfu


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Someone posted up his name,  address and picture. Quite sensibly, he left.


That is untrue - they did NOT. If they had, I would have alerted modland, as there is - rightly - no tolerance for that sort of shittiness on U75.
post the proof of that assertion, please.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 8, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> I heard that, I thought he had enough neck to come back and tell us all how the voters are fucktards who don't know what's good for em. I was looking forward to it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That is untrue - they did NOT. If they had, I would have alerted modland, as there is - rightly - no tolerance for that sort of shittiness on U75.
> post the proof of that assertion, please.


don't hold your breath.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it'll be a straight fight between the lib dems and labour


yup, natural marginal dogfight, that one, especially if there's no boundary changes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yup, natural marginal dogfight, that one, especially if there's no boundary changes.


 
it's a reference to the 1983 by-election


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a reference to the 1983 by-election


oh sorry, I get it now!  and  at self. Haven't drunk enough tea yet.
yes - it's a STRAIGHT CHOICE!


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> I heard that, I thought he had enough neck to come back and tell us all how the voters are fucktards who don't know what's good for em.


so did I, and I'm genuinely surprised, because I thought he had more balls than to simply slink away


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> oh sorry, I get it now!  and  at self. Haven't drunk enough tea yet.
> yes - it's a STRAIGHT CHOICE!


 
Not as good as Mark Oaten's 2005 campaign slogan - Mark Oaten Shits On All The Other Candidates.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

There's nowt better than a good Oaten gag....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 8, 2011)

He didn't gag, it never went near his mouth - that's (allegedly) what the glass topped coffee table was for.

(Gets coat)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> He didn't gag, it never went near his mouth - that's (allegedly) what the glass topped coffee table was for.
> 
> (Gets coat)


 
Actually it did go in his mouth, shielded only by the toilet paper.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 8, 2011)

that's pretty disgusting


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2011)




----------



## strung out (Jun 8, 2011)




----------



## frogwoman (Jun 8, 2011)

That looks like the staircase of the block of flats I lived in in Moldova.


----------



## strung out (Jun 8, 2011)




----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

f'gawd sakes someone drag this thread away from Oaten's revolting proclivities


----------



## two sheds (Jun 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That is untrue - they did NOT. If they had, I would have alerted modland, as there is - rightly - no tolerance for that sort of shittiness on U75.
> post the proof of that assertion, please.


 
I saw it as well, it was taken down fairly smartish though, so no record of it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I saw it as well, it was taken down fairly smartish though, so no record of it.


I am - to put it mildly - very surprised by that


----------



## belboid (Jun 9, 2011)

it is not true.  His pic was briefly up.  A link to the seat where he was standing - *as he himself had already said * was posted.  Never, ever, any address. And the info posted was all taken from what moon197 him posted.  So to say otherwise is a lie


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> it is not true.  His pic was briefly up.  A link to the seat where he was standing - *as he himself had already said * was posted.  Never, ever, any address. And the info posted was all taken from what moon197 him posted.  So to say otherwise is a lie


aahh...thanks for putting the record straight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2011)

And he's a cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)

5 pages to go before it gets to 100, come on people


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 9, 2011)

152 pages already for me. I agree that Moon23 was a cunt but it was amusing watching him try to sell coalition policy to urban.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2011)

You sort of sensed he was more trying to sell them to himself. He must have hated looking at himself in the mirror each morning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You sort of sensed he was more trying to sell them to himself.



Which is why it was so much fun dissecting the crap he spouted.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You sort of sensed he was more trying to sell them to himself. He must have hated looking at himself in the mirror each morning.


 
That's the impression I got too.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

That must be why he was so often on autospout, reading like an LD press release


----------



## embree (Jun 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> it is not true.  His pic was briefly up.  A link to the seat where he was standing - *as he himself had already said * was posted.  Never, ever, any address. And the info posted was all taken from what moon197 him posted.  So to say otherwise is a lie


 
He'd already fucked off by the time that happened anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2011)

Essex police have sent papers to the CPS in the Huhne case - decision expected by end of month.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Essex police have sent papers to the CPS in the Huhne case - decision expected by end of month.


 
I just came on here to post that. Guardian link here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 10, 2011)

The Lib Dems are shit because their members can't make a dating video without bursting out crying about the injustice of it all (this video is very funny):



(I don't actually know if this is for real or a pisstake)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 10, 2011)

^ That is hilarious! 

I hope Moon 197 sees it - he's got a soul mate there!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2011)

No way is that real


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 10, 2011)

It's not, it's a spoof. Funny as fuck though.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 10, 2011)

This is what that's a spoof of, this is probably a spoof as well. I hope it is.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 10, 2011)

I think they must be pee takes


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 10, 2011)

what a brilliant genre


----------



## Yata (Jun 11, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because their members can't make a dating video without bursting out crying about the injustice of it all (this video is very funny):
> 
> 
> 
> (I don't actually know if this is for real or a pisstake)




How come you're so bad at spotting when someone is taking the piss?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 11, 2011)

Yata said:


> How come you're so bad at spotting when someone is taking the piss?


 
The bit I posted in white (which you should really have seen since you quoted it) might answer that question. Anyway - I can put you back in your pace by saying one word and one word only - viagra.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 11, 2011)

a lib dem on my facebook (yeah, I know...) linked to the following FT article

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d45837e-9396-11e0-922e-00144feab49a.html

stating that




			
				a libdem said:
			
		

> Vince Cable deals with the financial crisis and shows that the LibDems are no Tories.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 11, 2011)

They desperately want to believe that their leadership aren't Tories, that they haven't been taken for total mugs, and so they'll take Cable claiming to be opposed in principle to Tory policy, whilst at the same time voting Tory policy through, as "evidence" that he's "no Tory". That's how desperate they are.


----------



## binka (Jun 12, 2011)

the libdems have saved the nhs! 

in hindsight this topic now seems foolish


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 12, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>


 
First day on the estate he was living on: 'Ain't you the one who got done for the rent boys?'


----------



## Santino (Jun 17, 2011)

Pretending not to be Lib Dems in a by-election: http://www.labourlist.org/a-secret-lib-dem


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2011)

Class.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2011)

awesome


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 17, 2011)

Santino said:


> Pretending not to be Lib Dems in a by-election: http://www.labourlist.org/a-secret-lib-dem



We had very similar leaflets from the Lib-Dem council candidates last time they were standing here (with the general election). They did mention the party on that one but you had to look very, very closely to spot it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2011)

Santino said:


> Pretending not to be Lib Dems in a by-election: http://www.labourlist.org/a-secret-lib-dem


that is fantastic


----------



## Santino (Jun 22, 2011)

Nick Clegg's a laughable cunt, isn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2011)

Yet, strangely, the public seem to love him. Lib-dems destroyed in almost all elections last night, same as last week, 25% drops as standard.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2011)

Come on, let's get this to 100 pages and beyond.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2011)

Well, we';ve had the usual drip-drip of councillors abandoning the sunk ship:

Example #1
Example #2

This demonstrates the pathetic quality of people they recruited in their 'good' 'left' period.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 30, 2011)

> “There is now no longer room in the Liberal Democrats for people with no convictions."


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 1, 2011)

> The Lib Dems' support collapsed. Their candidate Sophie Bridger won only 627 votes, down from 5,007 in the general election.


Hah


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

627 votes is local election territory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

I noticed Ken 'ken' Ken calling the lib-dems a venal sub-species the other day. Good politicking that.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 2, 2011)

Last night's showing seems to have hit home ,they can't keep on shrugging off results like this


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2011)

Some fantastic nuttiness from Clegg over the result:



> But last night a source close to Mr Clegg suggested that the result had more to do with the fact that the Lib Dems in Scotland tried to disown the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition, and that voters had seen through the tactic.



That's right, you got 626 votes because you weren't seen as being close enough to Nick Clegg. They weren't seen as being close enough to a political typhoid mary.


----------



## co-op (Jul 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Pretending not to be Lib Dems in a by-election: http://www.labourlist.org/a-secret-lib-dem



To be fair, this is exactly the same technique that's used by local Labour parties - saw plenty of it in Lambeth in May 2010. Pretending to be a neighbour...

Local Labour parties, eg Lambeth are ever bit as nauseating as the Lib-Dems.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Some fantastic nuttiness from Clegg over the result:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you got 626 votes because you weren't seen as being close enough to Nick Clegg. They weren't seen as being close enough to a political typhoid mary.


, that's brilliantly deluded.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I noticed Ken 'ken' Ken calling the lib-dems a venal sub-species the other day. Good politicking that.


do you mean 'our' ken i.e. the tulse Hill newt-fancier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> do you mean 'our' ken i.e. the tulse Hill newt-fancier?


 
i thought he lived in brent


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Some fantastic nuttiness from Clegg over the result:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you got 626 votes because you weren't seen as being close enough to Nick Clegg. They weren't seen as being close enough to a political typhoid mary.


fuck me that is so beautifully _Dagenham_


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Probably deserves a thread of its own but...

Suicide rates rise as debt and cuts take their toll



> Suicide rates have risen sharply across Europe since the banking crisis as people struggle to cope with debt, unemployment and public service cuts.
> 
> 
> Britons fared worse than average, with an 8 per cent rise in suicides between 2007 and 2009 – a shock after almost a decade of annual declines, according to research in The Lancet.
> ...





> For every suicide there are on average 10 failed attempts and thousands of depression cases, which are much harder to count. Dr Peter Byrne, consultant liaison psychiatrist at Newham University Hospital in east London, said he has seen an increase in patients who have self-harmed or attempted suicide because of "personal debt, loss of hope and uncertainty".


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Probably deserves a thread of its own but...
> 
> Suicide rates rise as debt and cuts take their toll


 

I have a relative who works in suicide prevention, and he says that this is the absolute truth. The Asian crisis of 1998 led to a massive rise in the suicide rate as well. After New Zealand farming went into crisis in the 1990s, there was an horrific suicide increase there as well.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought he lived in brent


 
 he lives in Cricklewood.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Probably deserves a thread of its own but...
> 
> Suicide rates rise as debt and cuts take their toll


 
Interesting but one point I disagree with. The article states that "governments have failed to learn the lessons of previous economic crises", which implies that governments actually give a damn about poor people's lives. I see no evidence that any British government in the last 30 years has done so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Morons

Lib Dems admit another two candidates served on public bodies



> MORE candidates in May’s Assembly Election were drawn into the “Lib Dem Two” row yesterday, despite attempts to draw a line under the matter.
> 
> The Lib Dems were forced to admit that two more of their candidates served on public bodies whose members are barred from standing for the Assembly.
> 
> Wyn Williams, candidate for Montgomeryshire, was a member of Meat Promotion Wales, while Stephen Churchman, who stood in Dwyfor Meirionnydd, was on the Snowdonia National Park Authority.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 9, 2011)

> Snowdonia National Park Authority.



Fucking nazi


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

> Wyn Williams, candidate for Montgomeryshire, was a member of Meat Promotion Wales,



So _that's_ why so many lib-dem animals have met unfortunate ends ...


----------



## articul8 (Aug 3, 2011)

Watch out - they get nasty when they're losing :

Lib Dem Deputy Mayor of Lambeth arrested for brutal assault:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23974905-lambeth-deputy-mayor-arrested-on-assault-charge.do


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought he lived in brent


He does, but he grew up Tulse Hill


----------



## articul8 (Aug 3, 2011)

Nothing to say about this Lambeth woman, Streathamite - your neck of the woods innit?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Nothing to say about this Lambeth woman, Streathamite - your neck of the woods innit?


no I now live in Leyton, it was when I lived in Streathamite that I changed my board name from Red Jezza to streathamite.
fucking GREAT story, though!


----------



## articul8 (Aug 3, 2011)

She denies it.  And everyone knows a Lib Dem never lies


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> She denies it.  And everyone knows a Lib Dem never lies


again - 
surprised the LDs are strong enough in Lambeth to have a dep mayor though. always thought it was too rock solid Labour


----------



## killer b (Aug 3, 2011)

don't they all take it in turns in streatham? here they alternate between the parties each year...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

killer b said:


> don't they all take it in turns in streatham? here they alternate between the parties each year...


It's _Lambeth_ - Streatham is just one part of the borough, and yes, I guess they may well do, you may have nailed it


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

co-op said:


> To be fair, this is exactly the same technique that's used by local Labour parties - saw plenty of it in Lambeth in May 2010. Pretending to be a neighbour...
> 
> Local Labour parties, eg Lambeth are ever bit as nauseating as the Lib-Dems.


tbh, I'd say you have one of the worst CLPs in the country down there, and it has been so fo a long time. Certainly the worst I've ever been a member of


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2011)

> Immediately prior to the 2010 election, the political balance of the council was 37 Labour members, 18 Liberal Democrats, 7 Conservatives and 1 Green, giving a Labour majority of eleven. At the 2010 Lambeth Council election Labour gained seats and the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Green party lost seats: from 7 May 2010 Labour hold 44 seats, the Liberal Democrats 15 and the Conservative Party 4 seats.



.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 3, 2011)

exactly, so I'd've thought that would put Labour in just the right position to cock off over the mayoralty.
Ergo, Killer b's explanation HAS to be right, as Lambeth CLP aren't renowned for their pluralism or friendliness to other parties


----------



## embree (Aug 10, 2011)

Some 'Liberal' views from Dr Mark Wright, councellor for Cabot ward in central Bristol:



> "To my mind this has gone on long enough, and the police tactic of 'containment' certainly isn't working in London – it's time to put the Army on standby in case the police need extra help.
> "If the disturbances happen again, they should be forcefully broken up and the thugs be taken to jail for trial."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

Lib-dem Manifesto April 2010:


> We will End the detention of children in immigration detention centres



Coalition agreement May 2010:


> We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.



Today an immigration detention centre for children and families has opened near Haywards Heath.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, I'd say you have one of the worst CLPs in the country down there, and it has been so fo a long time. Certainly the worst I've ever been a member of



Yup, I was a member of Streatham CLP way back in the late '80s/early '90s, and they were pretty appalling, especially insofar as towing the "party line". Trying to get motions to conference through the various committes was like trying to shit a buffalo - painful and nigh on impossible without doing yourself a permanent mischief.
The way so many of them fell in with the whole "let's dump even just a nod to socialism" after Blair's advent just pushed it home to me that the LP didn't deserve my subs.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup, I was a member of Streatham CLP way back in the late '80s/early '90s, and they were pretty appalling, especially insofar as towing the "party line". Trying to get motions to conference through the various committes was like trying to shit a buffalo - painful and nigh on impossible without doing yourself a permanent mischief.
> The way so many of them fell in with the whole "let's dump even just a nod to socialism" after Blair's advent just pushed it home to me that the LP didn't deserve my subs.


same here, and every word of this rings tragically true


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> exactly, so I'd've thought that would put Labour in just the right position to cock off over the mayoralty.
> Ergo, Killer b's explanation HAS to be right, as Lambeth CLP aren't renowned for their pluralism or friendliness to other parties



The mayor and deputy mayor role go on a "Buggin's turn" kind of basis. Your boy this time, our boy next, their boy after, etc. Usual stitched-up bullshit that means they, just like the coalition parties, will never achieve a decent membership base again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem Manifesto April 2010:
> 
> Coalition agreement May 2010:
> 
> Today an immigration detention centre for children and families has opened near Haywards Heath.



Which they'll excuse with "...work had already progressed too far by May 2010 to stop the construction, and it'd be foolish to waste the space now it's built and open...".


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

Vote Lib-dem



> A councillor addicted to heroin admitted falsely claiming thousands of pounds in benefits while representing a north London borough.
> 
> Liberal Democrat Christopher Basson, 54, was sentenced to 28 days in jail, suspended for 12 months, and placed under a three-month curfew after claiming nearly £12,000 in benefits to which he was not he was not entitled to.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Aug 18, 2011)

Ah well, at least he didn't do anything really evil, like start a facebook group or nick 6 bottles of water.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The mayor and deputy mayor role go on a "Buggin's turn" kind of basis. Your boy this time, our boy next, their boy after, etc. Usual stitched-up bullshit that means they, just like the coalition parties, will never achieve a decent membership base again.


ahhh, so killer b was right. How unsurprising Lambeth favour smoke-filled room stitchups to anything o0pen, transparent and democratic


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Bonkers in the nut: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-whisper-it-but-the-press-are-starting-to-get-it-25123.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bonkers in the nut: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-whisper-it-but-the-press-are-starting-to-get-it-25123.html



Batshit as fuck.


----------



## Santino (Sep 7, 2011)

The 10 cowardly cunts who abstained from the NHS vote.


----------



## Voley (Sep 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bonkers in the nut: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-whisper-it-but-the-press-are-starting-to-get-it-25123.html






> ... this is really a Tory government and the Lib Dems are either naive puppets being taken for a ride by the ruthless old Tories or charlatans and closet-Conservatives who sold out their principles for a seat at the big boys’ table.



I hate to quote them out of context (oh all right then, I don't) but that's not a bad summary. Well done, Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> The 10 cowardly cunts who abstained from the NHS vote.


Name them!


----------



## Santino (Sep 7, 2011)

Can't find the info yet.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> The 10 cowardly cunts who abstained from the NHS vote.



Spineless abstaining bastards.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Can't find the info yet.



Been looking too.

According to Sky News only four Lib Dems voted against:  Julian Huppert, Greg Mulholland, Andrew George and Adrian Sanders. 10 Lib Dem abstentions.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 7, 2011)

So, Lib Dems down to four MP's at the next General then  *crosses fingers*


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2011)

Balbi said:


> So, Lib Dems down to four MP's at the next General then  *crosses fingers*


four too many imo

anyway anything they do now is too little too late because now everyone knows what you get if you vote lib dem


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 7, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14829485




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> Lib Dem rebels
> 
> The disagreement followed an earlier row over comments made by Health Minister Lord Howe.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which they'll excuse with "...work had already progressed too far by May 2010 to stop the construction, and it'd be foolish to waste the space now it's built and open...".



Well someone could always squat it. Oh, hang on, the Liberals will be moving to outlaw that soon as well.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Can't find the info yet.



http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/16266




			
				channel4 said:
			
		

> One Lib Dem minister tells me yesterday’s vote on the NHS and the meeting with Nick Clegg on Monday showed his colleagues were “getting undisciplined.”
> 
> “They seem to forget we’re in the coalition because we deliver a certain number of votes,” he went on. Well last night, on the 3rd Reading of the Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill the Lib Dem leadership managed to keep some sort of lid on things.
> 
> ...


----------



## Imagine (Sep 8, 2011)

Here's the LibDem list of shame:



> AYES
> 
> Alexander, Danny *Inverness*
> Baker, Norman *Lewes*
> ...


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 8, 2011)

Just cunts. Every last one of them (all being well).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 9, 2011)

Interesting to see Tim Farron abstained - makes me wonder whether he has one eye on a future leadership election. None of the better known Lib Dem MPs voted against and the only other household name who abstained was Kennedy, who's pretty much ruled out of ever standing for leadership again.

I also note that Simon Hughes, the supposed conscience of the party and hero to the Lib Dem "left" (lol) voted in favour...


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2011)

Trying to disenfranchise 10M voters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/15/shocked-mps-electoral-register-shake-up


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2011)

> As many as 10 million voters, predominantly poor, young or black, and more liable to vote Labour, could fall off the electoral register under government plans, the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and psephologists warned .



At least we got AV


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2011)

Because you see, it's unfair to make people register to vote. Because that's more LIBERAL. You're FREE - free to drop out of the system and reduce the number of seats in cities.


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2011)

Hooray for FREEDOM!

Fuck it, this is going in a new thread.


----------



## binka (Sep 15, 2011)

i read that and thought 'i wonder how hard it would be to google an older story where nick clegg said something different' and i came up with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Missing-millions-will-get-right-to-vote.html



> According to Mr Clegg’s officials, as many as 3.5 million British adults are not able to vote because they are not registered.
> 
> “It is not good enough to simply ignore the millions who aren’t. Especially when you look more closely at where the problem is worst: among the young; among black and ethnic minority communities; in areas with high social deprivation,” Mr Clegg will say today. “These missing millions must be given back their voice.”



this has now changed to:



> The Cabinet Office [overseen by nick clegg] white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."



that took me five minutes im sure there's better quotes to be found though


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2011)

Good work binka and good work to your lad on the other thread.


----------



## binka (Sep 15, 2011)

slightly better quote on the same lines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11764157


> Nick Clegg said there was "no excuse for inaction" with estimates of 3.5m voters not on the electoral roll.
> Data-matching will allow councils to identify the people who are missing so council officers "will be able to help these people onto the register".
> 
> "It's true that around 90% of people are registered, and the registration rate does seem to have stabilised after a decline in the last decade, but it is not good enough to simply ignore the millions who aren't," he said.
> ...


----------



## Nylock (Sep 17, 2011)

typically saying one thing with one face, facilitating quite another with the other...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2011)

binka said:


> slightly better quote on the same lines:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11764157


the missing millions must be given back their voice? i thought we all heard their voice just last month


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 18, 2011)

Ed Davey is the Libdem minister behind this

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ping-some-workers-of-the-minimum-wage.281178/


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

So, a privately educated oxbridge boy who represents one of the most affluent seats in the country gets to take money off the literally poorest people in the country. Together with the lib-dems conference failure to vote against the nhs privatisation bill whilst clegg lies about the tories being their political enemies. Never ends does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Desperate stuff from Clegg and the lib-dems most rabid backers:
Could the Clegg factor be on the turn?



> The rioters didn't attack Clegg's office, talk earlier this year of open revolt within the party came to nothing and there is no suggestion of a leadership challenge at the Birmingham conference. Results in recent council byelections – a win last month in Eton, in the royal borough of Windsor, and earlier this month in Mintsfeet, in Cumbria – adds substance to the theory that things may not be so bleak.



First off, to write this you must choose to deliberately ignore the string of terrible lib-dem results in local by-elections - including very recent weeks (See their humiliating loss in Southmead and the consistent repeated huge swings against them elsewhere) in order to cherry pick those two. The very best they can say on this front is that they've hit rock bottom, they've done so bad that they can't get much worse. Secondly, not being targeted in a riot is a sign of things going well for you? As i said, desperate stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Of course, what this desperation also has to deliberately ignore is the poll that found that only 47% of lib-dem voters last time around would vote for them again - a poll not published months ago but yesterday.Other findings were that only 24% think the lib-dems are 'a credible party of govt'


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 18, 2011)

*Analysis: Unless things change, Lib Dems face wipeout*


http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/18/analysis-unless-things-change-lib-dems-face-w


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> *Analysis: Unless things change, Lib Dems face wipeout*
> 
> http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/18/analysis-unless-things-change-lib-dems-face-w



Things will change. A week is a long time in politics.


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2011)




----------



## TruXta (Sep 19, 2011)

Something something about legalising drug possession and upping treatment resources for addicts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/18/lib-dems-vote-decriminalising-drugs

Pigs will fly.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Something something about legalising drug possession and upping treatment resources for addicts?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/18/lib-dems-vote-decriminalising-drugs
> 
> Pigs will fly.



Going on current form if they're promising that what they'd actually do would be to make possession a capital offence and scrap all treatment for addicts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 19, 2011)

Santino said:


>




That is the least funny standup routine I've ever seen. And I've watched a Roy Chubby Brown video before.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2011)

she really does look like a guinea pig doesn't she?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Something something about legalising drug possession and upping treatment resources for addicts?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/18/lib-dems-vote-decriminalising-drugs
> 
> Pigs will fly.



Their plan seems to be to refer people to some sort of counselling if caught with drugs?  What if you refuse to attend the counselling?  What if you don't accept that the substance you are caught with is an illegal drug?  I see some real issues of enforcement with this scheme that could only be resolved by the criminal justice system and, ultimately, criminalising those who don't comply with the new guidelines.

I also see little benefit in sending some kid caught with a couple of pills to counselling.  Is there any evidence that this would "work"?  In what way would it work?  Reduce drug use?  Reduce drug related harms?  What would be the point?

In any case, decriminalisation, as I said on the august thread on this very matter in DF, is the "miserable little compromise" of the drug bebate.  It fails to address far too many of the issues inherent in prohibition.  The Tories won't let this through, anyway, so it just seems to me to be a red herring to try and appeal to some of the younger lib dem voters who have been lost since the coalition was formed.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 19, 2011)

Briefly re evidence - yes, there is some evidence that it works, mainly from the Portuguese, who've implemented a somewhat similar scheme. But your questions are all good.


----------



## Voley (Sep 19, 2011)

Santino said:


>



Christ.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> she really does look like a guinea pig doesn't she?



I thought you were above this sort of thing.

I'm also not surprised by those who liked your post.


----------



## strung out (Sep 19, 2011)

are you saying she doesn't look like a guinea pig?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 19, 2011)

strung out said:


> are you saying she doesn't look like a guinea pig?



Don't you?


----------



## strung out (Sep 19, 2011)

do i?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 19, 2011)

I like guinea pigs.  Cute, but crap at telling jokes.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Sep 19, 2011)

caught the last 20 minutes of newsnight. put paid to any idea that they're not all mentally deluded custard spined extremely white middle class dickheads to a man.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 20, 2011)

If Sarah Teather's deluded enough to imagine that she'll get _anywhere near**_ being elected in 2015, she's living in cloud cuckoo land ...

(**If she stands in a a seat _anywhere near_ Inner London, at least)


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 20, 2011)

In fact the Libs Dems are the whole lot of 'em this week are in state of 110% collective delusion. They imagine they won't be wiped out steamroller-style at all forthcoming elections for years to come -- local and general.

Dream on you yellow losers!


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2011)

jesus.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

Where the fucks that taken from?


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2011)

lib dem conference glee club song book.

did you get that.

_song book._ there's more.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

Perhaps they'll be a rendition of 'Road to Nowhere' in there.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> lib dem conference glee club song book.
> 
> did you get that.
> 
> _song book._ there's more.



Oh my fucking God.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

LOL the Lib Dems are now impossible to satirise - how could you make anything up that's more ridiculous than the truth? They're conforming to every sandle wearing middle class "I wanna be down with the kids" stereotype. It's funny until you remember they're part of the fucking government


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2011)

Santino said:


>



i would tell her not to give up the day job but she'll have no choice after 2015


----------



## Nylock (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> LOL the Lib Dems are now impossible to satirise - how could you make anything up that's more ridiculous than the truth? They're conforming to every sandle wearing middle class "I wanna be down with the kids" stereotype. It's funny until you remember they're part of the fucking government


i think of them more as the david brent of british political parties.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 21, 2011)




----------



## Balbi (Sep 21, 2011)

> Let me be clear: The values of trade unionism are as relevant as ever. Supporting workers. Fighting for fairness at work. _But I don't think the unions should be able to buy themselves a political party._



Stunningly deliberate misinformation of the source of the Labour Party there - the unions have 'bought' the Labour Party?  Neo-liberalism gone mad.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> Perhaps they'll be a rendition of 'Road to Nowhere' in there.



And 'The End', as well, no doubt.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

Laws showing his face again... to warn his own colleagues about the 50p tax-rate. That's ex-banker and expenses fiddler Laws.

"Laws contradicts Clegg with call to cut 50p tax"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-clegg-with-call-to-cut-50p-tax-2358203.html


> Companies and entrepreneurs could quit Britain unless the 50p top rate of income tax is abolished, David Laws, the Liberal Democrat former cabinet minister, warned yesterday.
> 
> In an interview with The Independent, Mr Laws warned senior Liberal Democrats that their attacks on the Tories could backfire, by making it harder to win policy concessions from their coalition partners. His warning came after three possible successors to Nick Clegg – Tim Farron, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne – used their speeches at the party's Birmingham conference to distance themselves from the Tories.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Stunningly deliberate misinformation of the source of the Labour Party there - the unions have 'bought' the Labour Party?  Neo-liberalism gone mad.



oh my god.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 21, 2011)

The mouth moves, the torso twitches, but the limbs have been severed and slashed. A faint blue tinge creeps across the jaundiced skin.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 21, 2011)

The head, blinded to its incapacity, screams for more electrifying of the party body.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

erm nice image there ...


----------



## Voley (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> Perhaps they'll be a rendition of 'Road to Nowhere' in there.





Idris2002 said:


> And 'The End', as well, no doubt.


'Highway To Hell', too, I hope. Mudhoney's 'Flat Out Fucked' should be in there too.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2011)

A Lib Dem, near you, very shortly before a forthcoming election ...


----------



## FiFi (Sep 21, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Stunningly deliberate misinformation of the source of the Labour Party there - the unions have 'bought' the Labour Party?  Neo-liberalism gone mad.



Sorry, I must have missed the memo that informed me I had joint ownership of the Labour Party. 
And if I have "bought" the party, can I have my money back please!


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2011)

Well it's a waste of money if so  

But Lib Dems are just as much Union bashers as Tories and Blairites. They're all peas in a pod on that one.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think of them more as the david brent of british political parties.



Conservatives = Finchy
Labour = Gareth


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 22, 2011)

And the smug middle class manager who gets Brent's job is the Greens


----------



## smokedout (Sep 23, 2011)

> The 15th Sept by-election in the London Borough of Camden's Highgate Ward was called after former Labour councillor Michael Nicolaides quit after just 15 months in his job, but unfortunately Labour re-took the seat, winning 1178 votes (hey, don't mention anything about WMDs or half a million dead Iraqis). The good news is that the Green Party came a close second, after former Lib Dem councillor Alexis Rowell quit the liars to join the Greens. The Green Party won 947 votes, more than EIGHT TIMES the pathetic 111 votes scored by the Lib-Dems.



http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/09/485047.html

(dont read the link, its silly)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2011)

Filth

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/09/28/wife-of-mp-john-hemming-in-court-accused-of-stealing-his-mistress-s-kitten-115875-23450612/ 



> THE wife of MP John Hemming yesterday appeared in court accused of breaking into the home of his mistress and stealing her kitten.
> 
> Christine Hemming, 53, was apparently caught on CCTV sneaking through the rear garden of Emily Cox’s house.
> 
> She allegedly opened the back door then fled three minutes later with four-month-old Beauty under her arm. Jason Pegg QC, prosecuting, said: “The cat was never seen again.



Are they saying she killed the cat?


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2011)

this is old news - it was on the front cover of the brum newspapers when i was there a year ago. sure it's been mentioned on this thread before too.

worth another go round for the lols anyway, i guess...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2011)

In court now though


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2011)

is it ok to make fun of his appearance?


----------



## killer b (Sep 28, 2011)

he must have a massive wang.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2011)

What is it with the lib dems and cat killing. Didn't one of them beat a cat to death earlier in the year?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 28, 2011)

They hate all that is good and decent in life.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> he must have a massive wang.


Just look at him, he is destroying


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 28, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> What is it with the lib dems and cat killing. Didn't one of them beat a cat to death earlier in the year?



Stop it, you're gonna make me hate them a little bit less if you carry on - I fucking hate cats, the pointy clawed scratchy bastards.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

*
 Lower Stoke By-Election full result: Lab 1366, Tory 563, Soc 254, BNP 149, Green 114, Lib Dem 79  *


lol


----------



## Nylock (Oct 7, 2011)




----------



## dennisr (Oct 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> * Lower Stoke By-Election full result: Lab 1366, Tory 563, Soc 254, BNP 149, Green 114, Lib Dem 79* lol



The Socialist Party's vote went from 6% to 11% - the Libs dropped to 3%. Good to see the BNP being knocked back as well.


----------



## rekil (Oct 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> * Lower Stoke By-Election full result: Lab 1366, Tory 563, Soc 254, BNP 149, Green 114, Lib Dem 79 *
> 
> lol


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> The Socialist Party's vote went from 6% to 11% - the Libs dropped to 3%. Good to see the BNP being knocked back as well.



Fairplay glad to see you beat the BNP, but even gladder to see the BNP beat the Libdems.

ETA: what was the previous result in that ward?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2011)

copliker said:


>


that's a face you want to see whacked with a bike chain for a solid ten minutes.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ETA: what was the previous result in that ward?



*We had 3.7% in 2010, 6.38% in May 2011 (its a solid labour seat - turnout was understandably low so not bad)
*

(so, at this rate - ward by ward - we intend to rule the world by 3013  )


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

the glorious day is fast approaching. tremble, clegg


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 7, 2011)

That's fucking ace  obviously the socialist candidate beating the Lib Dems is great to see, but them coming in last behind the BNP is the cherry on the cake. Is it wrong that I now hate the Lib Dems more than the BNP?


----------



## killer b (Oct 7, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is it wrong that I now hate the Lib Dems more than the BNP?


one party is a group of evil frothing mouthed right-wingers, the other an utterly irrelevant comic sideshow.

i'll leave you to guess which is which.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 7, 2011)

It's the moon23 effect, innit? (Congrats to the SP, but they way).


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

No.the bnp couldn't hope to do as much damage in Government as this shower are doing, mostly because they're so tainted they have no hope of getting to power in their current form, ever. (Something that will almost certainly apply to the fib-dems after this!)

it's great to see the SP beating the fash candidate as well and it certainly proves the point re: having a political alternative to fascism and the mainstream parties.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

I was having an arguement on another forum with some fash idiot who thought he was far cleverer than he was, who thought that a workers' party would never work because 1) the working class doesn't exist any more and 2) given a free choice, the default choice of people is to vote for the far-right, if everyone had a completely free choice that (the fash) is what most people would vote for. Well this just proves him completely wrong on both counts


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I was having an arguement on another forum with some fash idiot who thought he was far cleverer than he was, who thought that a workers' party would never work because 1) the working class doesn't exist any more and 2) given a free choice, the default choice of people is to vote for the far-right, if everyone had a completely free choice that (the fash) is what most people would vote for. Well this just proves him completely wrong on both counts



Sounds like another "patriot" who's overindulged in a few too many rashers of the Welshpool Farmer's porky fare...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2011)

The good thing is that he's one of the more intelligent online fash I've come across


----------



## Nylock (Oct 7, 2011)

Not only did the socialists beat the fibbers and the fash, but they also came third (which impressed me most tbh)


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I was having an arguement on another forum with some fash idiot who thought he was far cleverer than he was, who thought that a workers' party would never work because 1) the working class doesn't exist any more and 2) given a free choice, the default choice of people is to vote for the far-right, if everyone had a completely free choice that (the fash) is what most people would vote for. Well this just proves him completely wrong on both counts



The problem with your friend is that, in some ways, he is correct.  When the Tories and Labour want to improve their poll numbers are sure fire way is to bash immigrants.



SpineyNorman said:


> LOL the Lib Dems are now impossible to satirise - how could you make anything up that's more ridiculous than the truth? They're conforming to every sandle wearing middle class "I wanna be down with the kids" stereotype. It's funny until you remember they're part of the fucking government



I agree they are impossible to satirise, but not because they are your run-of-the-mill, free-the-weed, sandle-wearing middle-class socialists, which is the image they liked to portray.  They are so far from that image right now.

The whole message the Lib Dems have created is basically "if you believed any of the policies which we created that distinguished our party from the others would every actually be worth pursuing in government, then you're a fucking idiot".


----------



## dennisr (Oct 7, 2011)

Nylock said:


> Not only did the socialists beat the fibbers and the fash, but they also came third (which impressed me most tbh)



When we win I'll be impressed


----------



## Nylock (Oct 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> When we win I'll be impressed



True enough


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 7, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> I agree they are impossible to satirise, but not because they are your run-of-the-mill, free-the-weed, sandle-wearing middle-class socialists, which is the image they liked to portray. They are so far from that image right now.



Nobody with a brain ever thought they were even on nodding terms with socialism. Since they got a sniff of power even people who've had a frontal lobotomy don't believe it. However they are, and have always been, desperate to present themselves as being down with the kids. They're kind of like the CEO who wears jeans with a sports jacket to show students and the like that they're not really subhuman parasites - they're _just like you. _Like Disco Dave's hug a hoodie, only even more cringe worthy.

And the idea that hippies are by definition progressive is a bit daft - plenty of them went on to be hardcore Reaganites and Thatcherites because those two were freeing the individual maaan.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 7, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> The problem with your friend is that, in some ways, he is correct. When the Tories and Labour want to improve their poll numbers are sure fire way is to bash immigrants.



Except that's offensive bollocks isn't it? There are other far more effective ways in which they could improve their performance at the polls - increasing the minimum wage, building new social housing, creating jobs. But these don't fit the neoliberal agenda. So instead they make a few noises about Muslims or whatever since this is perfectly compatible with what they're doing. It wins them the votes of a few people who might otherwise vote BNP but it's not the massive vote winner you're making it out to be - nowhere near as popular as housing, jobs, hospitals and education.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2011)

What's Huhne done now?


----------



## Santino (Oct 7, 2011)

Tweeted something publically when he meant to do it privately.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2011)

Something that revealed him feeding tame journos or briefing against colleagues? Let's see what stories appear over next few days


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> When we win I'll be impressed



That would be a fairly impressive ward to win in. Overwhelmingly working-class ward but some very nice 'better off' working class areas. Big council estate (it was the estate where they filmed Onlows house in Keeping up Appearances) in the South-east of the ward with some very 'residential' areas to the North of the ward.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Tweeted something publically when he meant to do it privately.



What was it he tweeted?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2011)

"From someone else fine but I do not want my fingerprints on the story. C”


----------



## two sheds (Oct 7, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> And the idea that hippies are by definition progressive is a bit daft - plenty of them went on to be hardcore Reaganites and Thatcherites because those two were freeing the individual maaan.



And a fair few youthful hard core socialists turned up in the labour party.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> "From someone else fine but I do not want my fingerprints on the story. C”



Genius

And it's all over Google.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 7, 2011)

two sheds said:


> And a fair few youthful hard core socialists turned up in the labour party.



Point taken


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 7, 2011)

Why would he be sending important messages by Twitter DM? (Wouldn't be anything to do with them not being on any sort of official record, I suppose.)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2011)

He now lies that it was to a member of staff he was talking to. Yes, i'm sure that's how you communicate - by twitter DM. What are you, Laurie penny? If not, maybe you can find someone prepared to say it was them you were talking to? Which would leave the other person who it really was at some considerable advantage. You twisting cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2011)

Has to be the knockdown of May for ripping her cat crap off Farage doesn't it? Guardian article posted at 6.10 - Huhne post just before then.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 8, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> And the idea that hippies are by definition progressive is a bit daft - plenty of them went on to be hardcore Reaganites and Thatcherites because those two were freeing the individual maaan.



Sorry, the problem with a forum is that tone can only be inferred. My argument is not that hippies are progressive by definition, just that Lib Dems, in the past, catered for the 'progressive hippy' vote.

To dismiss Liberal Democrat supporters, particularly in the mid-1990s, as poodles of the political establishment is probably a bit unfair.  They did have some very radical policies; their views on marijuana decriminalisation being the most obvious.  My point is that these types of policies being openly mocked by the Liberal Democrats is the biggest disgrace, and why a thread like this exists now and probably did not a few years ago.



SpineyNorman said:


> Except that's offensive bollocks isn't it? There are other far more effective ways in which they could improve their performance at the polls - increasing the minimum wage, building new social housing, creating jobs. But these don't fit the neoliberal agenda. So instead they make a few noises about Muslims or whatever since this is perfectly compatible with what they're doing. It wins them the votes of a few people who might otherwise vote BNP but it's not the massive vote winner you're making it out to be - nowhere near as popular as housing, jobs, hospitals and education.



Of course it is offensive bollocks, but 12 million British adults voted for openly xenophobic and, if we are honest and strip away the rhetoric, more-or-less racist parties (Tories, UKIP and BNP).  The explicitly left-wing parties pulled in barely 100,000.  We can, of course, speculate how many Labour/Lib Dem supporters, and non-voters, are class conscious workers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2011)

Did they vote for them for racist reasons? I can't quite believe you just posted that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> *Lower Stoke By-Election full result: Lab 1366, Tory 563, Soc 254, BNP 149, Green 114, Lib Dem 79 *
> 
> lol



Only just seen this -- as Lib Dem humiliations go, 79 votes is steamroller city -- crushed!


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did they vote for them for racist reasons? I can't quite believe you just posted that.



Of course they didn't. We are British. When there is a public debate about immigration, we are not talking about those with particular skin colours or from any specific ethnic group.  Why I remember David Cameron just yesterday talking about the flood of Australians coming over here taking British jobs. While the issue of Europe is one of simple Great British sovereignty, nothing xenophobic (or, if we are blunt, racist) in the tory party rhetoric.

On a side,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rbing-say-antiracism-campaigners-2227052.html

Almost half (48%) were open to supporting a new far-right party as long as it eschewed "fascist imagery" and did not condone violence. And 52% agreed that "Muslims create problems in the UK".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2011)

So you _are_ saying that 12 million people voted for the parties you listed on racist grounds? Why are you not putting labour voters in the same camp as well btw? Is it because that would make you a racist by any chance? Can you explain why the social attitudes survey finds a consistent decrease in racist attitudes? Have you read the report mentioned in your article btw? I would recommend reading it as it undermines a fair few of your assumptions. As well as finding that asians are the most 'racist' section of the population.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Of course they didn't. We are British. When there is a public debate about immigration, we are not talking about those with particular skin colours or from any specific ethnic group. Why I remember David Cameron just yesterday talking about the flood of Australians coming over here taking British jobs. While the issue of Europe is one of simple Great British sovereignty, nothing xenophobic (or, if we are blunt, racist) in the tory party rhetoric.
> 
> On a side,
> 
> ...


i wouldn't say searchlight were entirely neutral and objective on this issue. so it's no real surprise that a poll commissioned by searchlight finds a lot of racism and that.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 8, 2011)

from today's Indy:


> Last night there was lively speculation on what the story might be that Mr Huhne did not want his "fingerprints" on. It appeared the message was intended for the political editor of The Sunday Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy, who tweeted five minutes later: "Got to find another Lib Dem source for my splash now *massive cough*". A "splash" is journalistic slang for a front-page story.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 8, 2011)

butcherperson, this is what started the message



frogwoman said:


> given a free choice, the default choice of people is to vote for the far-right, if everyone had a completely free choice that (the fash) is what most people would vote for.



Although, I do not vote for the far-right, I agree with frogwoman's friend, at least in the forseeable future in Britain.



butchersapron said:


> So you _are_ saying that 12 million people voted for the parties you listed on racist grounds? Why are you not putting labour voters in the same camp as well btw? Is it because that would make you a racist by any chance? Can you explain why the social attitudes survey finds a consistent decrease in racist attitudes? Have you read the report mentioned in your article btw? I would recommend reading it as it undermines a fair few of your assumptions. As well as finding that asians are the most 'racist' section of the population.



To me, the Conservative Party and Labour Party both use far-right rhetoric, the political debates' first and primary issue was immigration, before the recession immigration was the main issue of voters.  The Labour Party, because of its history probably do have genuine socialists who see entryism as the only viable tactic, but I am happy to dismiss them alongwith Blue Labour.

For the Tories... it does not take an imbecile to work out the main pillars of Tory ideology; Eurosceptic, and 'one-nation' (middle England) conservatism through promoting 'British values' through discouraging immigration, criticising political correctness while removing the human rights act.  Why do people vote for them?  Neoliberalism? My guess is, at the very least, tolerance toward quite blatant, in some cases cringworthy, xenophobia occassionally masked by British patriotic hubris.  If as much as 90% of the ten million or so voters for the Tories (the other 2million are UKIP and BNP) do not know that is what they are voting for, truly a remarkable PR campaign the Tories ran.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2011)

@ poo flakes -

he's not my friend ffs , he was some idiot on a forum i was on.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2011)

little_legs said:


> from today's Indy:


But it wasn't. You only DM people you follow. He doesn't follow PH.


----------



## rekil (Oct 8, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> before the recession immigration was the main issue of voters.


Not true is it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/england/8599406.stm


----------



## little_legs (Oct 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But it wasn't. You only DM people you follow. He doesn't follow PH.



Actually, I've been a twit in this case. Indy's article points out exact same thing as you have.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 8, 2011)

copliker said:


> Not true is it.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/england/8599406.stm



I am not complaining about immigration, but the focus on immigration. It is more-or-less a defining feature of British political dialogue, I completely accept other poster's reasoning. I just find that the right-wing find it much easier to whip up a firestorm of hysteria over immigrants, than the left can do over, say, the inequities of the British tax system or, in England's case, landholding rights.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Public Opinion-Overall Attitudes and Level of Concern Briefing_0.pdf

Check Figure 3, to see the impact of the recession on public opinion. Figures 4 and 5 is comparable across countries; we view immigration a more serious problem than in Holland, who currently have a pretty horrific right-wing party in government.In Britain's two party system, I am merely claiming these views are represented by a substantial, mainstream faction of the Conservative Party and also the Labour Party.  The voters of the former pretty much know what they are voting for, and, I concede, so too should the voters of the latter.

The NHS, though, does appear quite high even in that figure. The point in the report that immigration is often conflated with race relations is more or less the argument I am making. The two, in my view, are largely the same thing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 8, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> I agree with frogwoman's friend



That's because you're an idiot. Immigration is an _easy_ way for them to pick up a few votes - it doesn't contradict their wider agenda. They could, however, pick up far more votes by promising to build social housing, invest in the NHS and create jobs. So if everyone was free to vote for whoever they want it *wouldn't* be the far right because they simply do not offer that. And nor do (or can) any of the mainstream parties.

The post above this is utterly incoherent, I can't even work out what you're trying to say there.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2011)

he's not my mate for the last time ffs, he's just some fash I was argueing with on some forum.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 8, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> For the Tories... it does not take an imbecile to work out the main pillars of Tory ideology; Eurosceptic, and 'one-nation' (middle England) conservatism through promoting 'British values' through discouraging immigration, criticising political correctness while removing the human rights act. Why do people vote for them? Neoliberalism? My guess is, at the very least, tolerance toward quite blatant, in some cases cringworthy, xenophobia occassionally masked by British patriotic hubris. If as much as 90% of the ten million or so voters for the Tories (the other 2million are UKIP and BNP) do not know that is what they are voting for, truly a remarkable PR campaign the Tories ran.



But Labour use exactly the same rhetoric - for one example among many, remember Phil Woolas and his election campaign? Is everyone who votes Labour a racist too?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> he's not my mate for the last time ffs, he's just some fash I was argueing with on some forum.



Sorry about that, I know he's not. Just needed to quote pooflakes so people would know what I was responding to.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2011)

fair play


----------



## strung out (Oct 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> he's not my mate for the last time ffs, he's just some fash I was argueing with on some forum.


yeah yeah


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 8, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody with a brain ever thought they were even on nodding terms with socialism. Since they got a sniff of power even people who've had a frontal lobotomy don't believe it. However they are, and have always been, desperate to present themselves as being down with the kids. They're kind of like the CEO who wears jeans with a sports jacket to show students and the like that they're not really subhuman parasites - they're _just like you. _Like Disco Dave's hug a hoodie, only even more cringe worthy.
> 
> And the idea that hippies are by definition progressive *is a bit daft* - plenty of them went on to be hardcore Reaganites and Thatcherites because those two were freeing the individual maaan.



Fuckin dead right - Like those boat wankers in Hebden Bridge - Try asking for a go of their water tap. Fuckin pricks.


----------



## rekil (Oct 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> he's not my mate for the last time ffs, he's just some fash I was argueing with on some forum.


Strangely enough, those exact same words were used by a top nazi at the nuremberg trials, followed by..





> ...and then the next thing I know, I'm in this room right, with a big table, and these nutters _(gestures to co-defendants_) and we're all pushing little flags around a huge map. And shouting.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 8, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's because you're an idiot. Immigration is an _easy_ way for them to pick up a few votes - it doesn't contradict their wider agenda. They could, however, pick up far more votes by promising to build social housing, invest in the NHS and create jobs. So if everyone was free to vote for whoever they want it *wouldn't* be the far right because they simply do not offer that. And nor do (or can) any of the mainstream parties.



Just read the report on British attitudes to immigration and rationalise it any way you fucking want to.

Creating jobs and investing in the NHS is the rhetoric of all parties, including fringe ones. Attitudes toward social housing are interesting, but get the impression you're not particularly interested in looking at the conflicting public attitudes within and between, say, Scotland and England which currently have very different social housing policy.

By the sounds of things you are onto a real vote winner, though. You have also provided enough caveats to your hypothesis, resulting in a groan that cannot actually be substantiated one way or another.



SpineyNorman said:


> But Labour use exactly the same rhetoric - for one example among many, remember Phil Woolas and his election campaign? Is everyone who votes Labour a racist too?



I have no love for Labour, how they still manage to lure good socialists into their camp is beyond me. From my perspective, being an activist for several socialist organisations, the main messages of the far left are much harder to sell to the British public than the messages of the far right. I have provided some evidence explaining why I believe that to be an accurate characterisation of British voting patterns. This also explains, at least to me, why Labour abandoned most of their left-wing policies in the early 1990s, and dropped their multicultural rhetoric in the early 2000s.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 9, 2011)

So _everybody_ is racist now? It's not just Tory, UKIP and BNP voters but everyone? Jesus.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Just read the report on British attitudes to immigration and rationalise it any way you fucking want to.
> 
> Creating jobs and investing in the NHS is the rhetoric of all parties, including fringe ones. Attitudes toward social housing are interesting, but get the impression you're not particularly interested in looking at the conflicting public attitudes within and between, say, Scotland and England which currently have very different social housing policy.
> 
> ...


What several groups are you an activist for?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 9, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So _everybody_ is racist now? It's not just Tory, UKIP and BNP voters but everyone? Jesus.



Not really.



butchersapron said:


> What several groups are you an activist for?



Was a member. The Worker's Party - if you have ever been a member of a group like that, you end up doing the monkey work for a whole bunch of affiliated groups.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But it wasn't. You only DM people you follow. He doesn't follow PH.



not right - you can only DM people who follow you, so if PH follows Huhne, then Huhne could DM him, but PH couldn't DM Huhne.. indy made a mistake on this one.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 9, 2011)

So then pooflakes - if most people would vote BNP or whatever if they were "free" to do so, why aren't they doing so now? From speaking to soft BNP voters, even they consider jobs, homes, hospitals etc. to be far more important than race or culture. The ones I've spoken to are anti-immigration, but only because they think immigrants are pushing down wages and making various other resources too scarce. I'm sure the hardcore activists are racists, but the people I've spoken to who vote BNP on my mum's estate aren't. This is hardly scientific I know but those attitudes surveys can be interpreted in just about any way you like.

You're assuming that immigration and race are somehow intermingled. This is a massive assumption.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes, I am just cynical.  If other small parties managed what the BNP did, they would consider it a success.  They have MEPs.

When I think about it though, I am probably being a bit too cynical.  Lib Dems vote might be crashing because they are removing popular pillars of their manifesto, which have absolutely nothing to do with immigration (they were actually pro-European and wanted to encourage immigration).  Their short rise, and collapse is probably more to do with the complete dilution of any radicalism left in them.  A long time coming though, just look at their record in Scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2011)

BigTom said:


> not right - you can only DM people who follow you, so if PH follows Huhne, then Huhne could DM him, but PH couldn't DM Huhne.. indy made a mistake on this one.


Yes, you're right. Huhne though, admitted on the politics show this morning, that it was about May and the Guardian story. So PH was just having a leg pull.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 9, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> Why I remember David Cameron just yesterday talking about the flood of Australians coming over here taking British jobs.



 more like the other way round.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 9, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> more like the other way round.



There is huge immigration from Australia, about 200,000 last year, I believe. No-one seems to care about emigration, if I remember correctly the amount of emigration from Britain to the EU is surprisingly high.  Daily Mail never mention that though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2011)

Therefore no bacon


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 9, 2011)

Poo Flakes said:


> There is huge immigration from Australia, about 200,000 last year, I believe. No-one seems to care about emigration, if I remember correctly the amount of emigration from Britain to the EU is surprisingly high. Daily Mail never mention that though.



Surprised by that. They still have the "Australia wants you" stuff.


----------



## Mr Blob (Oct 9, 2011)

The Libdems should be outlawed and ringleaders arrested


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 9, 2011)

Spiney Norman said:
			
		

> And the idea that hippies are by definition progressive *is a bit daft* - plenty of them went on to be hardcore Reaganites and Thatcherites because those two were freeing the individual maaan.





Frances Lengel said:


> Fuckin dead right - Like those boat wankers in Hebden Bridge - Try asking for a go of their water tap. Fuckin pricks.



Somewhat _localised_ objection to hippies there, Frances .... 

They're not *all* like that in Hebden .... 

I would say that though I spose. Occasionally I drink with hippies there who're my mates ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 9, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Somewhat _localised_ objection to hippies there, Frances ....
> 
> They're not *all* like that in Hebden ....
> 
> I would say that though I spose. Occasionally I drink with hippies there who're my mates ...


 
Most of them are though. Can't stand 'em, me.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 9, 2011)

Frances Lengel said:


> Most of them are though. Can't stand 'em, me.



Do you live there? I happen to like the place, but perhaps its easier to only see the positives if you only visit once or twice a year ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 9, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Do you live there? I happen to like the place, but perhaps its easier to only see the positives if you only visit once or twice a year ...



Nah, mate, I don't live there, and in all honesty I'm not wanting a go with you or anyone else - My objection is, right, I went up to HB with a couple of mates from Rochdale for the WOYD festival, and  honest to god, I've never had so many idiots look down their noses just down to prejudice based on nothing more than mine and my mates accents.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 9, 2011)

Sympathies. I'd have hated that myself if I'd witnessed it.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 9, 2011)

BigTom said:


> not right - you can only DM people who follow you, so if PH follows Huhne, then Huhne could DM him, but PH couldn't DM Huhne.. indy made a mistake on this one.



I know i sound thick here but wtf are DM and PH abbreviations for?


----------



## BigTom (Oct 10, 2011)

Nylock said:


> I know i sound thick here but wtf are DM and PH abbreviations for?


DM is Direct Message - like a private message, not publicly viewable.

PH is whoever the journalist is that took the story and the DM should have been sent to, but was actually messaged publicly, not privately. I can't remember his name, it's on this thread somewhere


----------



## Nylock (Oct 10, 2011)

thanks for clearing that up


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 10, 2011)

BigTom said:


> DM is Direct Message - like a private message, not publicly viewable.
> 
> PH is whoever the journalist is that took the story and the DM should have been sent to, but was actually messaged publicly, not privately. I can't remember his name, it's on this thread somewhere


The political editor of The Sunday Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> * Lower Stoke By-Election full result: Lab 1366, Tory 563, Soc 254, BNP 149, Green 114, Lib Dem 79 *
> 
> lol


Even worse this week - Lincs County Council

HAGUES, Andrew Gibson (Conservative) - 614
CLARKE, Jim (Labour) - 315
SUITER, David (Lincolnshire Independent) - 454  
 HARDING-PRICE, David (Liberal Democrats) - 45


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2011)

Haha


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2011)

how have the other parties shifted? who's the independent?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2011)

Con 614 (43.0,-2.4)
Ind 454 (31.8,-3.2)
Lab 315 (22.1,+13.5)
LD David Harding-Price 45 (3.2,-7.9)

Don't know about the indy


----------



## TruXta (Oct 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> how have the other parties shifted? who's the independent?



http://www.independentvoice.org.uk/ for stuff on Suiter.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2011)

http://www.independentvoice.org.uk/

can't work out what they're about from a cursory glance... probably disaffected liberals then.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2011)

TruXta said:


> http://www.independentvoice.org.uk/ for stuff on Suiter.


 Oh, it's Kabbes


----------



## TruXta (Oct 14, 2011)




----------



## L Independent (Oct 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> http://www.independentvoice.org.uk/
> 
> can't work out what they're about from a cursory glance... probably disaffected liberals then.


I am Very please to defeat the Liberal Democrats Parliamentary Candidate. The reason the Liberal Democrats came bottom was because of their poor financial control of Sleaford Town Council and joining in coalition with the Conservatives at a national level. We need people who mean what they say and keep to their word. The Lib Dems are just part of the problem. Political parties are not listening to voters.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 14, 2011)

Sleaford! Are you the guys with the weird straw bear festival or is that Spalding?


----------



## L Independent (Oct 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Con 614 (43.0,-2.4)
> Ind 454 (31.8,-3.2)
> Lab 315 (22.1,+13.5)
> LD David Harding-Price 45 (3.2,-7.9)
> ...



Se this link:
http://www.yournextmp.com/candidates/david_harding_price

*General Election 2010 - Sleaford and North Hykeham*​ 
*Name*​*Party*​*Votes*​*%*​
Phillips, Stephen Con 30719​51.54%​Harding-Price, David Lib Dem 10814​18.15%​Normington, James Lab 10051​16.87%​Overton, Marianne Lincs Ind 3806​6.39%​Doughty, Rodger UKIP 2163​3.63%​Clayton, Michael BNP 1977​3.32%​*Majority*​
19905​33%​*Turnout*​
59609​69%​*Electorate*​
85450​*Result*​Con Hold (0% from Lib Dem to Con)​


----------



## L Independent (Oct 14, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Sleaford! Are you the guys with the weird straw bear festival or is that Spalding?


Must be Spalding. Ha Ha..


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2011)

i suspect they came bottom for more than local issues tbh - it's a pattern repeated throughout the country, as a quick look through this thread might confirm.

are you a disaffected liberal then? i notice you didn't deny it.


----------



## L Independent (Oct 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> i suspect they came bottom for more than local issues tbh - it's a pattern repeated throughout the country, as a quick look through this thread might confirm.
> 
> are you a disaffected liberal then? i notice you didn't deny it.


No never been a Liberal.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2011)

Sorry, I have an inherent mistrust of Independents because I always assume they are reeeeeeally conservatives but for example don't agree with the tories left-wing stance on Europe.

But anyway - in my constituency the tories beat the lib dems by 66 votes last time. So what should I vote next time? Tell me o wise urbans.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2011)

who else was on the ballot?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2011)

ukip, greens, independents i think. We haven't got Popular Peoples' Front down here


----------



## L Independent (Oct 14, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, I have an inherent mistrust of Independents because I always assume they are reeeeeeally conservatives but for example don't agree with the tories left-wing stance on Europe.
> 
> But anyway - in my constituency the tories beat the lib dems by 66 votes last time. So what should I vote next time? Tell me o wise urbans.


Conservative or Lib Dem makes little difference. You deserve a better choice. Also don't confuse UKIP with Independents.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2011)

L Independent said:


> Also don't confuse UKIP with Independents.



No, I wouldn't confuse UKIP with the Independents. As I say, I confuse the Conservatives with the Independents.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2011)

two sheds said:


> ukip, greens, independents i think. We haven't got Popular Peoples' Front down here


as there's no functionl difference between the lib dems and tories, you're free to waste your vote elsewhere. vote for an indie (if they aren't a cunt) or spoil your vote.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Even worse this week - Lincs County Council
> 
> HAGUES, Andrew Gibson (Conservative) - 614
> CLARKE, Jim (Labour) - 315
> ...


Brilliant, they're in government and they can only managed the tenth of the vote some local bod gets


----------



## Poo Flakes (Oct 15, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, I have an inherent mistrust of Independents because I always assume they are reeeeeeally conservatives but for example don't agree with the tories left-wing stance on Europe.
> 
> But anyway - in my constituency the tories beat the lib dems by 66 votes last time. So what should I vote next time? Tell me o wise urbans.



Lib Dems before this election was sensible, can't see the point in voting for them now. Do not want to be nosey... but sounds like Camborne and Redruth (quick search on google)? Mebyon Kernow might be a good shout in Cornwall. Came fourth last time. If that is not your thing, Socialists or Greens. Based on last year's candidates.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 15, 2011)

That's a remarkably good suggestion. I had just assumed that whoever I voted for it was going to be a vote for the fucking tories but I shall study the form card with renewed interest next time round, ta.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2011)

They can't even manage sitting on a committee - just sitting there - without fucking it up. Mike Hancock has resigned from the Defence Select Committee just before he was booted off. This isn't because of the inappropriate texts to a 'vulnerable woman' he was given the all clear over last week, it's because of his four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy (Home Office claim) who it appears he originally thought was a prostitute.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They can't even manage sitting on a committee - just sitting there - without fucking it up. Mike Hancock has resigned from the Defence Select Committee just before he was booted off. This isn't because of the inappropriate texts to a 'vulnerable woman' he was given the all clear over last week, it's because of his four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy (Home Office claim) who it appears he originally thought was a prostitute.


Come on, now. Who among us can honestly say we haven't had a four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy who we originally thought was a prostitute?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> Come on, now. Who among us can honestly say we haven't had a four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy who we originally thought was a prostitute?



Sass.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2011)

L Independent said:


> Se this link:
> http://www.yournextmp.com/candidates/david_harding_price
> 
> *General Election 2010 - Sleaford and North Hykeham*​
> ...


 
I am amused that one 'rodger doughty' stood for ukip. Call me childish but not only does it soun a bit like roge daltry but also his name implies a reliable and workmanlike shag


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> frogwoman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And even worse this week - there was a tuesday by-election this week
Adur DC Cokeham
Con 288
Lab 282
UKIP 91
Grn 35
*LD 31*

(2010:
Con 923
*LD 591*
Lab 446
UKIP 226 )

Plenty room for similar in the other ones tonight as well


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They can't even manage sitting on a committee - just sitting there - without fucking it up. Mike Hancock has resigned from the Defence Select Committee just before he was booted off. This isn't because of the inappropriate texts to a 'vulnerable woman' he was given the all clear over last week, it's because of his four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy (Home Office claim) who it appears he originally thought was a prostitute.



I thought it was someone else who originally thought she was a prostitute.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15352241



> The hearing was told that Miss Zatuliveter had a number of mostly sexual relationships with officials from European countries when she acted as a chaperone to delegates at conferences in Russia.
> They included a man in his thirties when she was 18 and a Nato official. Mr Glasson told the hearing one of the men thought she was a prostitute and tried to pay her after sex.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2011)

elbows said:


> I thought it was someone else who originally thought she was a prostitute.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15352241


Well after Hancock first 'met her' he left her money Alan Partridge style.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> Come on, now. Who among us can honestly say we haven't had a four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy who we originally thought was a prostitute?



Yeah, but the fight to the death in a train with some big blond guy afterwards was a bit of a bugger though


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well after Hancock first 'met her' he left her money Alan Partridge style.



Thats not quite what I heard, although he does seem to be a bit of a Partridge.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...mits-affair-with-Lib-Dem-MP-Mike-Hancock.html



> Mr Hancock asked her out for a drink and then dinner, which she accepted.
> “He made it clear from the beginning that he was interested in me romantically,” said Miss Zatuliveter in a statement.
> “He asked me back to his hotel room but I didn’t go. He tried to kiss me on the lips in the lounge of the hotel. He said he wanted to sleep with me.”
> After she refused to go with Mr Hancock to his room at the Hilton hotel, he gave her a CD and some cash. She accepted the CD as a gift but refused the cash, and denied the MP had been “suspicious” of her, or that he thought she was a prostitute.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 20, 2011)

In a bizarre way it's somewhat impressive just how shit and inept they are.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Come on, now. Who among us can honestly say we haven't had a four year affair with a _suspected_ Russian spy who we originally thought was a prostitute?



That's the life I dream of


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> In a bizarre way it's somewhat impressive just how shit and inept they are.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

Was reading Prospect magazine and they have this interview with Cable which is fairly unremarkable, mostly him pretending he's not like the Tories, but it mentions speculation that Clegg will be offered the job of the UK's EU commissioner in 2015.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/10/interview-vince-cable/


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2011)

Well as an option for him, that would definitely win over his being electorally TROUNCED in Sheffield ... 

Yet another gratuitous ELECTORAL CRUSHING MACHINE image ... 







(That machine should really be red not yellow I spose, but you get the idea!  )


----------



## Kippa (Oct 23, 2011)

In the 80s Thatcher shafted the working class person and the unions.  In the 1990's Blair shafted students with introducing tuition fees and his illegal war.  Now Clegg has shafted the students with tripling tuition fees.  After the honeymoon period of any political party being elected to government, has there every been a good government that hasn't shafted us in one way or another?  Chances are that if Labour get elected and fucks about then there will be a new thread here entitled 'Why Labour are shit'.  I am not justifying what Clegg has done, I am just wondering has there ever been a none shafting government?


----------



## GEN.Eccentric (Oct 23, 2011)

Attlee


----------



## BigTom (Oct 24, 2011)

From twitter:




			
				@LabourLordsUK said:
			
		

> LibDem peers voted en masse against own amendmnt to guarantee qualified careers advisers in schools, inc the two LibDems who tabled it!



 How does that even work! voting against the amendment you tabled.. amazing.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

we've grown up, the left, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

Beaten by the SLP and UKIP this last week:

Cheshire West and Chester UA, Ellesmere Port Town

Thursday 20 October 2011 12:00

Lab 686 (71.6; -8.2)
Con 102 (10.6; -2.8)
Socialist Labour Party 65 (6.8; +6.8)
UKIP 64 (6.7; +6.7)
LD Hilary Ann Chrusciezl 41 (4.3; -2.4)

And by the BNP again here:

Salford MBC, Eccles

Thursday 20 October 2011 12:00

Lab 1227 (54.5; -0.6)
Con 701 (31.1; +3.2)
BNP 147 (6.5; +6.5)
LD Valerie Kelly 125 (5.5; -0.7)
Ind 53 (2.4; +2.4)
[UKIP (0.0; -10.8)]
Majority 526
Turnout 25.15%


----------



## Santino (Oct 26, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/26/vince-cable-fined-tax



			
				Vince Cable said:
			
		

> "I have not avoided paying tax," he said. "I paid in full all that was owed. The tax accountant has made a statement making this clear. I approached HMRC unprompted as soon as I realised I was liable for VAT on my earnings for 2009-10.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

"and was let off with half the usual £1,000 penalty."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

He raked in 200 grand for media work on top of his already massive salary? I wonder how much of that money came from public money?


----------



## articul8 (Oct 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Beaten by the SLP and UKIP this last week:


Are the SLP still going then?  I really thought they'd given up the ghost.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2011)

tbf to cable, the reduced fine is fairly common. bit of a non-story imo.

the amount of money he made from media work should be the story.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> tbf to cable, the reduced fine is fairly common. bit of a non-story imo.
> 
> the amount of money he made from media work should be the story.



Fuck being fair to Cable!


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> Fuck being fair to Cable!


nail him for the right stuff is all. complaining about him recieving 'preferential treatment' which would be extended to any company or person who acted in a similar manner just makes the complaint look daft.

him earning 3 times his MPs salary for media work is worth criticising him for. the rest of the story is bollocks.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> nail him for the right stuff is all. complaining about him recieving 'preferential treatment' which would be extended to any company or person who acted in a similar manner just makes the complaint look daft.
> 
> him earning 3 times his MPs salary for media work is worth criticising him for. the rest of the story is bollocks.



I wasn't really seeing it as an either/or.


----------



## gosub (Oct 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> nail him for the right stuff is all. complaining about him recieving 'preferential treatment' which would be extended to any company or person who acted in a similar manner just makes the complaint look daft.
> 
> him earning 3 times his MPs salary for media work is worth criticising him for. the rest of the story is bollocks.


WHy does he have to be paid to spout anyway? its in his interest for media to broadcast his opinion, in fact for some of them might even be a legal requrement (political balance?) even strictly dancing keeps him in public eye. Not a purely lib dem point, good BBC one. In a time of cut backs how much license fee is going to polticians to do what they should do ?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2011)

gosub said:


> WHy does he have to be paid to spout anyway? its in his interest for media to broadcast his opinion, in fact for some of them might even be a legal requrement (political balance?) even strictly dancing keeps him in public eye. Not a purely lib dem point, good BBC one. In a time of cut backs how much license fee is going to polticians to do what they should do ?



Whilst I'd rather like to know how the £192,000 is broken down (especially where it means having come from the public purse), this seems to make some big assumptions - I know you hate the BBC/public broadcasting/paying a license fee an all that!


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> I wasn't really seeing it as an either/or.


but the story everyone seems to be getting aerated about is a total nothing - he found an accounting error, told the revenue and paid what he owed plus a fine which had been reduced because he got in touch with them over it. unless i'm missing something, there's nothing in that part of the story that's worth criticising - indeed, it's how i'd expect him to behave.

the fact that a public servant - already handsomely paid to represent the people of twickenham in parliament - earned more than three times his salary doing something else is worth criticising.


----------



## gosub (Oct 26, 2011)

stephj said:


> Whilst I'd rather like to know how the £192,000 is broken down (especially where it means having come from the public purse), this seems to make some big assumptions - I know you hate the BBC/public broadcasting/paying a license fee an all that!


You really don't read my posts properly I don't have a problem with the license fee, was impossible to get one when I was NFA: is a sensible question WITH CUTS WHY AND HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING SELF PROMOTING POLITICIANS of which Cable is one out of 650


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 30, 2011)

I had some dyed inthe wool orange booker giving it big licks about the occupy people and why the state was the enemy. So I was giving him a wee bit back and in the end gave him two quotes from 'Marx'.


> As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.





> _People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices._


Cunt was giving it loud about Hayek in response.

I told him to google the quotes and see who they really were from.

Still not heard back from him.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 30, 2011)

..are both the above adam smith? or just the second one?

E2A: heh, nvm.. i did what you asked your opponent to do and googled them... both are from smith...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 30, 2011)

Nylock said:


> both are from smith...


I am thinking the same thought has come to our boy.

Seems our boy is having some trouble digesting that. Smith was a stepping stone forward and not an end in himself.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

If Smith had been around in the twentieth century he would have been a social democrat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If Smith had been around in the twentieth century he would have been a social democrat.



And he'd have sued the Adam Smith Institute for defamation.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> I am thinking the same thought has come to our boy.
> 
> Seems our boy is having some trouble digesting that. Smith was a stepping stone forward and not an end in himself.



One thing I found fascinating years back was the big licks the likes of Madsen Pirie (Adam Smith Institute) gave in defence, support and political backing for the Poll Tax. Without a hint of irony given Smith was vocally opposed to flat taxes. Always wondered how they squared that circle.....


----------



## Nylock (Oct 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And he'd have sued the Adam Smith Institute for defamation.



Exactly.

But sadly, in all likelihood, dirtbags like toby young and dan hannan would have denounced him as a fluffy-minded lefty liberal....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 31, 2011)

What's all this talk of 'big licks'? Is it some kind of tribute to Jimmy Saville?


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 31, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If Smith had been around in the twentieth century he would have been a social democrat.



Could well be. It's tempting to consider the question of what he would have thought. Certainly my Canadian tutor at university, who was a Bennite, was happy to quote Adam Smith in support of his arguments.

Certainly there's no evidence AFAIK that Smith ever imagined our present world of massive corporations and business oligopolies, some of which are more powerful than national governments. The companies he thought and wrote about in the 18th century had at most a dozen people working in them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Could well be. It's tempting to consider the question of what he would have thought. Certainly my Canadian tutor at university, who was a Bennite, was happy to quote Adam Smith in support of his arguments.
> .



What were his arguments for?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 31, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Could well be. It's tempting to consider the question of what he would have thought. Certainly my Canadian tutor at university, who was a Bennite, was happy to quote Adam Smith in support of his arguments.
> 
> Certainly there's no evidence AFAIK that Smith ever imagined our present world of massive corporations and business oligopolies, some of which are more powerful than national governments. The companies he thought and wrote about in the 18th century had at most a dozen people working in them.



East India Company anyone?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Could well be. It's tempting to consider the question of what he would have thought. Certainly my Canadian tutor at university, who was a Bennite, was happy to quote Adam Smith in support of his arguments.
> 
> Certainly there's no evidence AFAIK that Smith ever imagined our present world of massive corporations and business oligopolies, some of which are more powerful than national governments. The companies he thought and wrote about in the 18th century had at most a dozen people working in them.



Nope. He was talking as much about the colonial joint stock companies that had been springing up via royal patent for nigh on 2 centuries in the Americas and elsewhere, and about British proto-industrial concerns as he was about businesses with "at most a dozen people working in them".


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What were his arguments for?



Reducing wage differentials in a company between the bosses and the workers. He claimed that Smith would have supported more wage equality than existed at the time (early 1980s)


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. He was talking as much about the colonial joint stock companies that had been springing up via royal patent for nigh on 2 centuries in the Americas and elsewhere, and about British proto-industrial concerns as he was about businesses with "at most a dozen people working in them".



And butchers; I'm happy to stand corrected.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2011)

Oh dear


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 1, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Oh dear



If that's a comment against me, could you expand on why you feel that way?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> If that's a comment against me, could you expand on why you feel that way?



It's not, it's a comment on the link contained in the 'Oh dear'.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 1, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Oh dear



tbf that's one of the best things the libdems have done for ages - no wonder they're disowning it.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 1, 2011)

Apologies, I couldn't see that was a link. My eyesight's not the best.


----------



## ChocolateTeapot (Nov 1, 2011)

Lib-dems back to the racist propaganda again I see - but their Scottish leader did say "It happened on my day off" and apologised for the blatant lies and not very subtle racism "It has been interpreted in ways that were not intended" - oh yes, of course.

http://www.betternation.org/2011/10/a-shameful-day-for-the-scottish-lib-dems/


----------



## weepiper (Nov 1, 2011)

ahem  ^^^


----------



## ChocolateTeapot (Nov 1, 2011)

Oops...thought "oh dear" was in reference to some on-going feud...I apologise if my post was taken in ways other than those intended, it was written by one of my staff while I was on a day off and...and...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2011)

According to the lib-dems (on QT) the Nov 30th strike is a strike by the privileged against the poorest.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2011)

for fuck's sake.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 3, 2011)

Why should people get a council house when thousands of people are homeless.? It's just not fair, seems to be the coalition view of the world. And when is Peter Hitchens going to get his dose of cancer?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Beaten by the SLP and UKIP this last week:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



And by the BNP again tonight for Leics county council


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2011)

how's the BNP vote doing in general ATM? is the fact they keep beating the lib dems more illustrative of the woeful performance of the yellow scum rather than any success of the BNP?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2011)

It's been pretty bad the last year, last few results have seen them hold onto votes they'd be expected to have lost over the last period though. tbf they did beat the lib-dems in this seat in 2009 as well.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 4, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why should people get a council house when thousands of people are homeless.? It's just not fair, seems to be the coalition view of the world.* And when is Peter Hitchens going to get his dose of cancer?*



Comments like this make you guys look bad, IMO. Seriously.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Comments like this make you guys look bad, IMO. Seriously.


'You guys'?


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 4, 2011)

Yeh sorry. Too much time on American-owned boards I suppose.

And for the record, I don't like the guy either; I just think wishing cancer on people (even someone you have good reason to dislike intensely) isn't something anyone should do.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2011)

no, better to wish AIDS on him imo.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2011)

AIDS aint the death sentence it once was- cancer of the pancreas on him


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeh sorry. Too much time on American-owned boards I suppose.
> 
> And for the record, I don't like the guy either; I just think wishing cancer on people (even someone you have good reason to dislike intensely) isn't something anyone should do.


It might be an allusion to the cancer that killed his dad and is currently killing his brother - suggesting that it's in the post rather than wishing it on him. But then again...


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 4, 2011)

Yeah, you could be right.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeh sorry. Too much time on American-owned boards I suppose.


I meant, who is it making look bad?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 4, 2011)

Naughty Vince


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2011)

Whatever Letwin has must be catching


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> According to the lib-dems (on QT) the Nov 30th strike is a strike by the privileged against the poorest.



Doubleplusgood.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Comments like this make you guys look bad, IMO. Seriously.



It's a comment on the fact that his brother, the slightly less shitheaded Christopher Hitchens, has a terminal dose. Some people believe it's unfair that Hitchens Major is on the way out when Hitchens minor is so much more of a cunt.

Context, as they say, is all.


----------



## magneze (Nov 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> According to the lib-dems (on QT) the Nov 30th strike is a strike by the privileged against the poorest.


What? How do they make that one out?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> no, better to wish AIDS on him imo.



I don't wish death on Peter Hitchins.

I wish him a long life, preferably one where he is incarerated, injected with LSD and made to bathe in a pig-wallow of his own opinions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Whatever Letwin has must be catching



Syphilis?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2011)

magneze said:


> What? How do they make that one out?



Because they (and elements of the media) are representing the strike as one by teachers, social workers and other professional types,, conveniently eliding the fact that the majority of strikers will be what is nowadays termed "support services" staff, bottom-level civil and public servants: People who can only just about afford to work because they also get tax credits etc.


----------



## magneze (Nov 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because they (and elements of the media) are representing the strike as one by teachers, social workers and other professional types,, conveniently eliding the fact that the majority of strikers will be what is nowadays termed "support services" staff, bottom-level civil and public servants: People who can only just about afford to work because they also get tax credits etc.


Wow, that's some chutzpah.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

And this was no little lib-dem - this was whatsherface, Shirley Williams - this was from on high.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 4, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Comments like this make you guys look bad, IMO. Seriously.



or any other serious illness that will land him in an NHS hospital where he can explain to the nurses why there pensions need slashing and they should retire later and contribute more as they get him ready for his next dose of chemo. Still, a serious illness would be wasted on that BUPA twat.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 5, 2011)

on second thoughts, forget it


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> on second thoughts, forget it



If that's addressed to me, I'm more curious than ever now to know what I'm supposed to be forgetting. Like telling someone not to think of an elephant for the next thirty seconds - they can't do it.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a comment on the fact that his brother, the slightly less shitheaded Christopher Hitchens, has a terminal dose. Some people believe it's unfair that Hitchens Major is on the way out when Hitchens minor is so much more of a cunt.
> 
> Context, as they say, is all.



Put that way, I wouldn't disagree.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 6, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Could well be. It's tempting to consider the question of what he would have thought. Certainly my Canadian tutor at university, who was a Bennite, was happy to quote Adam Smith in support of his arguments.
> 
> Certainly there's no evidence AFAIK that Smith ever imagined our present world of massive corporations and business oligopolies, some of which are more powerful than national governments. The companies he thought and wrote about in the 18th century had at most a dozen people working in them.



Yea it's not like the East India Company was that big really, at most about 12 people as you say.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea it's not like the East India Company was that big really, at most about 12 people as you say.


Here he comes now.How much did the collapsing BNP beat you by?


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 6, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea it's not like the East India Company was that big really, at most about 12 people as you say.



Er, I've already conceded that one. Can't find any crows to eat this time of night.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2011)




----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

Moon! Is this a hit-and not-read-the-responses-run?


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 6, 2011)

The HPV vaccine (specifically, Guardasil, that also protects against one of the Herpes viruses) is currently only available for girls aged between 11-18.

The medical journals are going spare; it is now quite apparent this vaccine should be available to EVERYBODY, male or female but there are no plans by the govt to do anything about this because they are utterly incompetent at spending the health budget properly.

Coalition utter fail.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea it's not like the East India Company was that big really, at most about 12 people as you say.



Well done on using an example that's already been deployed at least twice on the thread. As attentive as ever, I see.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 6, 2011)

purenarcotic said:


> The HPV vaccine (specifically, Guardasil, that also protects against one of the Herpes viruses) is currently only available for girls aged between 11-18.
> 
> The medical journals are going spare; it is now quite apparent this vaccine should be available to EVERYBODY, male or female but there are no plans by the govt to do anything about this because they are utterly incompetent at spending the health budget properly.
> 
> Coalition utter fail.



From the HPV wiki;

"Both Gardasil[22] and Cervarix[26] have been shown to prevent cervical dysplasia from the HPV strains that they target, that is, types 16, 18, 6, and 11 for Gardasil and types 16 and 18 for Cervarix. This effect has lasted 4 years after vaccination for Gardasil[22] and more than 6 years for Cervarix.[27][28][29] As of September 2010, it is thought that booster vaccines will not be necessary.[30]
The vaccines also offer some protection against a few high-risk HPV types that are closely related to HPVs 16 and 18. Cervarix has been shown to offer some protection against types 45 and 31,[31] similarly, Gardasil has been shown to offer some protection against type 31, and 9 others.[32] However, there are other high-risk HPV types that are not affected by the vaccines.[33]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And this was no little lib-dem - this was whatsherface, Shirley Williams - this was from on high.


incedibly, she's meant to be from the 'socially progressive' wing of that party


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 6, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, I read about this a while back. It's prescribed routinely in Australia and had cut the rate of chlamydia infection pretty much down to zero.



it's insane this isn't being done over here.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 6, 2011)

Sadly my facts were out of date, hence I edited that post after you quoted it. Chlamydia's on the rise again in Australia.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 6, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sadly my facts were out of date, hence I edited that post after you quoted it. Chlamydia's on the rise again in Australia.



Guardasil protects against two types of genital warts as well as the HPV virus.

So regardless of the rates of chlamydia, it's helping to prevent problems that ultimately cause a lot of trouble to the individual and end up costing the NHS huge sums of money.  It's bloody stupid to not be spending the money giving this out to everybody.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 6, 2011)

purenarcotic said:


> Guardasil protects against two types of genital warts as well as the HPV virus.
> 
> So regardless of the rates of chlamydia, it's helping to prevent problems that ultimately cause a lot of trouble to the individual and end up costing the NHS huge sums of money. It's bloody stupid to not be spending the money giving this out to everybody.



Agreed.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 6, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea it's not like the East India Company was that big really, at most about 12 people as you say.



I thought you'd left us for a successful political career? How is that working out for you?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> If that's addressed to me, I'm more curious than ever now to know what I'm supposed to be forgetting. Like telling someone not to think of an elephant for the next thirty seconds - they can't do it.



.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> well, since you insist, it's odd how you throw hissy fits on here when someone says something you don't like but yet the same concern doesn't extend to when you're sychophantically bigging up right wing sites like the phora and your mates posting on them. i gave you the benefit of the doubt - i vouched for you to the mods when you first came here a few years ago. i wouldn't now. you haven't been honest in what you say, how you present yourself, you're not being honest on this thread. and i won't make any allowances for you any more.



Well, thanks for telling me. And I suppose I did insist.

I don't throw hissy fits over everything I don't like. I'd be doing that half the day if I did that.

However, it's true that certain things do get my goat.

I really hate seeing intelligent people (or anyone, without very good reason) being described as stupid. It's a form of bullying IMO and it must stop.

L Ron Hubbard is a damn good poster, one I've exchanged pms and maybe might even like to have a pint with (he likes Robert Wyatt so he can't be all bad in my book - his previous user name was heapsofsheeps). Why the fuck should I have to stand back and see someone like Kabbes, who doesn't know him from Adam, call him a "fucking idiot" on here without standing up for him? You would, I'm sure, if you saw someone you respected on here belittled elsewhere.

And I won't apologise for saying that although it has its share of wankers, I think the Phora is a good site with some very bright posters. You have far more freedom of expression in stating your opinions on there than you do here, which is probably why it attracts some of the people it does (but you can ignore them, it's a VBulletin site).

In fact, my ideal site would be a combination of the Phora and this place, plus babe threads. Must admit I miss the ones we used to have on MSF.

When have you ever advocated for me, anyway? I joined this site of my own volition after you told me about it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

I PM'd fridgey during that thread you posted on about scumfront, to tell him that you were OK. I think there was a couple of other occasions too.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

kabbes didn't attack him personally, he just said that anyone who likes avatars must be an idiot (or words to that effect). Not like advocating genocide is it.



> I think the Phora is a good site with some very bright posters



so fucking what?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a comment on the fact that his brother, the slightly less shitheaded Christopher Hitchens, has a terminal dose. Some people believe it's unfair that Hitchens Major is on the way out when Hitchens minor is so much more of a cunt.
> 
> Context, as they say, is all.


tbf, Chris Hitchens used to write some good stuff and had some quite sound views. It was over Iraq that he lost the plot.
His bro' has simply always been a total cunt


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> kabbes didn't attack him personally, he just said that anyone who likes avatars must be an idiot (or words to that effect).



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-to-turn-off-avafuckingtars.278822/page-11

He didn't name him, but it's clear who on that Phora thread he was referring to.



frogwoman said:


> Not like advocating genocide is it.



A kick in the balls isn't the same as a bullet in the head. What's your point?

In any case, tell me who on the Phora advocates genocide (I mean serious posters, not prats like Imprecator who I think was trolling in any case)? No one with any decent post count anyway.



frogwoman said:


> so fucking what?



Whatever fucking what. A good site with some very bright posters, is good enough for me.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

so post there. post here. i dont care. do whatever you want.

and from reading kabbes's post it's very unclear who he was referring to. however if he's being discussed in this thread i expect he can defend himself.

bye


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> A good site with some very bright posters, is good enough for me.


what are you wasting your time here for then?


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, Chris Hitchens used to write some good stuff and had some quite sound views. It was over Iraq that he lost the plot. His bro' has simply always been a total cunt



Agreed. Chris once talked in the Statesman about the torture in Turkey of a friend of his, Nuri Conakoglu, in 1971 and said if he had money he would leave it all to Amnesty.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what are you wasting your time here for then?



'cos no one site has all I want.

There are some great parts here, such as "knobbing and sobbing" and the music threads - it's just that it's not a full free speech site in the same way as the Phora is.

I tend to split my time between the two (since Mootstormfront, the site I started out with, is gone now).


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> so post there. post here. i dont care. do whatever you want.



I probably spend too much time on either place.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> According to the lib-dems (on QT) the Nov 30th strike is a strike by the privileged against the poorest.






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And this was no little lib-dem - this was whatsherface, Shirley Williams - this was from on high.



Just catching up. I wasn't aware of that shite (was going to ask who'd made that comment).

I'd have expected more of an out and out Orange Booker to make a comment like that, but Shirley Williams has hated 'the left'  for well over 30 years so I guess it's no surprise coming from her, either.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> well, since you insist, it's odd how you throw hissy fits on here when someone says something you don't like but yet the same concern doesn't extend to when you're sychophantically bigging up right wing sites like the phora and your mates posting on them. i gave you the benefit of the doubt - i vouched for you to the mods when you first came here a few years ago. i wouldn't now. you haven't been honest in what you say, how you present yourself, you're not being honest on this thread. and i won't make allowances for you any more.* i have mental health problems too. it doesn't mean i use them as an excuse to ignore stuff and to associate with people who want the unthinkable.*



(Deep breath and count to ten)

Jeez, the gloves are off now aren't they?

You have no right to bring my personal business and issues into this thread. NONE. That's for me to do, if I want to.

I'd have thought you'd have known better. But since you've done so, I'll reply.

Yes, I have mental health problems, and I've made progress with them and use my knowledge to try and help other people with them even though I'm still not out of the woods yet. I've even done so on here, when someone was having a panic attack.

But never do I use my problems as an excuse for bad behaviour, ever. If I blow my top on here and think I went too far, I apologise, and no one ever did more apologising on a board than I do.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

you're right, that was out of order of me. i've edited it now. sorry.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you're right, that was out of order of me. i've edited it now. sorry.



Thanks.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 7, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Agreed. Chris once talked in the Statesman about the torture in Turkey of a friend of his, Nuri Conakoglu, in 1971 and said if he had money he would leave it all to Amnesty.



He's got pneumonia now. Not long for this world.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

It's not a good idea to get into the habit of doing that. Sorry again.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 7, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> He's got pneumonia now. Not long for this world.



Yeah, sad. He had a lot of guts to go against established opinion - for example, he wrote a book critical of Mother Teresa at a time when to do so was thought pretty much tantamount to blasphemy.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, sad. He had a lot of guts to go against established opinion - for example, he wrote a book critical of Mother Teresa at a time when to do so was thought pretty much tantamount to blasphemy.


actually, he was going with the flow a bit even with that.  There had been various articles around the world attacking the vile of bigot (Teresa, that is). Hitchens even quotes some of them, iirr.  Most likely the ones from the BMJ and The Lancet.


----------



## Edie (Nov 9, 2011)

Tbf I can't be arsed to read 139 pages of why the libdems are shit.

But... on my uni blackboard they feature different clubs and societys for people who like that kinda thing. Today was the turn of the Young Liberals. I literally snorted with laughter when I saw this on my homepage  

So reason number whatever for why they are a bunch of dickheads:







PS sorry if this is a serious thread, just thought it might make you laugh n all


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's not a good idea to get into the habit of doing that. Sorry again.



I'm sorry too, I went over the top there.


----------



## Random (Nov 9, 2011)

Edie said:


> So reason number whatever for why they are a bunch of dickheads


 That's a good summary of the Lib Dems. A creepy posh twat in the centre, supported by a protective camouflage of tokenistic figleafs.


----------



## Edie (Nov 9, 2011)

Random said:


> That's a good summary of the Lib Dems. A creepy posh twat in the centre, supported by a protective camouflage of tokenistic figleafs.


It's funny innit. It's like the fuckin young ones or summat.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 9, 2011)

Edie said:


> It's funny innit. It's like the fuckin young ones or summat.



The League of Gentlemen.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

Edie said:


> Tbf I can't be arsed to read 139 pages of why the libdems are shit.
> 
> But... on my uni blackboard they feature different clubs and societys for people who like that kinda thing. Today was the turn of the Young Liberals. I literally snorted with laughter when I saw this on my homepage
> 
> ...



take it away


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2011)

thats picture is almost as lol as the one of those four Libertarian Alliance chumps


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2011)

I'd have thought  modern political parties would shy away from using the 'youth' suffix for their junior branch, considering.


----------



## Edie (Nov 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> thats picture is almost as lol as the one of those four Libertarian Alliance chumps


It's fuckin funny innit


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

Here's another reason why the lib-dems are shit, look at their youth wing's facebook page:






Jonjo Sebastian Miller i really cannot understand all this lib dem rhetoric: i don't care about what labour did BEFORE. i don't care about the tories, in fact i very much despise them, what i care about is :1000s of us students voted for this party, making us a promise, and then stabbing us in the back. this. is. the. issue.
03 November at 16:19 · Like




David Wright See also www.moneysavingexpert.com/students2012
 for facts not politics.
03 November at 17:15 · Like · 


 1




Lucy Lepchani What a creepy, arse-licky little piece of patronising crap this is. 'take it lying down kids, it's really quite painless'. Fuck off.
03 November at 19:56 · Like




LIBERAL YOUTH As previously stated Liberal Youth remains opposed to fees. It accepts however that there are some myths surrounding the new system. However opposed to that system LY is, It would be wrong if people chose not to attend for reasons that aren't true. This post does not condone or support Government HE policy, it merely tries to bring some responsible clarity. 
03 November at 20:28 · Like




Alan Belmore But Jonjo, surely you can recognise that it is a fairer system as pledged. And for anyone earning under £21,000 they will pay no tuition fees at all. Only the rich (the top 25% of earners) will actually ever pay £9,000. I personally believe (a view which I understand is not shared by Liberal Youth) that if your degree helps you to become one of the top 25% of earners in this country, you have no right to expect people from the bottom 25% to pay for it through their tax reciepts. 

 The reality is that all parties made the mistake of promising to do x, y and z during the election.It assumed the Westminster model norms of majority government would continue. It did not so parties had to compromise in order to form an effective government, but sometimes this meant that they had to drop one policy or another. Sadly for students, 65% of the electorate voted for parties who wanted a rise in tuition fees, so there was nowhere near enough electoral support for a rise not to happen. That's the reality, and if you look at the Lib Dem priorities for government (the front page of the manifesto), tuition fees aren't there. *It is historical revisionism to suggest that they placed cutting fees as a cornerstone of any coalition agreement.*

Yeah, because saying that their scum party betrayed their promises is the same as saying the holocaust didn't exist.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 9, 2011)

Holy fuck they really are living on another planet* 

*i thought it was just the elected members etc that were this massively deluded, not activists from within the very group they fucked over in the first place....


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2011)

have you met any activists?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

I have. They're a cult.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

They dont think that anything's wrong with their party at all and can't see why someone would.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> have you met any activists?



Yes, i have met some LD activists before, your point is?


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2011)

your (previously) rosy view of LD activists seems misplaced in someone who's actually met any of them.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 9, 2011)

It wasn't a 'rosy' view of them i adopted.... I was trying to make a quick point wrt defending the indefensible. It's one thing to be defending such shit when you are not directly affected by it (LD MP's etc), quite another when you're right in the middle of it (student LD activists). Didn't think the statement needed explanation tbh. Clearly i was wrong.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2011)

ah. well, i was surprised my point (that the craven halfwitted lemming-like nature of lib dem activists is self evident to anyone who's met one) needed explanation too. so i guess that makes us even.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

Nylock said:


> It wasn't a 'rosy' view of them i adopted.... I was trying to make a quick point wrt defending the indefensible. It's one thing to be defending such shit when you are not directly affected by it (LD MP's etc), quite another when you're right in the middle of it (student LD activists). Didn't think the statement needed explanation tbh. Clearly i was wrong.


unbelievable isnt it?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 9, 2011)

Yep. Unbelievable yet being completely believable as well (once you've had time to think about it and realise who it is that's acting in such an unbelievable manner).

Typical libdems really; the acme of counterintuitive credulousness that generates widespread incredulity outside their strange little world...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 9, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> A good site with some very bright posters, is good enough for me.



Just took a look at the thread on that _good site_ - fucking hell! The signatures of those _very bright posters_ raised an eyebrow to say the least. _Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten _

E2A: I'm not accusing you of being a racist - I'm quite confident you're not.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm sorry too, I went over the top there.



I'm sorry for dragging your stuff into it because in general i don't think that sort of thing is on. *That's all though.
*


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 9, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just took a look at the thread on that _good site_ - fucking hell! The signatures of those _very bright posters_ raised an eyebrow to say the least. _Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten _
> 
> E2A: I'm not accusing you of being a racist - I'm quite confident you're not.



Thanks. A lot of those sigs are jokes, especially board in-jokes (in whatever taste), but Burrhus's is serious, as are Anarch's, Dan Dare's and Baron Corvo's (the last is mine). I can't vouch for the others.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 9, 2011)

Kippa said:


> In the 80s Thatcher shafted the working class person and the unions. In the 1990's Blair shafted students with introducing tuition fees and his illegal war. Now Clegg has shafted the students with tripling tuition fees. After the honeymoon period of any political party being elected to government, has there every been a good government that hasn't shafted us in one way or another? Chances are that if Labour get elected and fucks about then there will be a new thread here entitled 'Why Labour are shit'. I am not justifying what Clegg has done, I am just wondering has there ever been a none shafting government?



Attlee's was the closest IMO.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm sorry for dragging your stuff into it because in general i don't think that sort of thing is on. *That's all though.*



Fair enough, and I didn't imagine otherwise.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> thats picture is almost as lol as the one of those four Libertarian Alliance chumps


It's also ironic, considering the young liberals of the 70s and 80s were often capable of quite radical and progressive views. V good on the miners strike, at my Uni


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2011)

Already posted this question on the 'Benefit Fraud on Panorama' thread, but this here thread might be better one to get it answered :




			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What was that shite Nick Clegg came out with at one point about the coalition speaking for 'getting up in the morning people' or some such slogan?
> 
> Dog whistle appeal to claimant haters it sounded like at the time, but I seem to have completely forgotten exactly what he said and in what context  -- can anyone remember?



May well have been already posted about further up this thread I spose, but it's a long thread ....


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2011)

alarm clock britain lol


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2011)

That was it! When did he say it? Any particular story or context? Cheers ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2011)

Here's some context 

Clegg gets down with the Sun and its/his target market ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2011)

They're still shit. So this thread is bumped for no other reason than that ....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2011)

I look forward to the day, and it can't be far away now, when the title of this thread has to be changed to "Why the lib dems _were_ shit".


----------



## Nylock (Nov 17, 2011)

that would be a fine day 

Their support among the very group they fucked over has pretty much evaporated now so it's only a matter of time...


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 17, 2011)

not declaring donations from ministry of sound, then voting in their favour in planning dispute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15741925


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2011)

Leaving aside the bare faced corruption for a second, it appears the borough solicitors official legal advice (and based on the Local Government Act 2000,so presumably uniform around the country) appeared to amount to _take as much as you want and you don't have declare it if you think the donation hasn't effected your decision_. Banana fucking republic.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 17, 2011)

The quote in the article reports the advice as saying: "The risk is that by voting on this application they may bring themselves into disrepute or breach rules against using their position improperly to advantage themselves or someone else. ... Councillors need to ask whether they can approach this with a completely open mind and judge it on its merits irrespective of consequences for their party's funding.
... If they believe they can then they can legitimately take part in the committee.

That doesn't say that they can keep the donation hidden. Either way it's corrupt, though. And wtf is a night club giving £78,000 in donations to a political party for anyway?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2011)

I meant keep it hidden from the members, deliberations and vote of this committee - which they did, whilst declaring it later in more general terms. Bearing in mind there's almost certainly more to the legal advice that appears in the BBC article and that there's - regardless of the advice offered - a standing legal requirement to declare interests (which the extract from the advice doesn't even touch on), i'd be interstellar in seeing both the full reply and the full _question._That may well shine a different light on the advice given,and what it was concerning,because it doesn't seem to me to be about declaring interests in general but regarding declaring an interest (or not) to this specific committee on this specific issue. The info box on the side seems to back up this reading: "Planning councillors do not have to declare party donations - because councillors do not benefit personally" so i do expect the legal advice to say just that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2011)

> Planning councillors do not have to declare party donations - because councillors do not benefit personally



Banana republic #2


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2011)

planning bods have been brown envelopers since the year dot, second only to quartermasters in the 'he's a thief and we know he is but keep the competent ones in place cos else you'll just get a crap thief who makes you look bad' stakes, but actually legitimizng it by saying it out loud is well off.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2011)

Regardless of the black letter of the law, it stinks; it's an obvious conflict of interest.  They are treating the people whom they are elected to represent, with contempt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

Vince - the peoples princess - Cable



> The Liberal Democrat cabinet minister is expected to announce that companies employing fewer than 10 staff may be exempted from employment regulations under a consultation to be announced on Wednesday.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 23, 2011)

What, exempt from all of them?

eta: Beeb says "a "call for evidence" on whether "micro-firms" can dismiss staff without their agreement and without them being taken to a tribunal if they pay compensation"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15844614


----------



## belboid (Nov 23, 2011)

It's nice that, isn't it?  'Compensation' - how are they going to decide whats a 'fair' amount without a tribunal??  The company just goes, "yeah, we have absolutely no way of justifying this, but here's fifty quid, now fuck off"  ??


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 23, 2011)

belboid said:


> It's nice that, isn't it? 'Compensation' - how are they going to decide whats a 'fair' amount without a tribunal?? The company just goes, "yeah, we have absolutely no way of justifying this, but here's fifty quid, now fuck off" ??



The company are the wealth creators and hence get to decide. Workers are merely an appendage to capital - expendable objects to be picked up and tossed aside whenever. As far as Cable and his gang are concerned, workers are less than human: they hate and despise them with an intense passion. One day however, him and his class will reap the hatred that they sow and will be sent packing to the shithole of history.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 23, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The company are the wealth creators and hence get to decide. Workers are merely an appendage to capital - expendable objects to be picked up and tossed aside whenever. As far as Cable and his gang are concerned, workers are less than human: they hate and despise them with an intense passion. One day however, him and his class will reap the hatred that they sow and will be sent packing to the shithole of history.



They speak well of you


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 25, 2011)

Lib Dems on 9%, UKIP on 8% in yesterdays YouGov Polling.

Much as I hate to see UKIP doing well, the thought of the LDs slipping into 'others' territory  does put a slight smile on my face.

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ag999isok8/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-241111.pdf


----------



## Combustible (Nov 27, 2011)

The Lib Dem solution to the hole they've dug themselves into?

Apparently they are going to take credit for the abolition of slavery and want to be more like Oxfam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ms-rebranding-to-boost-partys-popularity.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2011)

And the bloke they've paid to come up with this fresh approach is a basically a lobbyist for tax avoidance specialists KPMG and who was caught paying money directly into Nick Clegg's bank account before the general election.There is nothing, and i mean nothing, that  they cannot fuck up.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And the bloke they've paid to come up with this fresh approach is a basically a lobbyist for tax avoidance specialists KPMG and who was caught paying money directly into Nick Clegg's bank account before the general election.There is nothing, and i mean nothing, that they cannot fuck up.



"That KPMG money was just resting in my account, Dougal!"

(Froggy and I were saying last night that Clegg is just like Ted Crilly)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> (Froggy and I were saying last night that Clegg is just like Ted Crilly)



But without the redeeming self-awareness, unfortunately.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> But without the redeeming self-awareness, unfortunately.



But most probably with the fluffy bottom and the eternal fear of Bishop Brennan (David Cameron).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> But most probably with the fluffy bottom and the eternal fear of Bishop Brennan (David Cameron).



Now, if only we can convince Dougal (Danny Alexander) to stick the Holy Stone of Clonrickert up Cameron's arse.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, if only we can convince Dougal (Danny Alexander) to stick the Holy Stone of Clonrickert up Cameron's arse.



 (this has me proper laughing)


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> I look forward to the day, and it can't be far away now, when the title of this thread has to be changed to "Why the lib dems _were_ shit".


I'll give you the the precise date; the date of the next GE. 9% on UK polling report today...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'll give you the the precise date; the date of the next GE. 9% on UK polling report today...


Surely the day after the next ge when all the results are declared


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 29, 2011)

Maybe time to replae my usual next-election present top the Lib-Dems of a steamroller, with a ....







*BULLDOZER!!*


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 29, 2011)

Bring back David Steel


----------



## Belushi (Nov 29, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Bring back David Steel



Nah, that gay dog murderer.

Or David Lloyd George.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Bring back David Steel


bring back hanging for liberal mps


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 29, 2011)

I wonder what the SDP and the Liberal Party make of this


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 30, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Nah, that gay dog murderer.
> 
> Or David Lloyd George.



He murders gay dogs, now?

Why haven't the gay dog community, under the auspices of Stonewoof, made their bark heard about this matter?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> Surely the day after the next ge when all the results are declared


yeah fair enough!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 4, 2011)

More waffle-tosh from Cleggers on the Beeb: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16022162

This gem is included:



> "What I abhor is people getting paid bucket loads of cash in difficult times for failure."



Hes seems to be doing alright though out of said multiple coalition failures, eh?


----------



## killer b (Dec 4, 2011)

so he's handing back his ministerial salary then?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, if only we can convince Dougal (Danny Alexander) to stick the Holy Stone of Clonrickert up Cameron's arse.



Unfortunately i get this feeling that the country is being run by dougal, mrs doyle and bishop brennan with jack and ted (who was at least quite intelligent) nowhere to be seen.

"So we're going to privatise the NHS Len? That'll be grand, it'll be just like that film where they robbed a casino, except this time we'll be robbing nthe health service"
"Oh, I do think it's very good your Grace, that you're promoting marriage in schools, I mean something's got to be done about it, all this sex the kids keep learning about in school, isn't it terrible? Now, do you want a cup of tea?"

"So, Len, we're going to take everyone's money away, to make the economy recover? Would you believe that? Fantastic!"


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2011)

"Oh, isn't it awful, your Grace, all these gold-plated pensions? I heard that the average bishop's pension is twice their usual salary, and here we are, paying for it all. The church is in so much debt, your Grace. What every priest ought to do is pay back their credit cards if you ask me" 
"Mrs Doyle..."
"Oh, wait, no, that wouldn't be good now, would it, so"


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> so he's handing back his ministerial salary then?



Oh, well, you see, unlike those damn feckless benefit claimants, Clegg works hard for this money by....erm.....well.....uh....hang on, it's on the tip of my tongue....what does he actually do, now?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Oh, well, you see, unlike those damn feckless benefit claimants, Clegg works hard for this money by....erm.....well.....uh....hang on, it's on the tip of my tongue....what does he actually do, now?



Cries. And frankly it's worth his salary to see that


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 4, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Unfortunately i get this feeling that the country is being run by dougal, mrs doyle and bishop brennan with jack and ted (who was at least quite intelligent) nowhere to be seen.
> 
> "So we're going to privatise the NHS Len? That'll be grand, it'll be just like that film where they robbed a casino, except this time we'll be robbing nthe health service"
> "Oh, I do think it's very good your Grace, that you're promoting marriage in schools, I mean something's got to be done about it, all this sex the kids keep learning about in school, isn't it terrible? Now, do you want a cup of tea?"
> ...



  

(we're in the West of Wales/Ireland here, so not advanced enough to know what a 'like' button is about!   )


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 5, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> (we're in the West of Wales/Ireland here, so not advanced enough to know what a 'like' button is about!   )



Although the thought of Father Jack being found "fit for work" and then having to work in an off licence or something does make me laugh somewhat 

"Are you able to get out of that chair Father?"
"FECK OFF!"
"What type of work are you able to do?"
"DRINK!"
(to Ted) "He's fit for work, Father, and we've got the perfect placement for him - working at Oddbins"
"Great! So he can start tomorrow! Won't that be great, Ted, Father Jack working in an alcohol shop! It's the perfect job for him, Ted, I honestly, truly believe nothing can possibly go wrong there!"
"Look, this may not be such a good idea..."
"But he's fit for work, Father Crilly. You don't want him to scrounge off hard-working taxpayers, now, do you?"
"Look, I really..."
"You don't want me to report you all now for benefit fraud now, do you Father? Hasn't the church had enough scandals?"
"I think it'll be good for him, Ted. He's sat in that chair for way too long. He needs to go back to work and become a hard-working taxpayer like me, Ted."
"When was the last time you did any work, Dougal?"
"I do loads of work, Ted. The last time was erm....erm...erm.....I dunno...."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

May 2010 manifesto


> Work with other countries to establish new sources of development financing, including bringing forward urgent proposals for a financial transaction tax and a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions from aviation and shipping.



Today: nah, only joking.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

Arrogant genius:



> Lib Dem MEP Edward McMillan-Scott, who broke away from the Tories in 2010, accused Mr Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson of trying to protect their rich friends in the City.
> 
> "These two top Tories are what my father - himself an Old Etonian - would have called unprincipled spivs," he said.
> 
> "Cameron and his rival Johnson are doing what the jobs-for-the-boys Tories have done so often: protect their rich friends."


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 12, 2011)

Marina Hyde in Saturday's Graun was pretty merciless on Clegg .....




			
				Hyde said:
			
		

> How he and his pro-Europe party can remain in the coalition after this I do not know – and yet I feel absolutely sure that we shall discover it, in what will go down as his greatest feat of Quislingery yet. .....
> 
> It is now clear that the tuition fees U-turn was merely the gateway drug to the big one. Clegg is now mainlining U. His story arc is like some Westminster version of Trainspotting, featuring grotesque scenes of personal degradation in pursuit of what must surely now be an ever-diminishing high


----------



## magneze (Dec 12, 2011)

^ She's right on the money with that.



> The mere fact of something appearing as a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge has come to symbolise that it is terminally doomed as an idea. Perhaps the best way to eradicate poverty would be to draft up a Lib Dem manifesto commitment to perpetuating it.


----------



## binka (Dec 13, 2011)

do you think nick clegg is worried he wont get the eu commissioner job anymore?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 13, 2011)

No idea how accurate reports of this were, but some alleged schmoozing by Clegg of his Euro-contacts in very recent days, not _just_ about smoothing things over following Cameron's bull-in-a-china shop act??? 

Make of it what you want ...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 13, 2011)

binka said:


> do you think nick clegg is worried he wont get the eu commissioner job anymore?


Of course he is. For the last 18 months he's just been gritting his teeth and ploughing on knowing that he just has to stick this out until 2015 then he's off to Brussels. Now there might not even be an EU in 2015 as far as Britain is concerned.

Watching him scamper around trying to sure up his job this week has been quite amusing.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 13, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ould-finish-us-Nick-Clegg-tells-Lib-Dems.html



> He said: “I don’t want to be the last leader of the Liberal Democrats by provoking a general election today.” His speech, which was applauded by the meeting, came as a poll put the Lib Dems on just 12 per cent, just ahead of the UK Independence Party.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 14, 2011)

bumping cos the yellow tories agony is delightful


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2011)

Nick Clegg is web's biggest loser, Google search data shows



> Nick Clegg’s popularity fell faster than anyone else in 2011, Google data has revealed... searches for the Liberal Democrat leader declined at a sharper rate even than X-Factor winner Joe McElderry, who was subsequently dropped by his record label.



Important news.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2011)

Four years in the leadership job today. Round of applause for Nick Clegg.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2011)

Nick Clegg: Nothing the Conservatives do can make me leave


----------



## Santino (Dec 20, 2011)

Clegg never learned to play poker, did he?


----------



## magneze (Dec 20, 2011)

Hope that quote comes back to him each and every time he claims that the LibDems are reining in the Tories.

"So, Mr Clegg, how exactly are you reining them in if there is nothing they can do to make you leave? What are you negotiating with?"


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 22, 2011)

*Danny Alexander reveals the Coalition's real political motivation behind public sector pension reform during his speech to the Commons:

 "The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers...At the same time, by offering transferred staff the right to remain members of the public service scheme, we are no longer requiring private, voluntary and social enterprise providers to take on the risks of defined benefit that deter many from bidding for contracts in the first place"*


----------



## dennisr (Dec 22, 2011)

translated: "we've sold the family silver. we are now selling your arses"


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

If anyone's still concenrned that I'm bigging up another site on here, they can rest assured that I've not long ago done the same for Urban on there;

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77538&page=5


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

Umm...have you posted that on this thread by mistake? I think it's  mistake even if you did intend - for some reason - to post it here.Your claim "that Hitler was a powerful black magician as were the other main Nazi leaders." is not going to do anything for your reputation here. If you had evidence that Clegg was an occult adept that might be different...


----------



## Santino (Dec 23, 2011)

Vince Cable is a level three Warlock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2011)

*Old] Muslim Scum Assault EDL Leader*​

​
52​
6​ 
*[Old] Skeletons point to Columbus voyage for...*​
n*azis: Which were the worst?*​
*[Old]Guidoes beat aged homeless man, then...*​
*[Old] Enoch Powell - TV Documentary (split...*​
*[Old] Sjeverna Koreja - gladna djeca komunizma*​
*[Old] Ron Paul racial newsletters an issue...*​
*[Old] Northern Europe: The Ideological Front...*​
*[Old] World Bank urges pension system reform*​ 
*[Old] White man gets 14 years for black...*​ 
looks not-at-all dodgy


----------



## rekil (Dec 23, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> looks not-at-all dodgy


Look at the moderator alexandre's sig.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Vince Cable is a level three Warlock.


And a grade A cunt.


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2011)

he's always posting about those weird race hate forums. dunno why, tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> If anyone's still concenrned that I'm bigging up another site on here, they can rest assured that I've not long ago done the same for Urban on there;
> 
> http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77538&page=5



ffs.

oh, and "they wouldnt have done this (help and sympathy) here"? fash in zero empathy shocker.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Guess that backfired then. Sorry guys, but it was well-intentioned believe it or not, and it felt good to say something nice about Urban on there.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> he's always posting about those weird race hate forums. dunno why, tbh.



It's not a race hate forum, it's a free speech forum. If you don't like what they're saying, you can go and tell them so.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Umm...have you posted that on this thread by mistake? I think it's mistake even if you did intend - for some reason - to post it here.Your claim "that Hitler was a powerful black magician as were the other main Nazi leaders." is not going to do anything for your reputation here. If you had evidence that Clegg was an occult adept that might be different...



If you read that thread Butch, you'll note that Kodos answered me and said I was wrong - that Himmler was into black magic but Hitler and the other top Nazis weren't - and for want of any better information I accepted his argument. I didn't think I had much of a (or any) reputation to lose here anyway.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> It's not a race hate forum, it's a free speech forum. If you don't like what they're saying, you can go and tell them so.



The free speech in question being racist.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

My experience of 'free speech' forums are that they are invariably full of sexist, racist and homophobic fuckwits who can't deal with being called on it.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> My experience of 'free speech' forums are that they are invariably full of sexist, racist and homophobic fuckwits who can't deal with being called on it.



I promise you won't be banned from there for just speaking your mind; they don't do that unless anyone starts trolling.

There are, however, sections of the board where personal abuse isn't supposed to be tolerated though in practice it often is.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> The free speech in question being racist.



Some is, yes. And sexist, and homophobic, and all sorts of other things.That doesn't mean it has to prevail there; it all depends on who is willing to take them on.

I'm not saying the place is perfect, but nor's this place - people get banned here for saying the "wrong" thing (I know someone it happened to).


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

TBH, I'd be happy if the mods split this - I hadn't intended for the discussion to go off so much on a tangent concerning other boards. I just thought people would be pleased to see that I'd praised Urban somewhere else.

Sorry if I derailed the thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> It's not a race hate forum, it's a free speech forum. If you don't like what they're saying, you can go and tell them so.



a "free speech" forum with a section in it dedicated to "jewology". sorry but stop making excuses for these people - you're sounding like a lib dem.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Some is, yes. And sexist, and homophobic, and all sorts of other things.That doesn't mean it has to prevail there; it all depends on who is willing to take them on.
> 
> I'm not saying the place is perfect, but nor's this place - people get banned here for saying the "wrong" thing (I know someone it happened to).



This reminds me of the British "Democracy" Forum, where "free speech" for all meant having a 100+ page thread on how "great" The Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion is (pass me the sick bucket), frequent bans for "reds", libellous material stated as fact, and in one case, the entire content of a notorious and violently anti-Semitic UK "comic" (with the most murderous anti-Semitic content I think I've ever seen) posted to some approval.

Fuck "free speech" forums and all they stand for.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> people get banned here for saying the "wrong" thing (I know someone it happened to).


Well, yes. What else are they going to get banned for on a text-based forum? How they smell?


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> This reminds me of the British "Democracy" Forum, where "free speech" for all meant having a 100+ page thread on how "great" The Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion is (pass me the sick bucket), frequent bans for "reds", libellous material stated as fact, and in one case, the entire content of a notorious and violently anti-Semitic UK "comic" (with the most murderous anti-Semitic content I think I've ever seen) posted to some approval.
> 
> *Fuck "free speech" forums and all they stand for.*



Because shutting up people you disagree with is better? Really?

Both the people I'm debating now on that other board (and not doing terribly well tbh) would be banned on here if they posted here; in fact, one already has been. I honestly don't think that's right.

Actually, a third person's now joined in  - on their side, we're debating whether or not Enoch (Powell) was right. Oh the fun.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I honestly don't think that's right.



Tough. Some of us can't stomach Nazis.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

dp


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> *Because shutting up people you disagree with is better? Really?*
> 
> Both the people I'm debating now on that other board (and not doing terribly well tbh) would be banned on here if they posted here; in fact, one already has been. I honestly don't think that's right.



When it comes it unrepentant fascist/racist/anti-Semitic bullshit (which is all over the British "Democracy" Forum), yes.

Urban isn't a "free speech" arsehole-fest, from what I can gather in my 8-9 months here. Thank God.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Does meltingpot really think that we can have a civilised chat and agree to disagree? That we've just got different politics?

They're fucking *Nazis* you dolt. Admirers of the people who brought you the holocaust, the enemies of anything decent in the world.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> he's always posting about those weird race hate forums. dunno why, tbh.



he's a BNP supporter iirc


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Does meltingpot really think that we can have a civilised chat and agree to disagree? That we've just got different politics?
> 
> They're fucking *Nazis* you dolt. Admirers of the people who brought you the holocaust, the enemies of anything decent in the world.



Indeed so, Belushi.  Someone (I won't say who) pointed me to another forum which was bascially a "let's listen to the racists and fash and see if we can "understand" them (and maybe agree with them a bit too)" place.  This forum was even named after a white supremacist site, ffs!


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Indeed so, Belushi. Someone (I won't say who) pointed me to another forum which was bascially a "let's listen to the racists and fash and see if we can "understand" them (and maybe agree with them a bit too)" place. This forum was even named after a white supremacist site, ffs!



If its the one I'm thinking of it was started with the best (if naive) intentions and inevitably went pear shaped.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> If its the one I'm thinking of it was started with the best (if naive) intentions and inevitably went pear shaped.



You're on the money, I reckon.  I got to see it at definitely the pear-shaped stage.  Still, calling it the name they did was a bit of a !


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, yes. What else are they going to get banned for on a text-based forum? How they smell?



Very clever.

Should they be banned at all for saying what they do and presumably believe, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Very clever.
> 
> Should they be banned at all for saying what they do and presumably believe, is what I'm saying.


yes


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> You're on the money, I reckon. I got to see it at definitely the pear-shaped stage. Still, calling it the name they did was a bit of a !



Not talking about MSF, are you? I was one of the poor f***ers who actually tried to recruit people to join and debate with us. Didn't have any luck at all from here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Not talking about MSF, are you? I was one of the poor f***ers who actually tried to recruit people to join and debate with us. Didn't have any luck at all from here.


can't you spell 'fuckers'?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Very clever.
> 
> Should they be banned at all for saying what they do and presumably believe, is what I'm saying.


Depends what it is.

By the way, if the person you're thinking of is the one I'm thinking of, he's been completely obsessive, with I think over a dozen registration attempts, some of which got through to post the same sub-Littlejohn bullshit.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes



That seems to be the prevailing view on here, for sure. I can't see why it's better than debating the issue and letting the better argument win.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> can't you spell 'fuckers'?



If I want to, yes.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Not talking about MSF, are you? I was one of the poor f***ers who actually tried to recruit people to join and debate with us. Didn't have any luck at all from here.



Well, since you mention it, yes.  I'll refrain from further comment.....you know where I stand anyway...


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Depends what it is.
> 
> By the way, if the person you're thinking of is the one I'm thinking of, he's been completely obsessive, with I think over a dozen registration attempts, some of which got through to post the same sub-Littlejohn bullshit.



As far as I know, he gave up a long time ago but I could ask him.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Well, since you mention it, yes. I'll refrain from further comment.....you know where I stand anyway...



Yep, but I don't think you were one of the ones I asked to join us.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> As far as I know, he gave up a long time ago but I could ask him.


It's been a while since the last one certainly.

Please don't mention this site to him, ever again.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Anyway!  Time methinks to get back on track to that much-loved (by the viewers of ITV4) comedy, The Lib Dems - here's a piece in the Graun mainly about Labour, but with a mention of the Yellow Tories: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/22/ed-balls-labour-economy?INTCMP=SRCH

The pertinent whatnots are here:



> Balls said he would begin next year to set out how Labour would cut the deficit, but added that voters were more concerned about their immediate position. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are committed to the same level of spending cuts after the 2015 general election – roughly £15bn – *but Nick Clegg has insisted his party will decide its own preferences, separate from the Tories, as to how these cuts will be made*



Mwahahahahaha - pure comedy gold again.  Snooty will let Cleggers make "indepedent" cuts decisions in this handy board game he's bought for Xmas, called "Fantasy Land Politics (Orange Book Edition)".  Meanwhile Cleggers will be busy asserting his independence by missing little bits out here and there when he's cleaning Snooty's coal shed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2011)

See I just had a flick through that site and it is nearly 90% far right shit, coming from various different traditions of, let it never be said that i don't see strands, but all far right bollocks. Have a word with yourself


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> That seems to be the prevailing view on here, for sure. I can't see why it's better than debating the issue and let the better argument win.


a lot of people on the left think the same thing. they think that they're so much more intelligent than the fash, and that due to their scientific socialism they have the better arguments. the problem is that someone like mussolini and more recently griffin or brons might not have the better arguments but be better arguers. one of the aspects of fascism is its emphasis on a charismatic leader. and charisma doesn't rely on reason, it relies on appeals to emotion. if you put half the people here up against someone like griffin, brons or even the nf's ian edwards i wouldn't be too sanguine for their chances of winning a debate.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Tough. Some of us can't stomach Nazis.



No it isn't. What you personally can stomach doesn't matter a damn thing, here or anywhere else. Who's right does.

I guess we'll never agree on this.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> a lot of people on the left think the same thing. they think that they're so much more intelligent than the fash, and that due to their scientific socialism they have the better arguments. the problem is that someone like mussolini and more recently griffin or brons might not have the better arguments but be better arguers. one of the aspects of fascism is its emphasis on a charismatic leader. and charisma doesn't rely on reason, it relies on appeals to emotion. if you put half the people here up against someone like griffin, brons or even the nf's ian edwards i wouldn't be too sanguine for their chances of winning a debate.



But that's not going to happen here, is it? I was once quite friendly with - believe it or not - an actual Nazi (or at least Nazi sympathiser), the only one I ever knew (or rather my Dad was). He was a Cornishman who'd made a bit of the money in the mines of South Africa before getting bilharzia, which may have been why he went a bit odd.

He was a bit of a nutter tbh but personally one of the most harmless people you could imagine (I sometimes think Ernst Zundel is of the same type). I doubt he made any converts to his views at all.

I found some of what he said chilling but not the man himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> But that's not going to happen here, is it? I was once quite friendly with - believe it or not - an actual Nazi (or at least Nazi sympathiser), the only one I ever knew (or rather my Dad was). He was a Cornishman who'd made a bit of the money in the mines of South Africa before getting bilharzia, which may have been why he went a bit odd.


you're not entirely clear here. your dad was a nazi?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> a lot of people on the left think the same thing. they think that they're so much more intelligent than the fash, and that due to their scientific socialism they have the better arguments. the problem is that someone like mussolini and more recently griffin or brons might not have the better arguments but be better arguers. one of the aspects of fascism is its emphasis on a charismatic leader. and charisma doesn't rely on reason, it relies on appeals to emotion. if you put half the people here up against someone like griffin, brons or even the nf's ian edwards i wouldn't be too sanguine for their chances of winning a debate.



You're dead on about fascism's appeals to emotion.  As for the people you mention, I always thought Griffin was a bit of a blusterer, speech-wise?  Brons, being a lecturer, I would imagine to be able to "do" debating at some level (he was head of the NF himself, too, wasn't he?).  As for Ian Edward...this is an honest admission, but I'd assumed that he was really Eddy Morrison!  (Don't ask why - that's me making certain assumptions).


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> No it isn't. What you personally can stomach doesn't matter a damn thing, here or anywhere else. Who's right does.
> 
> I guess we'll never agree on this.



No we wont. You appear to think our different views are somehow equally valid. I think they're vermin who should be neckshot.

I'd no more want to debate, online or irl, with Nazis than I would with paedophiles.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

The most common problem on the internet is nothing to do with "charismatic appeal", it's that people turn up with absolutely no intention of debating or discussing anything and just want to repeatedly post the same argumentoid bollocks, and they never fucking shut up, and they bring their mates along to do the same thing. It is simply crapflooding. See the EDL thread for an example - a complete waste of time and space.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> No we wont. You appear to think our different views are somehow equally. I think they're vermin who should be neckshot.
> 
> I'd no more want to debate, online or irl, with Nazis than I would with paedophiles.


come now. neckshot? not very environmentally friendly, not to mention each bullet can be used but once. hanging is good enough for them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> That seems to be the prevailing view on here, for sure. I can't see why it's better than debating the issue and letting the better argument win.



Because the better argument never does fucking win. They didn't arrive at their opinions through reasoned debate or an objective assessment of the facts you know, they arrived at their views out of blind prejudice. So it doesn't matter how good your arguments are, you'll never get anywhere.

How long have you been debating with these cunts meltingpot? And how many have seen the light in that time? I'm not sure about the answer the the first question but I could have a good guess as to the answer to the second.

Plus what Pickmans said.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

[





Pickman's model said:


> you're not entirely clear here. your dad was a nazi?



No, he hated Nazis. Maybe "friendly acquaintance" is better.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

This is the problem with liberal relativism isn't it? Everything's subjective so it's just a matter of opinion. They've got as much right to want to kill all Jews and blacks as I've got to _not_ want to kill them innit.

You can stick your Voltaire up your arse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is the problem with liberal relativism isn't it? Everything's subjective so it's just a matter of opinion. They've got as much right to want to kill all Jews and blacks as I've got to _not_ want to kill them innit.
> 
> You can stick your Voltaire up your arse.


voltaire wasn't too keen on jews either


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is the problem with liberal relativism isn't it? Everything's subjective so it's just a matter of opinion. They've got as much right to want to kill all Jews and blacks as I've got to _not_ want to kill them innit.
> 
> You can stick your Voltaire up your arse.



Well, just to pursue this, do you recall that C S Lewis saying that the reason we no longer burn witches is because we no longer believe in them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Well, just to pursue this, do you recall that C S Lewis saying that the reason we no longer burn witches is because we no longer believe in them?


the reason witches stopped being burnt was because the law changed. even after 1736 belief in witchcraft persisted, as owen davies has shown. and the number of people who claim to be witches today shows that belief has never gone away.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm outnumbered on _two _fucking boards now, at once. Honestly, fuck this for a game of soldiers.

Tell you what, I'll agree to quit. It's Christmas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Wheres Dr Dwyer? He not only continues to believe in Witches he's all for their continued incineration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Wheres Dr Dwyer? He not only continues to believe in Witches he's all for their continued incineration.


wears dr dwyer? watch 'silence of the lambs' again and then tell me about wearing dr dwyer


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I'm outnumbered on two fucking boards now, at once. Honestly, fuck this for a game of soldiers.
> 
> Tell you what, I'll agree to quit. It's Christmas.



Its Nazis and Leftists, you're not going to bring us together in the spirit of christmas


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the reason witches stopped being burnt was because the law changed. even after 1736 belief in witchcraft persisted, as owen davies has shown. and the number of people who claim to be witches today shows that belief has never gone away.



Yeah, but we're no longer afraid of witches; that's the point I'm making. No one really thinks that the nicve lady down the road who's into herbal remedies and faith healing has any power to bewitch you against your will and deny you your salvation. Once upon a time, they did.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

I'm not convinced by the Witch-Nazi analogy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Well, just to pursue this, do you recall that C S Lewis saying that the reason we no longer burn witches is because we no longer believe in them?



No. And what on earth has that got to do with anything?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

C S Lewis was a bit of a wanker in any case.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I'm not convinced by the Witch-Nazi analogy.



It's pretty bizarre if you ask me.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

He killed Susan for wearing make up and enjoying going out


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, but we're no longer afraid of witches; that's the point I'm making. No one really thinks that the nicve lady down the road who's into herbal remedies and faith healing has any power to bewitch you against your will and deny you your salvation. Once upon a time, they did.



So are you saying that if we debate with Nazis we might soon realise that in fact they don't exist and we're just debating with old women who were good with herbs and midwifery? Or are you saying that we might soon realise that Nazis are in fact right and that we should start firing up the ovens?

WTF are you on about?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> He killed Susan for wearing make up and enjoying going out


Fair play though, she _had_ become a painted whore.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

stephj said:


> It's pretty bizarre if you ask me.



Yeah, I don't remember Narnia being full of fascists, with the Horst Wessel Lied being played all over the shop.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 23, 2011)

Nazi's aren't as bad as they used to be - just give a good kicking rather than a gassing. One day we'll understand them


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, but we're no longer afraid of witches; that's the point I'm making. No one really thinks that the nicve lady down the road who's into herbal remedies and faith healing has any power to bewitch you against your will and deny you your salvation. Once upon a time, they did.


but that's not what you said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So are you saying that if we debate with Nazis we might soon realise that in fact they don't exist and we're just debating with old women who were good with herbs and midwifery? Or are you saying that we might soon realise that Nazis are in fact right and that we should start firing up the ovens?
> 
> WTF are you on?


*corrected for you*


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Maybe the witchcraft link lies in the "fact" that Hitler was ace at black magic?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, but we're no longer afraid of witches; that's the point I'm making. No one really thinks that the nicve lady down the road who's into herbal remedies and faith healing has any power to bewitch you against your will and deny you your salvation. Once upon a time, they did.



I still want to burn them though. Fucking hippes


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fucking hippos



But I like hippos


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> But I like hippos


yeh, i'm with you on this. i don't like the tenor of spiney norman's post


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe the witchcraft link lies in the "fact" that Hitler was ace at black magic?


not as ace as crowley 

http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthde...ys-other-history-great-beast-666’-in-torquay/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2011)

Hippos will fuck you up. Don't get on the wrong side of hippos.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Fuck off you set of bastards. Not only are you enemies of free speech (nazis have rights too!) but now you're taking the piss out of my shit spelling. Cunts


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off you set of bastards. Not only are you enemies of free speech (nazis have rights too!) but now you're taking the piss out of my shit spelling. Cunts


haha


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because the better argument never does fucking win. They didn't arrive at their opinions through reasoned debate or an objective assessment of the facts you know, they arrived at their views out of blind prejudice. So it doesn't matter how good your arguments are, you'll never get anywhere.
> 
> How long have you been debating with these cunts meltingpot? And how many have seen the light in that time? I'm not sure about the answer the the first question but I could have a good guess as to the answer to the second.
> 
> Plus what Pickmans said.



You don't seem to have a lot of confidence in your debating skills then, if you think "you'll never get anywhere" debating someone whose views are arrived at through blind prejudice. You won't convince them, but you should convince someone reading the debate.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> You don't seem to have a lot of confidence in your debating skills then, if you think "you'll never get anywhere" debating someone whose views are arrived at through blind prejudice. You won't convince them, but you should convince someone reading the debate.



"You don't "debate" with racists.  You smack them in the face" (one of my best mates).


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*



I guess this is as bad as it gets on here.

One board at a time, from now on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I guess this is as bad as it gets on here.
> 
> One board at a time, from now on.


you think this is as bad as it gets here?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

Times tmw reporting that Huhne and wife to be charged with conspiracy to pervert course of justice...


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you think this is as bad as it gets here?



Can you show me worse?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> You don't seem to have a lot of confidence in your debating skills then, if you think "you'll never get anywhere" debating someone whose views are arrived at through blind prejudice. You won't convince them, but you should convince someone reading the debate.



Because of course MSF and the F0ra have huge, impartial audiences, obviously. Just about anyone looking at that site is already convinced one way or the other - it's not the kind of place you just stumble upon when farting about on the net is it?

My time is far better spent working in the local community in an (albeit futile at times) attempt to remove the conditions that cause some people to turn to fascism in the first place.

Seriously, you're wasting your time and, from some of the things you say, they appear to be influencing you far more than you are them or any of these fictional impartial observers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Can you show me worse?



We've not even threatened to kill you yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> from some of the things you say, they appear to be influencing you far more than you are them or any of these fictional impartial observers.


yeh, it's like they're leaving their fingerprints on meltingpot and he's not leaving anything on them


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Times tmw reporting that Huhne and wife to be charged with conspiracy to pervert course of justice...



I take it this is the speeding ticket?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> We've not even threatened to kill you yet.


or to do his knees and elbows

in fact we've been remarkably laid back


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> or to do his knees and elbows
> 
> in fact we've been remarkably laid back



Urban's not what it used to be


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Urban's not what it used to be


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> I take it this is the speeding ticket?


All that stuff yeah.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> or to do his knees and elbows
> 
> in fact we've been remarkably laid back



It is the season of goodwill.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Can you show me worse?



A million times, youve really been treated with kid gloves.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Belushi said:


> A million times, youve really been treated with kid gloves.



Yeah, it's not like you've been called a dangerous beastie like the hippos


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Yeah, it's not like you've been called a dangerous beastie like the hippos



Fucking hippos - get it right


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fucking hippos - get it right



Hippos need love too


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Hippos need love too



Doubt they have any problems in that department, when I googled for that pic I came across (fnar) one that made me feel well inadequate, I don't reckon they have *any* trouble with the laydeez!






Another reason why the Lib Dems are shit - a thread about them made me look at hippo willies


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 23, 2011)

Oo-er!  That's a spicy Hampton meatball!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> No it isn't. What you personally can stomach doesn't matter a damn thing, here or anywhere else. Who's right does.
> 
> I guess we'll never agree on this.


yes it does, and it has everything to do with whose right. this is the true moral degeneracy, refusing to recognise morality has any bearing on "opinions". it's right because i think it.

me and mine, meltingpot. me and mine.

thats who you're insulting with your pseudo intellectual "debates" on "jewology". members of my family died because of your mates. fuck them and fuck you if you're not prepared to realise this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yes it does, and it has everything to do with whose right. this is the true moral degeneracy, refusing to recognise morality has any bearing on "opinions". it's right because i think it.
> 
> me and mine, meltingpot. me and mine.
> 
> thats who you're insulting with your pseudo intellectual "debates" on "jewology". members of my family died because of your mates. fuck them and fuck you if you're not prepared to realise this.



 I shan't "like" that post for obvious reasons but I hope it at least makes meltingpot _think_.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.

Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....

Let's take someone we both know. Dani thinks her country's going down the shitter because of mass 3rd world immigration (as far as I know she still does though she hasn't been around on SF for a while to ask), and she believes that the Jews (you and yours) are in favour of mass 3rd world immigration and are therefore her enemy. That was her view, and as far as I know it still is. It may be wrong, but can you tell me how that isn't a _moral _position?

To identify with something that you think is worth protecting and defending, and to oppose anything which threatens it?

Morality (or value) has got everything to do with opinion; the opinions people hold consistently are the ones they think are the most moral, according to the way they see the world.

Happy Chanukkah (really).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.
> 
> Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....
> 
> ...



Just fuck off will you? Twat


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.
> 
> Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....
> 
> ...



Oh for fuck's sake  - I really shouldn't really chip in your response to froggy, but I will anyway:

1.  There is no mass 3rd world immigration to the UK.
2. You're quoting a poster on fucking _Stormfront_ as a "reasonable" opinion?
3. Well done for bascially quoting Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in your third "point".

Fascism is not an idealogy of "morals", it is an idealogy of *emotion*.  If you can't even begin to grasp that, then you're part of the problem, and to be brutally frank, you sound like a case of Stockholm Syndrome....


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just fuck off will you? Twat



I would ask if you had a better counter argument that that but frankly I'm not enjoying this.

You can ask for me to be banned if you want.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.
> 
> Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....
> 
> ...



Christ, your even denser than I thought


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.
> 
> Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....
> 
> Let's take someone we both know. Dani thinks her country's going down the shitter because of mass 3rd world immigration (as far as I know she still does though she hasn't been around on SF for a while to ask), and she believes that the Jews (you and yours) are in favour of mass 3rd world immigration and are therefore her enemy. That was her view, and as far as I know it still is. It may be wrong, but can you tell me how that isn't a _moral _position?


because it's full of shit



> To identify with something that you think is worth protecting and defending, and to oppose anything which threatens it?
> 
> Morality (or value) has got everything to do with opinion; the opinions people hold consistently are the ones they think are the most moral, according to the way they see the world.
> 
> Happy Chanukkah (really).


you really are a twat, and your idea of morality leaves something to be desired; i'm being rather kind here


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 24, 2011)

i don't care. members of my immediate family have been imprisoned because of your scum mates, remember apartheid south africa?. members of my family died because of people you are friendly with. you think there is degeneracy, you think there is social decline. the real social decline is the idea that someones view is RIGHT becuase they say so. i can torture and incarcerate innocent people because its my opinion that it's right. i can rape someone because i say i can. i can kill someone because i say i can and how dare you try and stop me. you, people who think nazism is wrong and should be opposed at every opportunity, you are the real fascists.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I would ask if you had a better counter argument that that but frankly I'm not enjoying this.
> 
> You can ask for me to be banned if you want.



The thing is I think you're actually quite genuine. You're not even a Nazi, you really are a fucking idiot.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I would ask if you had a better counter argument that that but frankly I'm not enjoying this.
> 
> You can ask for me to be banned if you want.



It doesn't warrant a counter argument, any more than if you'd just typed "woofbark donkey penis goat fraggles" or something. It's bollocks and we both know it. I'm not going to ask for you to be banned, apart from anything because it would feet into your martyr syndrome and probably make you even more likely to swallow even more of their crap than you already are.

I don't *want* to engage with you. That doesn't mean I *can't* engage with you.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> The thing is I think you're actually quite genuine. You're not even a Nazi, you really are a fucking idiot.



He's definitely one of those "useful idiots", that's for sure.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

Might be an idea to split this into a new thread if that's possible? Only it's a massive derail that I can see going on for several pages, which would ruin an excellent thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> I would ask if you had a better counter argument that that but frankly I'm not enjoying this.


perhaps you could put up a better argument



> You can ask for me to be banned if you want.


tell you what, why make people go to the trouble of asking for you to be banned when you can do the decent thing and simply fuck off?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Let's take someone we both know. Dani thinks her country's going down the shitter because of mass 3rd world immigration (as far as I know she still does though she hasn't been around on SF for a while to ask), and she believes that the Jews (you and yours) are in favour of mass 3rd world immigration and are therefore her enemy. That was her view, and as far as I know it still is. It may be wrong, but can you tell me how that isn't a _moral _position?
> 
> To identify with something that you think is worth protecting and defending, and to oppose anything which threatens it?
> 
> Morality (or value) has got everything to do with opinion; the opinions people hold consistently are the ones they think are the most moral, according to the way they see the world.



Let's take somebody we both know. Paedo Pete thinks shagging kids is ace, but he believes that if he doesn't kill them after they'll go to the police and he won't be able to shag kids any more on account of being on the nonce wing. That's his view, and as far as I know it still is. It may be wrong but can you tell me how that isn't a _moral_ position?

To identify with something that he thinks is worth protecting and defending (his ability to have sex with children) and to oppose anything which threatens it?

Morality (or value) has got everything to do with opinion; the opinions people hold consistently are the ones they think are the most moral, according to the way they see the world.

See, this is where your relativism leads you to. When you believe in nothing you end up swallowing everything. It's bollocks and you should be fucking ashamed.

Some opinions are legitimate and some aren't. Most people are capable of distinguishing between them. You're not, which makes you a useful idiot and someone who should never be trusted.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> See, this is where your relativism leads you to. When you believe in nothing you end up swallowing everything. It's bollocks and you should be fucking ashamed.



An extra point to add to this - this reminds me of the person who took part in Anti Fascist Action physical actions in the late 80's, discovered "libertarianism", got into Death In June and is now a card carrying racist, and friend to yer actual fascists. I won't name who they are here, but it's a clear example of where an anything-goes "philosophy" can lead someone...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> An extra point to add to this - this reminds me of the person who took part in Anti Faction Action physical actions in the late 80's, discovered "libertarianism", got into Death In June and is now a card carrying racist, and friend to yer actual fascists. I won't name who they are here, but it's a clear example of where an anything-goes "philosophy" can lead someone...


speaking of death in june, i understand they were playing the camden underworld tonight


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> speaking of death in june, i understand they were playing the camden underworld tonight



Yes, they were. For reasons I can't really go into, I couldn't make it to the protest that took place outside the venue. Supporting Death in June were Fire and Ice, led by Ian Read, who, amongst other things, provided "security" for a Holocaust denial conference in the early 1990's.


----------



## Nylock (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Because shutting up people you disagree with is better? Really?



But *any* right-minded person would vehemently disagree with the likes of the far right/Nazis etc... Frankly, i think giving those cunts any sort of space to voice their opinions, regroup and attempt to legitimise themselves post WWII was a huge mistake. I would sleep very soundly knowing that they they were all driven into the sea in 1948 and all reference to their vile sect was expunged from the global record tbh. I feel that is a moral opinion for me to hold 

However, we live in a world where these septic fuckwads have been allowed to resurface over the past several decades so therefore the only choice (short of stooping to the worst of their ultimate level) is to oppose them at every fucking turn. If you can't see the point or legitimacy of that then i can only assume you are, as others have said here, a useful idiot.



Meltingpot said:


> Both the people I'm debating now on that other board ... would be banned on here if they posted here; in fact, one already has been.



awww... never mind eh? 



Meltingpot said:


> I honestly don't think that's right.



That is down to the moderators ultimately though. I'm sure you have read this site's faq so there is really no need for me or anyone else to go into _why_ those sorts of morons would be promptly kicked off from here though...


----------



## rekil (Dec 24, 2011)

Can this thread get shunted back onto the hot libdem hate action track please ta. And while we're at it (and I never imagined I'd say this in a million years) no more hippo/rhino cocks.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could put up a better argument
> 
> tell you what, why make people go to the trouble of asking for you to be banned when you can do the decent thing and simply fuck off?



It's not that much trouble, is it? You just report someone's post and let the mods look at it and make a decision.

A simple click on a button is all it takes. If you can't be arsed to do even that, then maybe you deserve to have to put up with me here. Terrible isn't it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Can't get the Times paywalled article but here's substantially the same story.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i don't care. members of my immediate family have been imprisoned because of your scum mates, remember apartheid south africa?. members of my family died because of people you are friendly with. you think there is degeneracy, you think there is social decline. the real social decline is the idea that someones view is RIGHT becuase they say so. i can torture and incarcerate innocent people because its my opinion that it's right. i can rape someone because i say i can. i can kill someone because i say i can and how dare you try and stop me. you, people who think nazism is wrong and should be opposed at every opportunity, you are the real fascists.



Froggy, I know this is an emotive subject for you but if I was a Frenchman with aristocratic forebears who'd lost some of his ancestors to the guillotine in the late 18th century, would I have the right to tell anyone in this country now that they shouldn't be able to discuss whether or not they should get rid of the monarchy? Or an Eastern European who'd had relatives killed by Stalin, that we shouldn't discuss communism?

How far do you really want to go with that?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Wheres Dr Dwyer? He not only continues to believe in Witches he's all for their continued incineration.



There are plenty of witches on these very boards.  Both self-confessed and undercover.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Froggy, I know this is an emotive subject for you but if I was a Frenchman with aristocratic forebears who'd lost some of his ancestors to the guillotine in the late 18th century, would I have the right to tell anyone in this country now that they shouldn't be able to discuss whether or not they should get rid of the monarchy? Or an Eastern European who'd had relatives killed by Stalin, that we shouldn't discuss Stalinism?
> 
> How far do you really want to go with that?


Can you get this shit off this thread?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Yeah, but we're no longer afraid of witches...



Not this again.

Anyone who is not afraid of witches knows nothing about them.

http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2009/03/20/east-african-albinos-fear-witchcraft-murders/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

For fucks sake, 21 months without a derail, then of all things this.


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2011)

good stuff. 

(huhne btw. not nazi-witch-hippodick nonsense)


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Doubt they have any problems in that department, when I googled for that pic I came across (fnar) one that made me feel well inadequate, I don't reckon they have *any* trouble with the laydeez!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a rhino.

Sorry for the derail.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Let's take somebody we both know. Paedo Pete thinks shagging kids is ace, but he believes that if he doesn't kill them after they'll go to the police and he won't be able to shag kids any more on account of being on the nonce wing. That's his view, and as far as I know it still is. It may be wrong but can you tell me how that isn't a _moral_ position?
> 
> To identify with something that he thinks is worth protecting and defending (his ability to have sex with children) and to oppose anything which threatens it?
> 
> ...



That's a fair point. Yes, not every argument is worthy of consideration but the problem of deciding which arguments are worthy of consideration and which aren't, is not only a lot trickier than you're suggesting here, in a world where people not only have widely divergent and even incompatible opinions concerning right and wrong, but also very open to abuse; which is why on the whole I tend to set the bar very high concerning which opinions should be rejected outright.

I'd definitely reject pro-paedophilia arguments though as worthy of consideration, because children are not only not fully responsible and aware moral agents but also extremely vulnerable to exploitation.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 24, 2011)

Oh for fucks sake.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

A reminder - from the OP:



> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.
> 
> Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> For fucks sake, 21 months without a derail, then of all things this.



Sorry Butch, but this isn't (all) my doing. All I did in the first instance was post a link (the one below) saying that I'd said something complimentary about Urban on another board, and then after that I found myself defending that other board when it got attacked here.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064549&postcount=44

If you were posting on another board and someone had a go at Urban, wouldn't you have done the same?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 24, 2011)

Piss off with your fucking shit board.

I see you've learned one thing from right wingers though, the 'report me, ban me then' persecution complex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> That's a fair point. Yes, not every argument is worthy of consideration but the problem of deciding which arguments are worthy of consideration and which aren't, is not only a lot trickier than you're suggesting here, in a world where people not only have widely divergent and even incompatible opinions concerning right and wrong, but also very open to abuse; which is why on the whole I tend to set the bar very high concerning which opinions should be rejected outright.
> 
> I'd definitely reject pro-paedophilia arguments though as worthy of consideration, because children are not only not fully responsible and aware moral agents but also extremely vulnerable to exploitation.


But you're quite willing to consider arguments for genocide


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry Butch, but this isn't (all) my doing. All I did in the first instance was post a link (the one below) saying that I'd said something complimentary about Urban on another board, and then after that I found myself defending that other board when it got attacked here.
> 
> http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064549&postcount=44
> 
> If you were posting on another board and someone had a go at Urban, wouldn't you have done the same?


You posted it out of the blue on a thread that had nothing to do with it,and i gently suggested to you there and then that it was posted in the wrong place and had nothing at all to do with why the lib-dems are shit - you should really have taken the hint.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

is it electoral fraud or fiddling the till for huhne?


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> is it electoral fraud or fiddling the till for huhne?


even more banal - avoiding a speeding ticket.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Petty thing to kick it off but perverting is well serious...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

lol, what an oaf. It's not like he is short a few bob either- ourbrian binley (cons northampton north) got into some shit recently with his son lying like fuck to avoid a few points...twats


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> Piss off with your fucking shit board.



Ha ha, seeing as I'm usually in a minority of one when I try to debate on there. Yep, it's my board all right 



stephj said:


> I see you've learned one thing from right wingers though, the 'report me, ban me then' persecution complex.



No it's not a persecution complex, I was just fucking tired. I got caught up in an argument I didn't intend to start, didn't want when it was going on and couldn't find a way to leave with my dignity and credibility (such as they are on here) not in shreds, or so it seemed. Getting banned seemed like a kindness at the time (and maybe it still will if this kicks off again).


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Petty thing to kick it off but perverting is well serious...


Good chance of going down i'd expect


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Petty thing to kick it off but perverting is well serious...


that's what makes it so delicious tbh. he could have taken the points at the time, with few repercussions (an embarassing newspaper story and a 6 month ban at the worst), but instead he chose to get his wife - who he was cheating on - to take the rap. and now he'll lose his job & go to prison, hopefully.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's what makes it so delicious tbh. he could have taken the points at the time, with few repercussions (an embarassing newspaper story and a 6 month ban at the worst), but instead he chose to get his wife - who he was cheating on - to take the rap. and now he'll lose his job & go to prison, hopefully.


as so often it's not the original crime but the coverr-up


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's what makes it so delicious tbh. he could have taken the points at the time, with few repercussions (an embarassing newspaper story and a 6 month ban at the worst), but instead he chose to get his wife - who he was cheating on - to take the rap. and now he'll lose his job & go to prison, hopefully.


That's the lib-dem mindset all over, do anything to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. It's all too reminiscent of the way Cable and Clegg are _attacking_ the tories the last week - _it's their fault, fine them, nothing to do with us...whine whine, whinge whinge..._


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You posted it out of the blue on a thread that had nothing to do with it,and i gently suggested to you there and then that it was posted in the wrong place and had nothing at all to do with why the lib-dems are shit - you should really have taken the hint.



It was a continuation of another discussion of the same other board on this thread. I'm afraid I can't be arsed to find a link to it now.

Maybe I should have started a new thread, or this one could be split? Anyway, sorry for the derail.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> It was a continuation of another discussion of the same other board on this thread. I'm afraid I can't be arsed to find a link to it now.
> 
> Maybe I should have started a new thread, or this one could be split? Anyway, sorry for the derail.


There's no need to split it or do anything other than stop talking about it.It's your call if you think it deserves another thread or not.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> But you're quite willing to consider arguments for genocide



Funny that, because that's EXACTLY what I got told on SF recently - the genocide I was accused of promoting being that of white people. I'd even show the thread if it was allowed on here.

But for the record, I can't imagine any scenario where I'd think that genocide was justified or should even be considered - except for one, the one outlined in John Wyndham's " The Midwich Cuckoos" (and that was sci-fi).


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2011)

you can stfu now.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's no need to split it or do anything other than stop talking about it.It's your call if you think it deserves another thread or not.



Butch, as long as people keep having a go at me here, I'm going to want to defend myself and they've done that in spades.

Maybe the answer is just to walk away from this thread and not look at it again, but that's not always easy, going on past experience here and elsewhere - you always think there's something else said about you that you've got to counter.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 24, 2011)

killer b said:


> you can stfu now.



Maybe, but see my response to Butchers above.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2011)

Lib-dem manifesto May 2010:



> Replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House.



December 2011:



> The deputy prime minister announced proposals for a cut-down second chamber, with 80% of its 300 members elected by proportional representation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Maybe the answer is just to walk away from this thread and not look at it again


That sounds like a good idea


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> No it isn't. What you personally can stomach doesn't matter a damn thing, here or anywhere else. Who's right does.
> 
> I guess we'll never agree on this.


You've previously expressed BNP sympathies on here haven't you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You've previously expressed BNP sympathies on here haven't you.


as a self-confessed member of stormfront it is likely he is that way inclined


----------



## Belushi (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Butch, as long as people keep having a go at me here, I'm going to want to defend myself and they've done that in spades.



I think we've been incredibly restrained tbh. Nazis murdered six million of my relatives in WW2, the same goes for froggie, and we have to listen to you wittering on about free fucking speech and how they're moral people as well and why cant we just debate them.

Go fuck yourself you fucking brain dead imbecile.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 24, 2011)

I think this the The Times article butchersapron is referring to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I think we've been incredibly restrained tbh. Nazis murdered six million of my relatives in WW2, the same goes for froggie, and we have to listen to you wittering on about free fucking speech and how they're moral people as well and why cant we just debate them.
> 
> Go fuck yourself you fucking brain dead imbecile.


you're still being more than usually restrained.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> a "free speech" forum with a section in it dedicated to "jewology". sorry but stop making excuses for these people - you're sounding like a lib dem.



But don't you understand? It's only because they're interested in free speech that they have a section on "jewology", not because they're dickless Judaeophobic shitcunts!

Won't someone think of the free speechers?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Because shutting up people you disagree with is better? Really?
> 
> Both the people I'm debating now on that other board (and not doing terribly well tbh) would be banned on here if they posted here; in fact, one already has been. I honestly don't think that's right.



Well, Urban doesn't present itself as a "free speech" forum, does it? It's made pretty clear elsewhere on the site what will and won't be tolerated, so your attempting to find equivalence between some spanner getting kicked off of here, and someone being kicked off of a "free spech" site is specious.



> Actually, a third person's now joined in - on their side, we're debating whether or not Enoch (Powell) was right. Oh the fun.



It's an easy one to answer: How would the economy have reacted if Powell's suggestion of forcible repatriation had been undertaken at the time? Any reference to the economic situation of the UK at that time will show that a loss of around 100,000 workers in the manufacturing sector alone would have kicked the bollocks out of that economic sector, and had repercussions on the economy as a whole that the sort of right-winger who promotes Powellism would foam at the mouth about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Tough. Some of us can't stomach Nazis.



They give me indigestion too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Very clever.
> 
> Should they be banned at all for saying what they do and presumably believe, is what I'm saying.



On here? Certainly. This isn't, after all, a "free speech" forum, and has never purported to be.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's an easy one to answer: How would the economy have reacted if Powell's suggestion of forcible repatriation had been undertaken at the time? Any reference to the economic situation of the UK at that time will show that a loss of around 100,000 workers in the manufacturing sector alone would have kicked the bollocks out of that economic sector, and had repercussions on the economy as a whole that the sort of right-winger who promotes Powellism would foam at the mouth about.



In fairness though, Powell never pretended that his motives were economic.  They were cultural.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> come now. neckshot? not very environmentally friendly, not to mention each bullet can be used but once. hanging is good enough for them.



Not true.
You get the next neck-shootee in line to dig the old bullet out of the previous candiadate so that it can be recycled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> In fairness though, Powell never pretended that his motives were economic. They were cultural.



Absolutely.

Most _soi-disant_ Powellites that I've ever come into contact with, however, make an economic argument based around the hoary old "...coming over here, taking our jobs..." _schtick_.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's the lib-dem mindset all over, do anything to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. It's all too reminiscent of the way Cable and Clegg are _attacking_ the tories the last week - _it's their fault, fine them, nothing to do with us...whine whine, whinge whinge..._



Here's a thing that froggy correctly pointed out to me a while ago - Clegg in particular has been so quiet in the coalition over the past few months he may as well be the Invisible Man...and now Clegg et al have suddenly woken up (allegedly).  I mean, I know that Clegg in particular may as well slap on a blue rosette and be done with it, but even yer acutal Tories have shown more mettle in grumbling about the enlightened reign of the Disco King himself.  Has Clegg really lost any sense of, well, anything due to being dazzled by the shiny-shiny nature of his Deputy PM role?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Sorry froggy, but that's cobblers.
> 
> Look we've had this discussion before. Probably dozens of times, here and other places.....
> 
> ...



A moral (in the true rather than the mundane sense of the word) position would be one arrived at after a reasoned assessment of fact. A moral position can't really be arrived at by filtering fact through personal prejudices, whether those prejudices are ideological or religious.



> Morality (or value) has got everything to do with opinion; the opinions people hold consistently are the ones they think are the most moral, according to the way they see the world.



Relativistic crap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Yes, they were. For reasons I can't really go into, I couldn't make it to the protest that took place outside the venue. Supporting Death in June were Fire and Ice, led by Ian Read, who, amongst other things, provided "security" for a Holocaust denial conference in the early 1990's.



Ian Read, who thinks he's a better magician than Himmler ever was.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Froggy, I know this is an emotive subject for you but if I was a Frenchman with aristocratic forebears who'd lost some of his ancestors to the guillotine in the late 18th century, would I have the right to tell anyone in this country now that they shouldn't be able to discuss whether or not they should get rid of the monarchy? Or an Eastern European who'd had relatives killed by Stalin, that we shouldn't discuss communism?
> 
> How far do you really want to go with that?



Shit, I lost family to the so-called "famine" in Ukraine courtesy of Stalin, *and* to the Nazis a decade later, and I'm not going to say you shouldn't discuss this stuff.

What I am going to say is that you should have more of a clue what you're talking about before doing so, otherwise what you say is no more worth hearing than the mouthings of a quasi-literate bonehead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> There are plenty of witches on these very boards. Both self-confessed and undercover.



Does that include or exclude your good self?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

killer b said:


> even more banal - avoiding a speeding ticket.



Bet he's regretting the manner in which he dumped his missus, eh? If he'd been a bit more decent she probably wouldn't have let slip his little deceit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> Good chance of going down i'd expect



I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bet he's regretting the manner in which he dumped his missus, eh? If he'd been a bit more decent she probably wouldn't have let slip his little deceit.



It was the deceit and the receipt wot dun for 'im.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Here's a thing that froggy correctly pointed out to me a while ago - Clegg in particular has been so quiet in the coalition over the past few months he may as well be the Invisible Man...and now Clegg et al have suddenly woken up (allegedly). I mean, I know that Clegg in particular may as well slap on a blue rosette and be done with it, but even yer acutal Tories have shown more mettle in grumbling about the enlightened reign of the Disco King himself. Has Clegg really lost any sense of, well, anything due to being dazzled by the shiny-shiny nature of his Deputy PM role?



It's not his role that leads him to keep _schtumm_, it's his (and his parliamentary partys') fear of losing power, of no longer being able to inhale that heady aroma brought about by their collaboration with the Tories.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not his role that leads him to keep _schtumm_, it's his (and his parliamentary partys') fear of losing power, of no longer being able to inhale that heady aroma brought about by their collaboration with the Tories.



Yeah, I see what you mean....he's kinda like an X Factor winner who got his 1 year recording contract with Simon Cowell, except that instead of being booted off Cowell's label a la Steve Brookstein et al, he's still hanging on like a 3rd-rate Michael Bublé, kept in the firm as he can still sell a few records/votes to clueless "music" fans/voters...


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does that include or exclude your good self?



_cackle_


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

Nearly 150 pages of why the lib dems are shit now. Can we stretch it to 200? I think we can


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not his role that leads him to keep _schtumm_, it's his (and his parliamentary partys') fear of losing power, of no longer being able to inhale that heady aroma brought about by their collaboration with the Tories.


To be honest I've been finding it quite hard to distinguish the pitiful Lib Dem Tory-slagging in recent weeks from the pitiful Labour Tory-slagging; both of them utterly ineffectual, without any action behind them and from a position of basically agreeing anyway.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nearly 150 pages of why the lib dems are shit now. Can we stretch it to 200? I think we can



Urban carving up the Clegg-mas turkey?  Sounds good to me!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 24, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Froggy, I know this is an emotive subject for you but if I was a Frenchman with aristocratic forebears who'd lost some of his ancestors to the guillotine in the late 18th century, would I have the right to tell anyone in this country now that they shouldn't be able to discuss whether or not they should get rid of the monarchy? Or an Eastern European who'd had relatives killed by Stalin, that we shouldn't discuss communism?
> 
> How far do you really want to go with that?



a couple of points:
i dont "know" dani, interacting with her 6 years ago on a forum, mostly to tell her to fuck off hardly counts as knowing somebody. i don't know her real name, don't know what she looks like, if i saw her in the street id be none the wiser. i don't know anything about her except that she's a nazi scumbag.

don't ever mention me or any other u75 poster on that site again.

secondly regarding stalinism i would say that a forum glorifying kim jong-il with signatures of the great and dear leaders in everyone's profiles would for example be pretty offensive to north koreans who'd had their families murdered by those dictators, especially if people started crapping on about how free speech means they don't have the right to get upset over it and going on about how they were probably all lovely people who we should have sorted our differences out over a cup of tea. your diatribes about witches are just ludicrous, and completely irrelevant.

thatcher's final legacy. no such thing as society, just individuals. you have the right to kill, to steal, to glorify all these things ... as long as you don't interfere with someones "freedom".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2011)

From the Torygraph:



> Police want Chris Huhne and wife to be charged
> Police are recommending both Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, and his estranged wife be charged over claims he evaded a penalty for speeding, it was reported last night.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shit, I lost family to the so-called "famine" in Ukraine courtesy of Stalin, *and* to the Nazis a decade later, and I'm not going to say you shouldn't discuss this stuff.
> 
> What I am going to say is that you should have more of a clue what you're talking about before doing so, otherwise what you say is no more worth hearing than the mouthings of a quasi-literate bonehead.



Agreed.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 26, 2011)

My absolute final word on the subject:

When I first started debating online (especially on MSF and other race debate boards), it was my view that Nazis had to be defeated by any means necessary.

Then from 2008 onwards it actually started to happen. Nazis started going to jail for posting their views, including online -  Bill Noble and Terry Tremaine in Canada, Ernst Zundel, Stephen Whittle and Simon Sheppard here - and I realised I simply couldn't support it. Not only that, but I said so, in a number of places. I therefore don't feel I can go back on that here and now and say Nazis should be jailed when I've said the opposite elsewhere.

I might be a lot of things, but I'm not a hypocrite.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 26, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> My absolute final word on the subject:
> 
> When I first started debating online (especially on MSF and other race debate boards), it was my view that Nazis had to be defeated by any means necessary.
> 
> ...


 
That's a good post, as reprehensible as we find Nazi opinions, surely to goodness we can't support the jailing of people just for saying what they think. Even if they are cockends.


----------



## killer b (Dec 28, 2011)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 28, 2011)

Frances Lengel said:


> That's a good post, as reprehensible as we find Nazi opinions, surely to goodness we can't support the jailing of people just for saying what they think. Even if they are cockends.


so you think the 1976 race relations act should be repealed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2011)

Frances Lengel said:


> That's a good post, as reprehensible as we find Nazi opinions, surely to goodness we can't support the jailing of people just for saying what they think. Even if they are cockends.



The law as currently constituted doesn't, as far as I'm aware, jail people for saying what they think, however offensive what they say happens to be. It does, however, have provision to jail people whose voicing of such sentiments creates or aggravates a situation that causes others to be put in harm's way.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 28, 2011)

copliker said:


> Can this thread get shunted back onto the *hot libdem hate action track* please ta. And while we're at it (and I never imagined I'd say this in a million years) no more hippo/rhino cocks.



Agreeing as hugely as a well endowed rhino on this, Too much derailment.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 29, 2011)

Once again rolling out the stock excuse for taxpayer funded spindoctors.



> LIB DEM chief Nick Clegg was slammed yesterday for running up £1million of taxpayers’ money on spin doctors and advisers.
> Before the general election he said aides should be paid for by political parties, but since becoming Deputy Prime Minister has taken on a Government-funded army of them.
> Lib Dem donor Neil ­Sherlock is the latest to get a generous salary.
> 
> ...



www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/12/27/nick-clegg-runs-up-1million-bill-on-spin-doctors-and-advisers-115875-23661369/


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2011)

Is that right? 90% of Labour's funding comes from unions? They're getting fuck all for it, unlike the bankers who fund the Tories and get to dictate policy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2011)

And what's this nonsense about labour "no longer paying for itself"? What party ever has or could? Take the Lib Dems for example, whose biggest corporate donor at the last general election was a private healthcare company. I can't think for a second what they thought they'd get for their money! Of course, having corporate overlords think for the party is obviously better than having unions think for it. 

I think the lib dems need to spend a bit more on spin cos that spokesperson is astoundingly shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2011)

I thought they'd dropped the 'mess left by labour' line as it was painfully obvious even to cretins that that excuse had gone stale


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2012)

They are even shit at robbing lots of money and fucking off - look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/06/liberal-democrat-donor-arrested-caribbean


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2012)

I look forward to the day that Lib Dem donors are arrested _for being_ Lib Dem donors.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2012)

Lib Dems lose three out of four of their voters
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hree-out-of-four-of-their-voters-6285640.html




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> The YouGov survey of 4,300 who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 suggests that the party's predicament may be even worse than the headline polling figures show. A quarter of those who backed Nick Clegg's party now support Labour, while another quarter are "don't knows" and the remaining quarter back other parties.
> 
> Worryingly for the Liberal Democrats, there are fewer signs than after previous elections of the party winning new supporters to replace the voters it has lost. Only 1 per cent of Labour and Conservative voters in 2010 has switched to the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> ...



Lolololololol.




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> According to Liberal Democrat Voice, almost two thirds of party members (62 per cent) broadly support the Coalition's deficit-reduction strategy, with only 22 per cent saying the cuts should be slowed.



Softening the Tories 'n all that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

Bit more on what steph posted - tables here (pdf)



> In looking at the Lib Dem drop in support though, it’s important to note point made by Mark Pack here – the Lib Dems normally have much higher churn than the other two main parties, it’s perfectly normal for them to lose lots of voters from one election to the next. It’s just that in the past these have been replaced by new voters. The Lib Dems are currently picking up very, very few new voters. Only 1% of people who voted Conservative or Labour last time say they would vote Lib Dem in a general election tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

Nick Clegg stages humiliating retreat over Lib Dem plans for a "mansion tax" - again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2012)

Anyone have any idea how this appeal to lower income and female voters is going to work?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone have any idea how this appeal to lower income and female voters is going to work?



By enacting cuts that will affect those on lower incomes and women particularly? Good luck with that.

Strategists? Totally fucking clueless.


----------



## magneze (Jan 7, 2012)

Is a Nick Clegg backpedal news these days? Showing some backbone doing things that he was elected to do, that'd be news.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone have any idea how this appeal to lower income and female voters is going to work?



It won't. they're as fucked as they ever were since they crawled into bed with the tories became their meatshield


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 9, 2012)

"The Urban Broadcasting Corporation apologies for the delay in bringing you another episode of the comedy classic. "Orange Books".  Please bear with us whilst we fix this problem - meanwhile, here is some music"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2012)

Duwayne Brooks running for mayor of Lewsiham?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duwayne_Brooks

Apparently he's a Libdem councillor, only just heard this for the first time this morning on the Today programme, he gave a terrible performance, with blatent ham fisted politicians answers to every question.

I don't want to be too hard on him on the one hand, after everything he's been through, but on the other hand he is a Libdem councillor.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2012)

I wonder what he thinks about the Lib Dems use of racist campaign materials in Tower Hamlets.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2012)

Liberal Democrats voice fears on housing benefit reform



By voting for it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2012)

> MP Iulian Urban, another Liberal Democrat blogger, suggested that those who did not agree with the health system draft law were "worms who deserve their fate".



even romanian lib-dems are shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2012)

Huhne now in deep trouble - Sunday times withdraw their appeal against Court order to hand over emails to police.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2012)

decision on huhnes fate to be announced at 10am. I hope he gets charged


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Huhne now finished. Leaked already.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne now finished. Leaked already.


 
Really?!


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2012)

lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2012)

Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass wind and do not collect 200 pounds


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

So, the lib-dems:

David Laws - caught thieving and forced to resign
Vince Cable - Caught bullshitting and half his job taken away from him 
Chrish Huhne - caught bullshiting forced to resign and ends up inside
Danny Alexander - caught thieving and bullshitting and gets away with it


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Leaves no one to plunge the knife into Clegg's back - no credible national lib-dems left. All tainted - in the party and out - in one way or another.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2012)

Hughes?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

I said credible.


----------



## killer b (Feb 3, 2012)

Suns shining today.


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2012)

Hughes is the straight choice for leader now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2012)

Looking forward to his shit-eating statement to the press.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Looking forward to his shit-eating statement to the press.


 
Aren't you thinking of Mark Oaten?


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Looking forward to his shit-eating statement to the press.


You're thinking of Oaten.


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2012)

Fuck you, Roadkill.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

Great minds, Santino, great minds...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

I wonder if this can be extended to any other lib-dems? Did he mention this to any of them before the wide he cheated on revealed it?


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Great minds, Santino, great minds...


 And fools seldom differ.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Of course, Huhne getting found innocent and going on the war-path could be useful too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2012)

Should make for a loltrial.

I'd assume that having proclaimed his innocence so long and loud he will have to enter a not guilty plea.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Huhne refusing to resign would be great too - and given that his political instincts appear to be fight - and to fight dirty...


----------



## co-op (Feb 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> loltrial.


 
*applauds new word*

Think there might be a few more of these after the Leveson inquiry.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne refusing to resign would be great too - and given that his political instincts appear to be fight - and to fight dirty...


mmm, a wonderful political soap opera, with the whole LD hierarchy dragged in


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 3, 2012)

MellySingsDoom said:


> "The Urban Broadcasting Corporation apologies for the delay in bringing you another episode of the comedy classic. "Orange Books". Please bear with us whilst we fix this problem - meanwhile, here is some music"




Haha, that's completely bananas. Never knew there was film of that, or indeed any of the Barrett/Gilmour transitional stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> mmm, a wonderful political soap opera, with the whole LD hierarchy dragged in



 Too late, he's resigned.


----------



## TopCat (Feb 3, 2012)

From an urban blogger Johnny void. "So go back to your constituencies and prepare to die.  Politically and morally you are bankrupt.  Take your sandals, and your hemp clothing, and your fucking beards, and throw them on the pyre to burn along with your party and your principles.  We will never forgive.  And should the time come we will hunt you down like dogs."


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Too late, he's resigned.


yep. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog...peeding-penalty-energy-secretary-live-updates
damn. This one could've run & run.
2 out of 5 in 18 months is nice going tho'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

how so?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

That's his severance pay for leaving the cabinet.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

jesus wept.
the bloke's so fucking loaded anyway, that's ridiculous


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, Huhne getting found innocent and going on the war-path could be useful too.


 
This is probably the best thing that can happen.  Much as it'd be nice to see Huhne banged up, he could cause far more damage to the coalition if he were acquitted.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


 Is that why mAndelson kept doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Clegg (private educated --> Oxbridge)  and his nice new politics has replaced his  disgraced private school --> oxbridge educated minister with a private school --> oxbridge educated MP.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Is that why mAndelson kept doing it.


This is the scam behind the scam!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's his severance pay for leaving the cabinet.


How much did we pay Anne Widdicome for not being in government and gadding about on telly... seem to remember that being quite a lot as well.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg (private educated --> Oxbridge) and his nice new politics has replaced his disgraced private school --> oxbridge educated minister with a private school --> oxbridge educated MP.


interesting they didn't have the front to put david Laws back in


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> interesting they didn't have the front to put david Laws back in


David Laws the privately educated --> Oxbridge gentleman thief/MP?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> interesting they didn't have the front to put david Laws back in


He's being saved for bigger things.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> David Laws the privately educated --> Oxbridge gentleman thief/MP?


the same!
I'm going on the maxim that their sense of shame disappeared long ago


----------



## Libertad (Feb 3, 2012)

TopCat said:


> From an urban blogger Johnny void. "So go back to your constituencies and prepare to die. Politically and morally you are bankrupt. Take your sandals, and your hemp clothing, and your fucking beards, and throw them on the pyre to burn along with your party and your principles. We will never forgive. And should the time come we will hunt you down like dogs."


 
Here's a link to Johnny's excellent piece of invective:
*Why Not Hang A Liberal From This Lamp Post*


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

That is one AWESOME piece of writing!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

> From today every Lib Dem MP, Councillor, activist or member has blood on their hands. Last night Lib Dem MPs voted to strip vital and often life saving benefits from cancer patients and children with disabilities.
> 
> The objections from the Lords to the most insiduous aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill will be over-ridden as Cameron and his lapdogs ram-raid the bill into law. With suicides already taking place due to the UK’s increasingly vicious welfare policy, even more people will take their own lives rather than face indignity and poverty.


 



			
				davey said:
			
		

> "The death of my parents was tragic, but in a way I was lucky: after my mother was diagnosed with bone cancer, my brothers and I looked after her and we got to talk for a long time. I didn't need counselling because my mother had been able to prepare me for a life without her.
> 
> Child bereavement services in this country are very good where they exist, but there are not that many of them. It's part of a very British problem: we don't always put children first. There is, for example, no obligatory training for teachers on how to deal with children who are bereaved.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Here's a link to Johnny's excellent piece of invective:
> *Why Not Hang A Liberal From This Lamp Post*


 
That's a great post, wish I could write like that!


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> David Laws the privately educated --> Oxbridge gentleman thief/MP?


A kind of later day raffles


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem (head of policy with Coventry Liberal Democrats.) caught overcharging students - fraud.


 
Update on this thieving lib-dem:




> Would-be Coventry MP and businessman Vincent McKee facing trial on 37 charges
> 
> A would-be MP and city businessman charged with defrauding students and their families is set to face a lengthy trial starting in September.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2012)

thought robbing from students was party policy?


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2012)

Has Diana Wallis' sulky resignation after losing her bid to be president of the European parliament made it onto this thread?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2012)

killer b said:


> Has Diana Wallis' sulky resignation after losing her bid to be president of the European parliament made it onto this thread?


 
No, got a link?

ETA: here's one - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16760531


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No, got a link?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16760531


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2012)

Just caught up with the johnnyvoid blog article.

*EXCELLENTE!! *


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2012)

Marvelous - Clegg appoints thief as lib-dem negotiator on public funding of parties.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 16, 2012)

"“All political parties have had funding scandals before, and there will be more unless the system is cleaned up,” said a source close to the Deputy PM.

Good job no chance of Laws getting embroiled in a scandal over money


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous - Clegg appoints thief as lib-dem negotiator on public funding of parties.


 
_Quelle Surprise_.  It's been an open secret for a while that Cleggy wants Light-fingers Laws back.  Oh well, it's another stick to beat the bastards with.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 16, 2012)

TopCat said:


> From an urban blogger Johnny void. "So go back to your constituencies and prepare to die. Politically and morally you are bankrupt. Take your sandals, and your hemp clothing, and your fucking beards, and throw them on the pyre to burn along with your party and your principles. We will never forgive. And should the time come we will hunt you down like dogs."


 
You wouldn't though, would you? Hunt someone down like a dog, I mean? That'd be quite barbaric. Anyway, isn't it dogs who normally _do_ the hunting?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 16, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> You wouldn't though, would you? Hunt someone down like a dog, I mean? That'd be quite barbaric. Anyway, isn't it dogs who normally _do_ the hunting?


 
idiot


----------



## Nylock (Feb 17, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> You wouldn't though, would you? Hunt someone down like a dog, I mean? That'd be quite barbaric. Anyway, isn't it dogs who normally _do_ the hunting?


 
It's a piece of political rhetoric, not an instruction manual for bunker dwelling rifle-huggers to go out hunting dirty lib'rals....


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 17, 2012)

Nylock said:


> It's a piece of political rhetoric, not an instruction manual for bunker dwelling rifle-huggers to go out hunting dirty lib'rals....


 
Oh, right.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 17, 2012)

I've just heard Mark Littlewood on "Any Questions", and call me naive if you want but I couldn't believe he was in the Liberal Democrats. He came over as a total American-style libertarian, further right than most Tories were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70s.

I voted for these pillocks too  Never again.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I've just heard Mark Littlewood on "Any Questions", and call me naive if you want but I couldn't believe he was in the Liberal Democrats. He came over as a total American-style libertarian, further right than most Tories were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70s.
> 
> I voted for these pillocks too  Never again.


 
Probably not as far right as some of your mates though eh?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Probably not as far right as some of your mates though eh?


 
Who are my mates? Names please, since you seem to know so much about them.

In any case, this thread is about the Lib Dems so quit trolling.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2012)

You can evade all you like but some of us have been on msf and the phora, where you've openly stated that you consider some of them friends. Stop wriggling.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 17, 2012)

There's nothing to evade, Spiney. I'm just not going to do Spanky's work for him when he persists in bringing up this shite every time I post in Politics (which he does).

If he says I've got mates on the Phora, then it's up to him to back it up. Because from what I can see, I'm no more popular on there than I am on here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> You wouldn't though, would you? Hunt someone down like a dog, I mean? That'd be quite barbaric. Anyway, isn't it dogs who normally _do_ the hunting?


 
Not if you're dog-hunting.

preferably with a pack of foxes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2012)

Nylock said:


> It's a piece of political rhetoric, not an instruction manual for bunker dwelling rifle-huggers to go out hunting dirty lib'rals....


 
Shitfire!! 

(unloads magazine and puts SMLE No. 4 back in it's canvas case)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> There's nothing to evade, Spiney. I'm just not going to do Spanky's work for him when he persists in bringing up this shite every time I post in Politics (which he does).
> 
> If he says I've got mates on the Phora, then it's up to him to back it up. Because from what I can see, I'm no more popular on there than I am on here.


 
But you court their approval nonetheless. Don't try and deny it - I've seen it. I've also seen you actually name, outright, "white nationalists" that you consider friends. I'm not going to waste my time looking for links but we both know it's true.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 18, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> But you court their approval nonetheless. Don't try and deny it - I've seen it. I've also seen you actually name, outright, "white nationalists" that you consider friends. I'm not going to waste my time looking for links but we both know it's true.



Spanky brings this stuff up every time I post in Politics. It seems you do too, though at least you clearly have the decency to back down when you see that you're wrong about something (which is why I still think you might be worth talking to).

But frankly, all this is getting past a joke now and it's also getting in the way of other people here who want to discuss other topics in Politics such as the Lib Dems. If you want to discuss what I may or may not get up to on other boards and whom, if anyone, I'm friendly with on there, feel free to start another thread. If I feel like replying I'll do so.

I''m posting here to talk about the Lib Dems, because that's the thread title. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Spanky brings this stuff up every time I post in Politics. It seems you do too, though at least you clearly have the decency to back down when you see that you're wrong about something (which is why I still think you might be worth talking to).
> 
> But frankly, all this is getting past a joke now and it's also getting in the way of other people here who want to discuss other topics in Politics such as the Lib Dems. If you want to discuss what I may or may not get up to on other boards and whom, if anyone, I'm friendly with on there, feel free to start another thread. If I feel like replying I'll do so.
> 
> I''m posting here to talk about the Lib Dems, because that's the thread title. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.


 
I don't see why you think you've got a right to waltz around here like any other poster when we all know you openly associate with white nationalists and consider them friends - sorry but like anyone else who hangs out with fascists you're going to get called on it everytime you show your face.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 18, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I've just heard Mark Littlewood on "Any Questions", and call me naive if you want but I couldn't believe he was in the Liberal Democrats. He came over as a total American-style libertarian, further right than most Tories were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70s.
> I voted for these pillocks too  Never again.


 
I might have told this story before.  But I was once flyering for an event outside of Lib dem conference and stood next to Littlewood, when MP Adrian Sanders came over and twatted him with the result that Littlewood was left sprawled out on his arse in a hedge.  Sanders remains the only LD I have even a modicum of respect for after that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2012)

Littlewood has always been one of the hard-liberatarians - and has been for years. No idea way anyone would be surprised to find him supporting ultra-free market ideas.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I might have told this story before.  But I was once flyering for an event outside of Lib dem conference and stood next to Littlewood, when MP Adrian Sanders came over and twatted him with the result that Littlewood was left sprawled out on his arse in a hedge.  Sanders remains the only LD I have even a modicum of respect for after that.



Good god, really? I wouldn't have thought Sanders had it in him but I respect him too now 

What was the trigger for that, or wasn't there one? Did he just come over out of the blue and hit him?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Littlewood has always been one of the hard-liberatarians - and has been for years. No idea way anyone would be surprised to find him supporting ultra-free market ideas.



Well, the fact that he ls still in the Liberal Democrats is a surprise to me (though probably not to others here). If you've got the time, have a listen to his comments in "Any Questions," which is being repeated at 1.15 - and not just to the _content_ of what he says, but also the _tone. _Must admit I was amazed to discover, when I looked him up online after the program (since I didn't catch the intros), that he was in the Lib Dems; he sounded right wing even for a Tory.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 18, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Good god, really? I wouldn't have thought Sanders had it in him but I respect him too now
> What was the trigger for that, or wasn't there one? Did he just come over out of the blue and hit him?


 
Yes, straight up.  Littlewood had written an article saying the Tories had to move to the right and Sanders etc would be losing their seats or something.  He was a senior Lib Dem - their Head of Press at one stage I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Well, the fact that he ls still in the Liberal Democrats is a surprise to me (though probably not to others here). If you've got the time, have a listen to his comments in "Any Questions," which is being repeated at 1.15 - and not just to the _content_ of what he says, but also the _tone. _Must admit I was amazed to discover, when I looked him up online after the program (since I didn't catch the intros), that he was in the Lib Dems; he sounded right wing even for a Tory.


I don't think he is in them anymore, i believe that he had to leave to take up his job as head of that right wing free market think tank. I just don't get why you're surprised that someone high up in the lib-dems had the typical politics of the people who (at that point) made up the leadership of the lib-dems (they now largely make up the membership as well).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Good god, really? I wouldn't have thought Sanders had it in him but I respect him too now
> 
> What was the trigger for that, or wasn't there one? Did he just come over out of the blue and hit him?


 
It feels good giving right wing types a slap


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 18, 2012)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4839

Sunday Times/YouGov poll puts them on 7%. Probably an outlier, but it does underline how things just aren't improving for them. Lib Dems: the turd in the political swimming pool since 2010.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

4% in the north, 3% in Scotland - behind UKIP in both. 

Potentially  bad news for what's left of their support - 48/45% split over whether their govt is handling the economy well/not well.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 4% in the north, 3% in Scotland - behind UKIP in both.


 


I do hope we get Lib Dem canvassers round here for the local elections: it'll be such fun taunting them about how their party has collapsed to UKIP levels of support.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't see why you think you've got a right to waltz around here like any other poster when we all know you openly associate with white nationalists and consider them friends - sorry but like anyone else who hangs out with fascists you're going to get called on it every time you show your face.


 
You're probably right about that last bit, the trouble is that if you're serious about this it's going to turn every thread I post on into a farce. Suppose I comment on the Government's changes to disability benefit; will you choose that moment to claim that "my friends" want to euthanise all the disabled? Or on transport; "my friends" were good at building cars and roads?

Can't you see where that would lead? Every thread would end up being dominated by stuff about me and my "friends" and the actual topic of the discussion would get lost along the way.

There's only one way to settle this. If you and Spiney (and maybe one or two others from the likes your posts get) seriously have a problem with me posting in this section, and it's clear you do, pm the admins and ask for me to be banned at least from the Politics section. Otherwise, sorry but I _am _"like any other poster" with the same right to comment unmolested.

If a ban from the whole board is in prospect, as it may be, I'd like 24 hours' warning to say goodbye to some of the people here whom I've come to like and respect.

There it is.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

if you've really changed your views there's nothing wrong with admitting it, not denying you considered these people friends in the first place as you've repeatedly stated that you did. i've seen your posts on there where you say that you're mates with them and that you think stormfront posters are decent and sincere and want the best for their race.
either don't respond, or respond honestly. FFS


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> You're probably right about that last bit, the trouble is that if you're serious about this it's going to turn every thread I post on into a farce. Suppose I comment on the Government's changes to disability benefit; will you choose that moment to claim that "my friends" want to euthanise all the disabled? Or on transport; "my friends" were good at building cars and roads?
> 
> Can't you see where that would lead? Every thread would end up being by stuff about me and my "friends" and the actual topic of the discussion would get lost along the way.
> 
> ...


Or don't be mates with ideological racists. That's another way. Or put up with the flack if you choose to be - that's another way. Grow up, either way.

And stop the whining for wotans sake.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm not whining butch. There's a problem here, and I'm suggesting a way of dealing with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

I've given you two ways out - you've been offered another. No need for banning or sacrifice.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if you've really changed your views there's nothing wrong with admitting it, not denying you considered these people friends in the first place as you've repeatedly stated that you did. i've seen your posts on there where you say that you're mates with them and that* you think stormfront posters are decent and sincere and want the best for their race.*
> 
> either don't respond, or respond honestly. FFS


 
I think some are, froggy, I can't remember a time when I was on MSF when I didn't. Don't you remember the fights I used to have with Scalesy about that on MSF? I do  Or your trying to convince me in 2005 that Birdman Bryant was a "prat"?

The reason I appear to be "denying it" is because I don't want not only this thread, but every one I post on in Politics at least, filling up with 6 pages of bull**** about who my "mates" are and what they believe, to the detriment of said threads. I hoped this would go away but Spanky has signalled clearly that it won't, and so it has to be dealt with and I'm proposing to do so here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> You're probably right about that last bit, the trouble is that if you're serious about this it's going to turn every thread I post on into a farce. Suppose I comment on the Government's changes to disability benefit; will you choose that moment to claim that "my friends" want to euthanise all the disabled? Or on transport; "my friends" were good at building cars and roads?
> 
> Can't you see where that would lead? Every thread would end up being dominated by stuff about me and my "friends" and the actual topic of the discussion would get lost along the way.
> 
> ...


 
But I don't want you to be banned


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

nobody wants you to be banned ffs, stop talking about banning, you've been posting on here for six years, if the mods wanted to ban you they would have done so already


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I think some are, froggy, I can't remember a time when I was on MSF when I didn't.


 
And this is why we will continue to challenge you, I don't care about you being banned, however I think someone who believes ideological white supremicists and nazis can be decent and sincere people needs to justify that opinion, and needs to justify it all the time - either stick up for your beliefs or admit to yourself you can't justify them and publically admit it as well.

So why do you think people who would cheerfully back the slaughter or at the very least forcible removal people from their homes because of religion or ethnicity can be decent?

Also what do you mean about "wanting the best for their race"? And why is that a positive character trait?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nobody wants you to be banned ffs, stop talking about banning, you've been posting on here for six years, if the mods wanted to ban you they would have done so already


 
As long as Spanky and Spiney amongst others are going to continue to attack me every time I post in Politics, it's going to fuck up the board as it already has done. It's a problem which has to be solved, and a ban is one way it could happen.


----------



## Santino (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> As long as Spanky and Spiney amongst others are going to continue to attack me every time I post in Politics, it's going to fuck up the board as it already has done. It's a problem which has to be solved.


We need a final solution.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> As long as Spanky and Spiney amongst others are going to continue to attack me every time I post in Politics, it's going to fuck up the board as it already has done. It's a problem which has to be solved, and a ban is one way it could happen.


Ok, leave.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> We need a final solution.


 
Yes, we do. We simply can't go on like this.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

I've said this to you before Meltingpot, I think we take it incredible easy on you considering some of the people you're an apologist for.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> As long as Spanky and Spiney amongst others are going to continue to attack me every time I post in Politics, it's going to fuck up the board as it already has done. It's a problem which has to be solved, and a ban is one way it could happen.


 
If you meant what you said you would just leave.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, leave.


 
Maybe.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I've said this to you before Meltingpot, I think we take it incredible easy on you considering some of the people you're an apologist for.


 
If calling me a "fucking braindead imbecile" is taking it easy on me, I'd hate to think what you'd say if you WEREN'T taking it easy on me.

Having said that though, I think I owe you an apology for the way I spoke to you earlier in the thread before you said that.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 19, 2012)

Seems to me that you either defend your views/those you mix with (and get called on it), or renounce them, or stfu.

But this 'ban me ban me' whining is really pretty tedious Meltingpot tbh.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you meant what you said you would just leave.


 
You're probably right. But giving up this place is like giving up chocolate - there's a lot about it that's appealing, and it's hard to stay away from. If the mods think I should go - well then it's not down to me to exercise the necessary discipline is it.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 19, 2012)

Doing it again, why is it upto the fucking mods? Its a cop-out.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> You're probably right. But giving up this place is like giving up chocolate - there's a lot about it that's appealing, and it's hard to stay away from. If the mods think I should go - well then it's not down to me to exercise the necessary discipline is it.


I'd like you to shut up and listen for a bit, listen why your other mates are rotten.I'd like you to understand why. Even the idiots on here are miles ahead of the people that you're attracted to. You should just go away, think about what free speech and your comittment to it means, then take a side and come back and argue for something.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

stephj said:


> Doing it again, why is it up to the fucking mods? Its a cop-out.


 
Just leave it Steph, you're not helping. I've already answered that.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

Jesus fucking Christ, I would rather we had one of you're Nazi fucking pals on here, who at least have the courage of their warped convictions, than listen to any more of you're passive-aggressive whining Meltingpot.

People on here don't like you. They don't like you because they think you're a cunt. Suck it fucking up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

They also think that you've imbued nazi shit.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Do you know what's funny? You're all sitting here in your comfort zone here having a go at me for "associating with racists", whist I'm trying to debate Fading Light on SF - a woman who makes even Maggie Thatcher seem cuddly.

I won;t blame you for your choice in staying here and not facing posts like this one;

http://www.storm front.org/forum/"t865677-21"/#post9996037

(remove quotation marks to read)

it's not pleasant, but please respect mine.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Jesus fucking Christ, I would rather we had one of you're Nazi fucking pals on here, who at least have the courage of their warped convictions, than listen to any more of you're passive-aggressive whining Meltingpot.
> 
> People on here don't like you. They don't like you because they think you're a cunt. Suck it fucking up.


 
They may do, but I don't think I am one. So why the fuck should I suck it up? I have at least some self-respect.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

You want us to congratulate you for posting on stormfront now?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> They may do, but I don't think I am one. So why the fuck should I suck it up? I have at least some self-respect.


 
That's lucky, because no one else has any respect for you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Go away MP. No one needs you here.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> That's lucky, because no one else has any respect for you.


 
You seem keen to speak on behalf of other people here; you've also done so above in the post where you called me a cunt, and said other people thought so too.

But look at the rest of this part of the thread. Everyone else here has offered some kind of constructive suggestion about how I can change things regarding how I get treated here (which I think you'll agree implies at least a minimum of respect). You're the one person who hasn't, and instead has resorted to abuse throughout. Maybe you should just speak for yourself alone?

I get that you hate my guts, believe me I do. Now let's just ignore each other from now on (or for as long as I'm still here).


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Go away MP. No one needs you here.


 
If you feel that way, contact the mods and ask for me to be banned. Left to myself, I wouldn't have the self-discipline to do it. As I've just explained.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> If you feel that way, contact the mods and ask for me to be banned. Left to myself, I wouldn't have the self-discipline to do it. As I've just explained.


Stop whining then. You should go, for the good of the team, for the poor Rhodesians, the thrill of the hunt etc  - and just go.


----------



## JHE (Feb 19, 2012)

Urban75 bullying is as ugly as ever


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 19, 2012)

Belushi said:


> You want us to congratulate you for posting on stormfront now?


 
Facing down someone like her (or trying to) deserves more respect than giving me a hard time for doing it. Just my opinion.

I'm betting you didn't even look at that post.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Facing down someone like her (or trying to) deserves more respect than giving me a hard time for doing it. Just my opinion.
> 
> I'm betting you didn't even look at that post.


It deserves *nothing*. What odd hierarchy have you built in you mind?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2012)

JHE said:


> Urban75 bullying is as ugly as ever


this is who you are left with


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It deserves *nothing*. What odd hierarchy have you built in you mind?


 
People read that board, hoping to see the issues they discuss there debated properly. If it wasn't for me and others like me, all you'd get would be their views.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2012)

What  have the naughty thought fascist done wrong thIS time jhe/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> People read that board, hoping to see the issues debated properly. If it wasn't for me and others like me, all you'd get would be their views.


Do i even begin to look like i give a fuck about what some racist board freak is on about? No one knows your board. no one.cares. go away

You can be saved if you grow up.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

get off the internet and stop talking to these people. i don't think you're a bad person but you seriously need to just THINK


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 20, 2012)

stephj said:


> Seems to me that you either defend your views/those you mix with (and get called on it), or renounce them, or stfu.
> 
> But this 'ban me ban me' whining is really pretty tedious Meltingpot tbh.


Precisely.
If you don't want people to have a go at you for having racist mates then stop defending scum.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 20, 2012)

JHE said:


> Urban75 bullying is as ugly as ever


 
All I did was ask people to ask you about Zionist ethnic cleansing until your witty and sardonic mask dropped.

No bullying involved.


----------



## binka (Feb 20, 2012)

so... those lib dems eh?

remember when tuition fees were raised to £9,000 and we had assurances that:

_"The Government is committed to the progressive nature of the repayment system.
"It is therefore important that those on the highest incomes post graduation are not able unfairly to buy themselves out of this progressive system by paying off their loans early.
"We will consult on potential early repayment mechanisms - similar to those paid by people who pre-pay their mortgages. These mechanisms would need to ensure that graduates on modest incomes who strive to pay off their loans early through regular payments are not penalised."_

anyway it turns out that after careful consideration...

_A plan to impose penalties on students who pay university loans back early has been scrapped by the government._


----------



## Anonymous1 (Feb 20, 2012)

Student admits throwing paint @ Clegg, fined £200 for a breach of the peace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17102979

He told the media after the court hearing: "I stand by what happened that evening. He deserved it."


----------



## love detective (Feb 21, 2012)

Liberal Democrat peers have ended up voting against their own amendments five times during this parliament


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Chart of the day: the lost Lib Dems




> So, where have more than three million of the party's 2010 voters gone? As the graph above shows, a huge 36 per cent have defected to Labour, just two per cent less than the the number who have remained loyal. In addition, 13 per cent have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives.The remaining 12 per cent have divided between the Greens (4 per cent), the SNP and Plaid Cymru* (4 per cent), Ukip (3 per cent) and the BNP (1 per cent)​


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

Bet the Greens are disappointed with that - they'd have hoped to sweep up more


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Leaves the remaining lib-dem members as a hard-right rump who can only ever countenance allying with the tories. Which leaves your mates plans in tatters. Unless of course a _leadership_ concordat is agreed. I love democracy.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2012)

Don't think it's as clear as all that - in their own self-interest they'll try to row back from being the "vote for us and we'll deliver you a Tory government" party.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Yes, and your leaders and theirs can sign a top-down hand holding agreement agreement, leaving the hard-right membership swept under the rug.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2012)

Lib-dems.



> Given that 162,820+ citizens signed the petition to drop the NHS Bill (see here), why is it do you think that in the last hour the Backbench Business Committee has voted to block a debate in the House of Commons to Drop the NHS Bill? A Liberal Democrat MP who cast a vote on the committee joined with the Tories to ensure no debate took place. The Lib Dem MP, John Hemming who voted to block a debate on the 162,000+ strong petition argued that the committee should not waste any more time debating the Health and Social Care Bill because other issues such as Human Rights in Russia  needed to be debated (here). This is one of the very many reasons that this NHS Bill is the grossest violation of democracy the UK has suffered in more than 3 centuries. In Febraury 2010, David Cameron promised he would fix broken politics by guaranteeing any petition with 100,000 signatures a debate in the House of Commons. Sadly, he lied.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2012)

Human rights in Russia. How can we make this state's corruption and human rights record resemble Russia more like.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 28, 2012)

lol, John Hemming is a Birmingham MP.. he's the one whose wife stole his mistress' cat.. even as MPs go he's a knob. He wasn't very receptive when we tried to talk to him about the health bill before the 3rd commons vote, doesn't surprise me he acted to stop this getting debated.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Huhne takes his 17 grand for being found out.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

Might have made the comments in some dodgy company (don't know?) but saying Israel "will not be able to continue in its present form" seems one of the lamest reasons possible for getting thrown out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/02/tonge-says-clegg-acted-hastily?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Have you watched the vid? She couldn't even say 'form'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

Lib-Dem seats based on current ipsos-mori poll if the boundary changes go through.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/...GB+changed+seats&boundary=New&seat=--Show+all


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

my favourite, from that link....

Sheffield West and Penistone South Yorkshire LAB gain from LIB : Nick Clegg


----------



## binka (Mar 2, 2012)

i dont think nick clegg's that bothered any more. he knows he is fucked politically but he's been in the cabinet long enough now to get some well deserved directorships


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

he'll fuck off to Spain with the missus, write his book about being the first Liberal deputy PM for seventy years.  And the last for a hundred years....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> my favourite, from that link....
> 
> Sheffield West and Penistone South Yorkshire LAB gain from LIB : Nick Clegg


Are you in that seat bellers?


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

thankfully not - it was the richest seat in the country for many years.  Tho now has too many studes.  I'm one of Blunkett's babies


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lib-Dem seats based on current ipsos-mori poll if the boundary changes go through.
> 
> http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=35&TVCON=&LAB=41&TVLAB=&LIB=12&TVLIB=&region=All GB changed seats&boundary=New&seat=--Show all


13 seats. Been rumblings that they'll offer some resistance to the boundary changes..the boundary changes they pledged to support. They can't even get a slow death right.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> thankfully not - it was the richest seat in the country for many years. Tho now has too many studes. I'm one of Blunkett's babies


Do let us know if you spy any local polls for Clegg's seat please.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm sure you're aware of the local election result for the five wards covering his seats - a bare 105 majority over labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

I wonder then whose going to make way for him - what price a knighthood for that selfless lib-dem. Only paddy/laws seat is safe.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> I'm sure you're aware of the local election result for his five seats - a bare 105 majority over labour.


 
Do you have any elections this May?


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

we do, wont be quite as much fun as last time, but....


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

he'll fuck off back to Brussels before the next GE probably.


----------



## binka (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder then whose going to make way for him - what price a knighthood for that selfless lib-dem. Only paddy/laws seat is safe.


why do you think he would want to stay in the commons?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

He has to. He may leave after, but not before the GE.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He has to. He may leave after, but not before the GE.


why? He could find an excuse - his personal health? His family? He's been invited to save the Euro - whatever...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

No, that's not how it will play out. He cannot step down.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> why? He could find an excuse - his personal health? His family? He's been invited to save the Euro - whatever...


 
Don't you get more money if you lose your seat than if you step down?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Don't you get more money if you lose your seat than if you step down?


Yes! Good line of thought. They are always money grubbing - see Huhne.

(Seriously, he cannot step down through choice prior to the GE. Sure, he's able to, but that's not what we're talking about).


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's not how it will play out. He cannot step down.


it might not - but why not?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Because he has to front up his choices. That's how the game works.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

Not how it worked for Eden after Suez?


----------



## binka (Mar 2, 2012)

oh i thought you meant he would lose his seat at the election and get one of the remaining lib dems to give up their seat for him. wont it look incredibly bad for the party if he doesnt even try to defend his own seat?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not how it worked for Eden after Suez?


Odd comparison. Where was Clegg PM and and what is his Suez?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it might not - but why not?


 
If you quit you're a loser, if you fight and lose while bravely fighting for austerity then you get to move onwards and upwards to put it crudely.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

binka said:


> oh i thought you meant he would lose his seat at the election and get one of the remaining lib dems to give up their seat for him. wont it look incredibly bad for the party if he doesnt even try to defend his own seat?


It would, it would look terrible. That's the problem he has now though.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Odd comparison. Where was Clegg PM and and what is his Suez?


 
Not PM but PM-maker - Maybe NHS will be his Suez?  He's now on record as supporting the Bill - nailed his colours to the titanic?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It would, it would look terrible. That's the problem he has now though.


I guess - but if he could point to some other "emergency" that needed his attention and conveniently didn't need anyone to vote for him?  Brussels/Strasbourg ahoy?!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I guess - but if he could point to some other "emergency" that needed his attention and conveniently didn't need anyone to vote for him? Brussels/Strasbourg ahoy?!


 
I'm sure that after the election he will get a nice appointed position in Europe or the corporate world after an appropriate period, probably of not more than 6 months, and possibly he will get both political and corporate postions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I guess - but if he could point to some other "emergency" that needed his attention and conveniently didn't need anyone to vote for him? Brussels/Strasbourg ahoy?!


How could he credibly do that?


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2012)

He can't 'credibly' do anything, can he?  He must be seen as utterly useless, you wouldn't want to appoint him to anything.  Except something you wanted to fail.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

True, but there's working within your credibility gap and chucking another body down the hole.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> He can't 'credibly' do anything, can he? He must be seen as utterly useless, you wouldn't want to appoint him to anything. Except something you wanted to fail.


 
I hope you're right, but even this bloke is still around - http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/aaron-porter


----------



## binka (Mar 2, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I hope you're right, but even this bloke is still around - http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/aaron-porter


he was on newsnight or channel four news the other night having to defend the complte failure of the nus anti student fees protest in comparisson to the occupy movement.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Odd how some names are just never removed from journos contacts.


----------



## hipipol (Mar 2, 2012)

I love the Lib Dems
They are the best people in the Commons!!!


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 3, 2012)

Brian Paddick has recently stated that he is going to put rape at the heart of his campaign to get elected as mayor.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 3, 2012)

as in vote for me or your sister gets raped by a bunch of lib dems?


----------



## free spirit (Mar 3, 2012)

quite a scary prospect actually, other than the fact that most people's sisters would be able to batter a bunch of lib dems, or even pretty much the entire remaining lib dem party without much trouble.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

hilarious stuff


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

free spirit said:


> as in vote for me or your sister gets raped by a bunch of lib dems?


 
not cool.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 3, 2012)

"Some Lib Dems are born shit, some achieve shitness and some have shitness thrust upon them." William Shakespeare.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

free spirit said:


> as in vote for me or your sister gets raped by a bunch of lib dems?


Is that supposed to be funny?

Brian Paddick: police approach to rape allegations could encourage offenders



> The former deputy assistant commissioner is placing the Met's mixed performance on dealing with rape at the heart of his campaign as the Liberal Democrat candidate in May's London mayoral election. Paddick, who told the Leveson inquiry this week that he toned down a Met report about its handling of rape on the instructions of senior officers, is launching a poster and online campaign highlighting the Met's poor record.
> 
> Paddick tells the Guardian: "When you look at the very low conviction rate; when you read the testimony of rape victims who say that, whilst the initial police response was good, when the detectives got involved they seemed to be determined to undermine the allegation – then predatory men are going to take some encouragement from that. If predatory men believe that the police will try and discredit the victim, then that could encourage them to commit offences of rape."
> 
> ...


 
Of more direct relevance to this thread:



> Paddick and the candidates for the London assembly elections are presenting themselves as "London Liberal Democrats".
> 
> "The difficulty is people get confused between what the Liberal Democrats stand for and what the coalition stands for," he says. "We want to make the point that, yes, the Liberal Democrats are part of a national coalition but the Liberal Democrat party is a separate independent, proud, progressive party that is not part of the coalition.
> 
> ...


A 'clear yellow water' approach, explicitly acknowledging how toxic the coalition is. He's a bit naive, but it's a very important platform he's chosen. Should have some impact on those who think rape is a laughing matter, anyway.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 4, 2012)

Rape isn't a laughing matter. brian paddick is, though.


----------



## Kippa (Mar 4, 2012)

Didn't Paddick post on this site when he was in the police force?


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 4, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Didn't Paddick post on this site when he was in the police force?


 
Yes he did, back in 2002-3ish. 

He polled only 6% at the last London mayoral election, though, and he probably won't do even that this time, given how close it is between Ken and Bojo, and how epically unpopular the Lib Dems are.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2012)

http://auntiefarr.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/love-me-love-me-love-me-im-a-welsh-liberal-democrat/ i know a couple of people here have met or know this woman or her partner (who sings the 2012 version of "Love me Im a Liberal") ... they was there at the bookfair briefly ...


----------



## binka (Mar 6, 2012)

is anyone surprised that - as vince cable has said - "The Lib Dems [are] not "ideologically wedded to the 50p tax rate""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17260348


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 6, 2012)

Apologies if it's already been posted but I did enjoy Fraser's skewering of Clegg:


----------



## BigTom (Mar 6, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9125909/Students-should-face-paying-council-tax-Lib-Dems-say.html

Lib Dem's say that students should pay council tax .. I guess they know none will be voting for them anyway, so might as well just put the boot in a little bit more.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Mar 6, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Didn't Paddick post on this site when he was in the police force?


 
'The Commander' or something like that.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 7, 2012)

anyway, sure it's been mentioned already but surely one of the biggest crimes the lib-dems have been indirectly responsible is the fact that were it not for them Kunt and the Gang wouldn't have made that song and the accompanying video


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> anyway, sure it's been mentioned already but surely one of the biggest crimes the lib-dems have been indirectly responsible is the fact that were it not for them Kunt and the Gang wouldn't have made that song and the accompanying video


 
Which one is that?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 7, 2012)

this one


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 7, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> anyway, sure it's been mentioned already but surely one of the biggest crimes the lib-dems have been indirectly responsible is the fact that were it not for them Kunt and the Gang wouldn't have made that song and the accompanying video


Careful, you'll upset trevhagl's feelings.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 7, 2012)

try as i might i can't get that image out of my head


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2012)

and now, you've got that fucking song back in my head!!!!

(tho at least its got rid of Tara's song from Once More With Feeling)


----------



## two sheds (Mar 8, 2012)

I always use Jan Garbarek's Legend of the seven dreams to push out unwanted songs. Never failed me.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2012)

i'll bare (bear??) that in mind, cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 8, 2012)

2007 : Nick Clegg talking against the proposed closures of remploy factories.



2012: Now government cuts target disabled workers



> Nearly 2,000 disabled workers are to be made redundant after the Government announced it is withdrawing its multi-million-pound subsidy from the state-owned disability employer Remploy.
> 
> In a move described by unions as "barbaric", ministers confirmed that up to 36 of Remploy's 54 factories across the UK would shut by the end of the year. When in opposition, both the Employment minister Chris Grayling and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had pledged to keep the factories open.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 8, 2012)

Vince Cable's behind this recent min wage decision.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 2007 : Nick Clegg talking against the proposed closures of remploy factories.
> 
> 
> 
> 2012: Now government cuts target disabled workers




They're a bunch of arrogant selfish c*nts, targeting the sick and disabled the way that they have.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

wtf is this?

Vomit.

Wait till you see what it does if you fill in the info, double vomit.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 9, 2012)

*I can trump that  *

*"The Liberal Democrats have nothing to apologise for*

Lib Dems have decency in our DNA. From the NHS to Trident, our presence in the coalition has stymied the Tories"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/08/liberal-democrats-apologising

'quisling' comes to mind


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2012)

two sheds said:


> *I can trump that  *
> 
> *"The Liberal Democrats have nothing to apologise for*
> 
> ...


 
My favourite bit from that article:

"I'm not going to pretend that the bill is perfect, it isn't. For one, it would have never happened had Guardian readers held their nerve and voted Lib Dem to give us a majority in 2010. But the alleged privatisation in the bill is not there anymore, and that is only down to the Lib Dems' tenacity, from the party's grassroots to the Lords."

It's got everything - blame someone else (the Guardian readers made us do it by not voting for us) and lies about the NHS not being privatised.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

two sheds said:


> *I can trump that  *
> 
> *"The Liberal Democrats have nothing to apologise for*
> 
> ...


 
Good lord, that's both ruined and made my day.

It's ok that they're tearing society to pieces because they _feel bad _as they're doing it. _Well stop bloody doing it then_. If you think _you_ feel bad you pampered twat how the hell do you feel the rest of us not insulated from the effects of your murderous extremist actions feel?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

Utter Bizzarreness



> I'm not going to pretend that the bill is perfect, it isn't. For one, it would have never happened had Guardian readers held their nerve and voted Lib Dem to give us a majority in 2010.


 
How many Guardian voters does this well informed cretin think there are? What does he imagine their spread across constituencies is?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 9, 2012)

I couldn't read it, I saw those headlines and thought I'd subject urban to it instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

> We took power because the alternative was a Tory minority government, a snap election and then a Tory majority government.


 
It wasn't and no you didn't. Bare faced lie, and too late for anyone to believe it - even you.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

> We have made more difference to this country in the last two years than we made in the previous 65 years.


 
Now that's true enough. More's the pity for the poor, the disabled, students, the low-paid, the homeless, the elderly, the sick, the young, single parents, workers. The bosses have quite enjoyed it mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

> ...we are human


 
Another lie.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2012)

> Two Liberal Democrat MPs have been accused of insulting a businessman, who is HIV positive, after he protested at their party’s stance over the controversial Health and Social Care bill.
> 
> Forty-eight-year old self-employed businessman, Andrew Schofield, was told he was talking ‘complete drivel’ and engaging in ‘an unsolicited bar-room rant’ when he expressed concerns about how, as someone living with HIV, he would pay for his medication if the pro-privatisation bill becomes law.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/liberal_democrat_mps__insult_.aspx


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Utter Bizzarreness
> 
> How many Guardian voters does this well informed cretin think there are? What does he imagine their spread across constituencies is?


 
To quote the response of one of those Guardian readers:



> So, it's our fault you didn't vote against this bill from the outset?
> Guardian readers?
> The Guardian readers are to blame for allowing Lansley to f**k up the NHS!
> You've got some nerve.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

Santino said:
			
		

> > Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West, told Mr Schofield, who lives in Salford: “You win the prize for my most nonsensical email of the day” and that he was writing “complete drivel”.


Williams is dead in the water and knows it - he just spends all his time insulting people in bristol now.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Williams is dead in the water and knows it - he just spends all his time insulting people in bristol now.


Who among us can sincerely claim that we haven't spent at least one or two periods of our life just insulting people in Bristol?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

He has some mad notion that he's going to be Mayor in few years though. The students have driven the murderer crazy for the last two years, made his life a  misery. I knew they were good for something.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

Buried within the comments on that Farron article there's this:

Students should face paying council tax, Lib Dems say



> At a meeting between Government ministers and local government leaders, a senior Liberal Democrat indicated that councils should be free to charge students council tax.
> 
> Those attending a full-time college or university course are currently exempt from the levy – which typically costs more than £1,000 for an average home.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2012)

they've lost the student vote anyway - surprised they aren't calling for them to be rounded up and gassed or something


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Williams is dead in the water and knows it - he just spends all his time insulting people in bristol now.


Doesn't he get swept out to sea by the Severn bore?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

Seeing as you're such an expert on bores you should probably know which direction it goes in.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2012)

The thing to bear in mind when reading Farron's article is that he is the voice of lib-dems left-wing opposition, elected president on this basis, the voice of the grass-roots _resistance_ to the coalition and its neo-liberalism.

Really.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 9, 2012)

Farrons article is a desperate pep talk aimed salving the concience of thier few remaining voters.

He spunks out this sort of sophistic drivel for the guardian on a regular basis.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 9, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Farrons article is a desperate pep talk aimed salving the concience of thier few remaining voters.


 
Yup.  And it won't work.  They're fucked completely.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Yup. And it won't work. They're fucked completely.


Yep, I mean look at the comments about it. Even Guardian readers can see past this cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2012)

because they think todays managed bit of faux rebelliousness and gracious conceding 'having fought for significant changes' is fooling anyone.

lansleys going to carry the shit that comes from this.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Lib Dems: Party activists reject holding NHS protest vote



> Liberal Democrats have decided against holding a debate calling for changes to the NHS in England to be dropped.
> The party voted at its spring conference in Gateshead not to take an emergency motion urging the withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill.
> Instead it backed Baronness Williams's rival option supporting the changes.


 
Murderers.


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2012)

puts paid to all that bullshit about the activist base being well to the left of the leadership, i suppose.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2012)

The Baroness gave a soundbite that comes from a mirror world where what people say is literally the opposite of what is actually happening. Quite shameless.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2012)

Clegg as regards the lib-dem activists decision not to force a debate on opposing the NHS bill:



> It is important that we Liberal Democrats show that we are on Shirley Williams' side not Andy Burnham's side.


 
Williams counter motion supporting the effective privatisation of the NHS was put on the agenda instead.

Murdering scum. Simple as that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 10, 2012)

We will be hunting the streets of Newcastle this evening looking for yellow Libdem scum to put in the intensive care about to be sold off to Carillion because of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Here's a pic of Tim 'nice but dim' Farron looking looking nice but dim:


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17330939

Lib Dems vote to oppose the health bill at their conference.. the shitness will come when we see (a) peers & MPs voting for the bill and (b) how few people leave the party following those votes.

And it's not quite opposition either, technically they voted against Shirley Williams motion to support the amended health bill, but since they were denied a vote on opposing it, this is effectively the same thing.

The Lib Dems have always been quite proud of their internal democracy so hopefully this will tear the party apart, but I also suspect that most of those who would have left over this have already left.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

BigTom said:


> And it's not quite opposition either, technically they voted against Shirley Williams motion to support the amended health bill, but since they were denied a vote on opposing it, this is effectively the same thing.


 
It's not even that Tom, all they voted for was to remove one line from the pro-NHS privatisation motion - the pro-NHS privatisation motion was then passed.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

I think what is was essentially about is the activists knowing they will get challenged on the doorsteps in april/may so they wanted something that they could point to, that they could put on their leaflets indicating some form of opposition -i.e _we fought to remove privatisation from the NHS - see out vote at the march conference - the NHS is safe in our hands_. Utterly cynical.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think what is was essentially about is the activists knowing they will get challenged on the doorsteps in april/may so they wanted something that they could point to, that they could put on their leaflets indicating some form of opposition -i.e _we fought to remove privatisation from the NHS - see out vote at the march conference - the NHS is safe in our hands_. Utterly cynical.


Any contemptuous of the public, I think most people will see straight through the fuckers.


----------



## treelover (Mar 11, 2012)

of course the BBC are not reporting it that way...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

From Clegg's conference speech:



> Let me tell you this: in 2015 we won't be looking back, asking people to thank us for what we have done. We will be looking forwards and asking for their support for what we can do together in the future.


 
I'm sure that you will be. I'm even more sure of what their answer will be.



> And he says if the Lib Dems won one more seat in the London assembly, they would kick the BNP off it.


 
The London assembly that doesn't have any BNP members on it?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2012)

lol. In 2015 they'll be asking "where is everyone? I'm sure we had more members than this"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

Clegg May 2011:



> But he justifies this by pointing to an unlikely lodestar: the Thatcher government. ‘If the Conservatives had any imagination or verve, they would look back at their own history and realise the last time capital gains and income was equalised was under Nigel Lawson,’ he says.* ‘What I am advocating is a Lawson policy.’* From someone who used to denounce Baroness Thatcher with some passion, this sounds remarkably odd.


 
Clegg this very day:



> But this year's Coalition Budget must be a budget for fairness –* not an 80s Lawson budget* but a modern liberal budget.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 11, 2012)

Wow they are so screwed. Really can't see anything other than an electoral wipeout in 2015...


----------



## SLK (Mar 11, 2012)

What do you think Clegg is looking for? I mean, he isn't stupid - he knows that they're almost gone come 2015. So what? Is it an appointment? Is it for him, Alexander and a few others (Swinson is supposed to be on the left, but she's moved so fast I would be inclined to write an analogy about London2012) becoming Tories formally? What?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

You mean personally? Back to the EU or on the lib-dem list as #1 for the reformed Lords.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

An actual lib-dem leaflet from noted comeddien
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





e Teather's seat:


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 11, 2012)

SLK said:


> What do you think Clegg is looking for? I mean, he isn't stupid - he knows that they're almost gone come 2015. So what? Is it an appointment? Is it for him, Alexander and a few others (Swinson is supposed to be on the left, but she's moved so fast I would be inclined to write an analogy about London2012) becoming Tories formally? What?



A few lucrative directorships and some decent pocket money on the speech circuit. You really think he sees a future in frontline politics after this? He's setting up his retirement fund...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

He doesn't need a retirement fund, he was born ultra-rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

The podium slogan was 



> "In government. On your side"


 
Really.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't need a retirement fund, he was born ultra-rich.



Won't stop him wanting to make more...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

I guess not, but he doesn't need a fund. He has no idea what life without a fund even is.


----------



## JHE (Mar 11, 2012)

I reckon Cleggy is more optimistic than you anti-Lib Dems think.  He hopes that in time a grateful party and a grateful nation will recognise the achievements of Lib Dem-Connery and will thank its sage architect, the still-fairly-handsome Nick Clegg, for his services.  He selflessly saved the economy from disaster, promoted democracy and human rights and saved the British people from the ravages of unrestrained Toryism.  He should get a statue in Parliament at the very least.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

He can be as optimistic as he fucking wants. The loon.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> An actual lib-dem leaflet from noted comeddien
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thats hilarious and disturbing, more one than the other.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2012)

SLK said:


> What do you think Clegg is looking for? I mean, he isn't stupid


Yes he is.
If he wasn't stupid his party wouldn't be on 10% and on course to be wiped out. For all the pre-election bluster and unpopularity of the two major parties he only managed a +1% swing to his party (and lost 5 seats). Since then he's allowed his party to be sacrificial lambs for the coalition. He's shit and a moron.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 11, 2012)

It appears that the Liberals have been substantially funded by a private healthcare company:







http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/c1million-pounds-of-private-health-care.html


----------



## JHE (Mar 11, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Yes he is.
> If he wasn't stupid his party wouldn't be on 10% and on course to be wiped out. For all the pre-election bluster and unpopularity of the two major parties he only managed a +1% swing to his party (and lost 5 seats). Since then he's allowed his party to be sacrificial lambs for the coalition. He's shit and a moron.


 
Harsh.

The electoral system works against the Lib Dems.  What is a Lib Dem leadership in a hung parliament to do?  The coalition game is something Lib Dems are almost bound to believe in - and they do.  Clegg is pretty much a Tory on economic questions anyway, so the outcome of the last election suited him.  He couldn't have done a Lib-Lab deal to produce a working HoC majority.  He made a virtue of near necessity.

Cameron offered a referendum on AV and Clegg was unprincipled enough to accept.  AV probably would benefit the Lib Dems, so it makes sense.  Unluckily for them, most of us thought it would be a crap system.

Clegg's problem is to find something that will persuade voters that Lib Dems are not just second rate Tories.  Difficult that...

It is also difficult, though, to see how Clegg could have played his hand very differently after the last general election.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

No it's not, it's a piece of piss. No support for the tories beyond confidence and supply - force them into a minority govt - in order to _save our nhs, support students in their resistance._ Result = not being the most hated man in country, your party not dead.

Piece of piss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> An actual lib-dem leaflet from noted comeddien
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lest we forget


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> Harsh.
> 
> The electoral system works against the Lib Dems. What is a Lib Dem leadership in a hung parliament to do? The coalition game is something Lib Dems are almost bound to believe in - and they do. Clegg is pretty much a Tory on economic questions anyway, so the outcome of the last election suited him. He couldn't have done a Lib-Lab deal to produce a working HoC majority. He made a virtue of near necessity.
> 
> ...


Rubbish, as BA said he could have forced the Tories to run a minority government.

And the AV fiasco is yet another example of his stupidity - for the destruction of his party all he got was for a referendum on AV to be held, he could have struck a much higher bargain. He's an incredibly inept politician which is why his party is hated and fucked for the foreseeable future. Under him the LibDems has lost control of one of two heartlands they actually had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Rubbish, as BA said he could have forced the Tories to run a minority government.
> 
> And the AV fiasco is yet another example of his stupidity - for the destruction of his party all he got was for a referendum on AV to be held, he could have stuck a much higher bargain. He's an incredibly inept politician which is why his party is hated and fucked for the foreseeable future. Under him the LibDems has lost control of one of two heartlands they actually had.


make that two of the two heartlands they actually had and you may be nearer the mark.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 11, 2012)

Surely a large section of the lib dem grassroots must fucking hate clegg - but really have nowhere else to go. A move to topple him would seem logical - replacing him is hardly going to lose them votes is it?
But most of the leading libdems are up to their necks in the coalition.
What do they do - bring charlie back? Would give the rest of us a laugh, trash the coalition and might push their vote back up above 10%. (Dunno why they got rid of him tbh - organge book coup and all that).
I 'spose enough of them are deluded enough to belive that they have some sort of chance of regaining their lost support and are willing to hang onto clegg whilst hoping against hope.

god i hope they get really fucked in the locals.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2012)

This is the interesting thing, if you're planning long term you have a strategy, who you an can appeal to and how - basic managment bollocks - that's just off the agenda now though. So you have to appeal to one side or other of what's left - you tack left or right, which means the other half leave.

Death tail-spin.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

> And Simon Hughes, the party's deputy leader, said: "The party is saying we are reserving our judgment on the bill as a whole until we have seen the final shape of it. It is a work in progress.


 
You're reserving your judgement on the NHS being kicked to death? No you're not anyway, you're _supporting_ it. You murderous freaks.


----------



## chilango (Mar 12, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Surely a large section of the lib dem grassroots must fucking hate clegg - but really have nowhere else to go. A move to topple him would seem logical - replacing him is hardly going to lose them votes is it?
> But most of the leading libdems are up to their necks in the coalition.
> What do they do - bring charlie back? Would give the rest of us a laugh, trash the coalition and might push their vote back up above 10%. (Dunno why they got rid of him tbh - organge book coup and all that).
> I 'spose enough of them are deluded enough to belive that they have some sort of chance of regaining their lost support and are willing to hang onto clegg whilst hoping against hope.
> ...


 
Do they have any "grassroots" left?

As in do they have party activists motivated by "ideas" and partyism rather than seeing the LibDems as a career move?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2012)

Lib Dems have always functioned as a kind of franchise operation - local groups setting up on whatever platform allows them to function as a local opposition to Labour/Tories as necessary with a hyper flexible and minimally consistent national programme.  But the inverse of being all things to all people (which has allowed them to get where they are) is to mean fuck all to anyone.  Which is the route Clegg is taking them


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 12, 2012)

Amazing, today you're (rightly) describing them as opportunists, when last year you were telling us all great AV would be by ensuring a centre left coalition for the foreseeable future.

I don't know why you don't join them, you've about as much integrity as they have.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't know why you don't join them, you've about as much integrity as they have.


 fighting talk.

My argument for AV was based on the possibility of disaggregation of votes (including LDs btw - whose vote has included anti-Tory tactical votes in the past).


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2012)

Brilliant Rowson cartoon in the G

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...1/1331491104463/Martin-Rowson-cartoon-004.jpg


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

Genius:

Lib-dems invent customer service award and award it to themselves.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 12, 2012)

"We create our own reality".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2012)

An admirable principle for non-evil people. Not so keen on it for murderers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Genius:
> 
> Lib-dems invent customer service award and award it to themselves.


 
Ugh! Constituents are "customers" now - says a lot about how they think I'd say.

Oh, and lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

Sunday, lib-dem conference votes not to support cuts in legal aid. Monday, party in Parliament backs cuts in legal aid


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

More on the above:

Lib Dem peers back legal aid cuts



> The government avoided further defeats over its legal aid bill on Monday as Liberal Democrat peers turned out in force to support the coalition's cost-cutting agenda.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

I don't get how the party can vote against something in their conference and then vote for it the next day in parliament, and also don't get how they can vote against amendments they themselves made.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I don't get how the party can vote against something in their conference and then vote for it the next day in parliament, and also don't get how they can vote against amendments they themselves made.


 
Easy they're the Libdems


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2012)

tbf none of the three have internal democratic procedures that allows the roots to force the executives hands


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2012)

sorry, I just tbf'd the fucking liberals then. I'm off to wash my hands


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

their mps have a choice though, if they've made their piss weak amendment they can surely vote for it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> their mps have a choice though, if they've made their piss weak amendment they can surely vote for it.


 
They're two faced lying scum though, this sort of thing comes naturally to them.


----------



## binka (Mar 13, 2012)

no one wants to rock the boat. they're all fucked at the next election anyway at least this way it might not be the end of their careers


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

better kidnap and kill a few more cats in time for the election then, at least if they can't be loved they can be remembered.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2012)

John Hemming goes on Alex Jones alledging social workers are snatching children


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

Isn't he the one that kidnapped the cat?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2012)

yes


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

they should get one from cats protection league on. for balance like


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2012)

wasn't it his wife that kidnapped the cat, because he was knocking off his intern or something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I don't get how the party can vote against something in their conference and then vote for it the next day in parliament, and also don't get how they can vote against amendments they themselves made.


 
Simple, none of the 3 big parties have any internal democracy worth a fuck anymore. Labour got shot of theirs between '95 and about 2003, the cameroonian Tories followed suit from 2006-onward, and once the _coup_ on Charlie Kennedy succeeded, so have the Lib-Dems. It's not as advanced in the Conservative and Lib-Dem parties yet, but they're both keen to go all the way down the "membership as figleaf" route that Labour did.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf none of the three have internal democratic procedures that allows the roots to force the executives hands


 
Wasn't always the way, until fairly recently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they should get one from cats protection league on. for balance like


 
And perhaps a few feral cats?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

how does the tory party's democratic structures work then? because i was under the impression that they didn't even allow voting at their conferences.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 13, 2012)

I think they have an electoral college of sorts, gone are the days when a tory leader would 'emerge'.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

so who decides what their policies are gonna be? do the members put forward resolutions about stuff?


----------



## 8115 (Mar 13, 2012)

They wouldn't even vote for the most super-timid amendment to the Health and Social Care bill tabled by their own MPs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I think they have an electoral college of sorts, gone are the days when a tory leader would 'emerge'.


 

more in common with freemasonry than democracy


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

so how do the tories decide what policies they're gonna have?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> so how do the tories decide what policies they're gonna have?


 
They ask themselves, "what would Maggie do?"






The fact that the answer they get is "forget that Dennis is dead and lose her teeth" goes some way towards explaining Tory policy decisions IMO.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ah i see consulting the oracle ...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ha ha i could imagine them all sitting in a big hall and then cameron on the stage, wheeling out thatcher sitting on a huge throne like Jack in that episode of Father Ted when he was being Elvis. And then asking her what she thought of various of his "ideas" and her coming out with a strangled whisper like she was possessed or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2012)

sadly she's not possessed, it was all her own work


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> wasn't it his wife that kidnapped the cat, because he was knocking off his intern or something?


 
Yes, didn't know he was an anti-semite and conspiraloon though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Vince Cable's behind this recent min wage decision.


He's now implemented the freeze:

The following rates will come into effect on 1 October 2012:


The adult rate will increase by 11p to £6.19 an hour
The rate for 18-20 year olds will remain at £4.98 an hour
The rate for 16-17 year olds will remain at £3.68 an hour and
The rate for apprentices will increase by 5p to £2.65 an hour.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2012)

> At their “Parliamentary Party Meeting” or PPM as they call it (like the Army, Lib Dems love three-letter abbreviations) at the end of last month, Clegg addressed his MPs and told them that the uncomfortable phase of the health Bill was over. It would go through the Lords soon, Clegg told them, and would be forgotten by the time of the May local elections.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 19, 2012)

That's gonna come back to haunt him, daft prick.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And he says if the Lib Dems won one more seat in the London assembly, they would kick the BNP off it.​
> The London assembly that doesn't have any BNP members on it?


 
Bit more on this nonsense from Clegg that Paddick has now picked up and ran with:

Fact check: Lib Dems play dangerous maths on the far right




> A few weeks ago at the Uprise Mayoral “youth” hustings Brian Paddick made what seemed to be an off-hand remark. He claimed that a vote for the Liberal Democrats could keep the far right BNP out of the Assembly. There was so much nonsense being spoken that night that it seemed churlish to highlight what might have been a simple slip of the forked tongue.
> 
> However, since then it’s become clear that it’s the Lib Dem ‘line’ that their vote is an anti-fascist vote which is why it’s so important to re-elect their team. The problem with this claim is that it is unadulterated rubbish.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park




I'm only 5 minutes in and I am literally crying with laughter.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 19, 2012)

"we're going to be using latin words because we don't want to be explicit"
although, aside possibly from prophylactic I didn't hear any. 


btw, I *think* Emily is the councillor that John Hemming MP had the affair with, who had her cat kidnapped, as mentioned not so long ago on this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

She is, yeah.


----------



## binka (Mar 19, 2012)

are you sure he isnt taking the piss? it says on his youtube profile

_
*About Martin Mullaney*

I live in Moseley, Birmingham, UK and I liked the place so much that I decided to put myself forward to be elected as a Councillor.....and guess what? I won. Okay, being a Councillor means I like politics, but honestly I'm not into all this political party bashing and prefer to keep away from that side of politics. *I run a comedy club in Kings Heath* and have I think an active social life, even if it does gravitate towards Moseley pubs eg Patrick Kavanagh - my favourate Moseley pub. I have loads of interests - classic cars, architecture, aesthetics, arty stuff, etc_


----------



## articul8 (Mar 19, 2012)

Alan Partridge meets David Bellamy  He certainly seems to know all about it


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2012)

No, he really does lack self awareness. To my shame, I used to chat to him over a pint a few years ago.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park




Brilliant.  

I didn't know cruising and cottaging was so organised:

'Radio in to their friends in the bushes...'


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park



just from the description i kno im gonna love this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park




The only way that could have been better would have been to get Mark Oaten in to give a demonstration of the antisocial activities.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 19, 2012)

latin words


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2012)

Oh my god they use chairs, structures for sitting on.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 19, 2012)

Ive never seen the word 'activities' used in such a way.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 19, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The only way that could have been better would have been to get Mark Oaten in to give a demonstration of the antisocial activities.


 
Quite appropriate, given the thread title.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Oh my god they use chairs, structures for sitting on.


 
Why did they think they needed to explain that a chair was a structure for sitting on? Then again I guess the target audience is people who might vote Lib Dem, in which case it's probably necessary.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 19, 2012)

As BigTom noted, he didn't want to use the word CONDOM.

He needed some of that left over K-Y to loosen up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

BigTom said:


> btw, I *think* Emily is the councillor that John Hemming MP had the affair with, who had her cat kidnapped, as mentioned not so long ago on this thread.


 
Talking of Hemming, this is what he spends his time in parliament doing for his constituents - when he's not voting for the destruction of the NHS and against the publication of the Risk Register that is.


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2012)

Banging the Cabinet table in celebration when told the NHS Bill would go through.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

I think he can expect to see a pic of that on his opponents campaign literature in 2015 then. As Clegg and Alexander can of this:


----------



## two sheds (Mar 20, 2012)

Where's Cameron's left hand?  or possibly


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

Whilst letting your criminal mates break society and the NHS:


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 20, 2012)

I think he's grossly over-estimating the DIY skills of the capital's feral youth there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2012)

look at that tit 

I thought he'd go law and order.


look at his fucking glasses


----------



## binka (Mar 20, 2012)

whats brian paddicks long term plan then? obviously he's never going to be mayor of london and the lib dem party in parliament wont really exist after the next election


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

binka said:


> whats brian paddicks long term plan then? obviously he's never going to be mayor of london and the lib dem party in parliament wont really exist after the next election


To be taken on by one of the winners as an advisor.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> Banging the Cabinet table in celebration when told the NHS Bill would go through.


 
Though you meant Hemming's but i guess you were referring to this:

Cabinet members 'bang table' over Lords NHS win



> Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers have "banged" the table at a cabinet meeting to mark the impending passing of the coalition's NHS reforms into law, Downing Street has said.
> 
> The Health and Social Care Bill, for England, has had a difficult passage through Parliament but was finally passed by the House of Lords on Monday.
> The government hopes it will now enter law by Easter.
> ...


----------



## binka (Mar 20, 2012)

why do i have a black and white image in my head of dozens of public schoolboys in a great dining hall sitting at long oak tables knife and fork in hand banging on the table top in unison?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2012)

Do you know the really arrogant bit?



> Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers have "banged" the table at a cabinet meeting to mark the impending passing of the coalition's NHS reforms into law, *Downing Street has said.*


 
_Yeah, we had a great laugh about killing the NHS Downing St said_.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 20, 2012)

I wonder how many of the table bangers will ever have to rely on the NHS.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2012)

you fucking bastard scum


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2012)

you evil fucking pricks i hope Nye Bevans ghost haunts you for ever


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 20, 2012)

Scum.  Fucking scum.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2012)

worthless cunts without a conscience 

banging the table fucks sake that's something you do at a fucking debating society not something you after you've just gutted and asset stripped the country 

if cameron was a normal person he would have been detained in broadmoor by now in fact all of them would be


----------



## binka (Mar 20, 2012)

deputy pmqs on parliament channel at the moment. was going to say nick clegg is getting a bit of grief but tbh they all seem to be having a bit of a laugh


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2012)

So, this lib-dem rebellion, what time does it start?


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2012)

As soon as the organic delicatessen closes


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2012)

Simon Hughes lied about abstaining in a crucial housing vote 




> Such is the cognitive dissonance of “social democrat” Simon Hughes that he is now*pretending certain parliamentary votes did not occur*. Thousands of his constituents are affected by proposals in the Localism Bill which will allow local authorities and housing associations to offer fixed tenancies for a minimum of two years, rather than secure lifetime tenancies.
> With local residents up in arms over the plans, Hughes issued a press release last week which stated:
> *“There was no vote in Parliament last week to end secure tenancies in future in Southwark or anywhere else – if there had been I certainly would have voted against it.”*​But it seems the dizzying altitude of Hughes’ office on the sixth floor of Portcullis House is playing tricks with his memory. Hughes spoke in the report stage for the bill, to which his press release refers, but couldn’t be bothered to vote on the following amendments.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I wonder how many of the table bangers will ever have to rely on the NHS.


 
Depends what can be arranged, I expect...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2012)

Evan Harris just made me sympathetic to Christianity for a moment. The cunt.

Luckily the vicar and Mitchell brought it back to it's proper place in my heart.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To be taken on by one of the winners as an advisor.



Yup he's clearly angling for something like that with his second pref stock.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Locally one of our former Lib Dem Councillors, who was hoofed out by the electorate last year has helped his four remaining colleagues with a strident defence of the NHS bill in the local paper. Theyd kept their heads down until then. Twats.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2012)

Interesting - and very revealing if proven correct about both the lib-dems faith in their own (lack of) ability, and what issues they prioritise and why.




> The real reason Clegg saved the NHS bill
> 
> *If the junior coalition party had killed the bill, Cameron would have appointed a Lib Dem health secretary.*






> But if they had really wanted to stop the thing, they still could have insisted. And the threat of being contaminated with Tory toxicity on the health service was substantial. So why did Clegg still press ahead? One explanation given to me recently is highly revealing about the way coalition works. There were, I am told, senior Lib Dem discussions until very late in the day about whether or not to kill the NHS bill. The key problem, it was decided - no doubt with the help of dark warnings from the prime minister - was that the quid pro quo for blocking Tory reform of the health service would be total Lib Dem ownership of the issue in the future. In other words, if Clegg wanted to block Lansley, he would have to accept having a Lib Dem secretary of state replace him in the next reshuffle and take responsibility for whatever happened next.
> The message from Cameron was: you break it, you fix it.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 22, 2012)

so yet another display of jelly-spine in the face of tory cuntishness by the erstwhile fib-dems...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2012)

Dunno if this has already been posted...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 27, 2012)

that brown corduroy is a criminal offence anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2012)

Liars


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

Sarah Teather on QT - fuel panic is sole fault of unions, govt merely trying to help by informing the public.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Sarah Teather on QT - fuel panic is sole fault of unions, govt merely trying to help by informing the public.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 29, 2012)

Showing her great sense of humour once again there.


----------



## binka (Mar 29, 2012)

only came on here to post in this topic that sarah teather has had a 'mare already. shocking performance so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2012)

binka said:


> only came on here to post in this topic that sarah teather has had a 'mare already. shocking performance so far.


not so much a mare as a gerbil


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

How the hell did Teather ever become an MP? I mean aside from the obvious fact that she's a privately educated oxbridge girl. She is awful.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 29, 2012)

I think people were just taken with the idea of having a giant Guinea Pig as MP.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How the hell did Teather ever become an MP? I mean aside from the obvious fact that she's a privately educated oxbridge girl. She is awful.


stunningly awful on Question Time tonight.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I think people were just taken with the idea of having a giant Guinea Pig as MP.


 
that would be pretty awesome tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

Hang on, the BBC said they weren't allowed to have both lib-dems and tory guests on a QT panel in the same week as this amounts to having two govt members and one opposition. So why the hell are both Teather and Soubry (epic below) on there this week?


----------



## binka (Mar 29, 2012)

probably because the government has had such a shit week it would be 4 vs 1 on every question otherwise


----------



## marty21 (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, the BBC said they weren't allowed to have both lib-dems and tory guests on a QT panel in the same week as this amounts to having two govt members and one opposition. So why the hell are both Teather and Soubry (epic below) on there this week?


most weeks they have one from each don't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes it seems they abandoned their _neutrality_ some time ago now i check.


----------



## magneze (Mar 30, 2012)

It's so the LibDems can differentiate themselves. They have yet to take the opportunity.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 30, 2012)

I think they only ever have one coalition minister (Is Tether a minister? If so then I wish she had said something last night). So the other party gets to stick in a rank and file MP. Which suits the tory bosses perfectly as they get two shitscreens for the price of one.


----------



## magneze (Mar 30, 2012)

They lost their deposit in Bradford West. Less than 5% of the vote.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2012)

How many out of 6 by-elections we're had since 2010 have they've lost their deposits in now?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

3 of them


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2012)




----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2012)

I think I saw Sarah Teather's soul leave her body.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 30, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I think they only ever have one coalition minister (Is Tether a minister? If so then I wish she had said something last night). So the other party gets to stick in a rank and file MP. Which suits the tory bosses perfectly as they get two shitscreens for the price of one.


 
tbf she did say she was a minister, she was probably introduced as such but also when someone asked about the Muamba/racist tweeting jail thing, the said she couldn't comment on it as a member of the government.

She was incredibly bad throughout though, can't see her lasting much longer as a minister.


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

I watched it just and was most wound up (the sport of watching QT) by that moon-faced twat in the audience who wanted the Labour Party to instruct the tanker drivers not to strike. At least Sayle said they have the right to, but as a one-line interjection and no-one to put their case (not a surprise, I know).


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 30, 2012)

I used to think she was lovely (and a Nat Sci degree from Cambridge takes some getting), so it's sad if she's coming out with this crap about everything being the unions' fault now. Maybe she just got corrupted by office I suppose.

Spanky you're on ignore so don't bother with your usual interjection; I won't see it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Just as another QT aisde, the Teather and Soubry both last night claimed to Simon Jenkins (who i hadn't realised was an awful rambling old fool before as i used to quite like his parliamentary sketches) the coalition was now publishing quarterly records of all ministerial hospitality - last updated june 2011.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I used to think she was lovely


 
Yeah but you're mates with fascists so you obviously have poor judgement on these things


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> 3 of them


 
They've lost their deposit in 3 out of 6 by-elections since they formed the coalition?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

yup, last night, Inverclyde, and Barnsley Central

(they didnt do very well in Belfast West either, but, being a generous spirit, I'm letting them off that one)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> They've lost their deposit in 3 out of 6 by-elections since they formed the coalition?


Yep, and only saved one (Feltham and Heston) by the skin of their teeth on 5.9%.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> yup, last night, Inverclyde, and Barnsley Central
> 
> (they didnt do very well in Belfast West either, but, being a generous spirit, I'm letting them off that one)


 
Are you joking or have Alliance merged with the Libdems?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Mar 30, 2012)

0:42 to 0:54, nailed on head.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2012)

"A party in fucking government has lost its deposit" hehehe


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Are you joking or have Alliance merged with the Libdems?


they are in the same 'Liberal International' & EU parliamentary grouping.  Tho I was just taking the piss


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> They've lost their deposit in 3 out of 6 by-elections since they formed the coalition?


 
Ace.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> they are in the same 'Liberal International' & EU parliamentary grouping. Tho I was just taking the piss


 
Fair enough, I notice their one MP doesn't take the Libdem whip though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

Fantastic - the lost bradford deposit was because_ too many people bothered to vote:_



> The Liberal Democrats said they were "clearly disappointed" with the poor showing, but blamed the lost deposit on the unexpectedly high turnout. "We had a great hard-working candidate and dedicated team, but sadly didn't manage to break through," a spokesman said.
> 
> "If turnout had been as expected we believe we would have fared much better, but the Galloway factor brought out thousands of extra voters, hitting all of the three main parties. While we were always expecting to fight for fourth in this election, it is quite astonishing for Labour to lose this seat and the Conservatives to see such a drop."


 


> but sadly didn't manage to break through


 - that was your expectation was it? To break through?


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2012)

Genius 

'We would have won every seat in the last election, but, disgustingly, other voters went and voted too!'


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

in 2010 the lib dems received 4732 votes
in 2012 the lib dems received 1505 votes

thats a drop of more than 2/3rds

they need to work on their excuses imo


----------



## JimW (Mar 30, 2012)

Breaking through floors not ceilings


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2012)

belboid said:


> Genius
> 
> 'We would have won every seat in the last election, but, disgustingly, other voters went and voted too!'


I like the suggestion that they had precisely calibrated their vote to turnout. _No, stop there 1500 is enough._


----------



## binka (Mar 30, 2012)

to be fair im actually surprised that they still get 1505 people voting for them. thats 25 full coaches of people who genuinely thought voting lib dem was the best choice


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2012)

I think they must have caught the ironic vote.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> I used to think she was lovely (and a Nat Sci degree from Cambridge takes some getting), so it's sad if she's coming out with this crap about everything being the unions' fault now. Maybe she just got corrupted by office I suppose.
> 
> Spanky you're on ignore so don't bother with your usual interjection; I won't see it.


 
I doubt anyone will find the fact that you thought a far-right politician was "lovely" surprising given your form.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 30, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I doubt anyone will find the fact that you thought a far-right politician was "lovely" surprising given your form.


 
She wasn't far right when I liked her (up to about five years ago perhaps), whatever she is now. Right of centre maybe, but not far right / extreme right, more centre right like, say, John Major.

You're on ignore next Spiney if there's any more of this crap from you. Sorry, since I like a lot of your posts, but there's no other way to deal with this nonsense. As I said before it detracts from threads I post in and wastes everybody's time, including mine.

The mods won't step in and deal with it as trolling as I believe they should so I've got to deal with it myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> She wasn't far right when I liked her (up to about five years ago perhaps), whatever she is now. Right of centre maybe, but not far right / extreme right, more centre right like, say, John Major.
> 
> You're on ignore next Spiney if there's any more of this crap from you. Sorry, since I like a lot of your posts, but there's no other way to deal with this nonsense. As I said before it detracts from threads I post in and wastes everybody's time, including mine.
> 
> The mods won't step in and deal with it as trolling as I believe they should so I've got to deal with it myself.


 
You say that as if you think I'll give a shit. I really don't.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 30, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> She wasn't far right when I liked her (up to about five years ago perhaps), whatever she is now. Right of centre maybe, but not far right / extreme right, more centre right like, say, John Major.
> 
> You're on ignore next Spiney if there's any more of this crap from you. Sorry, since I like a lot of your posts, but there's no other way to deal with this nonsense. As I said before it detracts from threads I post in and wastes everybody's time, including mine.
> 
> The mods won't step in and deal with it as trolling as I believe they should so I've got to deal with it myself.


 
How are your nazi mates doing at the moment anyway?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

> The mods won't step in and deal with it as trolling as I believe they should


 
i see you're displaying your commitment to freedom of speech as usual.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm having sleepless nights wondering if I'm on meltingpot's ignore list. Just tell me either way meltingpot - I think I could somehow summon the strength to carry on living if I _knew_ I was on ignore (just about) but not knowing is just killing me maaaan!


----------



## binka (Apr 3, 2012)

Nick Clegg tries to head off Lib Dem revolt over email surveillance plans - Deputy PM promises 'highest possible safeguards' on security service powers to monitor individuals' web communications

im not sure whats funnier here - the suggestion that the lib dems are revolting _yet again_ or that nick clegg has made a promise


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2012)

WTF?

Nick Clegg is reborn as he laughs at tormentors on the left



> A new Nick Clegg appears to have been born.
> 
> Clegg appears to have decided that there is nothing he can do during the local election campaign to win over voters on the left who believe he betrayed his party by going into coalition with the Tories. But his language indicates he thinks they are foolish not to spot what the Lib Dems have delivered:


 
His new approach is to think that those who think he's a lying neo-liberal cunt who couldn't tell the truth to his own children at gunpoint are '_foolish_'? You are a genuis Clegg. It might just work.

Of course privately educated oxbridge boys like wintour and watt (lot of them about eh?) would have their fingers on the national pulse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> She wasn't far right when I liked her (up to about five years ago perhaps), whatever she is now. Right of centre maybe, but not far right / extreme right, more centre right like, say, John Major.
> 
> You're on ignore next Spiney if there's any more of this crap from you. Sorry, since I like a lot of your posts, but there's no other way to deal with this nonsense. As I said before it detracts from threads I post in and wastes everybody's time, including mine.
> 
> The mods won't step in and deal with it as trolling as I believe they should so I've got to deal with it myself.


you couldn't deal with a pack of cards


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2012)

I saw my local Libdem councillor in a right muck sweat the other day, it's quite funny although my ward is a Labour target this time, they're convinced they won't win, I think they can still win on the back of total loathing towards the Libdems from our ward which has the classic betrayed by the Libdems profile.


----------



## Meltingpot (Apr 5, 2012)

Butch, that link didn't work for me so I googled the headline and got this one;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2012/apr/04/nickclegg-liberaldemocrats


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 5, 2012)

Oh dear, desperate stuff from Clegg:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/04/nick-clegg-attacks-blunderbuss-tories


----------



## two sheds (Apr 5, 2012)

stephj said:


> Oh dear, desperate stuff from Clegg:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/04/nick-clegg-attacks-blunderbuss-tories


 
" but we are hopefully going to get through to people on the doorsteps "

I can't wait for the fuckers  .

Eta. I presume it's not actually illegal to repeatedly call someone who comes to your house a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2012)

two sheds said:


> " but we are hopefully going to get through to people on the doorsteps "
> 
> I can't wait for the fuckers  .
> 
> Eta. I presume it's not actually illegal to repeatedly call someone who comes to your house a cunt.


If they cross the threshold you can shoot them.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 5, 2012)

classic performance by Sarah Teather last weeks "Question Time" , is it on the internet cos Frogwoman was asking to see it (see my other thread)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2012)

Thought this deserved a bump what with the Lib Dems falling into 4th place behind UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2012)

Was just about to bump it as well as Clegg was caught lying about tuition fees yet again this morning:



> It was the decision to support the tuition fees increase that was Clegg's Iraq moment, a profound breach of trust for which his party will pay dearly. Challenged on the subject on this morning's_Today_ programme, Clegg replied that since the Lib Dems didn't win the election ["I lead a party with eight per cent of MPs"] he was unable to keep his promise to vote against any increase. "If you want the Liberal Democrat manifesto in full, vote for Liberal Democrats in larger numbers. It didn't happen," he said.
> 
> This is disingenuous. Clegg's pledge was not conditional on his party forming a government, rather it was a commitment that all Lib Dem MPs returned by the electorate would vote against any fees increase. The NUS pledge, signed by every Liberal Democrat MP, read:
> 
> ...


----------



## Zabo (Apr 18, 2012)

He also lied about the Community Charge. My labour council has frozen it for two years. Link above 08:50


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Here's a pic of Tim 'nice but dim' Farron looking looking nice but dim:


Nice but dim making his anti-clegg pitch on QT tonight. Based on Richard O dwyer. Naked use.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 19, 2012)

two sheds said:


> " but we are hopefully going to get through to people on the doorsteps "
> 
> I can't wait for the fuckers  .
> 
> Eta. I presume it's not actually illegal to repeatedly call someone who comes to your house a cunt.


 
Very many years ago (Thatcher was still PM), with a couple of friends I was involved in ... um I guess you might call it a black magic or tantric ritual involving drinking the pee of a hallucinating young lady.

So we had this sort of hand-crafted hippy soup bowl thing full of freshly squirted warm pee handy in an upstairs room right over the door when the Tory candidate came calling.

We were also all completely off our heads.

He was very upset


----------



## two sheds (Apr 19, 2012)

Almost worth doing on the off chance a Tory candidate should happen to call.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 22, 2012)

The Lib Dems are shit because they are sending out a leaflet for the council elections in Sheffield with two quotes from George Galloway on them, one of which says, "no corrupted, out of touch elite can last for ever". It also criticises Labour for their U-turn on the cuts and taking votes for granted.

I assume that this is a serious leaflet, although an alternative and entirely plausible explanation would be that even the Lib Dems themselves now think their party is a joke and are now merely using it as a comedy vehicle.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 22, 2012)

Jesus that leaflet is terrible - what ward is it for? Who's the 'star' of the other side?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 22, 2012)

It's for Sheffield Central and the Lib Dem candidate is Muhammed Zahur. Wouldn't surprise me if similar leaflets are going to all the wards in Sheffield, or at least in working class areas. Labour's candidate is Mohammed Akbar if that's what you meant.

I've just realised what they're up to. The ward has large Bangladeshi and Somali communities - I reckon they think (wrongly IMO) that Galloway won on the back of the "Muslim vote" and they're playing on that to try and win on the same terms here. Won't work but it does show what a bunch of opportunist cunts they are.


----------



## SLK (Apr 23, 2012)

marty21 said:


> most weeks they have one from each don't they?


 
Ever since an ex-SWP member became the producer I think.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 23, 2012)

Jesus. Lib's here went for 'LABOUR CAN'T WIN HERE' in big letters on their leaflets, pointing out that the Labour group has 5 seats and voting Lib Dem would keep the Tories out.

As it was, Libs went from 25 seats to 4. Tories went to 25, Labour took the rest from Liberals.

Dizzyingly stupid tactics.

Is Clogg on the Sheffield leaflets? He's the local M.P


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 23, 2012)

lol what do you think?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 23, 2012)

God, persona non grata with his own members. Ouch.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 23, 2012)

Not sure about that, think it's more that they realise that his face on a leaflet is worth about 2000 votes



















for labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2012)

Paddick - next london mayor:

JOHNSON 45%(-1),​ LIVINGSTONE 36%(-5), ​JONES 6%(+2),​ PADDICK 5%(-1), ​BENITA 3%(+3), ​WEBB 2%(+1), ​CORTIGLIA 2%(+1).​


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

The guilty Huhne and rapidly backtracking idiot wife have plea hearing on june 1st.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 1, 2012)

Great interview with Clegg on Radio4 at about 1.30pm today, anyone got it?

He was on the defensive the whole time, contradicted himself, lied, said that while some polls gave him the worst approval ratings of all time, others gave him really positive ones...

If I was a Liberal I would have been facepalming away

I think it's at about 1.25 or 1.30 here on the world at one - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

I wonder if he could point to the polls that gave him really positive ratings?

Other news: GIVE THE MONEY BACK!
Lib Dem donor Michael Brown to start jail term



> A judge has directed convicted fraudster and former Liberal Democrat donor Michael Brown to start serving his seven-year prison sentence.
> Brown was extradited to the UK from Spain on Monday after he went on the run to the Dominican Republic in July 2008.He was convicted in his absence in November 2008 of stealing £36m from clients after posing as a bond dealer.
> 
> Brown, 46, donated £2.4m to the Lib Dems before the 2005 general election.


 
I wonder how his sentence compares to rioters in term of how much time a pound stolen gets you?


----------



## weepiper (May 3, 2012)

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/local/9682403.Facebook_shame_of_council_candidate/



> Mr Elvish wrote: “Is it just me or is 5 years is ridiculously excessive>? ... ‘The judge said the sentence took into account that there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.’ Yet another shameful example of our disproportionate legal system > Most girls I speak to say they wouldn’t say no to Ched Evans, anyway...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 3, 2012)

Now they are fielding rape apologists as candidates, they're really getting desperate.


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

What the fuck is wrong with these people.


> When The Gazette spoke to Mr Elvish at his home in Belvedere Gardens, Chineham, he said: “It’s a controversial issue. If I have offended anyone, I apologise. I think we are all entitled to our own opinions.”


Rape is a matter of opinion. Not the victim's opinion, mind. That would be silly.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2012)

the lib-dem said on tv that the labour party was a party of opposition and protest, most people know there are difficult decisions that need to be done, etc


----------



## Lock&Light (May 4, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the lib-dem said on tv that the labour party was a party of opposition and protest, difficult decisions that need to be done, and that voting labour meant that voters were superficial.


 
Are you sure that you have quoted that correctly? It doesn't seem to mean anything.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2012)

Lib-dems a few days ago - "people are flocking back to vote for us".


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Are you sure that you have quoted that correctly? It doesn't seem to mean anything.


 
sorry - he said that voting labour was a "superficial" decision and when asked whether that meant they were superficial couldn't really reply. you're right - wasn't really thinking when i wrote that.


----------



## Lock&Light (May 4, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Lib-dems a few days ago - "people are flocking back to vote for us".


 
That's all that can be said (unless you want to lose) shortly before an election. Party statements just before elections should never be taken seriously.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2012)

yeah you've got a point there.


----------



## rekil (May 4, 2012)

I like how their twitter feed this morning is just a relentless stream of victory after victory.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 4, 2012)

Radio 4 referred to "the two main parties" this morning.


----------



## BigTom (May 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> this is quite quite brilliant, like Alan Partridge with less self awareness - its a local lib dem councillor talking about the problems of cottaging in a local park




Lost his seat to Labour last night  but also a bit  for not having as much opportunity for lols.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2012)

Lembit calls for Clegg to go- the fuck faced twat couldn't wait to get the dagger out


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

_Bastard wouldn't let me stand for London Mayor. I bet i could have matched Paddicks 7%._


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Lembit calls for Clegg to go- the fuck faced twat couldn't wait to get the dagger out


 
Cleggs biggest problem right now is Lembit


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Someone 'on twitter' said it was like an ewok making wanker signs at darth vaader.


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Someone 'on twitter' said it was like an ewok making wanker signs at darth vaader.


Clegg wishes he was Darth fucking Vader.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 4, 2012)

Santino said:


> Clegg wishes he was Darth fucking Vader.


 
He's Vader voiced by Prowse


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

_So...alone._


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2012)

More like Salacious Crumb.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

Teather "Nick Clegg has led the LibDems very well" - what to utter destruction you moron.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2012)

Dianne abbot looks like she hasn't slept. Was putting the boot in on teather


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

Looking at the live data from the counts in the London boroughs, it appears that the Lib Dems have fallen behind the Greens in several.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Looking at the live data from the counts in the London boroughs, it appears that the Lib Dems have fallen behind the Greens in several.


 
I really think that those of us and the rest of the country who have been predicting a proper wipeout, over than in a few strongholds are on track, and as others have said this is a serious anihilation of their activist base over large swathes of the country.

It would be interesting to see a proper analysis of where they have held on or cemented previous work like Eastleigh (Chris Huhne's seat), and how they do against the SNP in Scotland, plus results in the South West.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Dianne abbot looks like she hasn't slept. Was putting the boot in on teather


 
To be fair, I reckon most people would, given the chance. Perhaps if she (and the rest of her party's MPs) weren't so fucking deluded, we wouldn't feel that boot therapy was the treatment to go with.


----------



## Blagsta (May 4, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Looking at the live data from the counts in the London boroughs, it appears that the Lib Dems have fallen behind the Greens in several.


Lib dems behind the greens in Bournville in Birmingham and only 16 votes ahead of Communities Against the Cuts.


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Lib dems behind the greens in Bournville in Birmingham and only 16 votes ahead of Communities Against the Cuts.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Lib dems behind the greens in Bournville in Birmingham and only 16 votes ahead of Communities Against the Cuts.


Excellent


----------



## binka (May 4, 2012)

vince cable just on bbc news [paraphrasing] 'it was a low turnout but i think people realise there is no alternative to what the government is doing so they are just letting us get on with it'


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Er...what the fuck?


----------



## binka (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Er...what the fuck?


yes i know. im 95% sure i heard him correctly


----------



## Voley (May 4, 2012)

Doesn't look like the Lib Dems have done as badly as I'd hoped:



> The Lib Dems' share of the vote is estimated to be unchanged at 16%. But the party's total number of councillors has dipped below 3,000 for the first time since the party was formed in 1988.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17920848
Maybe voters have turned their ire on the Tories now. I tend to think of the govt as Tory rather than Lib Dem by and large.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

NVP said:


> Doesn't look like the Lib Dems have done as badly as I'd hoped:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe voters have turned their ire on the Tories now. I tend to think of the govt as Tory rather than Lib Dem by and large.


Time yet. Thing is, local elections are the base for the wider party - this is where they always do their best. Expect higher results here than parliamentaries. What this does is cut the base for their MPS off at the knees. Individual wards away from where they hold seats and have local traditions are  more indicative of how they'll perform in the GE. And in these, they are largely getting killed.


----------



## Voley (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Time yet. Thing is, local elections are the base for the wider party - this is where they always do their best. Expect higher results here than parliamentaries. What this does is cut the base for their MPS off at the knees. Individual wards away from where they hold seats and have local traditions are more indicative of how they'll perform in the GE. And in these, they are largely getting killed.


That makes sense. This bit from the same article is heartening:


> But the party's total number of councillors has dipped below 3,000 for the first time since the party was formed in 1988.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

NVP said:


> Doesn't look like the Lib Dems have done as badly as I'd hoped:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17920848
> Maybe voters have turned their ire on the Tories now. I tend to think of the govt as Tory rather than Lib Dem by and large.


Last figure I heard (some time ago now) they were doing even worse than last year in terms of % of wins


----------



## Voley (May 4, 2012)

I'm enjoying hearing Clegg & Cameron's 'difficult decisions' mantra/excuse right now. It gets lamer every time they say it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Good (brief) overview of what this 15-16% masks - the _speed_ of their decline.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

Also I could be wrong but it seems to be that Clegg is getting more flack from within his own party this time.


> *Sunderland*'s only Lib Dem councillor has blamed Nick Clegg "and his cronies in government" for his party's losses in the local elections, writes *Josh Halliday*.


 
Though the majority of libdems still seem to be deluded.


----------



## BigTom (May 4, 2012)

apologies if this has been posted, couldn't see it

http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/..._police_after_alleged_election_night_scuffle/

Lib Dem leader in St Helens led away by police after scuffle



> ST HELENS' Liberal Democrat leader Brian Spencer was led from the counting room of the local elections by police after a scuffle allegedly broke out.
> On humiliating night of results for his party, Mr Spencer was marched out of the room by a number of officers following an apparent confrontation with Labour members


 
Not been arrested though..


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 4, 2012)

lol


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, I reckon most people would, given the chance. Perhaps if she (and the rest of her party's MPs) weren't so fucking deluded, we wouldn't feel that boot therapy was the treatment to go with.


 still a bit of a shock to see Abbot doing something constructive and useful!


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 4, 2012)

I'm amazed that there aren't large numbers of lib dems clamouring to ditch clegg and get out of the coaltion. They are cleary so deluded they think that people are going to come back to them.
At least half of their support was those who saw them as an alternative anti-tory vote.


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2012)

As a percentage they have not done worse than the BNP have they?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 4, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> still a bit of a shock to see Abbot doing something constructive and useful!


Has she hanged herself?


----------



## the button (May 4, 2012)

“In one Edinburgh ward a Lib Dem candidate has failed to pick up more first preference votes than Professor Pongoo, an independent candidate who dresses in a six-foot penguin costume. And with nine of 58 seats declared in the city, it is clear the Lib Dem vote is down overall.”

(via BBC live updates)


----------



## mk12 (May 4, 2012)

Is it wrong that I take more joy out of Lib Dem failure than Tory failure?


----------



## Random (May 4, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Is it wrong that I take more joy out of Lib Dem failure than Tory failure?


The LibDems are really really badly hurt. The Tories are getting a bit of a battering, but they'll bounce back. So LD failure is more significant, and more objectively deserving of joy, comrade.


----------



## mk12 (May 4, 2012)

Was it you who thought I'd end up as a LD?


----------



## Random (May 4, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Was it you who thought I'd end up as a LD?


Surely not me. I've always said you'll end up Labour


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

Badgers said:


> As a percentage they have not done worse than the BNP have they?


I doubt there are truly comparable figures available without a lot of digging. The BNP don't stand a full slate everywhere, so you'd need to go to ward level to compare like with like, but that isn't comparing like with like anyway because the BNP stand where their support is highest.

Hopefully, we will never ever know how the BNP would do against the Lib Dems in a fair comparison, because _neither_ party will be in a position to stand a full slate nationally at any point in the future.


----------



## the button (May 4, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Is it wrong that I take more joy out of Lib Dem failure than Tory failure?


They thought they'd hit the big time, and turns out it's more likely to wipe them out as a force in British politics. So I reckon it's fine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm amazed that there aren't large numbers of lib dems clamouring to ditch clegg and get out of the coaltion. They are cleary so deluded they think that people are going to come back to them.
> At least half of their support was those who saw them as an alternative anti-tory vote.


 
Problem for the general membership is that Clegg and his Jolly Boys have been manouvering the party into the same sort of stupidities as the Labour and Tory memberships fell for, and have been ceding their powers over policy, selection etc, so they can clamour all they like, but nothing less than a full vote of no confidence at conference is going to shift the leprous Etonian fuckbag.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2012)

the button said:


> They thought they'd hit the big time, and turns out it's more likely to wipe them out as a force in British politics. So I reckon it's fine.


 
A fair point, stranger.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

Apparently, in Edinburgh, the LibDems got out polled by someone dressed as a penguin...


----------



## shagnasty (May 4, 2012)

If i was a tory i would have to make a tough decision whether to make a cup of tea or coffee


----------



## binka (May 4, 2012)

peter bone sticking the boot into the libdems blaming them for holding the tories back. basically said the tories should fuck off the lib dems and do what they want because the lib dems wouldnt dare break the coalition because they know they'd be wiped out in the election that follows.


----------



## the button (May 4, 2012)

binka said:


> the lib dems wouldnt dare break the coalition because they know they'd be wiped out in the election that follows.


He speaks the truth.


----------



## binka (May 4, 2012)

the button said:


> He speaks the truth.


its funny because its true


----------



## two sheds (May 4, 2012)

They might be seen as taking a principled stand for truth and integrity and win back all their old supporters

/cleggworld


----------



## gosub (May 4, 2012)

In answer to OP.Lib Dem led council have dug the main street twice in two years to put in a tram that doesn't go half the distance its supposed to costs twice as much and is years late, apparently a lot of spoiled ballot papers referred to this but the now ex head of council thinks it was Nick Cleggs fault. Even more locally, we have endured roadworks down on the Shore since November which our now ex Lib Dem counciller claimed were on time and on budget, despite the road closed sign clearly having a month extension tacked on and not to mention the new set they started this month. I would have voted for an independent had one stood in this ward even if he dressed as a penguin


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

binka said:


> peter bone sticking the boot into the libdems blaming them for holding the tories back. basically said the tories should fuck off the lib dems and do what they want because the lib dems wouldnt dare break the coalition because they know they'd be wiped out in the election that follows.


 
He's only saying what a lot of the Tory right have thought from the beginning.  There's a bit of speculation in the Torygraph about a 'night of the long knives' for Cameron, but speculation is all it is.  The Tory right might huff and puff but they're not going to do much more - yet.  Meanwhile, as you say, the Lib Dem leadership is well aware that breaking the Coalition would be suicide, and that their only option is to cling on and hope Micawber-like for something to turn up and save them.  I do think the election results might cause a bit more tension in the Coalition, but I can't see it falling apart just yet, more's the pity.


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

This election won't finish them off on its own. But omnidefeat + omnishambles + omniscandal _might_.


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> This election won't finish them off on its own. But omnidefeat + omnishambles + omniscandal _might_.


 
It might.  But I think it'll need a bit more of the latter two before that becomes any kind of likelihood.


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

Hard to see how we can get more of the latter two. But they are still very much ongoing concerns so we'll see. Fingers crossed, eh?


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> Fingers crossed, eh?


 
Goes without saying!


----------



## Roadkill (May 4, 2012)

I do like this, again from the Torygraph.




> Lord Oakeshott, the LibDems’ former Treasury spokesman, warned the party might not be able to fight the 2015 general election effectively if it suffered another “hammering” on the scale of the local elections.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
And there's precious little prospect of much improvement in the next year either...


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

Unless they are seen to bring this government down and pray for forgiveness. Come on Lib Dems, you know what has to be done.


----------



## free spirit (May 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> Unless they are seen to bring this government down and pray for forgiveness. Come on Lib Dems, you know what has to be done.


Oddly, I've had no reply from my MP from the letter I sent asking him to develop some back bone and do what he could to bring the government down.

He seems to have me on some sort of text message list asking me for sponsorship for some sponsored long distance walk / run he's been doing though... I almost texted him back to ask him to maybe do his sodding job and hold the government to account for taking us back into recession instead of pissing about with that sort of thing. Should have really.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 4, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Apparently, in Edinburgh, the LibDems got out polled by someone dressed as a penguin...


 
I agree with Professor Pongoo.


----------



## binka (May 4, 2012)

salford lib dem who lost his seat on newsnight now looks like he is going to cry


----------



## Roonster (May 4, 2012)

binka said:


> peter bone sticking the boot into the libdems blaming them for holding the tories back. basically said the tories should fuck off the lib dems and do what they want because the lib dems wouldnt dare break the coalition because they know they'd be wiped out in the election that follows.


I don't think the Tories have anymore need for the Lib-Dems and what he says is true as far as the Tory right are concerned.. it's also true that the Lib-Dems are now seen as useless by Labour and it's back to the usual two dog fight.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

The Edinburgh count, some moments ago:


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2012)

From another thread, but needs to be here:

Kirsty Wark to Simon Hughes on Newsnight: You got beaten by a _penguin_ in Edinburgh.


----------



## magneze (May 5, 2012)

Jenny Jones: "It's great being the third party"


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2012)

Are they all going to make a speech?


----------



## Belushi (May 5, 2012)

Yes.

Brians is shit.


----------



## agricola (May 5, 2012)

... and the BBC cut off Siobhan Benita one last time.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2012)

agricola said:


> ... and the BBC cut off Siobhan Benita one last time.


i was quite looking forward to carlos cortiglia's.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 5, 2012)

People definitely listening to them this time around.


> In 2011, the party lost 41% of seats they were defending. This year, they've lost 44%


----------



## Streathamite (May 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Has she hanged herself?



one can but dream...


----------



## Streathamite (May 8, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm amazed that there aren't large numbers of lib dems clamouring to ditch clegg and get out of the coaltion. They are cleary so deluded they think that people are going to come back to them.
> At least half of their support was those who saw them as an alternative anti-tory vote.


The problem for many of them is that the whole raison d'etre of the LDs is to form coalitions, so they are terified of leaVING themselves open to the accusation that they can't run one at the highest level.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2012)

ymu said:


> Unless they are seen to bring this government down and pray for forgiveness. Come on Lib Dems, you know what has to be done.


 
Rumour - and that's really all it is atm - is suggesting that that isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 8, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Rumour - and that's really all it is atm - is suggesting that that isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.


 
hmmm -  playing the media breifing game as a message to the tories? No sign of anything stirring within their rank and file.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2012)

See also George eaton in the new statesman.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/will-lib-dems-reach-eject-button


----------



## gosub (May 8, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> hmmm -  playing the media breifing game as a message to the tories? No sign of anything stirring within their rank and file.


Do they still have a rank and file?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 8, 2012)

They are totally fucking rank.


----------



## Santino (May 8, 2012)

gosub said:


> Do they still have a rank and file?


 
Yes, and they're both fine.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 8, 2012)

Santino said:


> Yes, and they're both fine.


 
File is on gardening leave. Now it's just rank.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> See also George eaton in the new statesman.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/will-lib-dems-reach-eject-button


 
Lol @ the idiot commentator still drivelling on about public spending 'crowding out' private investment.  Never mind the fact that there's no evidence that happened before the recession, and none that it's happening now either.


----------



## Santino (May 8, 2012)

What are the bugles blowin’ for?' said Files-on-Parade.   
‘To turn you out, to turn you out,’ the Lib Dem chief whip said.
‘What makes you look so white, so white?’ said Files-on-Parade.
‘I’m dreadin’ what I’ve got to watch,’ the Lib Dem chief whip said.
      For they’re hangin’ Nicky Clegg, you can hear the Dead March play,
      The Party’s in ’ollow square—they’re hangin’ him to-day;
      They’ve taken of his buttons off an’ cut his stripes away,
      An’ they're hangin’ Nicky Clegg in the mornin’.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> See also George eaton in the new statesman.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/will-lib-dems-reach-eject-button


 
How the hell can any Lib Dem really believe that pulling out of the coalition will do them any good now? Damage already done for them. People won't suddenly start flocking back to the LibDems even if they somehow contrive some pretence at independence from their masters again.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> How the hell can any Lib Dem really believe that pulling out of the coalition will do them any good now? Damage already done for them. People won't suddenly start flocking back to the LibDems even if they somehow contrive some pretence at independence from their masters again.


 
Sssshhhh! 

I know that, you know that and pretty much everyone who isn't a die-hard Lib Dem knows that, but let them have their little delusion, eh? It might just help to bring down the coalition, after all!

(FWIW I don't think that's likely, in reality, but we can live in hope)


----------



## William of Walworth (May 8, 2012)

Oh yeah!


----------



## hipipol (May 8, 2012)

well there is no fuck point as the human race is fucking diease
The sooner everyones dead, includingme, the fucking better
A fucking plague on all their houses, SOON please


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2012)

You're having a bad day, aren't you, pol?  Have a chamomile tea.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2012)

hipipol said:


> well there is no fuck point as the human race is fucking diease
> The sooner everyones dead, includingme, the fucking better
> A fucking plague on all their houses, SOON please


 
Well you know how to get started don't you?


----------



## articul8 (May 8, 2012)

LLETSA will be along soon to say you are being far too optimistic


----------



## hipipol (May 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well you know how to get started don't you?


Dont worry Bumchops I am killing meself at my own pace
Got any Kids?
I aint
Hope you have not reproduced
Such a drag to have to top children, they wriggle so


----------



## hipipol (May 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> You're having a bad day, aren't you, pol? Have a chamomile tea.


 
Is there a Valium tea in the shops????????


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2012)

Not round here.  They're all boarded up or charity shops.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2012)

cheer up


----------



## discokermit (May 8, 2012)

hipipol said:


> well there is no fuck point as the human race is fucking diease
> The sooner everyones dead, includingme, the fucking better


 


hipipol said:


> I am killing meself at my own pace


full of shit. either do it or shut the fuck up.


----------



## hipipol (May 8, 2012)

discokermit said:


> full of shit. either do it or shut the fuck up.


Come over to mine ArseBisquit you can fucking watch
Bumwipe thing


----------



## discokermit (May 8, 2012)

hipipol said:


> Come over to mine ArseBisquit you can fucking watch
> Bumwipe thing


stick it on youtube, then we can all have a laugh.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Rumour - and that's really all it is atm - is suggesting that that isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.


They're only talking a strategic early withdrawal though, not enough to shift the date of the election.

They seem to think that if they pull out early, we will forget that they made it all possible in the first place.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 9, 2012)

Both coalition parties are now laying the groundwork for an almighty bunfight in 2015 (or possibly sooner) about how the fact the coalition was a disaster for the country and economy was the other parties fault.

All this meaningless bollocks about 'redoubling efforts' and 'renewed urgency' would suggest that nothing tangible is going to happen in the next couple of years.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2012)

I give the coaltion another year. Another trouncing at the locals in may 2013 for the lib dems (which is almsot impossible for them to avoid - even if nick clegg discovers a cure for cancer and gives everyone in the country a chocolate cake wrapped in £20 notes) and they will really start to despair.
I'm suprised some sort of anit-clegg rebellion hasn't happened this time around - but their powers of self delusion are clearly formiddable.


----------



## rekil (May 22, 2012)

Nick Clegg hits out at class divides.



> "Politicians are often reluctant to get into a discussion about class especially if, like me, they have been fortunate in their background, schooling and opportunities.
> 
> "But we can't ignore it. Class still counts. We are a long distance from being a classless society."


----------



## JimW (May 22, 2012)

copliker said:


> Nick Clegg hits out at class divides.


Finally realised they're polling about the same level as actual class struggle parties?


----------



## frogwoman (May 22, 2012)

copliker said:


> Nick Clegg hits out at class divides.


 
That could be a new guest post for workers' girder


----------



## rekil (May 22, 2012)

PD are plainly stacking their focus groups.


----------



## Nylock (May 23, 2012)

Maybe Workers Girder could run an 'ask nick' column....


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

In brief : we were wrong and i'm a liar.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 23, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Maybe Workers Girder could run an 'ask nick' column....


 
Britain's proles are either broken or own alarm clocks.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Note as well, latest YG figures (CON 32%, LAB 43%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 9%) show them behind UKIP, a situation which anthony wells now describes as the norm.


----------



## Nylock (May 23, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Britain's proles are either broken or own alarm clocks.


That should be his 'pro forma' response to any question raised:
"Prole, You're Broken"
"Prole, Get an Alarm Clock!"
"Prole, Fix your Broken Alarm Clock!" etc


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Lib Dems want capital punishment back




> Another suggestion is toughening punishment for the killing of newborn babies by their mothers, and introducing the death penalty for the most outrageous cases. For the moment this crime is punishable by a five-year prison term. Responsibility for drug-related crimes should be toughened in the same way


----------



## two sheds (May 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In brief : we were wrong and i'm a liar.


 
Ooo I don't know, giving pots of money to the companies that 'donate' to them has always been part of Plan A.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2012)

toughening punishment for mothers who kill their newborn babies? what the fuck?


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> toughening punishment for mothers who kill their newborn babies? what the fuck?


Desperate times...


----------



## Streathamite (May 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> toughening punishment for mothers who kill their newborn babies? what the fuck?


 as BA knows, that's not _these_ Lib Dems. the word 'duma' is a bit of a giveaway


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2012)

hmm. russian lib dems.

should probably have read the link first.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

The russian lib dems are a bit fash like


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> hmm. russian lib dems.
> 
> should probably have read the link first.


 
Ha Ha.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

A good policy is a good policy no matter where it comes from. I'm sick of these mothers killing their newborns and walking away. It needs TO STOP. I think Clegg understands this.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> The russian lib dems are a bit fash like


 
Zhirinovsky is a dick.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2012)

i wish we had politicians who'd pose like that.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

The lib-dem split might be starting - to the right.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

Moldovan lib dems as well - another Romanian nationalist party. (There's an interesting discussion in there about the intersection of western-style economic liberalism and mild social liberalism (which they support) and a divisive nationalist ideology


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Zhirinovsky is a dick.


 
Full speed ahead - we will crush them.


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2012)

Liberal Democratism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Moldovan lib dems as well - another Romanian nationalist party.


Not to mention the slovenian lib-dems supporting that tyrant danilo turk.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

Lots of semi unofficial cooperation between lib-dem style parties/NGOs and the fash over there. (I should start a thread on it at some point)


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2012)

I do enjoy Nick doing Deputy PMQs - living the dream, loves it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

On that point I once got a leaflet given to me by a group which the guardian etc had described as pro liberal, western, etc, read it and it turned out to contain all sorts of disgusting fash shit and diatribes against russians etc. I don't know whether it was them to be fair or people who claimed to be representing them. Romanian nationalism in Moldova is usually pro EU and sometimes socially liberal, but often contains a really nasty streak of anti-welfare, anti-public sector etc policies which is supposed to be and thinly disguised as being against communism. They Moldovan lib-dems got in power two years ago in a coalition (lol) and were one of the largest parties, and have since been completely discredited. I haven't been back in two years but the impression I get is that they all hate the cunts.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Romanian nationalism in Moldova is usually pro EU and sometimes socially liberal, but often contains a really nasty streak of anti-welfare, anti-public sector etc policies which is supposed to be and thinly disguised as being against communism. They got in power two years ago in a coalition (lol) and were one of the largest parties, and have since been completely discredited. I haven't been back in two years but the impression I get is that they all hate the cunts.


sounds familiar.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

It's the power of _the name_ - something the most powerful warlocks (like Clegg) have always undertsood.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

Within a few weeks of being in power they had scrapped free transport for pensioners and doubled bus fares. Heard some disgusting shit from their supporters as well.


----------



## frogwoman (May 23, 2012)

Just reading their website now, they supported Sarkozy in the last election and are in the same international as Fine Gael and the CDU.


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2012)

Unbelievable:



> What's happened - [Tim Farron] says - is that while it looks like there are many Lib Dems who lost their seats, there are fewer council seats overall than in the past - because so many have turned into unitary authorities. And the glimmer of hope for him is that Lib Dems tended to lose seats to Labour, but not to the Tories.


 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ms-coalition-breakup-interview_n_1538390.html


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

**


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Ugh:


> How often does he talk to Clegg? "Once a week, sometimes by phone, more often by text. He’s a good texter, very responsive.


 
remember, fallon is the angry voice of the grass roots lib-dems, elected ona platform of reining in the coalition:


----------



## articul8 (May 23, 2012)

Lol


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ugh:
> 
> 
> remember, fallon is the angry voice of the grass roots lib-dems, elected ona platform of reining in the coalition:


 

very responsive, gentle too.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2012)

UK Uncut are demonstrating/partying outside Clegg's house in Putney lol.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 26, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Britain's proles are either broken *or own alarm clocks.*


 
If ever there eneeded to be *conclusive* proof that Clagg is a blatant, out and out Tory, use of that phrase in that 'Alarm clock Britain' speech was it.

Not that we didn't know anyway, but that slice of Sun-mongering arsery nailed it


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2012)

We now know that Huhne's wife defence of her not guilty plea consists of claiming 'marital coercion' - only way out of it for her really. And no good at all for Huhne himself who would have hoped she back off and accept something for wasting police time in order to get herself out of the hole. He will of course now proceed with the this is revenge for my affair(s) defence.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 1, 2012)

which of course it is - won't have helped that his latest squeeze lost a quarter of a million in expenses after legal case against Daily Mail et al flopped.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2012)

...and they will proceed with it being immaterial whether the claim is motivated by revenge or not, it's whether the evidence points to happening as she claims or not. 





articul8 said:


> which of course it is - won't have helped that his latest squeeze lost a quarter of a million in expenses after legal case against Daily Mail et al flopped.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 1, 2012)

Yes, and if it *was* coercion then I can quite see someone when they come out of the relationship wanting to correct what happened.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 1, 2012)

oh gawd I'd love tyo be in the Huhne case's prosecuting brief's office right now. They must be practically cackling with glee


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2012)

Lib Dems suffer plunge in party membership

Ministers' constituencies show the steepest losses as one fifth of activists quit across the country​ 


> One in five members of the Liberal Democrats quit the party last year, with the worst losses in constituencies represented by government ministers, as disaffected activists walked out in protest at the coalition.
> 
> An investigation by The Independent on Sundayreveals the Lib Dems' collapse in support in the polls has been matched by a desertion of thousands of members. The exodus – far worse than the usual post-election drop-off – threatens to undermine the party's support base. Officials in one minister's constituency reported "members and supporters not being willing to campaign for the party".


 


> Membership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has shrunk by 26 per cent.


 


> Liberal Youth, the party's student wing, seeing more than half its 6,000 members quit in 2011.


 


> Nick Clegg The embattled deputy PM and Lib Dem leader saw an 18 per cent drop in membership in his Sheffield Hallam constituency, despite efforts to "build support for the party".


 


> Sarah Teather The largest drop in membership came in the Children's Minister's local party in Brent. It saw 42 per cent of activists quit in the space of 12 months.​


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 3, 2012)

Excellent, destruction looming.

Do you know what percentage of their income is due to membership fees? I'm guessing but I'd think it would be a much greater percentage for them than for either the Tories or Labour.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 3, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Excellent, destruction looming.
> 
> Do you know what percentage of their income is due to membership fees? I'm guessing but I'd think it would be a much greater percentage for them than for either the Tories or Labour.


The money side they could probably manage but lost of members weakens their ability to put candidates up as shown in the may elections, with also lose of people to do the canvassing.They have cut their own throats all for a moment of power


----------



## Santino (Jun 3, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> The money side they could probably manage but lost of members weakens their ability to put candidates up as shown in the may elections, with also lose of people to do the canvassing.They have cut their own throats all for a moment of power


It would be Shakespearean if Shakespeare had ever written about a bunch of twats.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 3, 2012)

Lembit Opik's trying his hand at professional wrestling now;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-bid-professional-wrestler.html#ixzz1wkx6djHN

Must admit I laughed, but all credit to him; it takes guts to get in the ring with pro fighters as he did.


----------



## rekil (Jun 3, 2012)

It's not 'guts', it's a pathological need for attention.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 4, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> The money side they could probably manage but lost of members weakens their ability to put candidates up as shown in the may elections, with also lose of people to do the canvassing.They have cut their own throats all for a moment of power


While I agree the big problem is the loss of their activists, I think the money could be more of an issue than you think. They don't have the unions and/or many rich donors to fall back on like the Labour and Tories (the reason why they are desperate for us to fund political parties).


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2012)

tbh, I'm surprised it's not worse than that.

I'd suspect there'd be a lot more semi-lapsed members / activists who've just not quite cut the cord, but have significantly reduced what they're actively doing.

I'd also think a lot of those left are still in because of long term friendships built up with councillors, MPs and other activists rather than support for clegg and the party line. I'm fairly sure that's the only reason my brother's still occasionally helping them out locally, though their leaflets rarely seem to actually get delivered by him, just sit there for a bit, then end up in the recycling bin.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2012)

Senior Liberal Democrats in secret talks with Labour



> The aim of the discussions is to find "common ground" between the two parties so that, if the next general election results in a hung parliament, they are are able to form a "progressive" coalition which would see the Lib Dems turn their back on David Cameron and the Conservatives.


 
Don't help them! Tell 'em to get fucked. I suspect this is more simple politics than anything else - play on these fools vanity to drive further splits between them and Clegg. Note it was leaked by labour.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 4, 2012)

Adonis was on the radio this morning saying he was one of the architechts of these talks.  I reckon it will be a combination of some people like him who really want Labour to be a giant neoliberalised SDP and a few others who are thinking more instrumentally (for now and later).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2012)

Instrumental as in the short term way i suggested or in the way that you've justified before on here as hard nosed political reality - post-election lib-lab coalition?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2012)

Redcar MP Ian Swales blasted over pregnancy comments



> REDCAR MP Ian Swales has come under fire for suggesting getting pregnant became almost a “career option” for some mothers in the town.
> 
> One of the North’s most senior Lib Dems made the claims while attacking Labour’s “legacy” in the region during a speech in the House of Commons.
> ...
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 4, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Lembit Opik's trying his hand at professional wrestling now;
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-bid-professional-wrestler.html#ixzz1wkx6djHN
> 
> Must admit I laughed, but all credit to him; it takes guts to get in the ring with pro fighters as he did.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Redcar MP Ian Swales blasted over pregnancy comments


 
Thanks to the Libdems Redcar has no career options now, including benefits


----------



## co-op (Jun 4, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Excellent, destruction looming.
> 
> Do you know what percentage of their income is due to membership fees? I'm guessing but I'd think it would be a much greater percentage for them than for either the Tories or Labour.


 
It's quite a lot bigger - from memory about 11% of their income. There's some uncertainty about all the figures but the Labour and Conservative Parties are about half that. Kind of lets you know why the members have so little power.

But although it's all rather jolly that the LD's membership is crashing, their membership figures went up a lot in the couple of years leading up to 2010 so they're probably just losing a lot of the newcomers.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 4, 2012)

There exists such a thing as a perenial liberal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2012)

Fuck off.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 4, 2012)

I think you might mean perianal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2012)

co-op said:


> It's quite a lot bigger - from memory about 11% of their income. There's some uncertainty about all the figures but the Labour and Conservative Parties are about half that. Kind of lets you know why the members have so little power.
> 
> But although it's all rather jolly that the LD's membership is crashing, their membership figures went up a lot in the couple of years leading up to 2010 so they're probably just losing a lot of the newcomers.


Have you any figures for that (not doubting, just think it might be useful to get a proper picture)? I think the emphasis on activists leaving in the independent article suggests longer term members who - for whatever daft reason - didn't expect 'this' to happen.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 4, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I think you might mean perianal.


 
It's possible.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 4, 2012)

BTW, Bugger off Butch.


----------



## Santino (Jun 4, 2012)

They're going to fuck up this vote on Jeremy Hunt.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 4, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I think you might mean perianal.


 
Or indeed *perennial* ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 4, 2012)

Santino said:


> They're going to fuck up this vote on Jeremy Hunt.


 
They're rubbish in every respect imaginable. So yes, I agree ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 4, 2012)

free spirit said:


> tbh, I'm surprised it's not worse than that.
> 
> I'd suspect there'd be a lot more semi-lapsed members / activists who've just not quite cut the cord, but have significantly reduced what they're actively doing.
> 
> I'd also think a lot of those left are still in because of long term friendships built up with councillors, MPs and other activists rather than support for clegg and the party line. I'm fairly sure that's the only reason my brother's still occasionally helping them out locally, though their leaflets rarely seem to actually get delivered by him, just sit there for a bit, then end up in the recycling bin.


 
Respect for the honesty there fs, and about as revealing about the current state of the libdems in the North as anything you'll *ever* get from the mainstream media will reveal.

They're doomed to *permanently* being crushed in _any_ election north of Watford. For ever.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Respect for the honesty there fs, and about as revealing about the current state of the libdems in the North as anything you'll *ever* get from the mainstream media will reveal.
> 
> They're doomed to *permanently* being crushed in _any_ election north of Watford. For ever.


not really sure how revealing it is as I've had zero contact with any lib dems since about a week after the election, other than my brother.

In the local elections here they did still seem to have the most poster boards up around the place, though not as many as the general election. Still obviously enough manpower to make a significant impact though.

eta - Well, I've emailed the MP twice and got no reply, though tbf I did have a bit of a rant both times, and suggested he do what he could to bring the government down, so I'm not that surprised. I also seem to be on his text message list, which is a bit annoying tbh, but he only seems to use it when doing some sponsored thing, which he seems to do a lot of.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 4, 2012)

They're fighting against a very large and heavy electoral steamroller in the North, I'm convinced. Despite their best best local efforts, they can't avoid encrushment.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> They're fighting against a very large and heavy electoral steamroller in the North, I'm convinced. Despite their best best local efforts, they can't avoid encrushment.


be interesting to see what happens here, as he got something like a 10,000 majority, and this place has had lib dem, labour and tory MP's in the last couple of decades. Huge student constituency as well.


----------



## co-op (Jun 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you any figures for that (not doubting, just think it might be useful to get a proper picture)? I think the emphasis on activists leaving in the independent article suggests longer term members who - for whatever daft reason - didn't expect 'this' to happen.


 
If you look on page 3 of this - http://www.electoralcommission.org....f-accounts/soa/pdfs/soa_26-07-10_14-59-27.pdf - it gives membership as 58,768 whereas the same a year later (also page 3) http://www.electoralcommission.org....f-accounts/soa/pdfs/soa_27-07-11_09-55-56.pdf is 65,038 which is over 10% higher. The figures were pretty steady around the 55-58,000 mark for a few years.

I think this is usually cast as an early version of Cleggmania (ie discontent with the other two parties). Whether it's these new members who have been leaving is of course unknown and actually the thesis that it's old time activists is more credible because these are more likely to be the "left" of the party, whereas if the noobs are there because they liked the look of Clegg, then what they've got might be roughly what they wanted, i.e. a right wing party. So scratch my earlier comments about newbies leaving.

If that's right then basically the LDs are making quite a sea-change in party profile and shifting fundamentally to the right.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2012)

co-op said:


> I think this is usually cast as an early version of Cleggmania (ie discontent with the other two parties). Whether it's these new members who have been leaving is of course unknown and actually the thesis that it's old time activists is more credible because these are more likely to be the "left" of the party, whereas if the noobs are there because they liked the look of Clegg, then what they've got might be roughly what they wanted, i.e. a right wing party. So scratch my earlier comments about newbies leaving.
> 
> If that's right then basically the LDs are making quite a sea-change in party profile and shifting fundamentally to the right.


If you're right - and you may well be - that's a ginormous shift, considering that under Paddy they were to the left of Labour


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2012)

co-op said:


> If you look on page 3 of this - http://www.electoralcommission.org....f-accounts/soa/pdfs/soa_26-07-10_14-59-27.pdf - it gives membership as 58,768 whereas the same a year later (also page 3) http://www.electoralcommission.org....f-accounts/soa/pdfs/soa_27-07-11_09-55-56.pdf is 65,038 which is over 10% higher. The figures were pretty steady around the 55-58,000 mark for a few years.
> 
> I think this is usually cast as an early version of Cleggmania (ie discontent with the other two parties). Whether it's these new members who have been leaving is of course unknown and actually the thesis that it's old time activists is more credible because these are more likely to be the "left" of the party, whereas if the noobs are there because they liked the look of Clegg, then what they've got might be roughly what they wanted, i.e. a right wing party. So scratch my earlier comments about newbies leaving.
> 
> If that's right then basically the LDs are making quite a sea-change in party profile and shifting fundamentally to the right.


Forgot to say thanks for this. Thanks.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 6, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> If you're right - and you may well be - that's a ginormous shift, considering that under Paddy they were to the left of Labour


 
Were they? In some areas maybe, but (and I admit I was too young to pay any attention at the time) weren't they also the right wing alternative to Labour in a lot of areas where the Tories weren't electable. I think that's the real shift - it's no longer possible for them to pretend to be all things to all men and now the distinctly blue hue of their true colours is there for all to see.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Forgot to say thanks for this. Thanks.


what is so special about these figures.  what are you reading off them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2012)

Special?

Go on then. Reveal your point.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Were they? In some areas maybe, but (and I admit I was too young to pay any attention at the time) weren't they also the right wing alternative to Labour in a lot of areas where the Tories weren't electable. I think that's the real shift - it's no longer possible for them to pretend to be all things to all men and now the distinctly blue hue of their true colours is there for all to see.


There's some truth in that, but there's also the fact they tend to be the most unscrupulous and amoral campaigners going; they'll say _anything_ to get elected


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 6, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> If you're right - and you may well be - that's a ginormous shift, considering that under Paddy they were to the left of Labour


 
No they weren't, Spiney is broadly right below that the party were left or right, or "community activist" depending on the area at a local level, on a national level they have never been left of Labour in an economic sense, although they may have been more socially liberal on some issues, sometimes even consistantly.

Previously the leaderships small l liberal "populism" (in that it was populist for a certain section of society), and the federal structure allowed many disperate groupings to coexist reasonably happily.

However now they have put up rather than shutting up, that it was the one that has long been dominant and merely reflects the views of the strongest forces in society is not surprising.

It is useful to see it set out in black and white, and satisfying as well frankly.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Special?
> 
> Go on then. Reveal your point.


 
What is so remarkable here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2012)

Remarkable? I do hope you have to hand a big list of party membership figures dropping off after joining govt - do you? Have you at least seen them if you don't have them to hand? What do they say?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> If you're right - and you may well be - that's a ginormous shift, considering that under Paddy they were to the left of Labour


 
Under Paddy and Chuckles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Were they? In some areas maybe, but (and I admit I was too young to pay any attention at the time) weren't they also the right wing alternative to Labour in a lot of areas where the Tories weren't electable. I think that's the real shift - it's no longer possible for them to pretend to be all things to all men and now the distinctly blue hue of their true colours is there for all to see.


 
Until Blair. Blair started triangulating straight away, so from '94 onward, Labour's centre of gravity shifted rightward while the LDs shifted slightly leftward (mostly to emphasise their social democratic credentials). The sum of the two meant that the LDs appeared more leftward than they actually are, and increasing under new Labour governance, benefitted from being up against two parties "of the right". One open about it, the other disguising their kowtowing to the markets with a few gestures at pseudo-socialism and populism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 6, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> There's some truth in that, but there's also the fact they tend to be the most unscrupulous and amoral campaigners going; they'll say _anything_ to get elected


 
They are the true heirs of their parent traditions, then. That's all. Born of treachery and a lack of scruples, what else can you expect?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No they weren't, Spiney is broadly right below that the party were left or right, or "community activist" depending on the area at a local level, on a national level they have never been left of Labour in an economic sense, although they may have been more socially liberal on some issues, sometimes even consistantly.
> 
> Previously the leaderships small l liberal "populism" (in that it was populist for a certain section of society), and the federal structure allowed many disperate groupings to coexist reasonably happily.


If you're saying they were a generally amorphous, politically incoherent organisatrions, sure



> However now they have put up rather than shutting up, that it was the one that has long been dominant and merely reflects the views of the strongest forces in society is not surprising.
> 
> It is useful to see it set out in black and white, and satisfying as well frankly


to be precise, the Orange Book mob staged a complete takeover in  2005. before that, olde-style liberals were in a much stronger position in the LDs


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 7, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> to be precise, the Orange Book mob staged a complete takeover in 2005. before that, olde-style liberals were in a much stronger position in the LDs


 
What do you mean by old style Liberals though? And in what way did they assert their influence?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What do you mean by old style Liberals though? And in what way did they assert their influence?


the old liberal party was so ideologically and philosophically broadchurch it was very difficult to define it, but right up to the middle of this decade there was a fair-sized minority faction who were actually quite progressive; not just all CNDers, but also believers in social and economic justice, strike support etc. They've just about all gone now


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

There were old-school social-liberals. 2005 is so the wrong date though. The formal victory might have been that date (not sure need to check) but the battle was over well before.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There were old-school social-liberals. 2005 is so the wrong date though. The formal victory might have been that date (not sure need to check) but the battle was over well before.


not being that expert on LD/lib history, I'll willingly accept I might be inaccurate on dates. pretty sure clegg & co took over in 2005 tho'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 7, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> not being that expert on LD/lib history, I'll willingly accept I might be inaccurate on dates. pretty sure clegg & co took over in 2005 tho'


 
Yes but that was a culmination of a long process that I would argue dates back to the formation of the Libdems with the merger - I don't mean the SDP injected a technocratic managerialist and opportunist culture but the event itself caused some upheaval and functioned in conjunction with wider societal changes to transform the Liberal party into what it is now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 7, 2012)

My first ex's dad was a lib-dem councillor who has actually done some good things for the area such as opposing cuts etc. His was actually one of the few LD votes that held up during the elections last year. When I last spoke to my ex, which was a few months ago or so, she was quite pleased that "people in wycombe could be intelligent enough to separate wats happening at a local and national level"  Apparently he found whats happened with the lib-dems really difficult because he hates the tories and thinks of himself as a socialist. I wonder why he doesn't just leave then 

He would have more than enough support in the area to run as an independent.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes but that was a culmination of a long process that I would argue dates back to the formation of the Libdems with the merger - I don't mean the SDP injected a technocratic managerialist and opportunist culture but the event itself caused some upheaval and functioned in conjunction with wider societal changes to transform the Liberal party into what it is now.


tbh, it is very, very difficult to build a precise timeline of what changed and when - this is the lib dems after all - and a few of the grassroots SDPers were old-style 'democratic socialists', but the important thing to note about the merger was that the libs 'merged' with the SDP as a shark merges with a tune; 160,000  in the libs, 30,000 came in from the SDP. Owen knew that, hence his flounce. sdo I'd say the process started later.
you're right about the impact of external factors tho'


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 7, 2012)

Why would somebody who thinks they're a socialist and has been involved in anti cuts campaigns not want to leave the lib-dems? I genuinely don't get it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Why would somebody who thinks they're a socialist and has been involved in anti cuts campaigns not want to leave the lib-dems? I genuinely don't get it.


I spent lengthy periods of the last decade saying that sort of thing to radical liberals that I knew


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 7, 2012)

what is it? do they think that the party can be salvaged? is it some kind of weird masochism thing? what is it?


----------



## the button (Jun 7, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what is it? do they think that the party can be salvaged? is it some kind of weird masochism thing? what is it?


Have I clicked on some weird parallel thread about the Labour Party by accident?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> what is it? do they think that the party can be salvaged? is it some kind of weird masochism thing? what is it?


I'd say it's when you're in a political party for a long period of your life, it ends up playing such a big part of your life, that leaving is too much of a wrench.
as happened with me re; Labour, I stayed way after I'd lost all faith


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 7, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> the important thing to note about the merger was that the libs 'merged' with the SDP as a shark merges with a tune; 160,000 in the libs, 30,000 came in from the SDP. Owen knew that, hence his flounce. sdo I'd say the process started later.
> you're right about the impact of external factors tho'


 
But like I said the SDP wasn't the only reason for the sudden shift, but the serious reorganisation of the party as a result of the merger was what kicked off the process that culminated in what the party is now.

It's not a shark with a minnow though, more a pondlife with a toad.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> But like I said the SDP wasn't the only reason for the sudden shift, but the serious reorganisation of the party as a result of the merger was what kicked off the process that culminated in what the party is now.


hmm, not sure about that, other than that all their resident apparatchiks seemed to grow in prominence then



> It's not a shark with a minnow though, more a pondlife with a toad


I like that!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 7, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> hmm, not sure about that, other than that all their resident apparatchiks seemed to grow in prominence then


 
Well there you go then - maybe that was a cause/and/or/effect of the process.

I'm not expert enough, but I have researched it to some extent - though I don't care enough to dig out references or owt!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 7, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I spent lengthy periods of the last decade saying that sort of thing to radical liberals that I knew


 
Thing is, it must have been a lot easier for them to kid themselves before May 2010 but surely anyone with their eyes open must now realise they're just another bunch of neoliberal shitehawks, even worse than New Labour.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Thing is, it must have been a lot easier for them to kid themselves before May 2010 but surely anyone with their eyes open must now realise they're just another bunch of neoliberal shitehawks, even worse than New Labour.


you really would hope so, wouldn't you?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well there you go then - maybe that was a cause/and/or/effect of the process.
> 
> I'm not expert enough, but I have researched it to some extent - though I don't care enough to dig out references or owt!


fair enough...


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2012)

There's also the competition - I presume the reason a lot of people voted libdem is because across the rural south of the country particularly it was either them or tory.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 7, 2012)

two sheds said:


> There's also the competition - I presume the reason a lot of people voted libdem is because across the rural south of the country particularly it was either them or tory.


and in the suburban south, and in the twowns of the south (and tbh, the rural parts of most of England have never been that sweet on Labour)


----------



## articul8 (Jun 7, 2012)

two sheds said:


> There's also the competition - I presume the reason a lot of people voted libdem is because across the rural south of the country particularly it was either them or tory.


yes this could cost Labour - Tories can assume wins in the SW/SE marginals and concentrate resources where it matters.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2012)

yep was lib dem here (minor backwater in Cornwall) before last election when tory got in by 66 votes. Tories presumably a shoe-in next time


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes this could cost Labour - Tories can assume wins in the SW/SE marginals and concentrate resources where it matters.


Where?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 7, 2012)

the constituencies that were formerly marginals - like Somerset and Frome


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

Somerset? Like that big london place?

Edit: tell me about frome. It's marginality.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

"Marshalling the resources"


----------



## articul8 (Jun 7, 2012)

they're fucked pretty much everywhere.  But that helps Tories most.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

Let's help them then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2012)

articul8 said:


> they're fucked pretty much everywhere. But that helps Tories most.


 
Like Somerset and Frome?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 7, 2012)

certainly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 7, 2012)

two sheds said:


> yep was lib dem here (minor backwater in Cornwall) before last election when tory got in by 66 votes. Tories presumably a shoe-in next time


 
Depends how they do, though. Perhaps you can give your local MP a hand to fuck up?


----------



## two sheds (Jun 7, 2012)

Wouldn't be able to talk to tory or lib dem without swearing at them


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

articul8 said:


> the constituencies that were formerly marginals - like Somerset and Frome


Somer_ton_
e2a; as BA hinted above...also, not really that marginal. vulnerable, yes, marginal, no


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Were they? In some areas maybe, but (and I admit I was too young to pay any attention at the time) *weren't they also the right wing alternative to Labour in a lot of areas where the Tories weren't electable. *I think that's the real shift - it's no longer possible for them to pretend to be all things to all men and now the distinctly blue hue of their true colours is there for all to see.


 
Yes they were, and that was how for example Cyril Smith (Rochdale) and David Alton (Liverpool) got elected in the '70s although they were careful not to call themselves "right wing". 

Lord Hailsham went on a lot in his book "The Door Through Which I Went" about the crisis of identity the Liberals had in the mid-70's, saying that they were by then a party of the right and should acknowledge the fact.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 8, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Somer_ton_
> e2a; as BA hinted above...also, not really that marginal. vulnerable, yes, marginal, no


 
oh yes  Well it's not my part of the world.   It used to be a marginal.   I don't know what the boundary changes will do to it (if the boundary changes are passed that is - could the LDs do the unthinkable a find themselves a backbone? )


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

I'd be wary of citing m,'lud as a source of wisdom, personally. also, for reasons cited previously, there was huge variation from place to place (and for rteasons of local expediency)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'd be wary of citing m,'lud as a source of wisdom, personally. also, for reasons cited previously, there was huge variation from place to place (and for rteasons of local expediency)


 
Look the point is - there has always been various competing genuine tendencies (as well as pure opportunists) within the Libdems/Liberal Party and that the radical liberal tendency was basically very weak or even irrelevant in most places well before 2005.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

when you say 'well before', clarify....? they certainly - along with the successor to the NLYL - had punch in the mid-90s


----------



## two sheds (Jun 8, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Wouldn't be able to talk to tory or lib dem without swearing at them


 
Nor labour really, either


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Nor labour really, either


worry not, you're by no means alone in that


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> when you say 'well before', clarify....? they certainly - along with the successor to the NLYL - had punch in the mid-90s


 
I seem to remember from previous research it was in the years following the merger, maybe by '94 they had faded from serious influence.

Could you clarify with some examples of their punch in the mid nineties?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I seem to remember from previous research it was in the years following the merger, maybe by '94 they had faded from serious influence.
> 
> Could you clarify with some examples of their punch in the mid nineties?


f'rinstrance people like olly grender, richard holm certainly had influence, they were still generally anti-nuke then and with a strong eco-streak, I'll try and dig out some more stuff when I have time


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2012)

What influence? How was that influence asserted?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What influence? How was that influence asserted?


will come back to you later


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 8, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> will come back to you later


 
fairplay didn't read your post properly mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2012)

Nick Clegg vows to block Gove's plan to scrap GCSEs

_A furious deputy PM, who was not consulted on the reforms, has made clear that he will reject the plans out of hand_

What's that i smell?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2012)

The Orange Book 8 years on - The noted thief David Laws:



> But even after the existing fiscal consolidation, state spending will account for some 40% of GDP, a figure that would have shocked not only Adam Smith, Gladstone and J.S. Mill, but also Keynes and Lloyd George. The implication of the state spending 40% of national income is that there is likely to be too much resource misallocation and too much waste and inefficiency._ The liberal ambition should be for long-term total public spending growth to be restrained at below the trend rate of growth of the economy_ – this probably means decent real growth of health, education and pensions spending, offset by most other areas of public spending shrinking over time as a share of GDP.


 
The trend rate of economic growth is at best around 2-3% - much lower under current conditions. Learnt nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg vows to block Gove's plan to scrap GCSEs
> 
> _A furious deputy PM, who was not consulted on the reforms, has made clear that he will reject the plans out of hand_
> 
> What's that i smell?


 
I believe that what you're smelling is the acrid stench of LibDem desperation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2012)

What i'm not sure about is if it's worked out between them bollocks or just run-of-the-mill desperation bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The Orange Book 8 years on - The noted thief David Laws:
> 
> 
> 
> The trend rate of economic growth is at best around 2-3% - much lower under current conditions. Learnt nothing.


 
What I want to know is why Keynes would have been shocked, given that he was aware of the implications for state spending of expanding public provision and implementing Beveridge (among other things). I do hate it when the supposed "brains" in political parties trot out trite name-checking shite like this in the belief that anyone who isn't either ideologically-attached to them or an idiot will buy into it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What i'm not sure about is if it's worked out between them bollocks or just run-of-the-mill desperation bollocks.


 
Given how many of these _faux_-rages of Clegg's have been publicised, I strongly suspect the former.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2012)

Quite liked this tweet from Tony McNulty:

LibDems so incensed by Gove's plan that they're - privately briefing how upset they are and - keeping miles away from TV and Radio. Pathetic


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What i'm not sure about is if it's worked out between them bollocks or just run-of-the-mill desperation bollocks.


 bit of both; LDs need to position themselves to say "look, we're the nice guys of the coalition" but at the same time are aware that their poower to actually do anything about this is the square root of fuck all


----------



## belboid (Jun 22, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> bit of both; LDs need to position themselves to say "look, we're the nice guys of the coalition" but at the same time are aware that their poower to actually do anything about this is the square root of fuck all


It's all a neatly worked out game.  Gove comes out with some far right crap to assuage the old Colonel brigade, Cleggy comes back with something to soothe the beating hearts of his two remaining soft left supporters


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2012)

See also the planted story that Cable might lead the lib-dems into the next GE yesterday. Such contempt for peoples ability to spot this shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Forgot to post this up the last thursday:

*Durham CC, Peterlee West​*
THURSDAY 21 JUNE 2012 12:00​*Lab 767 (70.1%; +25.7)*
Ind 181 (16.5%; +16.5)
LD Wendy Bentley 99 (9.0%; -46.5)
Con 47 (4.3%; +4.3)
Turnout 19.3%
Majority 586
*Lab Gain from LD*
Percentage change is since May 2008​


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> LD Wendy Bentley 99 (9.0%; -46.5)


 
PMSL


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

In this one we have a fully fledged flight from the lib-dems to...UKIP:

*South Bucks DC, Iver Heath​*
THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2012 12:00​ 
*Con 404 (61.0; -5.6)*
UKIP 196 (29.6; +29.6)
LD Peter Chapman 62 (9.4; -24.0)
Majority 208
Turnout 17.3%
*Con hold*
Percentage change is since May 2011​


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Just a reminder:


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Apparently Nick Clegg and the lib-dems are:

Leading the global fight against poverty and climate change

And that's not just in the headline, they actually do claim in it the article.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In this one we have a fully fledged flight from the lib-dems to...UKIP:
> 
> *South Bucks DC, Iver Heath*​
> THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2012 12:00​​*Con 404 (61.0; -5.6)*​UKIP 196 (29.6; +29.6)​LD Peter Chapman 62 (9.4; -24.0)​Majority 208​Turnout 17.3%​*Con hold*​Percentage change is since May 2011​


 tbf, that area is
a) dripping in money
b) seriously posh
c) naturally tory as a result


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Point was the the idea that the lib-dems have of themselves as pro-euro progressives being undermined by this UKIP/lib-dem crossoever.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

ah right yes, get the point


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

fluffy lefty Tim Farron appeals to rats to join sinking ship

http://labourlist.org/2012/06/lib-dems-invite-progress-members-to-their-conference/


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Labour left harcore go _no, hands off they're *our* rats._


----------



## free spirit (Jun 26, 2012)

> Do you ever think you're incompetent?


 
Paxman to the Lib Dem treasury spokeswoman on newsnight just now.

She seemed to have been sent on there as canon fodder tbh.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 26, 2012)

free spirit said:


> Paxman to the Lib Dem treasury spokeswoman on newsnight just now.


 
Hasn't he said the same to politicians of every hue?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 26, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Hasn't he said the same to politicians of every hue?


not sure, I don't remember it if he has.


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2012)

free spirit said:


> Paxman to the Lib Dem treasury spokeswoman on newsnight just now.
> 
> She seemed to have been sent on there as canon fodder tbh.


she's a Tory.  Appointed by mistake apparently.  She really was the most incompetent interviewee I've ever seen on the programme.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 26, 2012)

free spirit said:


> not sure, I don't remember it if he has.


 
My suggestion was that that's what Paxman tends to say. I've avoided him to the extent of never watching Newsight anymore.


----------



## belboid (Jun 26, 2012)

If that as all he said, or even tended to say, then you'd have thought everyone would have their answer prepared by now, wouldn't you?

The fact that they don't should tell you that he doesn't.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 26, 2012)

belboid said:


> If that as all he said, or even tended to say, then you'd have thought everyone would have their answer prepared by now, wouldn't you?
> 
> The fact that they don't should tell you that he doesn't.


 
Hang a liberal. Someone might laugh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Hang a liberal. Someone might laugh.


i wonder how many people would laugh if you were hanged.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> hang yourself, lots of people would laugh


 
I'm not a liberal. No-one would laugh. Except fools, of course.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 26, 2012)

belboid said:


> she's a Tory. Appointed by mistake apparently. She really was the most incompetent interviewee I've ever seen on the programme.


oh right. well whatever she is, I doubt anyone's going to let her near a camera again for a while.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 27, 2012)

my mum seems to have discovered a new found class consciousness about the middle class. she started swearing at nick clegg on the telly as well. "Oh piss off you silly old fart, go back to your land rover!"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 2, 2012)

Clegg being let out to do the hard interviews (or 'bring on the hatred' as he recently called it).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

On the issue of Lords reform and redrawn boundaries:



> Reeves adds: "Anyone who thinks Nick Clegg will shrug his shoulders, say 'never mind' and 'everyone tried our best', will be in for a rude awakening. That is not going to happen. A deal is a deal."


 
Essentially Reeves is saying _trust Clegg's word. (_Reeves btw is on 100 grand of public money to whisper into Clegg's ear that he will never ever die and is proper great).


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

[edit] Sorry, I get you now - read the thread!

He should use this to take down the boundary changes.  Avoid at least one major fuck up.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2012)

And the sentence before BA's quote is also nice:



> The reform bill, introduced by the deputy prime minister last week, "goes to the heart of what coalition is about – making and keeping deals".


 
or "lying through your teeth" as it is also known.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> [edit] Sorry, I get you now - read the thread!
> 
> He should use this to take down the boundary changes. Avoid at least one major fuck up.


Yeah, what sort of fool would sell damaging boundary changes for a pointless referendum (as a first step blah blah blah)


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

I most certainly didn't - it was the linking of the two issues that totally soured the pitch to a lot of Labour activists re AV.  It was a fatal fuck up.  I was always clear that the boundary changes were totally misconceived.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

Yet you didn't argue against the vote taking place on this basis at all though. You and your pals did nothing of the sort, rather you got your shoulders behind the YES to AV wheel and kept quiet about the rest of it. Thanks.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

I did very clearly argue that the two issues shouldn't be spatchcocked together - they needed to be treated seperately.  But a NO vote on AV wouldn't have cancelled the boundary changes, provision for which had already been put into effect.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I did very clearly argue that the two issues shouldn't be spatchcocked together - they needed to be treated seperately. But a NO vote on AV wouldn't have cancelled the boundary changes, provision for which had already been put into effect.


No you didn't - at least the people that you were working with and for didn't. You didn't boycott the process and the vote as you could have done, throwing a spanner in the whole thing, you actually actively said _yes please, i not only want to be part of that, i want to run it. _

We're not about the _outcome_ of the vote here as you well know, there's no escape down that alley - we're talking of the vote and making it happen.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

There was a big internal argument about it - LDs were happy to vote for the boundary changes. So there was little we (electoral reformers in Labour) could do to stop that bit being voted through. We warned them it was going to fuck it all up. It did (amongst other self-inflicted fuck ups).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

At it again:


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There was a big internal argument about it - LDs were happy to vote for the boundary changes. So there was little we (electoral reformers in Labour) could do to stop that bit being voted through. We warned them it was going to fuck it all up. It did (amongst other self-inflicted fuck ups).


Wow, thanks you so much for your _big internal argument_. Yes there was, you could have boycotted it and not taken part in the process that established it rather than running it.  You really don't get that you were on the inside here do you. There was no external 'we'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

Here is 11 500 results for the exact search term "lib-dems vow".


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, thanks you so much for your _big internal argument_. Yes there was, you could have boycotted it and not taken part in the process that established it rather than running it. You really don't get that you were on the inside here do you. There was no external 'we'.


 
It would have been a bit crazy for the electoral reform society to have boycotted the first ever UK wide referendum on electoral reform - in any case by that stage the LD lunatics were running the asylum.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> At it again:


 
There's nothing inherently wrong with this slogan - it's whether it was accompanied by nudge/wink stuff on the doorstep.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It would have been a bit crazy for the electoral reform society to have boycotted the first ever UK wide referendum on electoral reform - in any case by that stage the LD lunatics were running the asylum.


And who would want to do anything crazy to stop something they identify as severely damaging?

By that stage? _Nothing to do with me guv._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with this slogan - it's whether it was accompanied by nudge/wink stuff on the doorstep.


And now he's defending his lib-dem mates. Brilliant. You'd make a good shit-stirring rabble rouser wouldn't you?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

Hardly defending them - someone once said I was being indirectly homophobic for using the phrase "straight choice" about the Lib Dems - even though it had nothing to do with sexuality in any respect.  FFS.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Hardly defending them - someone once said I was being indirectly homophobic for using the phrase "straight choice" about the Lib Dems - even though it had nothing to do with sexuality in any respect. FFS.


Someone once said to me that using the phrase _up the arse _was homophobic. Fancy that eh? 

(Does someone want to tell him what the thread is for btw?)


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

it was "up each others arses" actually.  Which is mildly homophobic!!

This thread is pointing out where the LDs are shit.  There's enough of that around without seeing it where it might not be there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it was "up each others arses" actually. Which is mildly homophobic!!
> 
> This thread is pointing out where the LDs are shit. There's enough of that around without seeing it where it might not be there.


No it's not. 

Yes, let's_ be fair to them_. You soppy soppy cunt. Let's not do anything crazy.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

why imagine/invent shit when its everywhere you look?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> why imagine/invent shit when its everywhere you look?


Whose imagined it? They even blacked the gay bloke out to make him look shady and criminalesque.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2012)

?  I don't see that leaflet as referring to anything personal about the Tory candidate, he is AN Other tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

articul8 said:


> ? I don't see that leaflet as referring to anything personal about the Tory candidate, he is AN Other tory.


Just another shadowy not-straight tory.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2012)

He is actually gay too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

_But we had no idea_


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Whose imagined it? They even blacked the gay bloke out to make him look shady and criminalesque.


I thought the blacking out made it look like a black fellow.In some constituencies that could make a difference,though it should not


----------



## binka (Jul 6, 2012)

"it's always a straight fight here in X ward" is a pretty standard headline on all lib dem election leaflets isnt it?
http://www.electionleaflets.org/parties/liberal_democrats/?page=1


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

binka said:


> "it's always a straight fight here in X ward" is a pretty standard headline on all lib dem election leaflets isnt it?
> http://www.electionleaflets.org/parties/liberal_democrats/?page=1


 
Infamous as a comment used in Simon Hughes campaign for Bermondsey, when Peter Tatchell was standing there for Labour, IIRC, so it doesn't have a particularly illustrious heritage.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 6, 2012)

The homophobic lib-dem scum strike again.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Infamous as a comment used in Simon Hughes campaign for Bermondsey, when Peter Tatchell was standing there for Labour, IIRC, so it doesn't have a particularly illustrious heritage.


I could never forgive hughes gross hypocrosy in that election.when i found out he was gay


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> I could never forgive hughes gross hypocrosy in that election.when i found out he was gay


 
Gay with a beard, though, rather than "out" gay. He still maintains that he's Bi rather than homo.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Gay with a beard, though, rather than "out" gay. He still maintains that he's Bi rather than homo.


 
I wonder why he feels the need to mention it. And don't say he was a hypocrite. Is anyone not?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 7, 2012)

*Clegg: Hard times will heighten homophobia *



> Nick Clegg will choose the launch of gay World Pride Day today to warn that the forces of fear, division and bigotry will become more persuasive to young people in times of economic hardship.


 
Him telling party members the direction to push election leaflets?


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 7, 2012)

Gay is good

antonym: Clegg


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I wonder why he feels the need to mention it. And don't say he was a hypocrite. Is anyone not?


 
He's still got leadership hopes, so "ruling in" possible future heterosexuality helps him keep those hopes alive, whereas fully "coming out" as exclusively gay, while it might not ruin his chances within the party itself, would probably not have a good effect in terms of the negative publicity that *might* be generated in the right-wing press on the issue.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 7, 2012)

That leaflet is fucking outrageous.  What a bunch of cunts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's still got leadership hopes, so "ruling in" possible future heterosexuality helps him keep those hopes alive, whereas fully "coming out" as exclusively gay, while it might not ruin his chances within the party itself, would probably not have a good effect in terms of the negative publicity that *might* be generated in the right-wing press on the issue.


 
Do you think there is no such thing as a bi-person then?

Frankly all speculation about the sexuality of politicos and celebrities seems to explicitly rule out that they might be bi.

Not that any of that changes the fact that Hughes is a cunt and a hypocrit of the highest order.


----------



## co-op (Jul 7, 2012)

I think it's pretty hard to take Hughes seriously as a leader of the Lib Dems - he's kind of good-councillor level, maybe even decent MP level rather than Party Leader level.

But he might be looking to lead a "left-leaning" rump of post-split LDs who start voting with Labour in a desperate attempt to save their seats and careers Progressive Alliance of some sort.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2012)

co-op said:


> I think it's pretty hard to take Hughes seriously...



You could have ended it at that point.


----------



## binka (Jul 7, 2012)

co-op said:


> Party Leader level.


have you seen the current crop? seems they'll give anyone a go these days


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you think there is no such thing as a bi-person then?


 
Why would I think that?



> Frankly all speculation about the sexuality of politicos and celebrities seems to explicitly rule out that they might be bi.


Not true. Oaten, for example, coprophile bisexual. 



> Not that any of that changes the fact that Hughes is a cunt and a hypocrit of the highest order.


 
Hear hear.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2012)

Being coy about Lib Dem candidates for Mayor of Bristol.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Lib-...list-mayoral/story-16514440-detail/story.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

Williams finally come to his senses i see, was looking forward to him standing. Would have ensured a brilliant hate-carnival for weeks on end. They have a secret candidate in front-runner and vacuous millionaire ponce George Ferguson anyway.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 11, 2012)

Didn't old red trousers have some kind of free knees up at the weekend. Not explicitly launching his candidacy but buttering everyone up none the less?

Incidentally, another Lib Dem councillor (and former whip) in Sheffield defected to Labour today. That's 19 councillors they've lost since forming the coalition (17 at the ballot box and 2 defections). The strong local bases that were their foothold into Westminster are in tatters.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2012)

He did. The prick.


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Incidentally, another Lib Dem councillor (and former whip) in Sheffield defected to Labour today.


excellent!  Who is it?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2012)




----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 12, 2012)

belboid said:


> excellent! Who is it?


Clive Skelton - Beauchief and Greenhill


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2012)

Fedayn said:


>


 
So, in brief, Clegg only had to say the NHS privatisation should be stopped and it would have been. Instead he chose this bollocks lords reform that he's now going to fail to get anyway - and he chose that in order to try and cement a position in parliament for his party. His party over the NHS.

He's in bristol today - they won't say where though as they're scared of protests. One of the remaining city lib-dem councillors who he'll be seeing today yesterday called on him to resign as leader. They even fucked up a simple visit.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 13, 2012)

Whitehall cleaners leave Vince Cable (and 8 other ministers) letters asking to be paid the living wage rather than minimum wage. Vince tells them to piss off because: 'The NMW is set with an eye to balance its effect on wages and its effect on employment'


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, in brief, Clegg only had to say the NHS privatisation should be stopped and it would have been. Instead he chose this bollocks lords reform that he's now going to fail to get anyway - and he chose that in order to try and cement a position in parliament for his party. His party over the NHS.


 
Pretty much yes, shows him up more than he'll ever know. He won't even see what this says about him....


----------



## co-op (Jul 13, 2012)

Fedayn said:


>


 


What paper is this from? Is it definitely true?


----------



## Santino (Jul 17, 2012)




----------



## BigTom (Jul 17, 2012)

Should have just stuck with "Don't vote for me because I am a Liberal Democrat"


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2012)

I've been randomly selected to go on an audience with Nick Clegg on the local radio station lol. Apparently I'm not allowed to strangle him with his own intestines or anything like that but I do get to ask a question live on air. 

So I'm looking for suggestions - I need a good question, one that will have the cunt flapping around like a twat.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 17, 2012)

Do you bear any personal resposnsibility for your party's prospective obliteration at the next General Election?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2012)

I think when it comes to the next election voters will see that we have acted for the good of the country putting personal ambitions and desires aside. Next.


----------



## binka (Jul 17, 2012)

its quite difficult to think of a really good question since presumably you won't get a follow up question so chances are he either won't answer it and/or will do the 'tough choices' standard response. so you either need to be really specific or ask him something like what he plans on doing after he loses his seat at the next election


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been randomly selected to go on an audience with Nick Clegg on the local radio station lol. Apparently I'm not allowed to strangle him with his own intestines or anything like that but I do get to ask a question live on air.
> 
> So I'm looking for suggestions - I need a good question, one that will have the cunt flapping around like a twat.


when it comes to the crunch does he want to he hanged or guillotined?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 17, 2012)

binka said:


> ask him something like what he plans on doing after he loses his seat at the next election


 
Version : Are you looking forward to entering the unreformed House of Lords after the next election?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been randomly selected to go on an audience with Nick Clegg on the local radio station lol. Apparently I'm not allowed to strangle him with his own intestines or anything like that but I do get to ask a question live on air.
> 
> So I'm looking for suggestions - I need a good question, one that will have the cunt flapping around like a twat.


 
'When even your bedfellows thought the NHS reform Bill worth ditching in favour of fraternal coalition relations, why did you decide that reform of the Lords was of more importance?'


----------



## Santino (Jul 17, 2012)

Something that makes him just have to lie, and on which he can later be pulled up on.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> 'When even your bedfellows thought the NHS reform Bill worth ditching in favour of fraternal coalition relations, why did you decide that reform of the Lords was of more importance?'


 
To Santino : the above could work on that one!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2012)

Unless someone else comes up with something shit hot I reckon dc just came up with the winner!


----------



## co-op (Jul 18, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Unless someone else comes up with something shit hot I reckon dc just came up with the winner!


 
Has someone actually got a source for this story? - there's just been a photo of a column of newsprint so far as I can see. It's a much stronger question if you can name a source - and if he brushes it away you can ask him to confirm that it's untrue.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2012)

co-op said:


> Has someone actually got a source for this story? - there's just been a photo of a column of newsprint so far as I can see. It's a much stronger question if you can name a source - and if he brushes it away you can ask him to confirm that it's untrue.


 
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/0...lled-the-nhs-bill-chose-lords-reform-instead/

From the Times, July 11th


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2012)

"You have lost 20% of voters between 18 & 24, your core vote in many areas. HA HA."


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2012)

If that one doesn't work - you could say that at least one ex long-term (20 year) Lib Dem voter asks why you consistently lied to him before the last election and then colluded with the tories to set about demolishing the welfare state - punishing the poor when all the while it was the people at the top who'd stolen the money. And that he's never going to fucking vote for you again.


----------



## co-op (Jul 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/0...lled-the-nhs-bill-chose-lords-reform-instead/
> 
> From the Times, July 11th


 
Thanks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 18, 2012)

two sheds said:


> If that one doesn't work - you could say that at least one ex long-term (20 year) Lib Dem voter asks why you consistently lied to him before the last election and then colluded with the tories to set about demolishing the welfare state - punishing the poor when all the while it was the people at the top who'd stolen the money. And that he's never going to fucking vote for you again.


 
More a statement than a question


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 18, 2012)

When I went to a Cleggo (town hall meeting) - his approach to questions was (as you'd expect from most politicians)

1) Repeat the question
2) Twist it round to get it to fit in with some pre-arranged spiel - even if said spiel misses the point of the question and is related to it by only the most tenuous of connections
3) Deliver Spiel (with eyes darting around room)
4) Finish on some kind of statement that no-one in the room could possibly disagree with, then instantly pick out the next questionner. If the answer had come across a bit shakey - be sure to pick a stooge LD councilor for the next question.

This is why DCs question is good. Not much he can hang any pre-arranged crap onto and it gets him on the back foot from the word go. You will not get a follow up question, but if he's really hacked you off I'd try to speak up to get him back on course.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 18, 2012)

BigTom said:


> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/0...lled-the-nhs-bill-chose-lords-reform-instead/
> 
> From the Times, July 11th


 
For some reason I read the comments on that. This one was my favourite:



> 4:33 pm, July 12, 2012​*25.* *David White*
> If this story is true, the DPM is an even bigger a+sehole that I had thought him to be!
> By the way, I’m still (just) a member of the LD Party and I was an LD councillor until I moved.
> But, assuming the/we LDs don’t throw him overboard before the next election, the voters of Hallam will throw him into the briny.
> *And finally, let me confirm that, yes, I am on the anarcho-syndicalist wing of the LDs.*


 
I reckon it's DrRingding


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> More a statement than a question


 
I suppose you'd raise the same objection to the question: "Clegg, you're a cunt".


----------



## 8115 (Jul 18, 2012)

Danny Alexander on the news standing shoulder to shoulder with Osborne.  To be fair he did have the good grace to look at bit ashamed of himself.  I think the lib dems are in some kind of irrational escalation of committment, throwing good money after bad.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2012)

"clegg, why do you have to be such a scumbag?"


----------



## Nylock (Jul 19, 2012)

"Nick, how does it feel to be the libdem leader responsible for consigning your party to yet another 80 years in the wilderness due to your exceptionally poor choices, fundamental lack of backbone and being woefully out of touch with the electorate while in coalition government with a weakened and directionless tory party?"


----------



## 8115 (Jul 19, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been randomly selected to go on an audience with Nick Clegg on the local radio station lol. Apparently I'm not allowed to strangle him with his own intestines or anything like that but I do get to ask a question live on air.
> 
> So I'm looking for suggestions - I need a good question, one that will have the cunt flapping around like a twat.


 
Do you believe that the dismantling of the NHS which your party voted for sits well with Liberal Democrat values?


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2012)

8115 said:


> Do you believe that the dismantling of the NHS which your party voted for sits well with Liberal Democrat values?


No use, he'd just trot out some shit about the worst choice being to do nothing, and that the changes will actually improve services for people.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> No use, he'd just trot out some shit about the worst choice being to do nothing, and that the changes will actually improve services for people.


 
He'll just trot out some shit whatever you ask him.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2012)

The point, surely, is to make him trot out some shit in a such a way as to make him look dishonest, disingenuous or just plain stupid.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2012)

Where are all these jobs that the disabled and unemployed are supposed to go out and get? Even if there are half a million jobs available (which I doubt), and even if there are only two and a half million unemployed (which I also doubt), that still leaves two million people who will not be able to find jobs. Can't you or the tories even fucking count?

I really don't see how somone would avoid swearing at the fucker.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2012)

Santino said:


> The point, surely, is to make him trot out some shit in a such a way as to make him look dishonest, disingenuous or just plain stupid.


 
Which is why dc's question is good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2012)

of course there is the option of screaming 'WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY STAND FOR' while smashing his face off of the rim of a toilet bowl. 'WHAT!' smash 'WHAT' and so on till you are fucking exhausted and the stall is so blood spattered as to be a piece of scenery in the next Rob Zombie film.

probably not allowed tho


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 20, 2012)

Unfortunately I got to do none of those questions cos my landlady tried to flush the central heating in the flat below mine and flooded the fucker so I had to go downstairs and save the day, forcing me to miss out on my lifelong ambition of meeting Nick Clegg 

My mate went though, will find out what went on as I'm guessing he will have got a bit of a frosty reception from the good people of Sheffield.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> of course there is the option of screaming 'WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY STAND FOR' while smashing his face off of the rim of a toilet bowl. 'WHAT!' smash 'WHAT' and so on till you are fucking exhausted and the stall is so blood spattered as to be a piece of scenery in the next Rob Zombie film.
> 
> probably not allowed tho


one of those big auld-fashioned urinals would probably be sturdier and the rinse would clear more of the blood


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2012)

More lib-dem thievery 



> Figures released by Number 10 today reveal that Nick Clegg’s team of advisers could be costing the taxpayer more than £1,000,000 per year. This figure would mark an increase of around 200% in the deputy prime minister’s staffing expenses since summer 2010 — a period in which public services have been slashed.
> 
> The official statement — which has been cynically sneaked out just as MPs depart for recess — shows that Clegg’s team has ballooned from just three people in June 2010 to fourteen now. A wage bill of between £850,000 and £930,000 could inflate up to well over £1,000,000 once employer’s national insurance contributions are taken into consideration.
> 
> The news comes after Clegg recruited seven extra advisers last October, using an academic report to argue that the coalition could collapse unless the Liberal Democrats were given more civil service support.


 
(and please, no_ let's be fair_ whining this time articul8)


----------



## articul8 (Jul 21, 2012)

well, he's certainly in need of good advice - but doesn't seem to be getting value for money I think it's fair to say.  Why did Reeves fuck off?  Was he pushed?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2012)

Nice of him:

Nick Clegg has said he would be prepared to take the Liberal Democrats into a coalition with Labour after the next general election


----------



## articul8 (Jul 23, 2012)

He thinks he's going to survive a General Election?  LOFL.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2012)

> Yes. If the British people said that the only combination which could work would be those two parties, in the same way as after the last election the only combination which could work was Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, it would be obvious that Liberal Democrats would need to do their duty."


 
nicely insinuating that anybody voted for a coalition gov.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2012)

I think we know how any remaining Liberal Democrats need to do their duty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nice of him:
> 
> Nick Clegg has said he would be prepared to take the Liberal Democrats into a coalition with Labour after the next general election


 
That should read "Nick Clegg willing to do anything, including rimming Cherie Booth, to stay in power".


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 23, 2012)

<barfs>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2012)

articul8 said:


> He thinks he's going to survive a General Election? LOFL.


 
It does currently look like Sheffield Hallam won't be re-electing him, doesn't it?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It does currently look like Sheffield Hallam won't be re-electing him, doesn't it?


 
Sheffield Hallam won't exist if the boundary changes go through and Sheffield West and Penistone will pick up a fairly big swath of Labour territory by the looks of it.


----------



## Nylock (Jul 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nice of him:
> 
> Nick Clegg has said he would be prepared to take the Liberal Democrats into a coalition with Labour after the next general election


Roflcopters


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2012)

Vince Cable, newsnight - Osborne is 'doing well'.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 25, 2012)

The libdems wouldn't do a deal with brown in place i can't see labour doing a deal with clegg in place either.The prick is getting desperate


----------



## magneze (Jul 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Vince Cable, newsnight - Osborne is 'doing well'.


Maybe for his Shell share options.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nice of him:
> 
> Nick Clegg has said he would be prepared to take the Liberal Democrats into a coalition with Labour after the next general election


 
Of course Polly Toynbee and her ilk are desperate for this to happen. The fact the Lib Dems chose to get into bed with the Tories ruined their grand plan, that New Labour would culminate with a Lib Dem, New Labour coalition, which would re-unite the SDP with their Blairite pals, and marginalise the Unions and Labour Left forever.

Even after the 2010 election defeat, even after the Lib Dems got into bed with the Tories and forever ruined their credibility with a generation of voters, even after David Miliband failed to get elected as leader of the Labour party, they still cling to this project.

For some people in Labour, seeing that the Labour party never ends up in the hands of the Left is a more important struggle than Labour getting elected at all. They're from a generation of Labour party members who made their careers as "modernisers" back in the day, making themselves the nice, reasonable, unthreatening wing of the Party, as compared to those horrible Militants and Bennites. They'll be re-living the battles of the 1980's forever this lot.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 25, 2012)

Cable launched his leadership campaign in the FT last weekend.


----------



## Santino (Jul 27, 2012)

Clegg sucking up to Murdoch:




			
				Private Eye said:
			
		

> In public Clegg stood firm. “The one thing I am very proud of as a Liberal Democrat is that we have never been in anybody’s pockets,” Clegg told the BBC. “The idea that we could in any way be in the Murdoch’s pocket, it is just farcical.”
> 
> In private, however, the lure of “positive coverage” was too much. Records buried in the submissions to Leveson show that while Clegg posed as a man of principle, his aide Lena Pietsch was befriending News Corp via Michel.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2012)

> Accounts for the political parties published today by the Electoral Commission show an astonishing fall in membership for the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> At the end of 2011 the party had just 48,934 members, compared with 65,038 at the end of 2010, a drop of 24.8 per cent.
> 
> Has any British party ever experienced such a fall in membership in the space of just twelve months?


 


> At the end of 2009 the Lib Dems had 58,768 members, which suggests the party got a considerable boost following ‘Cleggmania’ and the 2010 TV debates. But the huge loss in 2011 did a lot more than simply wipe out the gains of 2010.
> 
> This is the lowest membership figure in the 23-year history of the Liberal Democrats, and less than half the peak of 101,768 Lib Dem members recorded in 1992.


 
I note that articul8's much trumpeted stampede back to labour, driven by the yearning for some 30s flat capped nonsense is actually really happening reg:



> Labour, in contrast, can boast an increase in membership, but not much. Just 39 members in fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2012)

Oh marvelous, now they don't even get lords reform, I love it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ameron-retreats-on-House-of-Lords-reform.html


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 3, 2012)

“The fact Lib Dems are willing to walk out of the coalition over Lords Reform, but not the NHS, tells you all you need to know about them.”


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2012)

Now if only the government can get bogged down in the boundary reform stuff after the recess.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 3, 2012)

ahhahahah so what does Clegg have left to sell to the non-orange bookers still in his party? um.. electoral reform? nope, didn't get that.. house of lords? err.. no that neither.. we got rid of the NHS though! oh, you like the NHS? oops. 
They are in a proper death grip with the tories now (I think that's the right term) - totally fucked if they stay in the coalition, totally fucked if they leave it*... so they'll stay in the hope of getting a few more non-exec directorships once they've been voted out of the own seats.. and if clegg or laws or someone like that remains, I expect them to jump ship to the tories (or possibly stay as lib dems, but the left of the party having split and maybe joined with progress to form a new SDP).

*yes, this has been the case pretty much since they went into the coalition, but if they'd got the constitutional reforms they wanted I think they could have kept much more of their party base, many of whom will accept the neccessity for cuts and the idea that as the junior partner they can't demand too much, just get a few things out of it.  Now they've lost all that, they've got nothing out of the coalition (the non-orange bookers in the party I mean).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2012)

Well they are donald ducked at the next election anyway, they've fucked the student vote and they've fucked the votes from those who thought clegg presented a third way between the two old blue/red parties. Remember 'I agree with nick'? high watermark of his powers. He and his party are never getting that back.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 3, 2012)

Yeah, but I'm now wondering if they'll even have anything left of a party activist base now - they've lost so many members, something like 1/3rd I think.. will there be enough people left to even deliver leaflets?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, but I'm now wondering if they'll even have anything left of a party activist base now - they've lost so many members, something like 1/3rd I think.. will there be enough people left to even deliver leaflets?


 
In the last locals their leaflets were all delivered by paid leaflet deliverers in my former strong Libdem ward.

I certainly don't think we'll see a split in the Libdems and certainly not any merger with Progress. There aren't enough "lefties" left in the Libdems to split and anyway there is not a direct line from Progress to Libdems on some left/right spectrum. Progress are wedded to Labour and even of they weren't would probably be more likely to work with liberal Tories.


----------



## youngian (Aug 3, 2012)

It is looking likely that neither the Tories or Labour can form majorities.
This makes the First past the post system pointless and a grim future in which Clegg decides the government on the basis of who will make him Foreign Secretary.
This happened to the German Social Democrats inthe 80s with a liberal party even more right wing than Laws and Clegg.
However because of a more proportionate system it allowed the rise of the Greens and allowed them to return to power and tell the Free Democrats where to go. Labour ought to think on.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 4, 2012)

Their going to loose a lot of face over the lord reform.I expect to see a lot libdems say it didn't matter anyway


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2012)

youngian said:


> It is looking likely that neither the Tories or Labour can form majorities.


Is it? On what evidence?


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2012)

It was looking likely that neither the Tories or Labour could form majorities at the last GE, tbf.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2012)

cesare said:


> It was looking likely that neither the Tories or Labour could form majorities at the last GE, tbf.


Yes but since then the LibDem vote has totally collapsed. And there's probably still 3 years to go before an election is called.  

I'm not writing off the possibility that there have to be another coalition after the next GE but I don't think I'd call it likely.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2012)

There hasn't been a poll pointing towards a hung parliament for ages now. Probably last 6 months have all shown a labour majority.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There hasn't been a poll pointing towards a hung parliament for ages now. Probably last 6 months have all shown a labour majority.


 
I've got a feeling the boundary review might change that. The tories can be relied upon to get 35% or so of the British electorate to vote for them, and I reckon they're banking on that basic tory vote, coupled with a bit of creative gerrymandering, being

I also expect a really nasty election campaign from Cameron and co, based on anti-immigrant dog-whistle racism and the demonisation of anyone who uses the welfare system. We don't know what the effect of a full on right-wing PR hate campaign on these lines will have on the polls yet, coz it isn't underway.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2012)

The boundary changes are not going to make that much a difference - plus 10-15 to the tories at most. The tory bedrock vote is estimated (by the pollsters that is) at circa-25-26%. They polled 36% at the last election. Their current polling is just above that bedrock vote, and this before things get worse. They are not going to poll 35% in even worse conditions. And even if they did, labour on 40% plus (have been for months) is enough to ensure a labour majority regardless.

Nice to see a bit of faith in your fellow humans.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The boundary changes are not going to make that much a difference - plus 10-15 to the tories at most. The tory bedrock vote is estimated (by the pollsters that is) at circa-25-26%. They polled 36% at the last election. Their current polling is just above that bedrock vote, and this before things get worse. They are not going to poll 35% in even worse conditions. And even if they did, labour on 40% plus (have been for months) is enough to ensure a labour majority regardless.
> 
> Nice to see a bit of faith in your fellow humans.


 
Just a quick one, if the Tory Core vote is now 25-26% then sweet jesus, how the mighty have fallen. I remember reading something from my A-level government and politics class, that was written in the early 90's, that estimated the "Core" Tory vote during Thatcher at being 40%!

Either way I suspect the bedrock vote of somewhere in the mid 30's is probably what they'll get, and i reckon they've been planning their strategy, and these boundary changes, on the basis that's what they're probably going to get.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2012)

Hard to see how they had a bedrock that was equal to the size of their highest vote in the decade and 10% above what they received in 97. Bedrock means people who will vote tory and will only vote tory - it doesn't mean people who _have_ voted tory.


----------



## youngian (Aug 4, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Is it? On what evidence?


 
Falling turnout and neither main party being able to capture much more than 40 per cent of the vote any more. Any future majorities are more likely to be formed through arithmetical flook than any legitimate mandate.

When one party capured more than 45 per cent of the vote and the other around 35 per cent, there was some kind of legitimacy to form a majority government under FPTP.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2012)

Hang on you're conflating two separate things there - what has any lack of "legitimate mandate" got to do with the the likelihood of the next government being a coalition?

Moreover, as BA has pointed out the current polling data doesn't back up your assertion. Labour have been ~40 for months, while the LibDem vote has dropped through the floor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2012)

youngian said:


> It is looking likely that neither the Tories or Labour can form majorities.
> This makes the First past the post system pointless and a grim future in which Clegg decides the government on the basis of who will make him Foreign Secretary.
> This happened to the German Social Democrats inthe 80s with a liberal party even more right wing than Laws and Clegg.
> However because of a more proportionate system it allowed the rise of the Greens and allowed them to return to power and tell the Free Democrats where to go. Labour ought to think on.


 
Unfortunately, the result would have been barely different with AV in place (the alternative we were offered), so any alternative system would need to be full PR. Nothing else would do much but help our three mainstream parties to cement themselves in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 4, 2012)

So they have got none of the things clegg had on his chamberlain style piece of paper (including short money, the theiving cunts), they've lost deposit in three bye elections if my count is correct- the tories not wanting to be remembered as the party who fucked the NHS were willing to give ground and they fought a battle over a chamber most people don't know what does and don't care anyway except for the few times they block something nobody wanted and this makes news. Collapsing votes all over the shop, desperate appeals to labour etc, they really are completely done. Fighting for scraps with the fringe parties when they don't lose deposits. Maggotry


----------



## youngian (Aug 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, the result would have been barely different with AV in place (the alternative we were offered), so any alternative system would need to be full PR. Nothing else would do much but help our three mainstream parties to cement themselves in.


 
I agree, without going into an anorak discussion about the best form of PR, if FPTP and its variant AV cannot produce a majority government any more than its whole rationale is invalid.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 5, 2012)

It's way too far out from the scheduled election to predict a tory or labour overall majority, or lack of one. But the stats are always against hung parliaments.

Labour are reasonably head at the moment it's true, but it's mid term and to be expected.

Normally speaking elected parties get a 2nd term in this country but the tories weren't strictly elected and the sense of uselessness has more in common with late 2nd and 3rd term governments.

Despite my general disdain for Labour I have never thought Miliband was as big a problem for them as many say. I think he has a handle on some of what went wrong in the party but spends too much time listening to wonks. That said, I can see him as PM.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 5, 2012)

There was a good piece going round on Twitter about 10 promises in the Coalition Agreement that the tories had broken.

But the biggest LD fuck up  for me was the terms and timing of the voting reform referendum. This was the goal of a generation, not just of LDs either. 

And they accepted a shit system that would be hard to pitch and little time to do it. Should have been thorough reviews at least as detailed as the one Roy Jenkins did which Labour kindly binned.

Instead, the party with most to gain from their generational ambition got the issue kicked into the long grass for a generation. Now that's what I call shit.

When I ask myself "how did this happen?" I look at the fact that their crack negotiation team was headed up by the charisma vacuum that is Danny Alexander (crack as in supposedly "highly skilled", not drug addled). I'm not convinced he could convince New Orleans to invest in flood defences.

I know a few LDs - 2 councillors (1 stepped down this year) and a key local organiser who I got to know as the excellent convenor of our local No2ID

I've put it to all of them, politely, that I can see why they started in the coalition (not that I would have done) but that perhaps they had rings run round them by the tories. 

LDs have not been in power for nearly a century. The tories have had the whip hand over this country and indeed a massive empire for the majority of recent centuries. 

Might that indicate that they are rather adept at duping people? 

Not a single response from my orange correspondents but one FB friend lost.

The LDs have long since been too right wing for me, but I view the demise in their credibility with sadness more than mirth or even anger. This is hundreds of years of a well meant English/British tradition trampled in the mud for the ambition of a few and the gullibility of quite a few more. 

Anyhow, I couldn't find that link before cracking on with a belated estate newsletter, but I did find this gem from not long ago down memory lane. An "oh dear" experience from the opening shot.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 5, 2012)

Taffboy, you need to do a bit of history. The Lib Dems were _always_ this shit, there has been no demise, they've never been any good ever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

So it looks like _every single one_ of Clegg's dearly-held negotiation points has gone completely down the shitter as Lords reform is set to be dropped according to BBC news. Well done Nick.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

You're a bit late on this. Clegg has just formally said they've given it up btw. Clown shoes. Double clown shoes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Even better, Clegg begged Cameron for a ...wait for it...referendum on Lord's reform. Not much you can say to that


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

And now he formally says he's opposing the boundary changes. But he says 'pushing the pause button'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Even in this they're dishonest - the boundary changes were in return for the AV referendum not lords reform. They're lying/he's lying/they're liars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

surely this thread has failed to live up to the promise in the title. rather than identifying several concrete areas in which the lib dems are shit, the water's been muddied by the sheer volume of lib dem fuckwittery


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

I just heard clagg crying on the radio about coalitions being based on mutal trust etc, like its a sexual relationship.Well, his party is royally fucked. If they manage to oppose the gerrymandering effectively I'll be entirely  astonished


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I just heard clagg crying on the radio about coalitions being based on mutal trust etc, like its a sexual relationship.Well, his party is royally fucked. If they manage to oppose the gerrymandering effectively I'll be entirely astonished


How do you negotiate in coalition when your partner knows an election will wipe you out? You can't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I just heard clagg crying on the radio about coalitions being based on mutal trust etc, like its a sexual relationship.Well, his party is royally fucked. If they manage to oppose the gerrymandering effectively I'll be entirely astonished


if they get past the next election without at least two suicides by unseated mps i will be astonished


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I just heard clagg crying on the radio about coalitions being based on mutal trust etc, like its a sexual relationship.Well, his party is royally fucked. If they manage to oppose the gerrymandering effectively I'll be entirely astonished


Again - he's lying - he made AV the price for boundary reform. Not Lords reform or general trust.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, the result would have been barely different with AV in place (the alternative we were offered), so any alternative system would need to be full PR. Nothing else would do much but help our three mainstream parties to cement themselves in.


 
True VP, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas - full PR would mean each of the two largest parties saying goodbye to dozens of its MPs after the next election. That's why they'll never allow it.

It makes as much sense for politicians to be asked to decide upon things such as voting systems, boundary reform etc. as to ask either the goalie or the penalty taker in a game of football where the penalty should be taken from; i.e. none at all. Yet we still do it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

So AV,Lords reform, Short money- what else have we that clegg has failed to deliver to the party faithful?(a diminishing band)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Just to make sure: Clegg lied three times that Lords reform was not linked to boundary changes. Which makes him pope and cable jesus.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Just to make sure: Clegg lied three times that Lords reform was not linked to boundary changes. Which makes him pope and cable jesus.


 
It was Peter who denied Christ three times.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It was Peter who denied Christ three times.


Yes - and?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes - and?


 
And Lords Reform was a part of the coalition agreement and Clegg is thus perfectly justified in refusing to support boundary changes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> And Lords Reform was a part of the coalition agreement and Clegg is thus perfectly justified in refusing to support boundary changes.


 Boundary changes were tied specifically to a AV referendum. Please point out where they were not.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> And Lords Reform was a part of the coalition agreement and Clegg is thus perfectly justified in refusing to support boundary changes.


What's that got to do with your religious stuff?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with your religious stuff?


 
Do you really think that you are the only one allowed to be cryptic?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

these are just the lying temper tantrums of a party that realises it's been utterly shafted. Opposing these "boundary changes" - let's call them what they are, gerrymandering, is the last gasp of a party that realises it has fuck all to bring to the table vote wise. 

I'm sure David Cameron will be weeping into his glass of Chateau d'Yquem tonight as he considers Clegg's opposition to the reforms he will push through anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you really think that you are the only one allowed to be cryptic?


You fucked it up. Now you've checked.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Boundary changes were tied specifically to a AV referendum. Please point out where they were not.


 
They were connected in the sense of the one having to do with the other. The Tories would only accept AV if the constituencies were made more equitable. However, all the elements in the coalition agreement can be, and are being, weighed against each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> They were connected in the sense of the one having to do with the other. The Tories would only accept AV if the constituencies were made more equitable. However, all the elements in the coalition agreement can, and are being, weighed against each other.


No they weren't. The boundary vote was solely connected to the AV referendum. Nothing to do with lords reform. Go and have a lie down. Or some research.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No they weren't. The boundary vote was solely connected to the AV referendum. Nothing to do with lords reform. Go and have a lie down. Or some research.


 
The whole coalition agreement is the connection. If the Tories renege on one aspect then the LD's are perfectly entitled to reject any other aspect.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The whole coalition agreement is the connection. If the Tories renege on one aspect then the LD's are perfectly entitled to reject any other aspect.


You haven't read it have you? You haven't got a clue. Please tell me which part of the coalition agreement says:



> If the Tories renege on one aspect then the LD's are perfectly entitled to reject any other aspect


 
Do it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Agreeing to support Tory measures was a condition of the the Tories working with the LibDems. And, amazingly, the opposite is also true.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Agreeing to support Tory measures was a condition of the the Tories working with the LibDems. And, amazingly, the opposite is also true.


So you can't. The agreement was for an AV referendum in support for boundary changes. Nothing else. Are you saying this is untrue?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So you can't. The agreement was for an AV referendum in support for boundary changes. Nothing else. Are you saying this is untrue?


 
I'll try one more time to get through to your little head. There were a number of things that the LibDems demanded support for. One was AV and another was Lords Reform. On AV the Tories only agreed after the LibDems agreed to equalizing the constituancies. On Lords Reform the Tories had no particular counter proposal. The LibDems have supported all the measures demanded by the Tories and now, with the the Tories reneging, Clegg is perfectly justified in refusing to support boundary changes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'll try one more time to get through to your little head. There were a number of things that the LibDems demanded support for. One was AV and another was Lords Reform. On AV the Tories only agreed after the LibDems agreed to equalizing the constituancies. On Lords Reform the Tories had no particular counter proposal. The LibDems have supported all the measures demanded by the Tories and now, with the the Tories reneging, Clegg is perfectly justified in refusing to support boundary changes.


Let's have another go - boundary changes were part of the agreement for the AV referendum - right?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 6, 2012)

Crick was just on Channel 4 News making clear the explicit link between the AV referendum and boundary changes. Clegg blustered in reply...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Amazing that you can try and justify breaking agreements on principle lock_and_light.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Crick was just on Channel 4 News making clear the explicit link between the AV referendum and boundary changes. Clegg blustered in reply...


Yep, he has to, he's now here else to go. Even his safe place is a lie.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Let's have another go - boundary changes were part of the agreement for the AV referendum - right?


 
The AV referendum, yes. And the AV referendum and Lords Reform were (are) part of the coalition agreement. Clegg is not accusing the Tories of reneging on the AV referendum, He accuses them of breaking the coalition agreement. It's really quite simple, you know.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

No, boundary changes were the specific pay off for an AV referendum.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, boundary changes were the specific pay off for an AV referendum.


 
Do you agree that by not supporting Lords Reform the Tories are breaking the agreement?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you agree that by not supporting Lords Reform the Tories are breaking the agreement?


Do you agree that the agreement was a) AV referendum then b) boundary changes?

And no i don't think it breaks the agreement- nor does your daft reading of what the agreement entails bear hard reading.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Butch - a vacuous black hole indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Butch - a vacuous black hole indeed.


Are ye running away because you fucked it up? Or for some other reason?

Do you agree that the agreement was a) AV referendum then b) boundary changes?

If you were as honest as you think you are you would answer,


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> .....Or for some other reason?


 
Some other reason. Your dishonesty in debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

So,

Do you agree that the agreement was a) AV referendum then b) boundary changes?

Can you point out my dishonesty in asking you this?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So,
> 
> Do you agree that the agreement was a) AV referendum then b) boundary changes?
> 
> Can you point out my dishonesty in asking you this?


 
I have already answered that, as you well know, butch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I have already answered that, as you well know, butch.


which post did you answer it in then.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I have already answered that, as you well know, butch.


I don't think you have. I would like you to say where and when. Thank you.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> which post did you answer it in then.


 
Post 5300.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The AV referendum, yes. And the AV referendum and Lords Reform were (are) part of the coalition agreement. Clegg is not accusing the Tories of reneging on the AV referendum, He accuses them of breaking the coalition agreement. It's really quite simple, you know.


where in this post do you point out butchers' supposed dishonesty in debate?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Post 5300.


No you didn't then


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No you didn't then


let's see what his answer is before we lynch him and flay him alive.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing that you can try and justify breaking agreements on principle lock_and_light.


I don't know, seems totally in character for the prick. I bet he's a secret LibDem vermin.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if they get past the next election without at least two suicides by unseated mps i will be astonished


 
And I'll be really disappointed


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I'll be really disappointed


just so


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't know, seems totally in character for the prick. I bet he's a secret LibDem vermin.


The lib dems are too good for him


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> let's see what his answer is before we lynch him and flay him alive.


 
Can't we just do it anyway? I've had a rough day and need a bit of light hearted entertainment (got arrested for robbing spirits from behind the bar at a student pub - I wouldn't mind but I didn't fucking do it, I was 30 miles away at the time!)


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't know, seems totally in character for the prick. I bet he's a secret LibDem vermin.


 
You'd lose your bet, squirt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can't we just do it anyway? I've had a rough day and need a bit of light hearted entertainment (got arrested for robbing spirits from behind the bar at a student pub - I wouldn't mind but I didn't fucking do it, I was 30 miles away at the time!)


Yeh, why the fuck not.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, why the fuck not.


 
You and who's army?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You and who's army?


Which part of post 5300 made the statement about butchers' supposed dishonesty?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Which part of post 5300 made the statement about butchers' supposed dishonesty?


 
None whatsoever. Why do you ask?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You and who's army?


 
Mine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I'll be really disappointed


 
froggy

celebrating people's deaths, what a lack of respect it shows etc etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

So you show yourself - again - to be a lying little shit with no redeeming features





Lock&Light said:


> None whatsoever. Why do you ask?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Yes. And what of it?





DotCommunist said:


> froggy
> 
> celebrating people's deaths, what a lack of respect it shows etc etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. And what of it?


 
froggy 

that it's probably a good thing sass hasn't replied to this thread yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> froggy
> 
> that it's probably a good thing sass hasn't replied to this thread yet


I'd rather sas did, than that awful.gobshite lock&light


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can't we just do it anyway? I've had a rough day and need a bit of light hearted entertainment (got arrested for robbing spirits from behind the bar at a student pub - I wouldn't mind but I didn't fucking do it, I was 30 miles away at the time!)


 
What fantasy world do you exist in, to think that something like not actually being at the scene of the crime matters to our police? Are you some kind of liberal?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Mine.


 
I'm shaking in my boots.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> So you show yourself - again - to be a lying little shit with no redeeming features


 
I answered butchers question in that post. What makes you think it said anything about his honesty?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I answered butchers question in that post. What makes you think it said anything about his honesty?


No you fucking didn't you mendacious shit


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> No you fucking didn't you mendacious shit


 
I acknowledged the connection between AV and boundary changes, which was butchers question, before explaining that that that connection was irrelevent to this discussion. His dishonesty was in pretending that I had not answered his question. Your dishonesty is even more blatant than that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm shaking in my boots.


 
DTs?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> DTs?


 
Piss off, spinny.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2012)

How should I piss off crock of shite?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

*Guardian April 2010:*

The Liberal moment has come:



> A newspaper that is proudly rooted in the liberal as well as the labour tradition – and whose advocacy of constitutional reform stretches back to the debates of 1831-32 – cannot ignore such a record. If not now, when? The answer is clear and proud. Now.


 
*Guardian August 2012*

A historic failure to deliver



> The failure of both AV and Lords reform leaves Mr Clegg looking not just naive in his relations with the Tories, but hapless too. He spoke of wanting to fill the legislative gap left by this defeat with measures on social care, youth unemployment and banking reform. But the Lib Dems are locked into an economic course which makes it harder than ever to expect any sort of political dividend any time soon.


 
What sort of political naif could have thought otherwise? You fucking pricks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

The bloke who wrote the above editorial is so ruddy brave:


Nick Clegg must go, for the Lib Dems' sake

Note well why he should go, not because he's helped kill w/c people and tried to destroy society, but because it will help the lib-dems.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 7, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> How should I piss off crock of shite?


 
Just another little push, and the rest of your body would follow your head up your arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2012)

Go away little man.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Just put him on ignore like 90% of us it's much easier.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 7, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just put him on ignore like 90% of us it's much easier.


 
I'm forever asking him (and his cronies) to do just that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm forever asking him (and his cronies) to do just that.


 
I've got cronies?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've got cronies?


 
I was referring to butch.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2012)

My cronies are better.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> My cronies are better.


 
Seeing how bad his are I don't doubt it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 8, 2012)

Fancy a 'rational criticism of Nick Clegg's political fortunes at this time' style analysis, L & L? 

Or do you just prefer ultra-disruptive (and supremely boring), sniping at the 'clique' ('Monothought clique' perhaps ...  ? )

(And yes, I do post as someone *well*-guilty of similarly *irrelavant* and disruptively *tedious* sniping at particular elements on here, a fair while ago on Urban .... so I do recognise what your _problem_ is about. So try my method of curing it and attempt to chill the fuck out ... Worked for me   )

Beer, etc, helps


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Fancy a 'rational criticism of Nick Clegg's political fortunes at this time' style analysis, L & L?


 
I gave you every chance in the past, William, to stand up with me against the bullies. You chose then to be "politically correct" so I have no need of your advice now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2012)

lol


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 8, 2012)

I've not much been on this thread at all, bar the occasional dip into it.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'politically correct' as if it has any real political meaning, pretty much writes themselves off *straight off* as a stupidly unimaginative recycler of tired, old, and meaningless shit-media generated cliches.

With no real clue about *proper* politics. IMO like.

I won't be back on Urban any time before Monday (if then) now though, so fell free to fill yer disruptive boots here.

Whatever. I won't be back, necessarily, on this thread at all anyway -- if it contiues to head downhill like this.

If you weren't posting L & L. Most would be concentrating on the *Lib Dems* --.. you know, the _actual topic_ of ths thread?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

I used the expression "politically correct" because I was answering you, William. That's my sense of humour, you see. Of course what I mean by it is that you wanted to stay in with the clique, and so joined them in their abuse of me. You'll deny it, of course, but that doesn't matter as my memory is quite sufficient for me.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2012)

Why have you decided to attempt to wreck this thread? And will you now stop?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you decided to attempt to wreck this thread? And will you now stop?


 
I suggest that you and your cronies stop insulting me everytime I join in a discussion. That would prevent a lot of threads from being derailed.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2012)

Just stop whining, you're now following people around provoking them into insulting you. Just stop it.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 8, 2012)

179 pages.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Just stop whining, you're now following people around provoking them into insulting you. Just stop it.


 
I'm quoting that for use the next time you gratutiously insult me.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Just stop whining, you're now following people around provoking them into insulting you. Just stop it.


I'm going to quote it as well.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I was referring to butch.


 
If you were referring to Butch you've patently missed a trick in not using the word "bitches". Butch's bitches sounds miles better than Butch's cronies - Alliteration n that.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Is this a bitch fest or a butch fest?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2012)

Clegg booed at half time in the GB vs Netherlands mens hockey semi-final.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2012)

Lib Dems raised one of those socially maladjusted Tory students on BBC2 just now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I suggest that you and your cronies stop insulting me everytime I join in a discussion. That would prevent a lot of threads from being derailed.


i don't think i've ever seen you join a discussion, you come along and post shit and then get surprised when people throw a few insults your way.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Santino said:


> Lib Dems raised one of those socially maladjusted Tory students on BBC2 just now.


How can you be a malajusted tory?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think i've ever seen you join a discussion, you come along and post shit and then get surprised when people throw a few insults your way.


 
One man's shit is another man's gold-dust. I don't have a high opinion of your contributions ever. I only started insulting you, though, after post after post from you wishing me dead, calling me names and generally acting like the piss-artist you so obviously are.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> One man's shit is another man's gold-dust. I don't have a high opinion of your contributions ever. I only started insulting you, though, after post after post from you wishing me dead, calliThere should be a poll thread about who is the most boring poster, you must be in contention.ng me names and generally acting like the piss-artist you so obviously are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> One man's shit is another man's gold-dust. I don't have a high opinion of your contributions ever. I only started insulting you, though, after post after post from you wishing me dead, calling me names and generally acting like the piss-artist you so obviously are.


every day which passes brings my wish nearer fulfilment.

but it's not like i'm the only person unfortunate enough to attract your attention. there's lots of people you stalk, whose steps you dog and whose threads you try to trash. don't fucking deny it, the mods have seen it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> every day which passes brings my wish nearer fulfilment.


 
You are mean-spirited weasle with the brains of a dead haddock. Stupid as well, as every day brings you closer to the same thing.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

How did I do that quote? nice


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

Nothing there to respond to.

 ETA : Literally nothng as I see the empty quote didn't show up in this post.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> every day which passes brings my wish nearer fulfilment.
> 
> but it's not like i'm the only person unfortunate enough to attract your attention. there's lots of people you stalk, whose steps you dog andpd whose threads you try to trash. don't fucking deny it, the mods have seen it.


lol


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but it's not like i'm the only person unfortunate enough to attract your attention. there's lots of people you stalk, whose steps you dog and whose threads you try to trash. don't fucking deny it, the mods have seen it.


 
Only you, Garfie and butch's bitches recieve any insults from me on a regular basis. Most others I tend to ignore after a brief response.

ETA : I mean among those who regularly insult me.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

You're yakking to yourself


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

14teeth said:


> You're yakking to yourself


 
You seem to be listening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You are mean-spirited weasle with the brains of a dead haddock. Stupid as well, as every day brings you closer to the same thing.


yeh: but after you.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Go on then. Your floor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Only you, Garfie and butch's bitches recieve any insults from me on a regular basis. Most others I tend to ignore after a brief response.
> 
> ETA : I mean among those who regularly insult me.


the entire world regularly insults you.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

14teeth said:


> Go on then. Your floor.


 
Who are you? How did you get in?


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

I can imagine pickmans looking like her avatar, it brings solace


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Da da.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 9, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> the entire world regularly insults you.


 
I never cease to be amazed that it doesn't as it's only a handful of morons who do it at all.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I never cease to be amazed that it doesn't as it's only a handful of morons who do it at all.


 I thought were older.


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Posted for button cos it's too much of a faff from his phone...
Maj's latest poster in readiness for the LibDem conference:

https://twitter.com/majsaleh/status/235709497178484736/photo/1/large


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 18, 2012)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Posted for button cos it's too much of a faff from his phone...
> Maj's latest poster in readiness for the LibDem conference:
> 
> https://twitter.com/majsaleh/status/235709497178484736/photo/1/large


 
That's brilliant


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's brilliant



Good innit?  His tshirts are ace too FULL COMMUNISM


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

What do posters think about Charles Kennedy?, he is no leftist, not even a democratic socialist, but he seems miles apart from the Orange Bookers in his party and i suspect it would be a more socially just party if he was back as leader.


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

Just as useless as Clegg, I reckon.

The Guardian's going about hyping up Clegg's announcement yesterday to make a stand on a tax holiday. Not sure what stand he'll take next, they all come to nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> Just as useless as Clegg, I reckon.
> 
> The Guardian's going about hyping up Clegg's announcement yesterday to make a stand on a tax holiday. Not sure what stand he'll take next, they all come to nothing.


taking a stand for lib dems is that moment before the actual u-turn when you have decided to do a u-turn but are still moving forwards


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> taking a stand for lib dems is that moment before the actual u-turn when you have decided to do a u-turn but are still moving forwards


 
They're desparate


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2012)

Kennedy is _even worse_ than Clegg as he has the ability to make non-member dafties think _oh they've still got a soul, they can change_ and all that sort of bollocks. His power base  in the party has left and the remaining members are see him as a laughing stock after his drunken performance at the conference two years ago. Plus, not a word against all the things they've done - happy to endorse it all. Happy to support it before the election as well.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

'Just as useless as Clegg, I reckon.'


easy to say, but could you expand? i mean not from what you would like, as a radical, but if life would be easier for the vulnerable, etc ..


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

BA has opened the debate, but has he endorsed it all?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Just as useless as Clegg, I reckon.'
> 
> 
> easy to say, but could you expand? i mean not from what you would like, as a radical, but if life would be easier for the vulnerable, etc ..


Why would it be easier for the vulnerable? Outline the process whereby (something that won't happen) people having illusions in a busted flush who has endorsed the attacks on the vulnerable (implicitly and explicitly) will make life easier for the vulnerable please. Outline how he will turn around the cross-party understanding that the vulnerable must be hurt, that there is no alternative, and the wider global economic conditions and processes that have led to this being seen as the unchangeable political common sense. It's fairy tale stuff to imagine that he would or could.


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Just as useless as Clegg, I reckon.'
> 
> 
> easy to say, but could you expand? i mean not from what you would like, as a radical, but if life would be easier for the vulnerable, etc ..


I know it sounds harsh, but I don't think vulnerable people should touch the LibDems with a bargepole. But I've said this all along, a few of us did despite a lot of annoyance for us being so vocal. And now the great day of realisation dawns, and there are *still* people thinking that a change of leadership in the LibDems would make any difference.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would it be easier for the vulnerable? Outline the process whereby (something that won't happen) people having illusions in a busted flush who has endorsed the attacks on the vulnerable (implicitly and explicitly) will make life easier for the vulnerable please. Outline how he will turn around the cross-party understanding that the vulnerable must be hurt, that there is no alternative, and the wider global economic conditions and processes that have led to this being seen as the unchangeable political common sense. It's fairy tale stuff to imagine that he would or could.


 
I know, but unless there is a bit of hope, we end up like Lletsa, things are so grim for millions,though lots of it is hidden, the clubs are still packed as are the coffee shops, festivals too, though go down the local market where the very poor tend to shop and lots of empty stalls and shops, its a divided recession, etc..


----------



## Nylock (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ... when you have decided to do a u-turn but are still moving forwards



...Isn't that how the titanic got into trouble?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Back on the rat-trail eh Toynbee? Labour must learn to forgive the Lib Dems



> With a little more dignity and less knee-jerk tribalism, both sides should anticipate a possible future coalition which, shorn of Clegg and Alexander, would suit both well enough. All Labour's firepower should have the Tories in its cross-hairs: too many in the shadow cabinet lack street-fighting gut outrage. Whingeing at Lib Dem collaborators misses that target, while a more respectful tone on both sides greatly threatens the Tories.
> 
> ...
> 
> Easing off anti-Lib Dem bile is an electoral necessity – unless Labour tribalism renders them as stupid as the self-destructive Tory backbenchers. Lib Dem MPs have voted for terrible things, but small centre parties are destined to be Play-Doh in coalitions. Labour must learn to forgive, and Ed Miliband knows that. Grown-up politics are difficult.


 
I expect the recently banned articul8 would agree with her "hard electoral arithmetic."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

treelover said:


> I know, but unless there is a bit of hope, we end up like Lletsa, things are so grim for millions,though lots of it is hidden, the clubs are still packed as are the coffee shops, festivals too, though go down the local market where the very poor tend to shop and lots of empty stalls and shops, its a divided recession, etc..


No better recipe for losing hope than putting faith in people like Charles Kennedy.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I expect the recently banned articul8 would agree with her "hard electoral arithmetic."


 
Classy - make a dig when you think (wrongly) I can't reply.  There's no doubt that if Con/LD marginals turn into Con safe seats then Labour's task becomes much harder.   Doesn't follow that the LD's can simply patch up their shattered credibility by simply ditching Clegg and Alexander and all will be well again.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

When i think you can't reply? You mean when you're not banned and when i've seen you posting your inept defences already today, _hence_ 'the dig'. And so yes, you do agree with the rat.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

I didn't say that.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't follow that the LD's can simply patch up their shattered credibility by simply ditching Clegg and Alexander and all will be well again.


 What does follow? Some kind of reconcillisation between LD and Lab?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say that.


Argue with her logic then - it's the logic that you've presented here time after time. Why is it wrong when she says what you say? 

And you take back your smear above then?


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2012)

'all will be well _again_'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

ooops - wrong thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Not sure you have the right thread there KT!


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> What does follow? Some kind of reconcillisation between LD and Lab?


 
It's an interesting question.  There's no doubt that a complete unwind of the tactical vote would be damaging to Labour in the absence of any new trends - she's right so far.  But it doesn't follow that a collapse in Lib Dem support automatically leads to this conclusion.  Although a number of people in Labour including those close to Miliband are aspiring towards decontaminating the LDs before the next election and winding down the hostility.

Problems with this logic today:
1) The tsunami of hostility towards the LDs might be tamed back down to a tidal wave - but not to the pre 2010 levels.  So, quite apart from the political objections, why take the risk of a rapprochement when it won't be effective?
2) In some LD/Con marginals a sufficiently robust "third place first" strategy could actually see Labour pick up support from previously non-voting sections of the electorate, which together with direct transfers from LDs, and tactical Green switches could see them potentially become effective rivals to the Tories.
3) In other areas it might be advisable to stand down Labour candidates in favour of local "Save our NHS" candidates (or similar).  They needn't necessarily win (though would be great if they did) - so long as they give the Tories a fight.
4) A resurgent UKIP could split the Tory vote - or (and I don't see this happening at all) Labour could promise a referendum on membership of the EU.
5) In any case, there can be exceptions to a general catastrophic loss of support in the LDs where their vote holds up due to being seen as decent constituency MPs.  (so bucking the tactical unwind).


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
> The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.


 
Aaargh  horrific mental image of Polly Toynbee having an orgasm


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's an interesting question.  There's no doubt that a complete unwind of the tactical vote would be damaging to Labour in the absence of any new trends - she's right so far.  But it doesn't follow that a collapse in Lib Dem support automatically leads to this conclusion.  Although a number of people in Labour including those close to Miliband are aspiring towards decontaminating the LDs before the next election and winding down the hostility.


 So Toynbee is basically an on-message Labour leadership supporter starting to roll out the new party line for the public? You can see why the LP leadership would like to get some more support in the bag. But it shows the contempt they have for people's anger at the LDs.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Toynbee may be getting spoon fed this stuff - but she'll be known to be sympathetic to the approach even without prompting.   Ironically a list PR system would see the centre-left tactical vote unwind without benefiting the Tories.  Then, the LDs can't be the "only we can challenge X here" party - and be two different things depending on where they are.  They struggle in PR elections!


----------



## magneze (Aug 31, 2012)

Why would Labour need to go into coalition with the LibDems at all? They need a uniform 1% swing to get a majority and are currently polling 12% above the Tories (according to what I read yesterday).


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Toynbee may be getting spoon fed this stuff - but she'll be known to be sympathetic to the approach even without prompting. Ironically a list PR system would see the centre-left tactical vote unwind without benefiting the Tories. Then, the LDs can't be the "only we can challenge X here" party - and be two different things depending on where they are. They struggle in PR elections!


We haven't got a PR election - why on earth bring that up? And she's not being spoon-fed, she's part of the set trying to prepare the ground from within the heart of labour for this sort of approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

magneze said:


> Why would Labour need to go into coalition with the LibDems at all? They need a uniform 1% swing to get a majority and are currently polling 12% above the Tories (according to what I read yesterday).


 
They won't/don't - this is just the remains of the 80s SDP desperately trying to salvage something from the collapse of their world where the 'centre' is kingmaker for now and forever, and a part of the old labour type is an electoral impossibility. Their current attack will be around the now-permanent (in their minds) idea of _coalition_ govts. It's bollocks though - isn't it articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

magneze said:


> Why would Labour need to go into coalition with the LibDems at all? They need a uniform 1% swing to get a majority and are currently polling 12% above the Tories (according to what I read yesterday).


 
It's not just about going into coalition (although that may be necessary in a hung parliament) - but precisely because of the non-uniform effects of a collapse in the LD vote.   There are many more Con/LD marginals than Lab/LD marginals.   If the Tories can concentrate their economic firepower in Con/Lab marginals to a much greater extent than in 2010 as a result, then seats which might be predicted to fall to Labour on the basis of national polling might buck the trend.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's not just about going into coalition (although that may be necessary in a hung parliament) - but precisely because of the non-uniform effects of a collapse in the LD vote. There are many more Con/LD marginals than Lab/LD marginals. If the Tories can concentrate their economic firepower in Con/Lab marginals to a much greater extent than in 2010 as a result, then seats which might be predicted to fall to Labour on the basis of national polling might buck the trend.


So labour should logically then put their shoulder to the lib-dem wheel in lib-dem/conservative marginals?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's not just about going into coalition (although that may be necessary in a hung parliament) - but precisely because of the non-uniform effects of a collapse in the LD vote. There are many more Con/LD marginals than Lab/LD marginals. If the Tories can concentrate their economic firepower in Con/Lab marginals to a much greater extent than in 2010 as a result, then seats which might be predicted to fall to Labour on the basis of national polling might buck the trend.


Seriously, tell us what you think this means in practical terms for what labour should do then. Do you think along with the rat that labour should go easy on the lib-dems in the hope that this will somehow buttress the lib-dem vote in these ld/con marginals (reality: it would make no difference to the votes in these areas at all)? if not, then what is the point that you're making?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> So labour should logically then put their shoulder to the lib-dem wheel in lib-dem/conservative marginals?


 
In a political context where that strategy would work, yes. But if it a) wouldn't and b) would impact negatively on Labour's own potential support in other parts of the country, then it would be a bad idea.

As I've said above - there are other ways of stopping Con/LD marginals in 2010 from being safe Tory in 2015 (or whenever). Like a Labour-backed local NHS campaign.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They won't/don't - this is just the remains of the 80s SDP desperately trying to salvage something from the collapse of their world where the 'centre' is kingmaker for now and forever, and a part of the old labour type is an electoral impossibility. Their current attack will be around the now-permanent (in their minds) idea of _coalition_ govts. It's bollocks though - isn't it articul8?


 
I'd say this experience has killed support for the idea of formal coalition in the short-medium term.  That doesn't mean that we're going to see a return to the days of huge majorities for one party or the other.   Minority government and "support and supply" agreements could easily be the way forward.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

So yes, shoulder to the lib-dem wheel in some seats. Unbelievable. 

Why do you think a NHS candidate would pressure tories and lib-dems in their marginals? And what do you forsee as the result of such campaigns - who would be more likely be elected as a result?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure you have the right thread there KT!


 
 edited.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'd say this experience has killed support for the idea of formal coalition in the short-medium term. That doesn't mean that we're going to see a return to the days of huge majorities for one party or the other. Minority government and "support and supply" agreements could easily be the way forward.


See, this is the way i said you lot would try and frame _debate_. 

People don't vote for a party on the basis that they want a coalition govt - and they don't vote for parties to endorse the idea of huge majority govts either. The very idea that people do and so will vote for/against coalition govt is bizarre.  _I like coalition govt so will vote for the lib-dems despite my life-long labour support. W_hat a daft place to start from.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So yes, shoulder to the lib-dem wheel in some seats. Unbelievable.


 
No, show me where I said that.



> Why do you think a NHS candidate would pressure tories and lib-dems in their marginals? And what do you forsee as the result of such campaigns - who would be more likely be elected as a result?


 
Local NHS candidates could cut across traditional party lines and mobilise people on an anti-Tory/LD basis.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> See, this is the way i said you lot would try and frame _debate_.
> 
> People don't vote for a party on the basis that they want a coalition govt - and they don't vote for parties to endorse the idea of huge majority govts either. The very idea that people do and so will vote for/against coalition govt is bizarre. _I like coalition govt so will vote for the lib-dems despite my life-long labour support. W_hat a daft place to start from.


 
That is not my case at all.  The likelihood of majority governments is on a long term decline due to the decline of the % share taken by the big two parties - SNP, Plaid, Green, Respect, UKIP, whatever.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> No, show me where I said that.
> 
> 
> 
> Local NHS candidates could cut across traditional party lines and mobilise people on an anti-Tory/LD basis.


Are you serious? I asked you:




> So labour should logically then put their shoulder to the lib-dem wheel in lib-dem/conservative marginals?


 

to which you directly replied:




> In a political context where that strategy would work, yes.


 
They could - i asked you, _given the key strategic aim of keeping the tory out of the marginal_, what impact you think these NHS candidates would have on the likely result.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> That is not my case at all. The likelihood of majority governments is on a long term decline due to the decline of the % share taken by the big two parties - SNP, Plaid, Green, Respect, UKIP, whatever.


What's not your case at all? That coalition govts are more likely now? It is your case - it is your oft- repeated case. You even repeat it in this post.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> In a political context where that strategy would work, yes.


 
We aren't in such a context though.


I've been arguing that the national context of overwhelming hostility to the LDs mean that it isn't in Labour's interest to get involved in rapprochements with the LDs. In a different period, where the LDs hadn't had their credibility to centre-left inclined voters shot to pieces _then_ it might make sense.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's not your case at all? That coalition govts are more likely now? It is your case - it is your oft- repeated case. You even repeat it in this post.


NO - hung parliaments are more likely.  Formal coalitions aren't the inevitable outcome of hung parliaments.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> We aren't in such a context though.
> 
> 
> I've been arguing that the national context of overwhelming hostility to the LDs mean that it isn't in Labour's interest to get involved in rapprochements with the LDs. In a different period, where the LDs hadn't had their credibility to centre-left inclined voters shot to pieces _then_ it might make sense.


So, just to emphasise again, yes, shoulder to the lib-dems wheel where and when it benefits labour. Well done polly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> NO - hung parliaments are more likely. Formal coalitions aren't the inevitable outcome of hung parliaments.


Yes, hung parliaments make coalition govts much less likely don't they?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, just to emphasise again, yes, shoulder to the lib-dems wheel *where and when it benefits labour*. Well done polly.


 
 But the whole thing is that she is arguing a reapprochement between Labour the LDs is in the party's interest when it comes to the next election. I'm arguing that it really isn't, that other - better - options are available.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

I think Toynbee is desperately trying to salvage something from the wreckage of the SDP project. Labour dont need the lib dems. The Lib dems will have far fewer seats at the next election - which makes a hung parliament less likely.  They would be far better off sticking the boot into the yellow tory scum. Their left leaning/anti-tory  vote has already deserted them in disgust and whats left is their core support - and frankly, fuck em.

I dont buy this shite about 'electorl atihmitic' - the tories got 36% of the vote last time, its very unlikely they will improve on that barring a sudden economic miracle or Milliband stepping down in favour of Ian Brady. The Lib dem vote has collapsed in favour of labour - so even if the tories equal their performance from 2010 (unlikley) - labour will almost certinaly win more seats even if they get the same percentage as the tories (FPTP gives labour an advantage over the tories).

If there a hung parliament the lib dems wont have a choice - their own grassroots will hardly be keen to get back into bed with the tories following their mauling at the polls.

Basically since 1983 the libdems/SDP have been splitting the anti tory/left of centre vote. That is no longer the case. They have fucked themselves into irrelevance. Labour trying trying to win them over would be nonsensical, the only logical approach is to hasten their richly deserved demise.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, hung parliaments make coalition govts much less likely don't they?


again - a complete misrepresentation of what I said.  What makes coalitions less likely is really unpopular coalitions.  That doesn't mean that long term electoral trends reverse themselves overnight.  Hung parliaments can - and may well- lead to minority governments.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Lib dem vote has collapsed in favour of labour - so even if the tories equal their performance from 2010 (unlikley) - labour will almost certinaly win more seats even if they get the same percentage as the tories (FPTP gives labour an advantage over the tories).


Dramatically over-simplified.  All LD votes won't transfer to Labour in affluent previously Con/LD marginals - the vote can split and the Tory will be elected more easily than in 2010.  Meaning the resources can be transferred into marginals that the Tories narrowly lost to Labour last time round.


----------



## magneze (Aug 31, 2012)

So you're saying that the long term electoral trend is to coalitions, but that you don't see the next election being a coalition one?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

magneze said:


> So you're saying that the long term electoral trend is to coalitions, but that you don't see the next election being a coalition one?


I think long term yes coalitions are becoming more likely.  But this long term tendency has been offset for the time being by the experience of a very unpopular coalition.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

All of this also assumes that "getting Labour in" is a priority. Even if they essentially take on the same austerity mission as the ConDems.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

delusional as ever I see


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> All of this also assumes that "getting Labour in" is a priority. Even if they essentially take on the same austerity mission as the ConDems.


Getting Labour in, yes, but the alternatives I've given precisely *don't* rely on pulling punches re the LDs.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Dramatically over-simplified. All LD votes won't transfer to Labour in affluent previously Con/LD marginals - the vote can split and the Tory will be elected more easily than in 2010. Meaning the resources can be transferred into marginals that the Tories narrowly lost to Labour last time round.


 
So the tories might pick up a few seats in Con/LD marginals. But Labour will get a far more significent boost in Con/Lab marginals. The tories have a mountain to climb. No party has improved its share of the vote at subsequent elections since Wilson in 1974 (and then only fractionally and only six months after the previous election). The tories have to win a  much bigger share of the vote than in 2010 just to remain where they are now. The lib dems are an irrelevance.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Getting Labour in, yes, but the alternatives I've given precisely *don't* rely on pulling punches re the LDs.


A supply agreement surely does rely on some kind of nicing up to LibDems? Or have I misunderstood? I do like the idea of running NHS candidates, but surely the whole LP project is all about getting everyone to do LP-branded work?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

to be honest if labour wants to lose the election probably about the best thing it could do is publically endorse a coalition with the lib-dems.

they've got the reverse midas touch now


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> . The tories have to win a much bigger share of the vote than in 2010 just to remain where they are now.


How do they?  Doesn't follow at all.  (I agree a swing to the Tories giving them a  majority seems unlikely).  The "boost" for Labour in Lab/Con marginals doesn't necessarily follow from collapse in LD support - 1) LDs can not vote, or vote Green or something, 2) Tories have extra resources to flood into these seats, due to facing walkovers in LD seats (potentially).


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> again - a complete misrepresentation of what I said. What makes coalitions less likely is really unpopular coalitions. That doesn't mean that long term electoral trends reverse themselves overnight. Hung parliaments can - and may well- lead to minority governments.


I'd be very interested in hearing how i misrepresented your case in a post in which i didn't talk about your case. You (that's you, not me) said that future elections are likely to produce hung parliaments. I (that's me, not you) said that hung parliaments in turn tend to produce coalitions, far more so than any other result. The reason i highlighted this is because the SDP fightback within your party is going to be based on this heightened likelihood of coalitions, which requires cosying up to the lib-dems. This article is an example of it - and the same logic is displayed in your posts but without you having the bluntness to openly say it. Well, you did say it once, you did say yes, if it benefits labour then they should put their shoulders to the lib-dem wheel in some marginals, but you then immediately took it back by saying _yes they should but really they shouldn't, and i never said they should anyway, stop misrepresenting me._

The likelihood of a minority govt is almost zero btw.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest if labour wants to lose the election probably about the best thing it could do is publically endorse a coalition with the lib-dems.
> 
> they've got the reverse midas touch now


even Toynbee would admit that - but she's want a new leader and an detoxification of their brand first.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But the whole thing is that she is arguing a reapprochement between Labour the LDs is in the party's interest when it comes to the next election. I'm arguing that it really isn't, that other - better - options are available.


I wasn't talking about the rat, but about you and your arguments. The one where you pretty much agreed with her but didn't really. 

I've asked you to outline how these other better options would work, given the shared aims of you an polly to keep out the tories in lib-dem/con marginals. You've not been able to say how. You've not been able to say how it would work towards your and polly's aims.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

What's it like to realise that the SDP have more say in your parties matters than ordinary members articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> A supply agreement surely does rely on some kind of nicing up to LibDems? Or have I misunderstood? I do like the idea of running NHS candidates, but surely the whole LP project is all about getting everyone to do LP-branded work?


 
Supply agreement would what would follow when Labour was the largest party in a hung parliament but Lab/LD coalition talks break down.  Unless the LDs wanted to form a coalition with the Tories, or to totally fuck off the public they would need to agree to this.

I'm talking about Labour withdrawing its candidate in return for having a dominant stake in the pro-NHS campaign, and in Labour's electoral interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Getting Labour in, yes, but the alternatives I've given precisely *don't* rely on pulling punches re the LDs.


Labour aren't going to back nhs candidates in ld/tory marginals. There will be a labour candidate in every seat and they will fight tooth and nail against any independent NHS candidates. You and i both know this.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Supply agreement would what would follow when Labour was the largest party in a hung parliament but Lab/LD coalition talks break down. Unless the LDs wanted to form a coalition with the Tories, or to totally fuck off the public they would need to agree to this.
> 
> I'm talking about Labour withdrawing its candidate in return for having a dominant stake in the pro-NHS campaign, and in Labour's electoral interests.


You can talk this fantasy stuff all you like. Why are you drawing up mad programs that have no chance of ever happening?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Labour aren't going to back nhs candidates in ld/tory marginals. There will be a labour candidate in every seat and they will fight tooth and nail against any independent NHS candidates. You and i both know this.


 
I'm not talking about independent NHS candidates.  I'm talking about Labour playing the leading role in bringing together a raft of local candidates under a pro-NHS banner.  I can see why you wouldn't want this, but voters would like it - and the Tories really wouldn't


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Supply agreement would what would follow when Labour was the largest party in a hung parliament but Lab/LD coalition talks break down. Unless the LDs wanted to form a coalition with the Tories, or to totally fuck off the public they would need to agree to this.
> 
> I'm talking about Labour withdrawing its candidate in return for having a dominant stake in the pro-NHS campaign, and in Labour's electoral interests.


why do you pay money to the labour party when you constantly run them down and say they're shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> even Toynbee would admit that - but she's want a new leader and an detoxification of their brand first.


Have you read the article? She argues exactly for labour entering an informal us against the tories program with the lib-dems _right now. No new leader as a prerequisite, no leaving the coalition - nothing. _Join hands with the lib-dems right now whilst they're killing people - this she calls 'grown up politics'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not talking about independent NHS candidates. I'm talking about Labour playing the leading role in bringing together a raft of local candidates under a pro-NHS banner. I can see why you wouldn't want this, but voters would like it - and the Tories really wouldn't


how do you think miliband would feel about it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not talking about independent NHS candidates. I'm talking about Labour playing the leading role in bringing together a raft of local candidates under a pro-NHS banner. I can see why you wouldn't want this, but voters would like it - and the Tories really wouldn't


You're talking about labour candidates. So your argument is that labour candidates can win seats in lib-dem/conservative marginals. You really are daft.

(i'm going out now btw)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How do they? Doesn't follow at all. (I agree a swing to the Tories giving them a majority seems unlikely). The "boost" for Labour in Lab/Con marginals doesn't necessarily follow from collapse in LD support - 1) LDs can not vote, or vote Green or something, 2) Tories have extra resources to flood into these seats, due to facing walkovers in LD seats (potentially).


 
Becasue all the polls for the past year have shown that the lib dems have lost half their support and labour are consitently polling over 40%. Its obvious that a lot of lib dem support was 'anti-tory but fucked off with labour' - now they feel utterly disgusted at Cleggs sell out and will vote labour. No way are they going back to the lib dems and no way will they vote tory. All the polling evidence - and common sense - points that way.

Labour got 29% last time to the tories 36%. This time if the tories get 36% (a very very tall order) the labour vote will almost certinaly be much higher. Even if they only get 36% as well they will still win more seats than the tories cos of the bias in the FPTP system.

Whichever way you slice it Labour will have to really really fuck up not to be the biggest party at the next election and - because of collapse in lib dem support  - a hung parliament is far less likely than it was in 2010.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

I said that hung parliaments were more likely.  You interpreted this as saying coalitions were more likely.  I argued that this didn't follow.  Then you argued I'd said coalitions were more likely under FPTP.  Which isn't at all what I said.



butchersapron said:


> This article is an example of it - and the same logic is displayed in your posts but without you having the bluntness to openly say it. Well, you did say it once, you did say yes, if it benefits labour then they should put their shoulders to the lib-dem wheel in some marginals, but you then immediately took it back by saying _yes they should but really they shouldn't, and i never said they should anyway, stop misrepresenting me. _




I didn't say they should get together *under present conditions* - it doesn't make sense.   So I'm arguing the opposite of Toynbee over this tactical question.  In fact I'm arguing that it is possible and desirable to act in a way which minimises the future weight of LDs support in such tactical considerations.  



> The likelihood of a minority govt is almost zero btw.


Why?  We'll see...


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I can see why you wouldn't want this, but voters would like it - and the Tories really wouldn't


 And the Labour party leadership really wouldn't either. They'd see you as a wrecker for suggesting it. Good luck with that faction fight against the LP machine in order to field unwinnable candidates.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're talking about labour candidates. So your argument is that labour candidates can win seats in lib-dem/conservative marginals. You really are daft.
> 
> (i'm going out now btw)


 
Am I fuck.  I'm talking about candidates standing under a "save the NHS banner" backed by Labour and Labour affiliated unions, but with support from others (eg Greens) and independents.  This has potentially a much broader reach - including to people who might previously have voted LD or Tory.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Am I fuck.  I'm talking about candidates standing under a "save the NHS banner" backed by Labour and Labour affiliated unions, but with support from others (eg Greens) and independents.  This has potentially a much broader reach - including to people who might previously have voted LD or Tory.


I meant the "good luck" part seriously, btw. Let us know how you get on. If this is a serious suggestion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Am I fuck. I'm talking about candidates standing under a "save the NHS banner" backed by Labour and Labour affiliated unions, but with support from others (eg Greens) and independents. This has potentially a much broader reach - including to people who might previously have voted LD or Tory.


so the labour party doesn't appeal to people who might previously have voted lib dem or tory. quite an admission.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> And the Labour party leadership really wouldn't either. They'd see you as a wrecker for suggesting it. Good luck with that faction fight against the LP machine in order to field unwinnable candidates.


I'm not arguing it is likely.  What is likely is a half-hearted cushying up to LDs - if Clegg stays then only on a local and selective basis.
But my way would be a) politically preferable [although not to the leadership - which is why it won't happen] and b) more effective.

It would be more complicated if the GE coincided with a set of local elections at which Labour councillors were up for election.  But I don't see this as being a fatal barrier necessarily


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so the labour party doesn't appeal to people who might previously have voted lib dem or tory. quite an admission.


it appeals to some, but not enough, at least in the kind of areas where Labour has a very limited organisational presence and pretty small share of the vote previously.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I said that hung parliaments were more likely. You interpreted this as saying coalitions were more likely. I argued that this didn't follow. Then you argued I'd said coalitions were more likely under FPTP. Which isn't at all what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I didn't interpret it as that. I said that. Hung parliaments make coalitions more likely than ones where one party has a majority of seats. Why are you denying a tautology?

I didn't bloody mention FPTP! What on earth are you on about?

No you're not arguing the opposite, you are arguing the same as (as you have done on here for the last two years) her.You both think that a) there's an overall imperative aim - the tories not winning in marginals so b) things that prevent this should be welcomed and pursued which means that c) if it means the primary aim can be achieved by putting labours shoulder to the lib-dem wheel then so be it. Of course you cover yourself with some left wing cover about the same aim maybe be achieved by NHS candidates (which turn out to be labour candidates on closer inspection), which is never going to happen, which, when the time comes nearer to the GE will leave you and her and your grown up politics informally supporting lib-dem candidates in one way or another in these marginals - that's the hard electoral arithmetic of this game.

Why is a minority govt not going to happen? Well, firstly the figures don't stack up. That's the main one really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it appeals to some, but not enough, at least in the kind of areas where Labour has a very limited organisational presence and pretty small share of the vote previously.


if the bnp can manage to mobilise a fair vote in areas where they've previously had a pretty small share of the vote, it's telling that you don't think the labour party can emulate them despite their greater resources.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Labour got 29% last time to the tories 36%. This time if the tories get 36% (a very very tall order) the labour vote will almost certinaly be much higher. Even if they only get 36% as well they will still win more seats than the tories cos of the bias in the FPTP system.
> 
> Whichever way you slice it Labour will have to really really fuck up not to be the biggest party at the next election and - because of collapse in lib dem support - a hung parliament is far less likely than it was in 2010.


 
You can't read of national vote share - and assume a pretty uniform swing from LD to Labour.  Reality is more complicated than that.  Wonder what odds the bookies are laying on another hung parliament?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You can't read of national vote share - and assume a pretty uniform swing from LD to Labour. Reality is more complicated than that. Wonder what odds the bookies are laying on another hung parliament?


why don't you ask them?


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not arguing it is likely.  What is likely is a half-hearted cushying up to LDs - if Clegg stays then only on a local and selective basis.
> But my way would be a) politically preferable [although not to the leadership - which is why it won't happen] and b) more effective.


 It does sound like this theory of yours falls under the "mad plans" umbrella. What's the point of saying that the LP could do, if it wasn't the LP?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Am I fuck. I'm talking about candidates standing under a "save the NHS banner" backed by Labour and Labour affiliated unions, but with support from others (eg Greens) and independents. This has potentially a much broader reach - including to people who might previously have voted LD or Tory.


Labour candidates. An aggregation of all the people who the lib-dems and tories have made electorally unviable in these marginals. The grand master strikes again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> It does sound like this theory of yours falls under the "mad plans" umbrella. What's the point of saying that the LP could do, if it wasn't the LP?








articul8 recently


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

_Bloody leadership. _

_*mutters to self*_


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if the bnp can manage to mobilise a fair vote in areas where they've previously had a pretty small share of the vote, it's telling that you don't think the labour party can emulate them despite their greater resources.


There's a difference between a respectable increase in the vote share (Labour can achieve this) - and getting into a position to challenge realistically in a parliamentary seat where you had no real presence previously.  The BNP haven't achieved this either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There's a difference between a respectable increase in the vote share (Labour can achieve this) - and getting into a position to challenge realistically in a parliamentary seat where you had no real presence previously. The BNP haven't achieved this either.


but you've said that there are many seats where the labour party can't challenge but some sort of unholy coalition based round labour might.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Labour candidates. An aggregation of all the people who the lib-dems and tories have made electorally unviable in these marginals. The grand master strikes again.


 
Because NHS campaigns won't persuade previous abstainers, or disaffected (on this issue) LDs or Tories to vote for them?   Then what are you proposing independent NHS candidates for?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> It does sound like this theory of yours falls under the "mad plans" umbrella. What's the point of saying that the LP could do, if it wasn't the LP?


It's an attempt to say that even from Toynbee's partially correct initial assumptions, her conclusions don't automatically flow from them.  But of course parties don't like strategic innovation when they can try to patch together what's falling apart and try to make it do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

you're on a loser here, articul8


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Because NHS campaigns won't persuade previous abstainers, or disaffected (on this issue) LDs or Tories to vote for them?   Then what are you proposing independent NHS candidates for?


Not as part of a get Labour in plan. And not when they're secretly Labour candidates. Why? To put the ongoing destruction of the nhs on the political agenda and to make links to be able to resist this. Not as some pawn in Labour plans.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> It's an attempt to say that even from Toynbee's partially correct initial assumptions, her conclusions don't automatically flow from them.  But of course parties don't like strategic innovation when they can try to patch together what's falling apart and try to make it do.



*bloody leadership*

prophet without


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not as part of a get Labour in plan. And not when they're secretly Labour candidates. Why? To put the ongoing destruction of the nhs on the political agenda and to make links to be able to resist this. Not as some pawn in Labour plans.


and how are you going to build support in areas where you have just claimed the organised Labour movement with all its resources could not?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're on a loser here, articul8


I've already conceded it won't happen.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You can't read of national vote share - and assume a pretty uniform swing from LD to Labour. Reality is more complicated than that. Wonder what odds the bookies are laying on another hung parliament?


 
Well you cant predict exactly - but it gives a pretty good idea based on previous election results. It is also the only evidence we have on whcih to predict what might happen at an election. And 'disgusted lib dems swiutching to labour' is entirely logical. There not going to vote tory are they? Green might pick up a few. Some might not vote. But labour (now Brownless and Blair a receeding bad smell) is the obvious place for them to go.

Again -
Labour got 29% at the last election. They are now consistantly polling over 40%.
Lib dems got 23% at the last election. They are now consitantly polling around 10%.

Yes polls move - but its going to take a political earthquake to shift that arithmatic.

If we acceppt its very unlikely that the tories can improve on their 2010 vote share, and that its very unlikely that the lib dems will poll anything like they did in 2010 than - barring a huge vote for the greens - labour will _easily _be the biggest party at the next election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've already conceded it won't happen.


so fucking move on.

next.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> and how are you going to build support in areas where you have just claimed the organised Labour movement with all its resources could not?


There already is support based on the important role the nhs plays in peoples lifes and the support it gives their families, that your shit party its unable to use it, to harness it, in these areas should give you pause for some reflection.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> If we acceppt its very unlikely that the tories can improve on their 2010 vote share, and that its very unlikely that the lib dems will poll anything like they did in 2010 than - barring a huge vote for the greens - labour will _easily _be the biggest party at the next election.


Doesn't follow at all - Tories stand to benefit from LDs fall in more seats than Labour do.  This means more activists,resources, visits etc can be put into the marginals where they face a renewed challenge from Labour.  Plus LDs will recover a bit from where they are now.  Not to anything like 2010 levels but a bit - and don't forget in LD/Lab marginals they will continue to receive a tactical vote from Tories. 

It's not just a small SDP clique arguing Labour needs to be nice to the Lib Dems - it's quite a widely held view amongst party electoral strategists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You can talk this fantasy stuff all you like. Why are you drawing up mad programs that have no chance of ever happening?


 
Chaff, innit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't follow at all - Tories stand to benefit from LDs fall in more seats than Labour do. This means more activists,resources, visits etc can be put into the marginals where they face a renewed challenge from Labour. Plus LDs will recover a bit from where they are now. Not to anything like 2010 levels but a bit - and don't forget in LD/Lab marginals they will continue to receive a tactical vote from Tories.
> 
> It's not just a small SDP clique arguing Labour needs to be nice to the Lib Dems - it's quite a widely held view amongst party electoral strategists.


and party electoral strategists are, er, a small clique.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> Well you cant predict exactly - but it gives a pretty good idea based on previous election results. It is also the only evidence we have on whcih to predict what might happen at an election. And 'disgusted lib dems swiutching to labour' is entirely logical. There not going to vote tory are they? Green might pick up a few. Some might not vote. But labour (now Brownless and Blair a receeding bad smell) is the obvious place for them to go.
> 
> Again -
> Labour got 29% at the last election. They are now consistantly polling over 40%.
> ...


Astonishing thing is that the above accurate picture is part of his argument for joining and voting labour, that they will be the only beneficiary of anti cuts movement, so its essential to engage with it/ them. What's the betting he'll cone back and say your analysis (and therefore his) is not necessarily true (that's his weasel way of saying wrong).

Edit: oh look what he did


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Am I fuck. I'm talking about candidates standing under a "save the NHS banner" backed by Labour and Labour affiliated unions, but with support from others (eg Greens) and independents. This has potentially a much broader reach - including to people who might previously have voted LD or Tory.


 
So, basically a "save the NHS" front to draw in support for the Labour party, and probably with a load of small print about how saving the NHS means following the Tory path because it'd be too expensive to scrap what's already been done. Of course, garnering that support in the first place would be predicated on people having the memory capacity of a goldfish, so that they didn't recall any of the previous times Labour have lied in order to get power (remember "we will get rid of Jobseekers' Allowance"?).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Because NHS campaigns won't persuade previous abstainers, or disaffected (on this issue) LDs or Tories to vote for them? Then what are you proposing independent NHS candidates for?


 
And that's what your "save the NHS" boils down to - persuading previous abstainers to vote Labour, as opposed to actually saving the NHS.

I know why *I'd* propose independent NHS candidates: To stop Labour stealing the mantle and using it for political gain when they've little desire to "save the NHS" in the way that Joe and Josephine Public want it saved.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There already is support based on the important role the nhs plays in peoples lifes and the support it gives their families, that your shit party its unable to use it, to harness it, in these areas should give you pause for some reflection.


 
It won't though, because I'm not convinced that articul8 can see or wants to see how his party set the stage for what is being done now to the NHS, and so can't/won't see that the public, given a choice between a Labour-led "save the NHS" campaign and an independent one, could well choose an independent campaign over supporting a campaign by a party that wants everyone to take another bite of shit sandwich.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing thing is that the above accurate picture is part of his argument for joining and voting labour, that they will be the only beneficiary of anti cuts movement, so its essential to engage with it/ them. What's the betting he'll cone back and say your analysis (and therefore his) is not necessarily true (that's his weasel way of saying wrong).
> Edit: oh look what he did


 
It's no part of my argument that the Tory threat is negligible, and that the election is in the bag for Labour.   What is, however, true is that only Labour can stop the fast-and-furious austerity agenda, and given that we know this, we might as well fight to make the voice of those wanting it to go further and oppose austerity full stop as powerful as possible.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It won't though, because I'm not convinced that articul8 can see or wants to see how his party set the stage for what is being done now to the NHS, and so can't/won't see that the public, given a choice between a Labour-led "save the NHS" campaign and an independent one, could well choose an independent campaign over supporting a campaign by a party that wants everyone to take another bite of shit sandwich.


 
Thats just what we'd need.  Two rival pro-NHS campaign candidates standing against each other.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Thats just what we'd need. Two rival pro-NHS campaign candidates standing against each other.


how much do you give the labour party each month?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> It's no part of my argument that the Tory threat is negligible, and that the election is in the bag for Labour.   What is, however, true is that only Labour can stop the fast-and-furious austerity agenda, and given that we know this, we might as well fight to make the voice of those wanting it to go further and oppose austerity full stop as powerful as possible.


Who said a damn thing about neglible? Why did you just throw that in as if to suggest that someone else already has? Why do you always do this when you're on the back foot?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

KaKa Tim was saying they'd need a big swing in their favour to stand still - and that there's no chance of them achieving this.  Hence, the threat of them doing so is "negligible"?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> how much do you give the labour party each month?


the minimum I'm allowed to


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Thats just what we'd need.  Two rival pro-NHS campaign candidates standing against each other.


You just said that your secretly Labor non independent candidate was just an idle fantasy and not going to happen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> the minimum I'm allowed to


and it goes towards the interest on their overdraft


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> KaKa Tim was saying they'd need a big swing in their favour to stand still - and that there's no chance of them achieving this.  Hence, the threat of them doing so is "negligible"?


Astonishing that Tim types 'unlikely' and it appears as 'neglible' i.e no chance at all on your screen.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You just said that your secretly Labor non independent candidate was just an idle fantasy and not going to happen.


True - but we were talking about people hypothetically preferring to choose a fully independent campaign over a nominally independent campaign.   So, even Labour - and UNISON/UNITE etc put significant resources into local Save the NHS candidates - VP is saying that other pro-NHS candidates might stand against them.  Which would be lunacy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> the minimum I'm allowed to


Filling me with energy about this exciting project.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing that Tim types 'unlikely' and it appears as 'neglible' i.e no chance at all on your screen.


"negligible" doesn't mean absolutely no chance at all, it means no significant chance.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> True - but we were talking about people hypothetically preferring to choose a fully independent campaign over a nominally independent campaign.   So, even Labour - and UNISON/UNITE etc put significant resources into local Save the NHS candidates - VP is saying that other pro-NHS candidates might stand against them.  Which would be lunacy.


No he said that voters would see through your insulting secretly Labour plot.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

it wouldn't be secretly Labour.  It would be supported by Labour and Labour affiliated unions (amongst others)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> "negligible" doesn't mean absolutely no chance at all, it means no significant chance.


Which is not 'unlikely'. Why didn't you say unlikely? You said neglible because you wanted to give the impression of him dismissing the tories entire.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> it wouldn't be secretly Labour.  It would be supported by Labour and Labour affiliated unions (amongst others)


It would be labour or Labour would not even think about getting onboard. And you know that.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

I don't think that it is unlikely that the Tories will pose a threat at the next election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it wouldn't be secretly Labour. It would be supported by Labour and Labour affiliated unions (amongst others)


it would in fact be openly labour but pretending to be pro-nhs and not labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't think that it is unlikely that the Tories will pose a threat at the next election.


i think it likely you'll be posting shit on the same subject in 2015 and still getting a battering for it.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> What is, however, true is that only Labour can stop the fast-and-furious austerity agenda, and given that we know this, we might as well fight to make the voice of those wanting it to go further and oppose austerity full stop as powerful as possible.


 How can this happen? One way, surely, is for strong campaigns to rise outside of Labour.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it would in fact be openly labour but pretending to be pro-nhs and not labour


 It would be openly supported by Labour, but it would be a single issue campaign which would appeal to activists and voters beyond those who are already engaged in campaigning/voting for the Labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> How can this happen? One way, surely, is for strong campaigns to rise outside of Labour.


I'm not in the least opposed to that.  But I don't think it's clever tactically for those campaigns to be standing candidates in elections that Labour is seriously contesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It would be openly supported by Labour, but it would be a single issue campaign which would appeal to activists and voters beyond those who are already engaged in campaigning/voting for the Labour party.


give it up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Thats just what we'd need. Two rival pro-NHS campaign candidates standing against each other.


 
Easy solution to that - the Labour party could resist its all too apparent desire to appropriate causes for the votes they might possibly milk from it.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

that's the nature of political parties - including far left ones (OK, not necessarily just votes but recruits, papers sold, etc.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


>


 
Amazing, isn't it? You just know that he's always going to favour a Labour-led campaign over an independent one, and that he can't see a problem *for the electorate* in such a campaign.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> True - but we were talking about people hypothetically preferring to choose a fully independent campaign over a nominally independent campaign. So, even Labour - and UNISON/UNITE etc put significant resources into local Save the NHS candidates - VP is saying that other pro-NHS candidates might stand against them. Which would be lunacy.


 
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Labour shouldn't stand their candidates on a "save the NHS" platform, and for the following reasons:
1) History shows us that Labour are happy to resile from campaign promises when convenient.
2) Labours' neoliberalism doesn't allow them any path but one that is at heart along the same lines as the one currently being taken by the Tories.

What I am saying is that a fully-independent "save the NHS" campaign would be of more use to the electorate, as opposed to what will most likely be an entirely-instrumental vote-securing exercise by the Labour party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> that's the nature of political parties - including far left ones (OK, not necessarily just votes but recruits, papers sold, etc.)


 
It's hardly "the nature", it's more of a learned response inspired by instrumental concerns.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What I am saying is that a fully-independent "save the NHS" campaign would be of more use to the electorate, as opposed to what will most likely be an entirely-instrumental vote-securing exercise by the Labour party.


Maybe for council seats, but it's unlikely that any little local group would have the resources to seriously contest a Parliamentary seat. That kind of adventure would be a costly failure imo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> Maybe for council seats, but it's unlikely that any little local group would have the resources to seriously contest a Parliamentary seat. That kind of adventure would be a costly failure imo.


 
Your post makes a good point. However, in my opinion "saving the NHS" *should* be primarily a local issue. A local groups (and federations of local groups) are a much firmer base for impelling change and exercising independent community political will than a Labour MP who has ridden to power on the back of a campaign that will likely be only addressed in passing or discraded once power is attained.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your post makes a good point. However, in my opinion "saving the NHS" *should* be primarily a local issue. A local groups (and federations of local groups) are a much firmer base for impelling change and exercising independent community political will than a Labour MP who has ridden to power on the back of a campaign that will likely be only addressed in passing or discraded once power is attained.


A federation of local groups would be great. But apart from in some areas this campaign federation would not really be able to stand in parliamentary elections. Ironically, the places where it probably could take a seat would be in classically Labour areas. Horrors!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...nt-a-disgrace-its-an-opportunity-8096656.html


this maggotry from an indy journo belongs in here



> We tend to assume that giving workers additional rights is a good thing. But across the EU young workers are being kept out of employment because employers simply cannot afford the cost and risk of hiring them. In Germany, where deregulation led to a decrease in workplace rights for young people, youth unemployment has dropped to 8 per cent. Isn't having a job the most important right of all?


 
David Thomas, freelance journo and full time shitwit


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

would make no sense for them to stand against Labour MPs in the current context.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> would make no sense for them to stand against Labour MPs in the current context.


 Make no sense why?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

well Labour have opposed the coalition's NHS re-organisation - what would be achieved by standing against them, other help to deseat an opponent and help an anti-NHS candidate in?   You've already conceded it's unlikely that an independent NHS campaign is unlikely to actually win a parliamentary constituency given the limited resources etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> well Labour have opposed the coalition's NHS re-organisation - what would be achieved by standing against them, other help to deseat an opponent and help an anti-NHS candidate in?   You've already conceded it's unlikely that an independent NHS campaign is unlikely to actually win a parliamentary constituency given the limited resources etc.


Excellent, this is the pro nhs anti independent pro nhs candidate whose campaign will be run by the pro nhs campaign that the non independent pro nhs campaign have argued should not happen. A masterpiece of dialectical thought.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well Labour have opposed the coalition's NHS re-organisation - what would be achieved by standing against them, other help to deseat an opponent and help an anti-NHS candidate in?   You've already conceded it's unlikely that an independent NHS campaign is unlikely to actually win a parliamentary constituency given the limited resources etc.


Yes, it's very unlikely that a campaign group like this could stand. One of the only scenarios is if a local group was overpoweringly successful, and faced a clear call from local people to take their fight to the next election. And the kind of area wherre this could happen would probably be a safe Labour seat. Hopefully the LP candidate would simply step down, or face having to do a Dobson. But, like I said, this is all simply hypothetical.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Butchers - it's a funny sentence but I'm not sure how it's meant to relate to anything I've argued.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Random said:


> Yes, it's very unlikely that a campaign group like this could stand. One of the only scenarios is if a local group was overpoweringly successful, and faced a clear call from local people to take their fight to the next election. And the kind of area wherre this could happen would probably be a safe Labour seat. Hopefully the LP candidate would simply step down, or face having to do a Dobson. But, like I said, this is all simply hypothetical.


If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


You're almost cute


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

it's true...different when they're in government


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

the lib-dems are electoral poison and the fact that labour wouldn't have a problem with them is more a reflection on that party than anything else


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't follow at all - Tories stand to benefit from LDs fall in more seats than Labour do. This means more activists,resources, visits etc can be put into the marginals where they face a renewed challenge from Labour. Plus LDs will recover a bit from where they are now. Not to anything like 2010 levels but a bit - and don't forget in LD/Lab marginals they will continue to receive a tactical vote from Tories.
> 
> It's not just a small SDP clique arguing Labour needs to be nice to the Lib Dems - it's quite a widely held view amongst party electoral strategists.


 
But most of the marginals are Tory vs Labour. And the fall in the lib dem vote is - overwhelmingly - going straight to labour. How does that help the tories?
Also resources used in campaigning only make a marginal difference to votes.

What is the argument for labour schmoozing up to the libdems? In case there is a hung parliament? If a radically reduced number of lib dem mps hold the balance of power all they will do is arragne a confidence and supply with whoever is the largest party. Are a humilated rump of lib dem mp's going to refuse to work with labour becasue they said horrible things about them? And side with the tories instead? Even if the tories have less mps?

Or is to try and hold up the lib dem vote? Why would they want to do that? To maybe add a fraction of a pecentage point to the lib dem vote in a small number of tory/lib dem marginals? (and reducing the labour vote accross the board at the same time)

None of it is at all logical and it flies in the face of all the polling evidence.

This shit is not about eletoral strategy - its idelogical shite coming - i assume - from Blairites and exSDPers (like Toynbee). The centre left vote is no longer split. Which decreases the pull on labour to move right. Thats what this bollocks is about.


----------



## Santino (Aug 31, 2012)

This thread used to be cool.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> But most of the marginals are Tory vs Labour. And the fall in the lib dem vote is - overwhelmingly - going straight to labour. How does that help the tories?
> Also resources used in campaigning only make a marginal difference to votes.


But often in Lab/Con marginals there isn't much of a LD vote to begin with, because LD symps are used to voting tactically, choosing which one of the big two they hate least. So the LD vote is quite hardcore, or if it drops in this kind of seat, these people - who were consciously NOT voting Labour or Tory still won't. So I don't see where you get the impression Labour is being handed a big advantage in those seats. Plus, I think you're underestimating the impact that targeted advertising and activism can have on the 1 or 2% that can determine some marginals.

If psephological modelling just meant assuming uniform national swings calculated on the basis of uniform shifts in national vote share, every fucker would know everything.  It don't work like that - even if today's polls still look the same in 3 years time - which they probably won't.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> would make no sense for them to stand against Labour MPs in the current context.


It would make no sense to you because all you care about is getting Labour elected.

For those of us who actually want to protect the NHS it makes perfect sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...nt-a-disgrace-its-an-opportunity-8096656.html
> 
> 
> this maggotry from an indy journo belongs in here
> ...


 
Couldn't resist posting a comment on the page about the effects on the employment of over-25s in Germany of the deregulation of employment protections for under-25s.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


 
Quite an assumption, that, although it does admit to the political opportunism of MPs.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


If the local Labour mp isn't leading it, it doesn't exist. If the local Labour mp isn't bothered or is too lazy then no local feeling exists. There it is in black and white. The face of 'Parliamentary cretinism' in the age of austerity.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But often in Lab/Con marginals there isn't much of a LD vote to begin with, because LD symps are used to voting tactically, choosing which one of the big two they hate least. So the LD vote is quite hardcore, or if it drops in this kind of seat, these people - who were consciously NOT voting Labour or Tory still won't. So I don't see where you get the impression Labour is being handed a big advantage in those seats. Plus, I think you're underestimating the impact that targeted advertising and activism can have on the 1 or 2% that can determine some marginals.
> .


 
Any evidence to back up these hunches?

Like detailed consisting polling showing that lib dem have lost 10% of their vote directly to labour.

Labour have lost swathes of seats since 2005 due to  people switching to the lib dems becasue they were sick of labour but were still anti-tory. Many of those voters have now switched back (as is bourne out by every single poll carried out over the last 18 months)  

The group Labour needs to target are the disillusioned non-voters. Many of whom are at the sharp end of austerity.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


 
Is this a real post?


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If the local Labour mp isn't leading it, it doesn't exist. If the local Labour mp isn't bothered or is too lazy then no local feeling exists. There it is in black and white. The face of 'Parliamentary cretinism' in the age of austerity.


 
How many Labour MPs are so lazy and unbothered that they won't take up a cause in their own constituancy likely to enhance their chances of re-election?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If the local Labour mp isn't leading it, it doesn't exist. If the local Labour mp isn't bothered or is too lazy then no local feeling exists. There it is in black and white. The face of 'Parliamentary cretinism' in the age of austerity.


 
Yup.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> How many Labour MPs are so lazy and unbothered that they won't take up a cause in their own constituancy likely to enhance their chances of re-election?


exactly - Random was talking about circumstances when so many people felt so strongly about it that they would put their party loyalty aside to back someone who campaigned especially on it. If you were a Labour MP in those circumstances - with no interest whatsoever in supporting the coalition re-organisation - why the fuck wouldn't you campaign on it? Unless you didn't give a shit whether you won or lost your seat. But the MPs I know do care about winning in their own seat - in fact that's what they care about most of all most of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> How many Labour MPs are so lazy and unbothered that they won't take up a cause in their own constituancy likely to enhance their chances of re-election?


 
Too many, especially if they're sitting on a majority of more than a few thousand. It's already happened on the issue of the NHS (specifically hospitals) several times in the last 20 years, and the only areas affected have generally been swing seats.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> exactly - Random was talking about circumstances when so many people felt so strongly about it that they would put their party loyalty aside to back someone who campaigned especially on it. If you were a Labour MP in those circumstances - with no interest whatsoever in supporting the coalition re-organisation - why the fuck wouldn't you campaign on it? Unless you didn't give a shit whether you won or lost your seat. But the MPs I know do care about winning in their own seat - in fact that's what they care about most of all most of them.


 
And there you reveal the essential instrumentality behind much of what Labour does or even means - serving self and party rather than serving the electorate, unless the electorate's will happens to coincide with that of the party or the MP.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> exactly - Random was talking about circumstances when so many people felt so strongly about it that they would put their party loyalty aside to back someone who campaigned especially on it. If you were a Labour MP in those circumstances - with no interest whatsoever in supporting the coalition re-organisation - why the fuck wouldn't you campaign on it? Unless you didn't give a shit whether you won or lost your seat. But the MPs I know do care about winning in their own seat - in fact that's what they care about most of all most of them.


You utterly miss the point - labour MPs _leading _this swell of local feeling - really? By your logic if they didn't the do this leading then the feeling or movement doesn't exist. Madness. Tell me why i haven't seen my local labour MP at a single one of our various anti-cuts network meetings or actions? Maybe she just doesn't want to get elected? Or maybe she knows damn well like a huge majority of labour MPs that she doesn't need to do a dman thing other than not get caught kiddy-fiddling to be re-elected, hence her distance from the cuts and the opposition to them.  

You really do live in some fantasy world of hard-working labour MPs who just want to do the best for their constituents, and the labour party just wanting the best for the wider working class and so on and on and on. If if if if.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And there you reveal the essential instrumentality behind much of what Labour does or even means - serving self and party rather than serving the electorate, unless the electorate's will happens to coincide with that of the party or the MP.


of course that's a major element - but it can't be wished away.  The point is that if, as I think is the case now, taking up pro public service positions = being more electable, then it's possible for the pro-NHS forces to make it pretty straightforward to get the Labour candidate onside.  I'm not blind to the limitations of this as a strategy, and all the problems that exist with holding them to these promises and avoiding the neoliberalising influence of private healthcare lobbyists on government etc.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You really do live in some fantasy world of hard-working labour MPs who just want to do the best for their constituents, and the labour party just wanting the best for the wider working class and so on and on and on. If if if if.


see above -

I don't know about your particular case - but what I do know is if that they thought for a moment that your local campaign was capable of picking up enough support to make a shot at winning the seat even an outside chance, they'd be all over it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> And there you reveal the essential instrumentality behind much of what Labour does or even means - serving self and party rather than serving the electorate, unless the electorate's will happens to coincide with that of the party or the MP.


 
That's the nature of British party politics. It's a question of which of the established parties with a chance of winning would any individual voter prefer to see in government. Such a choice can never be ideal but it is better, in that voter's view, than the alternatives. Of course, if such a voter's wish is to start a revolution, then actually the best choice would be the one that is most likely to fuck up.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

So, no candidates outside of labour, no movement outside of labour, no networks outside of labour - _*no challenge to labour*_. Despite all those fine pluralistic words about extra-parliamentary pressure and re-alignment and all the other phrases that _butter no parsnips._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> of course that's a major element - but it can't be wished away. The point is that if, as I think is the case now, taking up pro public service positions = being more electable, then it's possible for the pro-NHS forces to make it pretty straightforward to get the Labour candidate onside. I'm not blind to the limitations of this as a strategy, and all the problems that exist with holding them to these promises and avoiding the neoliberalising influence of private healthcare lobbyists on government etc.


 
It's not just a limited strategy, it's bankrupt in terms of what the public, as opposed to the Labour party, would realise from it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> see above -
> 
> I don't know about your particular case - but what I do know is if that they thought for a moment that your local campaign was capable of picking up enough support to make a shot at winning the seat even an outside chance, they'd be all over it.


See above for what? And if we don't look like we're going to unseat her? According to you then the feeling and opposition doesn't exist. It can only exist if fronted by a labour MP. Utter idiocy - and more damagingly, a brilliant way in which to shut down and restrict the options open for the re-alignment and so on that you spout so much meaningless bollocks about, restricted to a supporting role in the career of the labour party.

So, Sir Paddy, the conscience of the party, openly - again - endorses the murderous actions of Clegg and the wider party. I think that should tell all those wondering about the other king over the water (Kennedy) all they need to know.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, no candidates outside of labour, no movement outside of labour, no networks outside of labour - _*no challenge to labour*_. Despite all those fine pluralistic words about extra-parliamentary pressure and re-alignment and all the other phrases that _butter no parsnips._


 
Not on an electoral level at the 2015 GE, no - unless there's some huge unforseeable shift (total collapse of the banks etc, and Labour offering to go into a national government or some such).  That's just how it is.  Might as well stare reality in the face and work out what to do as a result.

Extra-parliamentary pressure is still key as to what Labour actually put forward in its manifesto, and to what extent it can keep to any of it in government.  And failure to stop projected Tory cuts and begin reversing austerity could lead to all kinds of potential developments.  Could, but won't *necessarily*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That's the nature of British party politics. It's a question of which of the established parties with a chance of winning would any individual voter prefer to see in government. Such a choice can never be ideal but it is better, in that voter's view, than the alternatives. Of course, if such a voter's wish is to start a revolution, then actually the best choice would be the one that is most likely to fuck up.


 
There's a difference between "non-ideal" choices, many of which we faced in the 1970s, for instance, and the "Hobson's choice dressed up as multiple choice" that we're offered now. We had a clearer ideological split back then, now we've got three mainstream manifestations of the same ideology, with the main differeence between parties residing in their branding rather than in their political philosophies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, no candidates outside of labour, no movement outside of labour, no networks outside of labour - _*no challenge to labour*_. Despite all those fine pluralistic words about extra-parliamentary pressure and re-alignment and all the other phrases that _butter no parsnips._


well, he IS a labour party member...

i think a lot of this 'i'm looking for stuff outside the party' bit is a load of auld bollocks and articul8 is in fact manoeuvring himself towards a high place in the party hierarchy, promoted well beyond his woeful abilities.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> See above for what? And if we don't look like we're going to unseat her? According to you then the feeling and opposition doesn't exist.


I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it didn't exist on the scale that Random was speculating about.  That's a different thing altogether. 

We are talking about electoral strategy.  And electoral strategies have to begin from the electoral reality.  That doesn't mean to say that all politics is reduced to the level of the electoral.  There is lots of critical campaigning going on that isn't taking place at an electoral level - the boycott workfare one being an excellent example, or the anti-Atos stuff.  



> So, Sir Paddy, the conscience of the party, openly - again - endorses the murderous actions of Clegg and the wider party. I think that should tell all those wondering about the other king over the water (Kennedy) all they need to know.


isn't the king over the water Vince?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not on an electoral level at the 2015 GE, no - unless there's some huge unforseeable shift (total collapse of the banks etc, and Labour offering to go into a national government or some such). That's just how it is. Might as well stare reality in the face and work out what to do as a result.
> 
> Extra-parliamentary pressure is still key as to what Labour actually put forward in its manifesto, and to what extent it can keep to any of it in government. And failure to stop projected Tory cuts and begin reversing austerity could lead to all kinds of potential developments. Could, but won't *necessarily*.


No, that's not stating reality - that's trying to ensure that it _never becomes a reality. _All your stupid posts about working out what to do and so on are predicated on achieving something that a lot of people aren't looking to achieve, in fact are working hard to stop it happening and your attempt to steal these people hopes and place yours in their place mirrors exactly what you are advocating should happen with pro-NHS candidates. How fucking dare you.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it didn't exist on the scale that Random was speculating about. That's a different thing altogether.
> 
> We are talking about electoral strategy. And electoral strategies have to begin from the electoral reality. That doesn't mean to say that all politics is reduced to the level of the electoral. There is lots of critical campaigning going on that isn't taking place at an electoral level - the boycott workfare one being an excellent example, or the anti-Atos stuff.
> 
> ...


We're not talking about whether it exists or not, we're talking about your absurd claim that it can only exist in a widespread socially powerful form if it was lead by a labour MP.




			
				you said:
			
		

> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


 
We're not talking electoral strategy, no one who matters is paying attention. All we're doing is allowing you the opportunity to once more tie yourself up in knots attempting to justify why your rhetorical radicalism produces such meek politics.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

Look, if I thought there was a possibility of electing even a handful of militant class struggle candidates standing against Labour, as single issue candidates or a new party, we'd be having a very different discussion here. But it's all pie in the sky right now.

So many people on here actually think there's fuck all we can do except moan and take the piss.  Well, I'd call that "meek".


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> we're talking about your absurd claim that it can only exist in a widespread socially powerful form if it was lead by a labour MP.


 
I claimed no such thing - I said if it existed in a form capable of being translated into an electoral earthquake a Labour MP would have headed it off/up. It doesn't in the period from now until the general election, so they haven't.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Look, if I thought there was a possibility of electing even a handful of militant class struggle candidates standing against Labour, as single issue candidates or a new party, we'd be having a very different discussion here. But it's all pie in the sky right now.


 
Very Blair-like, _look_ there. And i don;t believe for a second you would support any such thing - your arguments explicitly and repeatedly seek to shut down any such development.

Now slag off your lib-dem mates please.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I claimed no such thing - I said if it existed in a form capable of being translated into an electoral earthquake a Labour MP would have headed it off/up. It doesn't in the period from now until the general election, so they haven't.


That'[s exactly what you claimed. Why don't you think before posting offensive - but oh so politically revealing - tripe such as this:



> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


 
I mean, why did you think that line got the reaction from multiple posters that it did?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

They are no mates of mine.  Part of the reason that axing Clegg and replacing him with Cable won't fix jack shit is how utterly supine the whole party, and membership, have been until now.   I don't actually think that the majority of the party are neoliberally driven - I don't think they are driven by any philosophy whatever other than total opportunism.  Unfortunately for them, the first opportunity that's come along has been a massive fucking Tory trap and they've fallen right in it.  Stupid fucks.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> If the local feeling was that strong


ie strong enough to cut across party loyalties to the extent that such a campaign could elect its own candidate.  Where is there a campaign with this degree of strength?  If any campaign looks like it might, the Labour candidate/MP will be on it like a shot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Look, if I thought there was a possibility of electing even a handful of militant class struggle candidates standing against Labour, as single issue candidates or a new party, we'd be having a very different discussion here. But it's all pie in the sky right now.


 
So it's not a matter of finance and privilege, or a matter of entrenched political interests, it's all down to "there is no alternative"?

Fuck off, Thatcher.



> So many people on here actually think there's fuck all we can do except moan and take the piss. Well, I'd call that "meek".


 
I'm sure many of us participate in political actions, just not for a political party that betrays the electorate at every turn.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I mean, why did you think that line got the reaction from multiple posters that it did?


 
Because it sounded so cynical.  But that's how cynically they think.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> ie strong enough to cut across party loyalties to the extent that such a campaign could elect its own candidate. Where is there a campaign with this degree of strength? If any campaign looks like it might, the Labour candidate/MP will be on it like a shot.





> If the local feeling was that strong, _the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already_.


Have you somehow lost the ability to see the second part of that sentence?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They are no mates of mine. Part of the reason that axing Clegg and replacing him with Cable won't fix jack shit is how utterly supine the whole party, and membership, have been until now. I don't actually think that the majority of the party are neoliberally driven - I don't think they are driven by any philosophy whatever other than total opportunism. Unfortunately for them, the first opportunity that's come along has been a massive fucking Tory trap and they've fallen right in it. Stupid fucks.


 
Perhaps "mates" is too strong. How about "fellow political opportunists"?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Because it sounded so cynical. But that's how cynically they think.


No, it was because of the claim contained within it - and the arrogance and political stupidity that it revealed. And you still don't see this. Unbelievable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> ie strong enough to cut across party loyalties to the extent that such a campaign could elect its own candidate. Where is there a campaign with this degree of strength? If any campaign looks like it might, the Labour candidate/MP will be on it like a shot.


 
Didn't work in Wyre Forest, did it? How many terms did Taylor hold that constituency for?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Millions of single parents set to lose out under Lib Dems' flagship bid to offer help



> The new system will discriminate against low earners who currently rely on tax credits to top up their wages, the charity says.
> 
> Gingerbread describes the setback as an "unintended consequence" of the Coalition's flagship policy – pushed by the Liberal Democrats – of raising the amount of money people can earn before they start paying tax, which will rise to £9,205 next year.
> 
> For every £1 of extra income, benefits will be reduced by 65p. So a £1,000 increase in the personal tax allowance will give £200 per year to every basic-rate taxpayer except those on universal credit, who will gain only £70.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you somehow lost the ability to see the second part of that sentence?


 
If the local feeling was that strong [at the present time], the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already. 
If the local feeling develops into a position where it might become that strong, the Labour MP will see this and love-bomb it.
The only scenario I'm discounting is that there is a surge from absolutely nowhere that the MP/PPC ignores or misses and that they aren't capable of cutting across with a spot of "me too".   Only some massively unforseeable shift (of the kind I spoke of earlier) would make that last scenario possible.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't work in Wyre Forest, did it? How many terms did Taylor hold that constituency for?


Wyre Forest has never been a "Labour" constituency.  It fell Labour in 97 because of the landslide (like Tonbridge Wells FFS).  And as I've said, in government there is a different dynamic.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If the local feeling was that strong [at the present time], the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.
> If the local feeling develops into a position where it might become that strong, the Labour MP will see this and love-bomb it.
> The only scenario I'm discounting is that there is a surge from absolutely nowhere that the MP/PPC ignores or misses and that they aren't capable of cutting across with a spot of "me too". Only some massively unforseeable shift (of the kind I spoke of earlier) would make that last scenario possible.


No, there's no wriggle room on this. Your claim was that if the feeling was that strong the labour MP would be out front leading it already. If s/he wasn't then the local feeling would not exist. This is not true - is it? Why on earth would the labour MP just be allowed to lead or front such local feeling? Do you think they just wave some special labour wand that allows them to takeover local campaigns? Especially campaigns that may be based on the rejection of that labour MP? Fantasy island time. I still can't believe your naivety here - that a pro-nhs campaigns cannot meaningfully exist without being led by a labour MP.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> a pro-nhs campaigns cannot meaningfully exist without being led by a labour MP.


I think that pro-NHS campaigns could, and should, meaningfully organise independently of Labour.   But they are going down a massive blind alley if they think they can win parliamentary seats on this basis.



> If s/he wasn't then the local feeling would not exist


 
would not exist on the scale capable of delivering general election victories.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> again I never said this. I think that pro-NHS campaigns could, and should, organise independently of Labour. But they are going down a massive blind alley if they think they can win parliamentary seats on this basis.


Again, yes you did. That's exactly what you said. You can always take back that idiotic formulation if you like.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I think that pro-NHS campaigns could, and should, meaningfully organise independently of Labour. But they are going down a massive blind alley if they think they can win parliamentary seats on this basis.


so they should, in your view, back the architects of the private finance initiative

you said some time ago you knew this would never happen, so why don't you shut the fuck up about it and move on to discussing something more interesting?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

I said "if the local feeling was that strong" (capable of winning the seat in a GE) - I didn't say that in the absence of feeling "that strong" that no significant feeling whatsoever existed.   I know it does - which is one reason I was proposing that Labour stands down to run pro-NHS single issue candidates


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I said "if the local feeling was that strong" (capable of winning the seat in a GE) - I didn't say that in the absence of feeling "that strong" that no significant feeling whatsoever existed. I know it does - which is one reason I was proposing that Labour stands down to run pro-NHS single issue candidates


i think you mean 'labour stands to run down pro-nhs single issue candidates'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I said "if the local feeling was that strong" (capable of winning the seat in a GE) - I didn't say that in the absence of feeling "that strong" that no significant feeling whatsoever existed. I know it does - which is one reason I was proposing that Labour stands down to run pro-NHS single issue candidates


Again, are you unable to see the second half of your line?



> If the local feeling was that strong, *the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.*


 
As for your proposal, you say that it won't happen. That's it.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

yes, and if it *becomes* that strong they will anticipate this and move to love-bomb it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

one thing i'd like to see in 2013 is articul8 able to put forward a proposal someone agrees with.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes, and if it *becomes* that strong they will anticipate this and move to love-bomb it.


That's not what you said, you said that they would be out front leading it already. If they are not then it follows that it hasn't reached that level - because of course the indication of a movement/feeling being strong enough to unseat a sitting MP is always that MP out front leading that campaign to unseat themselves. Of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

> But pundits and opponents could be proved wrong with a concerted fightback, insisted the Lib Dem president.
> 
> “It is also essential that we state our different vision with absolute clarity. Subtlety won’t do. *We are Britain’s radical, free-thinking, progressive party.”*


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> one thing i'd like to see in 2013 is articul8 able to put forward a proposal someone agrees with.


...and maybe one that he himself doesn't think will never happen.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

If you are trying to use the NHS issue as a trojan horse to unseat a sitting Labour MP I would confidently predict that the party - if they thought you were serious and had any measure of support - would roll out a major "i love the NHS" campaign with the sitting MP up the front and swat you aside. 

If they were in government you might stand an outside chance.  From opposition, just about nil.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If you are trying to use the NHS issue as a trojan horse to unseat a sitting Labour MP I would confidently predict that the party - if they thought you were serious and had any measure of support - would roll out a major "i love the NHS" campaign with the sitting MP up the front and swat you aside.
> 
> If they were in government you might stand an outside chance. From opposition, just about nil.


you're really something of a timewaster


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If you are trying to use the NHS issue as a trojan horse to unseat a sitting Labour MP I would confidently predict that the party - if they thought you were serious and had any measure of support - would roll out a major "i love the NHS" campaign with the sitting MP up the front and swat you aside.
> 
> If they were in government you might stand an outside chance. From opposition, just about nil.


We're not talking about the chances of it happening though, no matter how hard you try to move it onto that ground. We're talking about the idiocy contained in the claim that:



> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


 
Because of course the indication of a movement/feeling being strong enough to unseat a sitting MP is always that MP out front leading that campaign to unseat themselves. Of course.

I think that's enough on that one - you're going to deny saying it whilst defending saying it even though you know it's rubbish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


>


he's about to break down in tears


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think that's enough on that one - you're going to deny saying it whilst defending saying it even though you know it's rubbish.


 
I was talking specifically about NHS campaigns.  Not proxies for unseating Labour MPs.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

I hope Pickman's has twigged that I'm ignoring him.  He's never to my knowledge said anything worth responding to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I hope Pickman's has twigged that I'm ignoring him. He's never to my knowledge said anything worth responding to.


you mean apart from eg 5495, which you replied to


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I was talking specifically about NHS campaigns. Not proxies for unseating Labour MPs.


We were talking about pro-nhs campaigns that would challenge sitting labour MPS. You replied by saying if it had the strength to potentially unseat the MP then the MP would be leading that campaign that may unseat him. Do check it out - this is the post that you made your stupid reply to



> Yes, it's very unlikely that a campaign group like this could stand. One of the only scenarios is if a local group was overpoweringly successful, and faced a clear call from local people to take their fight to the next election. And the kind of area wherre this could happen would probably be a safe Labour seat. Hopefully the LP candidate would simply step down, or face having to do a Dobson. But, like I said, this is all simply hypothetical.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a difference between "non-ideal" choices, many of which we faced in the 1970s, for instance, and the "Hobson's choice dressed up as multiple choice" that we're offered now. We had a clearer ideological split back then, now we've got three mainstream manifestations of the same ideology, with the main differeence between parties residing in their branding rather than in their political philosophies.


 
That is because all parties hoping to be in government have to adapt their policy to suit the most people. Most people are around the centre of the political spectrum in their desires and expectations and so this is reflected in each party's policies. In my opinion, if anything, the parties were closer in their idology in the sixties and seventies than they are now. It remains inevitable that the leading parties will be less divergent than the no-hopers (as in forming a government) such as those on the extreme left and right.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

the lib dems are on the hard right.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Not the most scientific of polls but:



> The online student poll, which received 966 responses after being circulated through university student unions in the region, showed almost 70 per cent of respondents had backed the Liberal Democrats before the last general election but less than ten per cent were planning to vote for them now, with another 17 per cent undecided.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> the lib dems are on the hard right.


 
You have to be toppling over the left edge of the political spectrum to think that.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

bullshit. this government makes margaret thatcher's gov't look like a vicar's tea party. the "centre ground" have moved dramatically to the right in the last few years.

hard right isn't the same as fascism.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> bullshit. this government makes margaret thatcher's gov't look like a vicar's tea party. the "centre ground" have moved dramatically to the right in the last few years.


 
The centre does indeed shift left and right over the years. But to think of Thatcher's government as vicar's tea party shows a lack of memory or youth untainted by the experience.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> We were talking about pro-nhs campaigns that would challenge sitting labour MPS. You replied by saying if it had the strength to potentially unseat the MP then the MP would be leading that campaign that may unseat him. Do check it out -


and it's hypothetical because the campaign with local strength on this scale doesn't exist.  If an MP saw it developing into a possibility they'd move heaven and earth to marginalise the "unseat the MP" element by owning the "up the NHS" element.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> The centre does indeed shift left and right over the years. But to think of Thatcher's government as vicar's tea party shows a lack of memory or youth untainted by the experience.


 
I didn't say that it was a vicar's tea party, I said that this gov't makes it look like one.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> and it's hypothetical because the campaign with local strength on this scale doesn't exist. If an MP saw it developing into a possibility they'd move heaven and earth to marginalise the "unseat the MP" element by owning the "up the NHS" element.


It being hypothetical is neither here nor there to your idioctic but revealing response that:



> If the local feeling was that strong, the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

it was clearly in the context of NHS campaigning - clearly it wouldn't apply to something like a campaign against the MP on expenses claims.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


>


The top photo makes him look really scared like he is going to get up and run away


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it was clearly in the context of NHS campaigning - clearly it wouldn't apply to something like a campaign against the MP on expenses claims.


It doesn't matter what the issue was - the revealing idiocy has done its work.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> The top photo makes him look really scared like he is going to get up and run away


He does doesn't he? Can anyone find any other pictures of scared or worried looking lib-dems?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Swansea Lib Dem councillor jailed for attacking mother



> A Liberal Democrat community councillor has been jailed for four months for punching his 87-year-old mother.
> 
> Swansea magistrates heard Simon Arthur, 44, had treated his mother Isabelle Arthur, "like a dog" for years.
> 
> He admitted assaulting pensioner Mrs Arthur, who uses a walking stick, in the driveway of their home in Newton near Mumbles.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

vince rates their chances of avoiding disaster:


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

This one doesn't look scared, he looks scary - look at the hate in those eyes and the disgust on that sneer:






(lib-dem leader on purbeck council)


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

dotty posting

has anyone checked this guy's hard drive?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

Talking of:


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

> During the attack he had shouted "You'll burn, you'll suffer in the after life", she added.
> When police arrived Arthur opened a drawer in the kitchen and grabbed a knife.


 
Anyone else would have been doing serious time for trying to kill a cop.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> dotty posting
> 
> has anyone checked this guy's hard drive?


Talking of that stuff:


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

It's worth doing with these types - like this guy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2819957.stm


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

> He lunged at Pc Greg Bowen who managed to dodge the blade before disarming the councillor, who was a Lib Dem prospective parliamentary candidate in the 2010 general election.



What a complete bastard.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Talking of that stuff:


 
Who is that?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It's worth doing with these types - like this guy:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2819957.stm


We can top that - convicted paedo and election fraudster


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

> Mrs Arthur said her son had never had a proper job


she got that right


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Who is that?


Liverpool lib-dem Councillor.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Liverpool lib-dem Councillor.


 
you only have to look at him to know there's something wrong there!


----------



## articul8 (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> We can top that - convicted paedo and election fraudster


Probably quicker to put Lib Dems on the sex register unless proven innocent.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...jailed-battering-cat-death-walking-stick.html

remember this cunt


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Probably quicker to put Lib Dems on the sex register unless *proven innocen*t.


 
There are no innocents in this struggle.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I didn't say that it was a vicar's tea party, I said that this gov't makes it look like one.


 
This government does not make me see Thatcher's government as a vicar's tea party. The Tories then like the Tories now did what Tories do. This one has been held back, however feebly, by it's coalition partner.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> This government does not make me see Thatcher's government as a vicar's tea party. The Tories then like the Tories now did what Tories do. This one has been held back, however feebly, by it's coalition partner.


 
Are you kidding?? How have the lib-dems held them back, if anything they've encouraged them!


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 31, 2012)

articul8 said:


> vince rates their chances of avoiding disaster:


nick cleggs dick is this big


----------



## rekil (Aug 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This one doesn't look scared, he looks scary - look at the hate in those eyes and the disgust on that sneer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rockin the particularly unrepentant dirty war torturer look.


----------



## elbows (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Aug 31, 2012)

We are up to here in shit.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Are you kidding?? How have the lib-dems held them back, if anything they've encouraged them!


 
I can't agree. I know what Tory governments do when they are unleashed. It's pure nonsense to say that the LDs have encouraged the Tories as many a Tory backbencher makes every effort to point out.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 31, 2012)

He looks really ill.  As well as being a freak.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

Photos of polititians caught in a grimace are feeble tools in serious debate.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 31, 2012)

You're a master debater.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 31, 2012)

who says it was a serious debate


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You're a master debater.


 
The old jokes are not always the best, but I wouldn't expect a Stalinist to appreciate that.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 31, 2012)

STALINIST.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 31, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> who says it was a serious debate


 
My comment was pointing out that this is not a serious debate.


----------



## killer b (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Aug 31, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I can't agree. I know what Tory governments do when they are unleashed. It's pure nonsense to say that the LDs have encouraged the Tories as many a Tory backbencher makes every effort to point out.


 
They have discouraged certain tory extremes, while providing cover for others. And they've been especially useful for the tories at this time because in parliament a huge chunk of the tory ranks are newcomers of 2010. Many of whom are mutant throwbacks who have no clue about the difference between tory fantasy nasty policies which they can only drool and bark about but not implement at this point in evolution, and the sort of nasty shit that tory governments can actually get through. According to some sources the reshuffle will involve the positioning of some of the most promising of the class of 2010 to turn the whips office into an incubator for future ministers, ones who have the potential to play the ministerial level games rather than simply splutter and drool all over the backbenches. The lib dems will continue to mop up some of the drool to keep it away from Camerons feet, although at some point as elections loom these sorts of functions will likely break down.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> So many people on here actually think there's fuck all we can do except moan and take the piss. Well, I'd call that "meek".


Fuck you. All the people who are criticising your dreadful arguments are involved in campaigns in some form or another. To paint them as simply doing nothing is a revolting smear.

You've really shown your true colours on this thread, you're as bad as that shit fuck Labour shill Fullyplumped. All your talk about supporting other groups outside Labour is precisely that, just talk. There is one positive to your comments on this thread though - it shows exactly where you lie and why you're every bit as much of the problem as Blair, Clegg and Cameron.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If the local feeling was that strong [at the present time], the Labour MP would be out-front leading it already.
> If the local feeling develops into a position where it might become that strong, the Labour MP will see this and love-bomb it.
> The only scenario I'm discounting is that there is a surge from absolutely nowhere that the MP/PPC ignores or misses and that they aren't capable of cutting across with a spot of "me too". Only some massively unforseeable shift (of the kind I spoke of earlier) would make that last scenario possible.


 
Got this far into catching up on this thread and had to post to the above...

...People like you wonder why the electorate is so disengaged from politics?! Fucking _*read*_ your posts ffs.

Staggering, utterly fucking staggering...


----------



## Riklet (Sep 1, 2012)

labour mum beaters aren't as bad as tory mum beaters though!

vote lib dem to keep the mum beaters out! ......._ ermmm_.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 1, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> You've really shown your true colours on this thread, you're as bad as that shit fuck Labour shill Fullyplumped. All your talk about supporting other groups outside Labour is precisely that, just talk. There is one positive to your comments on this thread though - it shows exactly where you lie and why you're every bit as much of the problem as Blair, Clegg and Cameron.


 
You just don't like being confronted with political reality.  I'd rather the situation was different.  But it isn't.  Therefore strategy has to begin from where we actually are.  And that means working inside and outside of Labour to influence the character of the manifesto and next Labour government.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> If you are trying to use the NHS issue as a trojan horse to unseat a sitting Labour MP I would confidently predict that the party - if they thought you were serious and had any measure of support - would roll out a major "i love the NHS" campaign with the sitting MP up the front and swat you aside.
> 
> If they were in government you might stand an outside chance. From opposition, just about nil.


 
Who's talking about Trojan horses besides you, you paranoid muppet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That is because all parties hoping to be in government have to adapt their policy to suit the most people. Most people are around the centre of the political spectrum in their desires and expectations and so this is reflected in each party's policies. In my opinion, if anything, the parties were closer in their idology in the sixties and seventies than they are now. It remains inevitable that the leading parties will be less divergent than the no-hopers (as in forming a government) such as those on the extreme left and right.


 
Parties in the '60s and '70s still somewhat shared the postwar social-democratic consensus (the need for a welfare state for example), but they never shared ideologies until Tony Blair and his _coterie_ re-wrote the Labour Party constitution to remove any trace of socialism worthy of the name, and accepted that the concerns of business must be given primacy over the needs of people. By doing so he bought into the same core ideology that Thatcher and her successor had bought into.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You have to be toppling over the left edge of the political spectrum to think that.


 
*Or* you have to have analysed the policies that the Lib-Dems have supported, and the policies they have proposed while in coalition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> The top photo makes him look really scared like he is going to get up and run away


 
You just know he's thinking "Lumme, it's the prefects!"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Swansea Lib Dem councillor jailed for attacking mother


 
What a disgusting specimen, and what a fine example of the leech-like qualities of the typical Lib-Dem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Got this far into catching up on this thread and had to post to the above...
> 
> ...People like you wonder why the electorate is so disengaged from politics?! Fucking _*read*_ your posts ffs.
> 
> Staggering, utterly fucking staggering...


 
I don't think he even notices that his comments hold the electorate in utter contempt, and even if he did, nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of his strategising.

Which would be fine if his idea of "strategy" didn't resemble the sleight-of-hand of a particularly-unaccomplished illusionist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You just don't like being confronted with political reality. I'd rather the situation was different. But it isn't. Therefore strategy has to begin from where we actually are. And that means working inside and outside of Labour to influence the character of the manifesto and next Labour government.


 
Yes, because manifestos are binding, and power doesn't exert any influence on the character of MPs.

"Vote for us. We'll say absolutely anything to get your vote, and then discard you like a used Johnny once we're back in power".


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You just don't like being confronted with political reality. I'd rather the situation was different. But it isn't. Therefore strategy has to begin from where we actually are. And that means working inside and outside of Labour to influence the character of the manifesto and next Labour government.


 
If that was possible I'd have stayed in the Labour Party. However it was made very clear in the early 90s that any serious attempt at altering the agenda from grass roots level would be dealt with by suspensions and expulsions from the party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2012)

ericjarvis said:


> If that was possible I'd have stayed in the Labour Party. However it was made very clear in the early 90s that any serious attempt at altering the agenda from grass roots level would be dealt with by suspensions and expulsions from the party.


 
Yup. Remember how they butchered the powers of constituency parties so that activists could no longer put forward "inconvenient" composites at Conference?
The mechanisms to influence Labour to a position of supporting people rather than business haven't existed for at least 15 years. To exert influence you have to be part of the existing problem, and that generally means that you're not going to favour the electorate's position with your influence, but rather the party's position.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 1, 2012)

Those were the days, proper Labour Party conferences; composites, block votes, speeches starting 'Comrades..'


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2012)

SP speeches still start "comrades"


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 1, 2012)

and letters from the party ending "yours comradely"


----------



## Belushi (Sep 1, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> and letters from the party ending "yours comradely"


 
I'm going to start ending all my correspondence at work with that


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 1, 2012)

red salute.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup. Remember how they butchered the powers of constituency parties so that activists could no longer put forward "inconvenient" composites at Conference?
> The mechanisms to influence Labour to a position of supporting people rather than business haven't existed for at least 15 years. .


 
They weren't exactly conducive to doing that long before Blair - there has never been an ideal time for socialists in the Labour party.   It's always been an uphill battle.  It would be wrong to deprioritise all campaigning outside Labour - I'm not doing this, at all.  But when it comes to *electoral* strategy, it's the only game in town.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2012)

..and the next step is making sure that an electoral strategy is the only game in town. Perfect.

Back to the other lot of neo-liberals:

In this Mail article summarising the findings and series of attacks in todays Sunday Times 



> Mr Sanders, a former aide to Paddy Ashdown, urged Mr Clegg to connect with the party's grassroots and appoint 'tried and tested' advisers rather than people who have 'never won an election in their lives.'
> 
> 'He needs to win people over when the general reaction is to recoil from the ideas he is putting forward. He needs to surround himself with winners.'


 
He neglects to list the names of these winners. Can anyone think of any?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2012)

> He needs to win people over when the general reaction is to recoil from the ideas he is putting forward. He needs to surround himself with winners.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2012)

Bradley Wiggins?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They weren't exactly conducive to doing that long before Blair - there has never been an ideal time for socialists in the Labour party. It's always been an uphill battle. It would be wrong to deprioritise all campaigning outside Labour - I'm not doing this, at all. But when it comes to *electoral* strategy, it's the only game in town.


 
No-one is claiming that there's ever been an ideal time for socialist in Labour. The point is being made that back then we had mechanisms within the party constitution to make our voices heard. Now there's fuck-all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ..and the next step is making sure that an electoral strategy is the only game in town. Perfect.
> 
> Back to the other lot of neo-liberals:
> 
> ...


 
Michael Winner would be favourite.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2012)

Winner the Pooh.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2012)

you mean this winner?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Fantastic headline:

Lib Dems choose knife attack prof to fight for police boss post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Fantastic headline:
> 
> Lib Dems choose knife attack prof to fight for police boss post


 
Fight!
You could advertise it as "Non-entity deathmatch"!


----------



## Libertad (Sep 4, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You just don't like being confronted with political reality. I'd rather the situation was different. But it isn't. Therefore strategy has to begin from where we actually are. And that means working inside and outside of Labour to influence the character of the manifesto and next Labour government.


 
What, like the Policy Review? Look where that got you, remember Clause Four? Probably not.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2012)

Libertad said:


> What, like the Policy Review? Look where that got you, remember Clause Four? Probably not.


He was being a hard core marxist in the SP at the time. Really.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He was being a hard core marxist in the SP at the time. Really.


Not at that time - I was not for scrapping Clause IV.

I can still remember my first party card:

"To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their labour, and the most equitable distribution thereof according to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange."

Amen.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2012)

Vince Cable and Ed Balls on the Marr Show just now. Programme ends with Ed Balls leaning towards Vince Cable, smiling and nodding ... *love* *communicate* *trust * *appeal*

Button wants to know why he didn't get it over with and just give him a bj.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2012)

Any tax avoidance implications in the lib-dems 'legacy fund'? Only one proper link i can find and it's in the sun so i'm not linking to it. Google the obvious terms. The lib-dems own legacy fund link has now gone blank.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2012)

cesare said:


> Vince Cable and Ed Balls on the Marr Show just now. Programme ends with Ed Balls leaning towards Vince Cable, smiling and nodding ... *love* *communicate* *trust * *appeal*
> 
> Button wants to know why he didn't get it over with and just give him a bj.


 
Didn't see this but I don't think Balls is into love-ins. More destabilisation ....


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Didn't see this but I don't think Balls is into love-ins. More destabilisation ....



I did see it. Balls also implied that Clegg shouldn't be leader of LibDems but that Labour could work with Cable *love*


http://news.sky.com/story/982748/balls-tells-cable-lets-fix-economy-together


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2012)

Body language. All fake, which make it worse.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Body language. All fake, which make it worse.



It was sick making.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2012)

Have looked at this now. I think 'all fake' was my point really, about destabilisation.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Have looked at this now. I think 'all fake' was my point really, about destabilisation.


Cable didn't seem destabilised - maybe a bit bemused.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2012)

Get your point, but I was thinking Balls was mostly shitstirring.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

I think the whole we could work with the Libdems if/some Libdems narrative is a combination of things, including but not limited to:

Genuine fear of not getting a majority in 2015 and a realisation they may have to work with the Libdems more of whom could survive than currently predicted.
A mistaken belief that they need to appeal to moderately disillusioned Libdems as a tactical vote, also to demonstrate their centrism, instead of going straight for wavering/floating Tories.
Shit-stirring.
 
It's quite possible all those ideas are informing Miliband and Ball's flirting with Cable et al.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

The last one is the real one - despite any personal lovey-doveyness.  (or sickening fake shows of)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think the whole we could work with the Libdems if/some Libdems narrative is a combination of things, including but not limited to:
> 
> Genuine fear of not getting a majority in 2015 and a realisation they may have to work with the Libdems more of whom could survive than currently predicted.
> A mistaken belief that they need to appeal to moderately disillusioned Libdems as a tactical vote, also to demonstrate their centrism, instead of going straight for wavering/floating Tories.
> ...


 
It's also quite likely that Cable's doing the same kind of shit-stirring in reciprocation of Balls and co to improve his own position in the cabinet. Even though the Tory party now seems locked into a death spiral where the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and the right-wing foaming-at-the-mouth headbangers on the Tory backbenches have Cameron in a fix, Cable's sending out the message that they need to keep him happy or else he might trigger some ructions in the coaltion that could lead to the government collapsing.

At this point in time, needing an 11% swing to get a majority of 1 and (according to Yougov) currently 13 points behind Labour, pissing of Cable and triggering a snap general election must be one of Cameron's biggest fears. Has any political party in Europe actually managed to pull off a 24% swing in the middle of a deep recession in this way before? There's no more jubilee's, no more bread and circus spectacles to cling onto, it's nothing but unemployment, strikes and recession for the rest of the year now. Cable's playing on this a little bit I reckon.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's also quite likely that Cable's doing the same kind of shit-stirring in reciprocation of Balls and co to improve his own position in the cabinet. Even though the Tory party now seems locked into a death spiral where the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and the right-wing foaming-at-the-mouth headbangers on the Tory backbenches have Cameron in a fix, Cable's sending out the message that they need to keep him happy or else he might trigger some ructions in the coaltion that could lead to the government collapsing.
> 
> At this point in time, needing an 11% swing to get a majority of 1 and (according to Yougov) currently 13 points behind Labour, pissing of Cable and triggering a snap general election must be one of Cameron's biggest fears. Has any political party in Europe actually managed to pull off a 24% swing in the middle of a deep recession in this way before? There's no more jubilee's, no more bread and circus spectacles to cling onto, it's nothing but unemployment, strikes and recession for the rest of the year now. Cable's playing on this a little bit I reckon.


But how on earth is Cables shitstirring? He is a dead man already - his claims that he could 'go nuclear' and bring down the govt have been shown to be laughable bollocks, he quote happily ate having half his brief taken off him. He is powerless but vain - which is why Balls etc have targeted him. Why do people cling to this idea that the lib-dems are going to do something drastic?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The last one is the real one - despite any personal lovey-doveyness. (or sickening fake shows of)


 
It may be the main one, I think however the other points are at the backs of some people's minds. There will in my view be some strategists who are also pondering the idea of nicking the Tory's battered and shredded flack jacket in 2015 if it looks like there is going to be more austerity - which there will be.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It may be the main one, I think however the other points are at the backs of some people's minds. There will in my view be some strategists who are also pondering the idea of nicking the Tory's battered and shredded flack jacket in 2015 if it looks like there is going to be more austerity - which there will be.


They are in back of some peoples minds - but then, it always were from 83 onwards. The pluralist dicks. I think the grind them into the dirt approach is leading now - and this is a way of doing it, rather than being a genuine hand-holding attempt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They are in back of some peoples minds - but then, it always were from 83 onwards. The pluralist dicks. I think the grind them into the dirt approach is leading now - and this is away of doing it, rather than being a genuine hand-holding attempt.


 
It's true the tribalists currently have the upper hand this is illustrated by articul8's move from Compass to McDonnell. Truly he is our weathervane.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2012)

can we even have snap elections now? I thought the fixed term meant that we get five years of being dry-bummed regardless?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But how on earth is Cables shitstirring? He is a dead man already - his claims that he could 'go nuclear' and bring down the govt have been shown to be laughable bollocks, he quote happily ate having half his brief taken off him. He is powerless but vain - which is why Balls etc have targeted him. Why do people cling to this idea that the lib-dems are going to do something drastic?


 
I think making flirty overtures to Labour at a time when the coalition is so hugely unpopular must surely have Cameron and co worrying a little bit. Trapped between an insane right-wing faction in his own party and a senior lib dem making gestures towards Labour? Cable's a dangerous figure for Cameron to manage, especially when you consider how weak Nick Clegg's position is.

EDIT oh aye and I'm not expecting Cable to go nuclear any time soon, but surely the vague threat of it is something Cable could use to his advantage.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's true the tribalists currently have the upper hand this is illustrated by articul8's move from Compass to McDonnell. Truly he is our weathervane.


I think even the pluralists sense the chance to knock the lib-dems out of the game here - hence the desperate _oh coalition is likely, lets not be beastly _articles over the last two weeks. Obv they're scared of it, but the proper 'tribalists' are rubbing their hands.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think making flirty overtures to Labour at a time when the coalition is so hugely unpopular must surely have Cameron and co worrying a little bit. Trapped between an insane right-wing faction in his own party and a senior lib dem making gestures towards Labour? Cable's a dangerous figure for Cameron to manage, especially when you consider how weak Nick Clegg's position is.


Not sure that you get who is trapped and by who here. It's not Cameron and it's not labour. *Cable has no power. *(yes, i know cable/power) Powerless but vain - a perfect tool.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

I can see Cameron right now, oh frig it's all gone to shit, _we've only got another 2 and a  half years in power to force through irreversible changes, i wonder what Vince says?_


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure that you get who is trapped and by who here. It's not Cameron and it's not labour. *Cable has no power. *(yes, i know cable/power) Powerless but vain - a perfect tool.


 
No I get it completely, but what I'm saying is the only card Cable's got left up his sleeve is the vague, and ultimately futile, threat of going nuclear. If you were in his position, wouldn't you be making the odd glance towards Labour just to give the Tories something to sweat about?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> EDIT oh aye and I'm not expecting Cable to go nuclear any time soon, but surely the vague threat of it is something Cable could use to his advantage.


How? He has already has his bluff called on that. Did you not notice? What could he practically do and what would happen if he tried to _initialise _any of his options?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> No I get it completely, but what I'm saying is the only card Cable's got left up his sleeve is the vague, and ultimately futile, threat of going nuclear. If you were in his position, wouldn't you be making the odd glance towards Labour just to give the Tories something to sweat about?


He has no cards. That's why they've targeted him. And, to ask this question you must still start from the idea that he's somehow an anti-tory. Just what will it take to wash this idea out of peoples hair?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He has no cards. That's why they've targeted him. And, to ask this question you must still start from the idea that he's somehow an anti-tory. Just what will it take to wash this idea out of peoples hair?


 
No I don't think he's anti-tory ideologically, he wouldn't be in the cabinet if he was, I think he's probably just trying to make them sweat a little bit to improve his own careerist ambitions and position within the cabinet. I think what he wants is Cameron to ditch Osbourne and make him Chancellor. Not likely to happen of course, but it's something he's mentioned before so it's safe to assume he'd do the job if they asked him.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> No I get it completely, but what I'm saying is the only card Cable's got left up his sleeve is the vague, and ultimately futile, threat of going nuclear. If you were in his position, wouldn't you be making the odd glance towards Labour just to give the Tories something to sweat about?



If you're suggesting that he might be thinking of jumping ship - Twickenham!!!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How? He has already has his bluff called on that. Did you not notice? What could he practically do and what would happen if he tried to _initialise _any of his options?


 
Well what about the notion that he'll stand against Clegg for leadership of the Lib Dems at some point and lead the Lib Dems out of the coalition. There's definitely people on the Tory blogs saying that's what he's angling for, although I wouldn't trust that as a source or anything.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2012)

not like it matters anyway- the libs have fucked themselves into political wilderness for the forseeble future anyway. All this agree with nick flirting supposes that come next ge they will have a voting block worthy of being considered. Results don't show this to be realistic. All them years of carefull politicking and they fucked it again.


Also don't think that dave can hold off the backbench nutters for ever, sooner or later I can see him getting cunted off. Tories do love the dagger and cameron is not the back benchers boy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> No I don't think he's anti-tory ideologically, he wouldn't be in the cabinet if he was, I think he's probably just trying to make them sweat a little bit to improve his own careerist ambitions and position within the cabinet. I think what he wants is Cameron to ditch Osbourne and make him Chancellor. Not likely to happen of course, but it's something he's mentioned before so it's safe to assume he'd do the job if they asked him.


So, how would his current actions help him achieve this end? How on earth would 'glancing towards labour' help him in this quest?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well what about the notion that he'll stand against Clegg for leadership of the Lib Dems at some point and lead the Lib Dems out of the coalition. There's definitely people on the Tory blogs saying that's what he's angling for, although I wouldn't trust that as a source or anything.


When? When will he stand against Clegg? How would be bring about this contest?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, how would his current actions help him achieve this end? How on earth would 'glancing towards labour' help him in this quest?


 
There's still a considerable section of the Lib Dems that would prefer to be in coalition with Labour rather than Tory, so making overtures towards Labour might be to appeal to those people.

This is all total speculation though, we don't know any of what's going on behind closed doors. I had an interesting conversation with a (ex) friend of mine who works as a dogsbody to a Tory MP and he reckons the government's losing the plot behind the scenes, Cameron's detached and aloof and quite a lot of Tory cabinet are resigned to the fact they're only gonna be in for one term. He reckons Gove is the next leader, not Boris, btw.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well what about the notion that he'll stand against Clegg for leadership of the Lib Dems at some point and lead the Lib Dems out of the coalition. There's definitely people on the Tory blogs saying that's what he's angling for, although I wouldn't trust that as a source or anything.


 
"I'll back up my argument with a source I don't trust"


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> When? When will he stand against Clegg? How would be bring about this contest?


 
When? I have no idea, this is all speculation, it's not like I can produce a timetable for you butchers. At some point before the general election, as there are plenty of Lib Dems who would much prefer to go into the next election without Clegg as leader, coz he's an electoral liability. How? Presumably at lib dem conference.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> "I'll back up my argument with a source I don't trust"


 
LOL that's fair enough but c'mon what's the harm in a bit of gossip and speculation?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's still a considerable section of the Lib Dems that would prefer to be in coalition with Labour rather than Tory, so making overtures towards Labour might be to appeal to those people.
> 
> This is all total speculation though, we don't know any of what's going on behind closed doors. I had an interesting conversation with a (ex) friend of mine who works as a dogsbody to a Tory MP and he reckons the government's losing the plot behind the scenes, Cameron's detached and aloof and quite a lot of Tory cabinet are resigned to the fact they're only gonna be in for one term. He reckons Gove is the next leader, not Boris, btw.


They all left or are on voting strike. Have you not been following events dear boy? But again, tell me how making overtures to this tiny lib-dem internal electorate would help him in his quest to for Cameron to be sack Osbourne and replace him with Cable. Because i can't see how it does or ever could.

Your mate sounds like an idiot.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> LOL that's fair enough but c'mon what's the harm in a bit of gossip and speculation?


 
There's no harm in it in my view - however you are entirely wrong on this.

The Libdems are broadly united on their current direction, certainly their MPs are and they're the ones who count.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> When? I have no idea, this is all speculation, it's not like I can produce a timetable for you butchers. At some point before the general election, as there are plenty of Lib Dems who would much prefer to go into the next election without Clegg as leader, coz he's an electoral liability. How? Presumably at lib dem conference.


How? What process does he need to start and how does it help him become chancellor in a tory-lib-dem coalition? Come on, we can do better than this ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> When? I have no idea, this is all speculation, it's not like I can produce a timetable for you butchers. At some point before the general election, as there are plenty of Lib Dems who would much prefer to go into the next election without Clegg as leader, coz he's an electoral liability. How? Presumably at lib dem conference.


Speculation fine. Let's try and tie it down to what we DO know though. How is a lib-dem leadership campaign/challenge  initiated?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They all left or are on voting strike. Have you not been following events dear boy? But again, tell me how making overtures to this tiny lib-dem internal electorate would help him in his quest to for Cameron to be sack Osbourne and replace him with Cable. Because i can't see how it does or ever could.


 
It wouldn't, but we're talking speculatively about a host range of possible scenarios, one that he's trying to win support in the Lib Dems for a potential coup to get rid of Clegg before the next general election (which isn't a bad idea, if the Lib Dems want more than 10 MP's at the next election they may have to) and there's also the fact he might be trying to make the Tories sweat a little bit, trying to improve his position within the cabinet with the vague threat of resignation, the "nuclear option" as you put it.

And I agree with you that they called his bluff on this a while ago, but that doesn't mean he's not capable of trying it on.



butchersapron said:


> Your mate sounds like an idiot.


 
He's not my mate. We went to school together. And he's working for a Tory MP so he's an idiot and part of the traditional class enemy. Incidentally the Tory MP that he works for, who's in a marginal constituency up north, apparently hates Cameron and would prefer Gove or Davis in charge.

Anyway I'm only being completely speculative, I'm not expecting any of this to take place.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There's no harm in it in my view - however you are entirely wrong on this.
> 
> The Libdems are broadly united on their current direction, certainly their MPs are and they're the ones who count.


 
True enough, but those same MP's might change direction if they feel supporting Clegg and the coaltion right up until the general election will cost them their seats, which looking at the polls it will do.

If these MP's have any sense of self-preservation they ought to be thinking of ways to get rid of Clegg before 2015.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> It wouldn't, but we're talking speculatively about a host range of possible scenarios, one that he's trying to win support in the Lib Dems for a potential coup to get rid of Clegg before the next general election (which isn't a bad idea, if the Lib Dems want more than 10 MP's at the next election they may have to) and there's also the fact he might be trying to make the Tories sweat a little bit, trying to improve his position within the cabinet with the vague threat of resignation, the "nuclear option" as you put it.
> 
> And I agree with you that they called his bluff on this a while ago, but that doesn't mean he's not capable of trying it on.
> 
> ...


Well _your _speculation was that he was glancing towards labour in order to get cameron to sack osborne and anoint him as the new chancellor. I'm at a loss as to how his current actions would help him achieve that aim.

Ok, the next speculation - how does he go about challenging Clegg? Practically. And the next one, they just had a reshuffle - was he promoted? Did his actions make the tories sweat? He could only make them sweat if a) he was anti-tory and b) if he had some power. He isn't a) and he has no b). This 2012 not 2009.

His bluff being called previously means that any attempt to try it on (what this means is a as yet unargued) from now on is not going to work. He has nothing to play with.

I don't care if he's a mate or a 'friend' his analysis is appalling and miles off target.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> True enough, but those same MP's might change direction if they feel supporting Clegg and the coaltion right up until the general election will cost them their seats, which looking at the polls it will do.
> 
> If these MP's have any sense of self-preservation they ought to be thinking of ways to get rid of Clegg before 2015.


 
And how do they do that? What is the mechanism for doing so?


----------



## co-op (Sep 10, 2012)

Cable will lead the Lib-Dems but after they've split into pro-Labour and pro-tory factions with the latter being swallowed by the Conservative party eventually. Cable leads the pro-Lab remnant. But this'd all be after 2015. Cable gets the Chancellorship.

And David Davis will be the next leader of the tories.

/mystic co-op


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 10, 2012)

co-op said:


> Cable will lead the Lib-Dems but after they've split into pro-Labour and pro-tory factions with the latter being swallowed by the Conservative party eventually. Cable leads the pro-Lab remnant. But this'd all be after 2015. Cable gets the Chancellorship.
> 
> And David Davis will be the next leader of the tories.
> 
> /mystic co-op


 
I thought Murdoch had decided Boris was going to be next tory leader, presumably on the basis of promises to let him off various impending criminal charges?


----------



## co-op (Sep 10, 2012)

Nah Murdoch's lost the plot. Trust me, my predictions are far superior to his.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I thought Murdoch had decided Boris was going to be next tory leader, presumably on the basis of promises to let him off various impending criminal charges?


Murdoch can decide what he likes. Doesn't mean that it's going to happen. And that one ain't.


----------



## magneze (Sep 10, 2012)

I could see Cable as part of a Labour administration after leaving the LibDems. Maybe this is what he's after. He's already moved once, why not move back.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> I could see Cable as part of a Labour administration after leaving the LibDems. Maybe this is what he's after. He's already moved once, why not move back.



His constituency is Twickenham.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> I could see Cable as part of a Labour administration after leaving the LibDems. Maybe this is what he's after. He's already moved once, why not move back.


He can't just wave a magic wand though - he is despised as a turncoat all mouth bullshitter throughut all ranks of labour (pluralists aside). They are just flattering the old fraud right now. He has no role in a future labour administration. He's too vain to realise this though, which is exactly why they've targeted him.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> His constituency is Twickenham.


Indeed. Which safe labour MP is going to stand aside for this cunt. He's more likely to head tory way if a split take place (i think a rump party will hang on for a bit with high-profile individuals taking on ever greater roles before being co-opted into govt as individuals (not cable though) then the party quietly dying)


----------



## magneze (Sep 10, 2012)

I see what you mean. Yes, Twickenham doesn't strike me as a safe Labour seat.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Is this going to last all day butchers? I'll indulge you for a bit, i've been agreeing with you far too much for my liking lately so I reckon we're due a good row, but I've got things on later so I can't promise you hours of attention.



butchersapron said:


> Well _your _speculation was that he was glancing towards labour in order to get cameron to sack osborne and anoint him as the new chancellor. I'm at a loss as to how his current actions would help him achieve that aim.


 
No I'm simply saying it's a two way street, Balls and co are clearly targetting him for whatever reason, and he might well in a position to play up to it. And as for him being made chancellor, yeah I accept that's about as likely as getting a blowjob from the pope, but it's not unlikely that he's going to reciprocate a little bit, just to put a bit of fear into Clegg and into Cameron, to improve his position, within the cabinet and within the lib dem party in general. There's no point asking me for the specifics coz this is just gossip and speculation, it's not like I'm gonna bet my life savings on any of this taking place.



butchersapron said:


> Ok, the next speculation - how does he go about challenging Clegg? Practically. And the next one, they just had a reshuffle - was he promoted? Did his actions make the tories sweat? He could only make them sweat if a) he was anti-tory and b) if he had some power. He isn't a) and he has no b). This 2012 not 2009.


 
The practicalities of challenging Clegg would mean me having to look up the details of how Lib Dem leadership contests are triggered, I don't know off the top of my head. If you do, could you furnish me with the details and spare me a bit of time. Ta.

And as for the re-shuffle, have you considered that if it weren't for the vague threat of Cable trying to lead some sort of coup against Clegg that they might well have got rid of him? It might not even be that, there could be all sorts of mischief he could get upto that we don't know about. The fact they've kept him in when so many Tory backbenchers are calling for his blood tells us something, surely. I'm not privy to what goes on in the cabinet, neither are you as it happens, so this is just pure speculation.

Ideologically I don't think he is anti-tory, and I think there's actually some benefit for the Tories in keeping him in, so they can continue this good cop bad cop routine where the Lib Dems are supposedly a buffer to prevent the Tories going too far.



butchersapron said:


> His bluff being called previously means that any attempt to try it on (what this means is a as yet unargued) from now on is not going to work. He has nothing to play with.


 
Well I agree with you on this, the likelihood Cable will leave in a fit of glory, or be promoted, is slim. He's blown that chance a while ago so the most likely course is he stays put. But the threat he might resign, or even resign the Lib Dem whip and take a few MP's with him, is probably the only bargaining chip he's got left at this point. That and the threat to Clegg. It might be this threat that's kept him in the cabinet. They axed Liam Fox for less mind you, but then again they promoted Jeremy Hunt even though he broke the ministerial code.



butchersapron said:


> I don't care if he's a mate or a 'friend' his analysis is appalling and miles off target.


 
Well his analysis for what it's worth is that there's absolutely loads of infighting in the coaltion, and in the Tory party in general, and that a lot of MP's hate Cameron. They're also shitting themselves now the boundary changes won't happen. Apparently a lot of them were banking on there being an economic boom by now when they got elected, such is their faith in the magic of austerity and neo-liberalism, so the fact we're in a recession is making them panic. He reckons Boris won't be next Tory leader coz he's got way too many enemies in the party and there's a load of scandals he's involved in that are hiding away in the closet waiting to get him.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed. Which safe labour MP is going to stand aside for this cunt. He's more likely to head tory way if a split take place (i think a rump party will hang on for a bit with high-profile individuals taking on ever greater roles before being co-opted into govt as individuals (not cable though) then the party quietly dying)



He'd be a safe return in Twickenham if he jumped to the Tories, precious little doubt about that. And as you say, I can't see anyone giving up a safe Labour seat for him.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Is what going to last all day? Replying to the things that you've said?  Well, i'm in until late afternoon today. What you do is up to you.

You made a suggestion that his current actions were designed to potentially achieve an end. I asked how and said why i think it wouldn't. You now seem to think that your original suggestion was daft. Cool. 

How he could challenge Clegg? 75 constituency associations and i think it's about 15 MPs have to open the challenge (or clegg stands down himself). That's not going to happen. What;s going to happen is the opposite as the GE draws closer, a battening down of the hatches, we're all in this together.

No, i haven't considered that because it's mad sounding bollocks, that still relies on the model of Cable being a left pull and him representing a left wing faction of the lib-dems that has some popular internal support. Which you, oddly enough, seem to recognise in your next line.

Your ex-mate is just talking standard insider bullshit.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> He'd be a safe return in Twickenham if he jumped to the Tories, precious little doubt about that. And as you say, I can't see anyone giving up a safe Labour seat for him.


Yep, and he's not likely to want to up sticks and begin again i don't think. A safe seat in twickenham then death seems to be the medium term aim.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 10, 2012)

In a recent poll 70% of lib dem voters want them to remain in the coalition - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6130#comments

Given that - I really dont see them pressing the 'nuclear' button. They may replace clegg with Cable or a.n.other as they face up to anhilalation at the next election - but their does not seem to be any meaningful pressure from within the party for them to fuck the tories off anytime soon. Even though its the only thing that would improve their dismal poll ratings.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

if anyone wants to sign up for my no-bullshit hard-headed political analysis newsletter just pm me btw.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Is what going to last all day? Replying to the things that you've said? Well, i'm in until late afternoon today. What you do is up to you.


 
Sound



butchersapron said:


> You made a suggestion that his current actions were designed to potentially achieve an end.


 
Well they are, he's not just doing it for shits and giggles y'know. Trying to speculate what that end might be, and how he goes about achieving it, is the fun bit.



butchersapron said:


> How he could challenge Clegg? 75 constituency associations and i think it's about 15 MPs have to open the challenge (or clegg stands down himself). That's not going to happen.


 
Really? I admit it's unlikely, but when the LIb Dems are polling 8% and looking at returning less than a dozen MP's post 2015 there must be way more than 15 MP's wondering what they're going to do for a living once they've lost their seats. Stranger things have happened. These people don't want to lose their jobs y'know, they must be thinking about an exit strategy, and a strategy to win back some votes.



butchersapron said:


> What;s going to happen is the opposite as the GE draws closer, a battening down of the hatches, we're all in this together.


 
That's the likely course of action, but it's a course of action that could see about 40 or MP's lose their seats. Are those MP's suddenly lacking a self-preservation instinct or something? Do you expect them to just walk into their own graves like that? There's plenty of potential to cause trouble amongst those soon to be unemployed Lib Dem MP's, and I reckon Cable knows it.



butchersapron said:


> No, i haven't considered that because it's mad sounding bollocks, that still relies on the model of Cable being a left pull and him representing a left wing faction of the lib-dems that has some popular internal support. Which you, oddly enough, seem to recognise in your next line.


 
LOL it's not mad sounding bollocks at all, the Tory right-wingers hate him and want rid of him, and say so in public, and they got pretty much everything they wanted out of the last re-shuffle except Cable's scalp. Why? Who knows.

If appealing to the left rump of the LIb Dems is what Cable needs to do to get to be leader of the Lib Dems, do you think he's too principled and honest to play that role? Besides, it's not really about him being left, or appealing to the left-wing instincts of the Lib Dems, it's about being able to salvage the party from complete and utter electoral disaster. If Cable can be the man to do that, then maybe the Lib Dems will swing behind him? Again, who knows what's going on behind the scenes.



butchersapron said:


> Your ex-mate is just talking standard insider bullshit.


 
Well it was nothing I hadn't heard before, but it's nice to have confirmation. It doesn't sound like bullshit to me, it sounds about right to be honest.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

What is this left rump of the Libdems?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What is this left rump of the Libdems?


 
Good point. You can rephrase it to "those Lib Dems who don't want to see the party destroyed at the next election" and the point remains the same.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> if anyone wants to sign up for my no-bullshit hard-headed political analysis newsletter just pm me btw.


 This is a joke, right?   Funny the way you use "pluralist" as though it were a term of vitriolic abuse.  There is more than one variety of pluralist - in fact if you reject pluralism your alternative is labourism or labourism 2.0 under another name.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Sound
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
He's not actually doing anything - he's having it done to him. And he's so pompous and vain he doesn't realise. 

Yes, really. I wish it were not the case but it is. You can't agree that a battening down of the hatches and a defence of the coalition is what most likely to take place _and_ argue that a rupture within the lib-dems leading to Cable taking Clegg's position then leaving the coalition is likely. He's jockeying for post-election position (if something comes along before that though he'll be happy).

The mad-sounding bollocks is the idea that Cable somehow kept Cameron's massive surge to the even further right on some sort of leash by the implied threat of _doing something_ - (_something_ still yet unargued).

THERE IS NO LEFT RUMP OF THE LIB-DEMS!!! Why is this not going in? And if there is, it's A RUMP! Appealing to a rump means you are not appealing to the majority. That's not how you win elections. It's how you lose them.

Delroy, your ex-mate thinks Gove is going to lead the tories, you think he's talking sense. Come on.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> There is more than one variety of pluralist


 
No there isn't.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No there isn't.


yes there is there is the pluralism of New Labour/Fabians (aspiring to an SPD style Lib/Lab consensus), a soft left rainbow pluralism, a harder left Die Linke type pluralism.... and shades in between.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

...and then there's you.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's not actually doing anything - he's having it done to him. And he's so pompous and vain he doesn't realise.


 
I disagree I think there's a bit of recipricosity going on here, but there ya go. no point going round in circles arguing about it. I reckon Cable's got his own games to play.



butchersapron said:


> Yes, really. I wish it were not the case but it is. You can't agree that a battening down of the hatches and a defence of the coalition is what most likely to take place _and_ argue that a rupture within the lib-dems leading to Cable taking Clegg's position then leaving the coalition is likely. He's jockeying for post-election position (if something comes along before that though he'll be happy).


 
Jockeying for post-election position is only going to be of any use if he actually get re-elected, and looking at the polls and general unpopularity of the Lib Dems there's no guarentee he will. And I'm not, and never have been, arguing that Cable's on the verge of couping Clegg, I agreed with you from the outset that's pretty unlikely. I'm just innocently speculating a bit on Cable's position and why Labour are picking him out in the way they are.

Also, you haven't really given me much of an answer when it comes to what the Lib Dem MP's are going to do if it looks like the bulk of them will lose their seats at the next election. I think there's a small but decent chance that the situation might get so dire they do Clegg in before the election rather than after.



butchersapron said:


> The mad-sounding bollocks is the idea that Cable somehow kept Cameron's massive surge to the even further right on some sort of leash by the implied threat of _doing something_ - (_something_ still yet unargued).


 
I can't tell you what he's planning on doing butchers man, I'm not reading his diary y'know. I can wildly speculate for my own amusement and for the sake of discussion, that's about it. But I know that Cable is still in the cabinet somehow, and that Cameron's having to manage him a lot more considerately than many in his own party.



butchersapron said:


> THERE IS NO LEFT RUMP OF THE LIB-DEMS!!! Why is this not going in? And if there is, it's A RUMP! Appealing to a rump means you are not appealing to the majority. That's not how you win elections. It's how you lose them.


 
Cheerfully accepted and amended. See above post. Also, don't get worked up over trivial bollocks it's not good for your health.



butchersapron said:


> Delroy, your ex-mate thinks Gove is going to lead the tories, you think he's talking sense. Come on.


 
Well on this subject he reckons the right-wing press likes Gove more than Davis, that he's popular in the party, and he's one of the few in the current cabinet who's wanting to do it. He reckons most of the cabinet will leave politics after the election and not stick around fighting it out for the leadership in opposition.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well on this subject he reckons the right-wing press likes Gove more than Davis, that he's popular in the party, and he's one of the few in the current cabinet who's wanting to do it. He reckons most of the cabinet will leave politics after the election and not stick around fighting it out for the leadership in opposition.


 
Sounds like a not very well connected insider _at all_.

Gove will never be leader, I would be quite surprised if he even wants to be really.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> I disagree I think there's a bit of recipricosity going on here, but there ya go. no point going round in circles arguing about it. I reckon Cable's got his own games to play.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They _planned_ to let Cable think there's something for him here. To entice him into making the lib-dems look split, and they managed to do this because he's a very shallow vain man. Making him think that he's playing power-games is the plan.

He's not going to get re-elected (as cesare pointed out) in bloody twickenham on a labour ticket.

Much of an answer? An answer as to how and why the lib-dem Mps will suddenly find spines and why the constituency associations will suddenly also find theirs after swallowing all this shit up this point? They won't. They know there's no way out that way = head down and hope for recovery is their plan.

I didn't ask you what he's planning to do, i scoffed at your idea that Cameron's reshuffle was effected by _the fear of Cable._

He's wrong, by some distance.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sounds like a not very well connected insider _at all_.


 
Oh aye he's not deep throat, just a dogsbody for a backbencher who used to be a socialist 'til his girlfriend dumped him.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Oh aye he's not deep throat, just a dogsbody for a backbencher who used to be a socialist 'til his girlfriend dumped him.


Sounds like someone whose analysis you can rely on then.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They _planned_ to let Cable think there's something for him here. To entice him into making the lib-dems look split, and they managed to do this because he's a very shallow vain man. Making him think that he's playing power-games is the plan.


 
Yeah that's what Labour are doing, but are you sure there isn't more to it than just Cable's vanity? I reckon he's got his own games to play. It's not as if you're at the secret briefing where all this gets discussed is it, so ultimately it's just your dodgy opinion.



butchersapron said:


> He's not going to get re-elected (as cesare pointed out) in bloody twickenham on a labour ticket.


 
Blatantly, but he's probably going to struggle to get elected on a Lib Dem ticket too as it stands.



butchersapron said:


> Much of an answer? An answer as to how and why the lib-dem Mps will suddenly find spines and why the constituency associations will suddenly also find theirs after swallowing all this shit up this point? They won't. They know there's no way out that way = head down and hope for recovery is their plan.


 
Well it's very unusual for self-interested MP's to destroy their own careers in this way, usually you can rely on politcians to act in their self-interest. And disappointingly I agree with you partially, I can't see these Lib Dem scumbags who sat and watched the NHS get sold off suddenly acting all noble, but I can see them desperately trying to save their jobs. Whether or not it'll amount to anything, we'll have to wait and see.



butchersapron said:


> I didn't ask you what he's planning to do, i scoffed at your idea that Cameron's reshuffle was effected by _the fear of Cable._


 
He's just trying to manage him, same as he would any other cabinet minister, describing it as the "fear of Cable" is a bit dramatic butchers.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds like someone whose analysis you can rely on then.


 
lol true enough, but on a couple of things I definitely can trust him. And unlike both you and me he's actually in the Tory party and gets his gossip a lot sooner than we do.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 10, 2012)

there are a few lib-dem councillors and so on who are vaguely left wing but at this point it's nothing more than a rump. lost a ton of respect for my ex girlfriend's dad when he didn't leave the party


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Yeah that's what Labour are doing, but are you sure there isn't more to it than just Cable's vanity? I reckon he's got his own games to play. It's not as if you're at the secret briefing where all this gets discussed is it, so ultimately it's just your dodgy opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, i'm sure.

Standing as a lib-dem or tory or a coalition candidate in twickenham is his best chance

Self-interest - now that we've reached this point - is best served by keeping your head down and hoping for recovery. Niot making the party look split and unstable. The electorate hate split parties. And what are the options for these lib-dem MPs? A huge chunk of them on the govt pay-rolls would have to give that money up and start a challenge that is likely to fail in order to better their hopes of keeping their already gone seats. Self-interest says stick now.

Dramatic sure, but that's your drama delroy.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Self-interest - now that we've reached this point - is best served by keeping your head down and hoping for recovery.


 
I'm really not so sure about that, and if that really is their best option then they're so fucked it's almost tragic (or would be if it wasn't so hilarious)

I'm definitely going to enjoy watching the Lib Dems gets annhilated during the next general election no matter what the result is elsewhere.


----------



## co-op (Sep 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Gove will never be leader, I would be quite surprised if he even wants to be really.


 
Gove is just another weirdo, even the tories understand that


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> I could see Cable as part of a Labour administration after leaving the LibDems. Maybe this is what he's after. He's already moved once, why not move back.


 
Churchill managed to do that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> His constituency is Twickenham.


 
Churchill changed constituencies.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Churchill changed constituencies.



And?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> And?


 
Work it out.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Work it out.


Are you suggesting that Vince Cable is facing the same or similar set of circumstances that Churchill did? Or are you comparing Cable to Churchill? Or are you just saying that it's possible to move constituencies? Or all of these?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2012)

He's confusing another posh-boy for our sainted winston as well. On his otherwise so useful posts.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are you suggesting that Vince Cable is facing the same or similar set of circumstances that Churchill did? Or are you comparing Cable to Churchill? Or are you just saying that it's possible to move constituencies? Or all of these?


 
There is no way to compare Cable with Churchill. Different times, different situations. Of course I am saying that it is possible for Cable to move constituencies.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's confusing another posh-boy for our sainted winston as well. On his otherwise so useful posts.


 
Got to laugh at you. You are too funny for this thread.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There is no way to compare Cable with Churchill. Different times, different situations. Of course I am saying that it is possible for Cable to move constituencies.



What did you disagree with about why Butchers and I thought it unlikely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes there is there is the pluralism of New Labour/Fabians (aspiring to an SPD style Lib/Lab consensus), a soft left rainbow pluralism, *a harder left Die Linke type pluralism*....


 
In the UK? Bag of arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> Are you suggesting that Vince Cable is facing the same or similar set of circumstances that Churchill did? Or are you comparing Cable to Churchill? Or are you just saying that it's possible to move constituencies? Or all of these?


 
The circumstances are completely different, and while Cable might wish to do a flit, I doubt he'd find as many constituency associations in contestable seats willing to give him a hearing as Churchill did. Churchill heralded a message some proportion of the population wanted to hear. Cable has nothing meaningful *or* appealing to say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There is no way to compare Cable with Churchill. Different times, different situations. Of course I am saying that it is possible for Cable to move constituencies.


 
It's a technical possibility rather than a likely one, though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a technical possibility rather than a likely one, though.


 
A number of posts were suggesting that Cable's constituency made it immpossible for him to switch to Labour. I was pointing out that that suggestion is nonsense.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> A number of posts were suggesting that Cable's constituency made it immpossible for him to switch to Labour. I was pointing out that that suggestion is nonsense.


Please will you answer my question? ^^^


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> .......Churchill heralded a message some proportion of the population wanted to hear........


 
Churchill changed parties twice, both times before he became famous for being against Appeasement. I'm not sure what message Churchill had then that was so critical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Churchill changed parties twice, both times before he became famous for being against Appeasement. I'm not sure what message Churchill had then that was so critical.


you seem to ignore - or be unaware of - the fact that by the 1930s churchill had made quite a name for himself, from his first book, 'the malakand field force', in the 1890s onwards. it's not like no fucker had heard of him till 1936.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> Please will you answer my question? ^^^


 
I couldn't be bothered to check out what it was that butchers had said (and with which you say you agreed) as he only occasionally makes any kind of sense, but if you rephrase your question I will attempt to reply to it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to ignore - or be unaware of - the fact that by the 1930s churchill had made quite a name for himself, from his first book, 'the malakand field force', in the 1890s onwards. it's not like no fucker had heard of him till 1936.


 
And Cable has made quite a name for himself by forecasting the Debt Crisis. He is not unknown by the British electorate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> A number of posts were suggesting that Cable's constituency made it immpossible for him to switch to Labour. I was pointing out that that suggestion is nonsense.


 
If Cable switched to Labour in his existing constituency, then although he *could* hold the constituency until the next GE, the convention (usually honoured) is for a by-election to be held. At either a by-election or a general election, it's highly unlikely that Cable would *hold* the constituency for Labour, because the electoral demographic favours a Lib-Dem candidate or (less likely) a Tory candidate before a Labour one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> And Cable has made quite a name for himself by forecasting the Debt Crisis. He is not unknown by the British electorate.


thankfully you are unknown by the happier portion of the british - and indeed dutch - electorate, proving that, for them ignorance IS bliss.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I couldn't be bothered to check out what it was that butchers had said (and with which you say you agreed) as he only occasionally makes any kind of sense, but if you rephrase your question I will attempt to reply to it.


If you can't be bothered, after all my efforts to be polite, then that's a great pity.


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Cable switched to Labour in his existing constituency, then although he *could* hold the constituency until the next GE, the convention (usually honoured) is for a by-election to be held. At either a by-election or a general election, it's highly unlikely that Cable would *hold* the constituency for Labour, because the electoral demographic favours a Lib-Dem candidate or (less likely) a Tory candidate before a Labour one.


 
Twickenham's been a Tory stronghold until approx 1997 when it became LibDem. If Cable wants to jump ship and hold on to his seat he'd be better off with the Tories. If he wants to jump ship and change constituency i.e. Labour, a safe seat Labour MP would have to move for him which I think is unlikely.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> If you can't be bothered, after all my efforts to be polite, then that's a great pity.


 
I can be bothered with you. Just not butchers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Churchill changed parties twice, both times before he became famous for being against Appeasement. I'm not sure what message Churchill had then that was so critical.


 
Churchill was an internationally-known public figure for decades before he became Prime Minister *in the twilight of his career*. He was a widely read journalist and author from the 1890s-onward. He was Home Secretary during the Siege of Sidney Street in 1911. As First Sea Lord he was responsible for the lost gamble at Gallipolli during WW1. During the 1920s he helped to formulate and roll out plans to break any General Strike. He didn't "become famous for being against Appeasement". In fact other MPs (of all parties) were against appeasement too, but Churchill, internationally-famous (or, one could say, notorious) as he was, provided a near-perfect focus for public sentiment.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> Twickenham's been a Tory stronghold until approx 1997 when it became LibDem. If Cable wants to jump ship and hold on to his seat he'd be better off with the Tories. If he wants to jump ship and change constituency i.e. Labour, a safe seat Labour MP would have to move for him which I think is unlikely.


 
There is nothing to stop Cable taking the Labour Whip and only changing his constituency prior to the next GE. No-one can force him to resign his seat and there will be safe Labour constituencies without a sitting MP as candidate becoming available before the elections. His ability to carry out such a plan would depend on what he can bring with him.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ....... He was Home Secretary during the Siege of Sidney Street in 1911...........


 
That was after he first changed parties.



ViolentPanda said:


> ....... .... During the 1920s he helped to formulate and roll out plans to break any General Strike. ..........


 
That was after his second change of parties.

What was the vital message that he had at the time of either of those two changes of party?


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There is nothing to stop Cable taking the Labour Whip and only changing his constituency prior to the next GE. No-one can force him to resign his seat and there will be safe Labour constituencies without a sitting MP as candidate becoming available before the elections. His ability to carry out such a plan would depend on what he can bring with him.


That's a much bigger gamble for him than jumping to the Tories. Plus up-rooting himself after all this time. I still think it's unlikely.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's a much bigger gamble for him than jumping to the Tories. Plus up-rooting himself after all this time. I still think it's unlikely.


 
If he wants to stay in government, (and he does) it's a gamble he may well have to take.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> There is nothing to stop Cable taking the Labour Whip and only changing his constituency prior to the next GE. No-one can force him to resign his seat and there will be safe Labour constituencies without a sitting MP as candidate becoming available before the elections. His ability to carry out such a plan would depend on what he can bring with him.


Is there any record of mp's who have called a  by-election after changing parties


----------



## cesare (Sep 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If he wants to stay in government, (and he does) it's a gamble he may well have to take.


I hope the LibDems sink without trace. But if they don't (or it doesn't look increasingly likely), there's no incentive for him to move at all. If they do (or it looks increasingly likely) then faced with the prospect of jumping ship to the Tories and staying in a safe seat until he retires looks a lot more likely to me than the possibility that you set out.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> I hope the LibDems sink without trace. But if they don't (or it doesn't look increasingly likely), there's no incentive for him to move at all. If they do (or it looks increasingly likely) then faced with the prospect of jumping ship to the Tories and staying in a safe seat until he retires looks a lot more likely to me than the possibility that you set out.


 
I think it less likey because I don't think Cable is a Tory. Just because people like butchers keep shouting that he is doesn't make it true, imo.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 10, 2012)

Cable made that reference to having two left feet infering that he was left wing, or at least centre left.  We still have a few years off till the general election and a lot can happen in that time, and I doubt Cable would jump to tories or labour at this specific moment in time.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 11, 2012)

I predict that Cable will continue to be a bit of an arse.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 11, 2012)

When is the bye election due because of Louise Mensch standing down?  It will be interesting to see how the parties fare in that election, might be enough of a push for some to challenge Clegg in the Lib Dems and/or Cameron in the tories.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the UK? Bag of arse.


 
People who would like to see such a similar realignment of the left here on an electorally viable basis


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I predict that Cable will continue to be a bit of an arse.


 
good analogy - the left buttock?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> good analogy - the left buttock?


 
Nope. The ringpiece.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> good analogy - the left buttock?


That role is taken. Isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Kippa said:


> When is the bye election due because of Louise Mensch standing down? It will be interesting to see how the parties fare in that election, might be enough of a push for some to challenge Clegg in the Lib Dems and/or Cameron in the tories.


It's november. And what? Labour taking a seat off the tories will force a lib-dem leadership challenge?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

> That role is taken. Isn't it?


 
is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Oh yeah, you changed job.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

and... - I still think electoral reform is needed - which makes me a liberal and a filthy pluralist?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Try the other cheek


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Try the other cheek


 
Apparently it has a tattoo of Roger Liddle on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

The path beyond tony bliars lies right through him, through supporting him. In order to _show him right up._


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

that wasn't my position then, nor would it be now


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> that wasn't my position then, nor would it be now


No, it wasn't was it. That's exactly the sort of thing that you wouldn't repeatedly argue for.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's november. And what? Labour taking a seat off the tories will force a lib-dem leadership challenge?


 
That depends on how baldy Lib Dems perform.


----------



## the button (Sep 11, 2012)

Kippa said:


> That depends on how *baldy* Lib Dems perform.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Kippa said:


> That depends on how baldy Lib Dems perform.


No really. They have no vote on that seat and what they do have will not turn out. It's a lost deposit. Same as Barnsley . And look at what happened as a result. Nothing. You still a member?


----------



## Kippa (Sep 11, 2012)

Indeed I am.  I want to see the back of Clegg and wouldn't mind him being replaced.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Indeed I am. I want to see the back of Clegg and wouldn't mind him being replaced.


By _two hours of red hot soccer chat?_


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2012)

Lib-dem dissent in all it's blood red anger:



> I want to see the back of Clegg and wouldn't mind him being replaced.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

Kippa said:


> baldy Lib Dems perform.


baldy ones don't seem much better


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

Butchers' worst nightmare - Manchester Town Hall, Sunday 30th Sept - Fabian Society fringe


> *Politics: Is the future Plural?*
> *Time:* 18:00-19:30
> *Featuring:* John Denham MP, Caroline Flint MP, Katie Ghose (Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society), Simon Hughes MP (Liberal-Democrats) and Mary Riddell (Daily Telegraph) (Chair)
> *In association with: *Centre:Forum and The Electoral Reform Society


http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Butchers' worst nightmare - Manchester Town Hall, Sunday 30th Sept - Fabian Society fringe


 
Interesting, the list of featured guests.
<cynic>One might almost conclude that pluralism is merely the latest in a long series of rhetorical stagings aimed at creating a permanent centrist bloc within parliamentary politics, to ensure the continuance of the political _status quo_.</cynic>


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

that's what strain of pluralism. But by their very essence, pluralists can work with those who share a different outlook where they can coalesce around certain concrete measures they can all support.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 11, 2012)

Simon fucking Hughes. A man who should drown in his own hair oil if there's any justice.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's november. And what? Labour taking a seat off the tories will force a lib-dem leadership challenge?


If that is the case, we will have interesting lead up to christmas


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 11, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Simon fucking Hughes. A man who should drown in his own hair oil if there's any justice.


Drown all the fucking pricks, MPs and members both.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 11, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Drown all the fucking pricks, MPs and members both.


 
Members of what?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> that's what strain of pluralism. But by their very essence, pluralists can work with those who share a different outlook where they can coalesce around certain concrete measures they can all support.


 
Pluralism always means triangulation - and that includes when the Greens and imaginary left are involved.

A Pluralist dream may happily include the "left" of the Libdems, Labour, Greens, and Plaid even maybe George or Salma happily managing the continuing defeat of the working class.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

Pluralism of some sort is the only antidote to Labourism (or whatever anti-pluralist formation succeeds it).  The point is to hegemonise the other forces


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 11, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pluralism always means triangulation - and that includes when the Greens and imaginary left are involved.
> 
> A Pluralist dream may happily include the "left" of the Libdems, Labour, Greens, and Plaid even maybe George or Salma happily managing the continuing defeat of the working class.


 
not salma, she's resigned from Respect

http://another-green-world.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/salma-yaqoob-has-resigned-from-respect.html

Who's taking bets on her joining the Labour party


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> not salma, she's resigned from Respect
> 
> http://another-green-world.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/salma-yaqoob-has-resigned-from-respect.html
> 
> Who's taking bets on her joining the Labour party


 
or Greens - one or the other


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> or Greens - one or the other


 
I'm betting Labour myself.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 11, 2012)

I know she's well connected with Greens in that area - I expect she'll be a Green MEP candidate


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Pluralism of some sort is the only antidote to Labourism (or whatever anti-pluralist formation succeeds it).  The point is to hegemonise the other forces



What does this mean? I know what the words are, but what do you mean by it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 12, 2012)

cesare said:


> What does this mean? I know what the words are, but what do you mean by it?


 
It means nothing but sounds clever.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It means nothing but sounds clever.



That was my suspicion too.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2012)

Immanentise the eschaton.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It means nothing but sounds clever.


this, apart from the sounds clever bit.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

JimW said:


> Immanentise the eschaton.



Heh


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

What do I mean by pluralism, by Labourism or by hegemonize?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> What do I mean by pluralism, by Labourism or by hegemonize?


 
The whole comment in order not one word at a time.


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It means nothing but sounds clever.


It means that the Daily Telegraph and the Lib Dems are an "alternative" to Labour, and don't blame me for helping them along because it's all the fault of the working class for not being revolutionary enough.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

You what?

It means that socialists can work with Labour reformists, greens, feminists, anticapitalists etc.etc. [and, yes, maybe radical liberals (which isn't to say Liberal Democrats in the present period!)}, but not by subordinating our politics to theirs, NOT by effectively leading the political/intellectual agenda and winning the consent of a broader spectrum of their (bigger at present) to a programme that furthers our class interests.

If you say we 're going to plant our flag in the ground and only accept fully fledged revolutionary marxists - you'll be at best a marginally bigger version of the IBT.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You what?
> 
> It means that socialists can work with Labour reformists, greens, feminists, anticapitalists etc.etc. [and, yes, maybe radical liberals (which isn't to say Liberal Democrats in the present period!)}, but not by subordinating our politics to theirs, NOT by effectively leading the political/intellectual agenda and winning the consent of a broader spectrum of their (bigger at present) to a programme that furthers our class interests.
> 
> If you say we 're going to plant our flag in the ground and only accept fully fledged revolutionary marxists - you'll be at best a marginally bigger version of the IBT.



Why the false binary?

There's loads of other options y'know, and most of us who argue with you here would advocate them, not your IBT fantasy.


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It means that socialists can work with Labour reformists, greens, feminists, anticapitalists etc.etc. [and, yes, maybe radical liberals (which isn't to say Liberal Democrats in the present period!)}, but not by subordinating our politics to theirs.


 Wow, you're really telling yourself off here. That articul8, what a loser, says articul8.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

well - I mean in electoral terms.  Once you reject pluralism you're left with a genuine binary between Labourism (or New Workers Party like what Labour-used-to-be-ism) or sectarianism. 

Obviously there are non-electoral forms of engagement - many of which I think are really valuable.  But I am opposed to anti-electoralism.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

Random said:


> Wow, you're really telling yourself off here. That articul8, what a loser, says articul8.


 
eh? The position above is the one I've advocated consistently. (not the one about me being a loser, the other one!)


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Obviously there are non-electoral forms of engagement - many of which I think are really valuable.  But I am opposed to anti-electoralism.


 Once you say you're only talking to people who can get elected you've basically handed yourself over to the green and lib dems.


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> eh? The position above is the one I've advocated consistently. (not the one about me being a loser, the other one!)


In the past you've worked with non-radical liberals and the rest. You've got involved in projects that have not had any socialist "hegemony". All of that is apparently not on, according to articul8.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> eh? The position above is the one I've advocated consistently. (not the one about me being a loser, the other one!)


you've been advocating you being a loser too, trust me.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

Random said:


> In the past you've worked with non-radical liberals and the rest. You've got involved in projects that have not had any socialist "hegemony". All of that is apparently not on, according to articul8.


As a socialist you don't start from a hegemonic position, obviously.  But pro w/c forces must strive to hegemonise those forces that can be pulled in behind the interests of our class.   That means building broader coalitions (don't reduce this to electoral or governmental coalitions).


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As a socialist you don't start from a hegemonic position, obviously.  But pro w/c forces must strive to hegemonise those forces that can be pulled in behind the interests of our class.   That means building broader coalitions (don't reduce this to electoral or governmental coalitions).


Arguing with you is like trying to nail smoke to a wall.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2012)

Random said:


> Arguing with you is like trying to nail smoke to a wall.


 
Stop it with the compliments.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As a socialist you don't start from a hegemonic position, obviously. But pro w/c forces must strive to hegemonise those forces that can be pulled in behind the interests of our class. That means building broader coalitions (don't reduce this to electoral or governmental coalitions).


 
This is a get out of gaol card for virtually any joint venture you care to undertake; ' we tried to hegemonise with the Freedom Association in opposition to the anti-democractic EU but it didn't workout in the end...it was long shot but we thought it was worth it at the time'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well - I mean in electoral terms.  Once you reject pluralism you're left with a genuine binary between Labourism (or New Workers Party like what Labour-used-to-be-ism) or sectarianism.
> 
> Obviously there are non-electoral forms of engagement - many of which I think are really valuable.  But I am opposed to anti-electoralism.



I'm not, and the ideas I occasionally advocate, Anti-electoralist. Rather they are a-electoralist.

...or something.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As a socialist you don't start from a hegemonic position, obviously.  But pro w/c forces must strive to hegemonise those forces that can be pulled in behind the interests of our class.   That means building broader coalitions (don't reduce this to electoral or governmental coalitions).



What, exactly, do you mean by "hegmonise"?


----------



## Random (Sep 12, 2012)

chilango said:


> What, exactly, do you mean by "hegmonise"?


get a chair with a back and arms


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

chilango said:


> What, exactly, do you mean by "hegmonise"?


 
This could take a while. In short, I'd say aquiring the role of leading, shaping, persuading, convincing, and bringing coherence to a wider set of social interests in alignment with our interests.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> This could take a while. In short, I'd say aquiring the role of leading, shaping, persuading, convincing, and bringing coherence to a wider set of social interests in alignment with our interests.



Telling.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

in what way?


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

Attitude.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> This could take a while. In short, I'd say aquiring the role of leading, shaping, persuading, convincing, and bringing coherence to a wider set of social interests in alignment with our interests.



The movers and the shapers, eh. In whose interests?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

w/c interests


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> w/c interests


Of which you are the true representative. Back to the future.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2012)

Pointless chessery puffed up as strategy.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

there is no such thing as a political movement without leadership


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is no such thing as a political movement without leadership


 
you're just asking for trouble you aren't you


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

moi?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is no such thing as a political movement without leadership


And you're not it.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

are socialists in a hegemonic position presently?  no - I've already said that


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2012)

Pointless chessery puffed up as strategy.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2012)

Was hegemony word of the day in Reader's Digest or something? No Roger, we've decided on pine for the kitchen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Pluralism of some sort is the only antidote to Labourism (or whatever anti-pluralist formation succeeds it). The point is to hegemonise the other forces


 
Hegemony is contingent and unstable. Well done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

Random said:


> Once you say you're only talking to people who can get elected you've basically handed yourself over to the green and lib dems.


 
Pluralism as instrumentalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of which you are the true representative. Back to the future.


 
Second verse, same as the first.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 12, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nope. The ringpiece.


there is a comment on socialist unity referring to "the inner circle around Galloway"


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> w/c interests



How on earth can you reconcile your current brand of politics with w/c interests? You're even on the TUC thread spouting guff that amounts to deterring people from industrial action.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

bollocks - I think effective industrial action is urgent and necessary.  But that means taking into account the balance of forces, and the significant legal obstacles to broad and sustained co-ordinated action.  How is that saying it shouldn't (or musn't) happen?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

cesare said:


> How on earth can you reconcile your current brand of politics with w/c interests? .


 w/c interests are not advanced by a politics that weakens our ability to kick out the coalition parties from government.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2012)

Just fuck off you twat.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> bollocks - I think effective industrial action is urgent and necessary.  But that means taking into account the balance of forces, and the significant legal obstacles to broad and sustained co-ordinated action.  How is that saying it shouldn't (or musn't) happen?



Because of how you position it! And where else have you said that effective industrial action is urgent and necessary before now, eh?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

> Just fuck off you twat.


 
thanks for that


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

cesare said:


> Because of how you position it! And where else have you said that effective industrial action is urgent and necessary before now, eh?


it would help it people read what i argue, rather than what they imagine I'd argue. 

I've been consistently critical of the UNISON leadership for their role in the pensions dispute, for example.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> it would help it people read what i argue, rather than what they imagine I'd argue.
> 
> I've been consistently critical of the UNISON leadership for their role in the pensions dispute, for example.



I am very carefully reading what you argue, which is why I'm becoming more and more annoyed with your spin on this. Being critical of Unison leadership is not the same as saying that industrial action is urgent and necessary, for example.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

well I've said very clearly that I believe that effective industrial action is urgent and necessary.  But there's no point in putting forward proposals for action that would be ineffective, or that couldn't be carried out in the forthcoming period.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well I've said very clearly that I believe that effective industrial action is urgent and necessary. But there's no point in putting forward proposals for action that would be ineffective, or that couldn't be carried out in the forthcoming period.


Point to one other place (apart from the last few posts on this thread) where you have specifically said that effective industrial action is urgent and necessary.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

have i ever suggested otherwise?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> have i ever suggested otherwise?


Weasel words. You specifically said that you have stated all along that you believe the need for industrial action to urgent and necessary - and when I say, no, actually you haven't, show us where - you turn it round to "have I suggested otherwise" which is not the same thing. And you know it.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2012)

"I've been saying all along..."


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

I backed the PCS/NUT/UCU strikes, the Nov 30th strikes, and attacked Ed Miliband for not doing so - more recent posts should be read in that context


----------



## the button (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I backed the PCS/NUT/UCU strikes, the Nov 30th strikes, and attacked Ed Miliband for not doing so - more recent posts should be read in that context


That's just not being a scab -- you get no points for that.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm not after "points" from the ultra left thanks.  I also called on UNISON not to go back to sectoral bargaining but to maintain unity on the pensions dispute.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2012)

'called on'


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not after "points" from the ultra left thanks. I also called on UNISON not to go back to sectoral bargaining but to maintain unity on the pensions dispute.


I, for one, am not the "ultra left" whatever that may mean. I'm a potential voter. Your electorate.


----------



## the button (Sep 12, 2012)

'maintain unity'

Soft 'left' bullshit bingo.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2012)

the button said:


> 'maintain unity'
> 
> Soft 'left' bullshit bingo.


He came out with "Unity Is Strength" whilst simultaneously arguing that employees didn't have the right to join whichever union they choose, recently.


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

Who's ultra-left? And what does that mean?


----------



## chilango (Sep 12, 2012)

Santino said:


> 'called on'



What power/influence does he think he has to "call on" a trade union to do anything?

I certainly don't have that power/influence.

You and whose army Articul8 eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> w/c interests are not advanced by a politics that weakens our ability to kick out the coalition parties from government.


 
Exactly who are *you* to dictate what is or is not in the interests of the working classes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

cesare said:


> I, for one, am not the "ultra left" whatever that may mean. I'm a potential voter. Your electorate.


 
"Ultra left" is just a whining noise people as politically-diverse as articul8 and The Black Hand make if you don't agree with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I backed the PCS/NUT/UCU strikes, the Nov 30th strikes, and attacked Ed Miliband for not doing so - more recent posts should be read in that context


 
You attacked Miliband for handing the coalition a "hostage to fortune" in the form of "Ed obviously agrees with us about the strikes", as it happens.
I well recall taking you to task for doing so.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Exactly who are *you* to dictate what is or is not in the interests of the working classes?


 
I'm not dictating, I'm hegemonising


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You attacked Miliband for handing the coalition a "hostage to fortune" in the form of "Ed obviously agrees with us about the strikes", as it happens.
> I well recall taking you to task for doing so.


in other words he was wrong not to back the strikes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

the button said:


> That's just not being a scab -- you get no points for that.


 
Theres a surprising amount of people (surprising to me, anyway) who seem to think they should get _kudos_ purely for not crossing a picket-line. That wanker Keyboard Jockey, before he Toried up, used to think that way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

Santino said:


> 'called on'


 
"Dear Unison,
Please be nice.

Yours hegemonisingly,

Arthur Redfers Ticul8
(Treasurer, Fabian Society, Neasden branch)"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> in other words he was wrong not to back the strikes?


 
No, because such was not the intent of your posts on the matter, however you attempt to rewrite history.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, because such was not the intent of your posts on the matter, however you attempt to rewrite history.


yes it was


----------



## articul8 (Sep 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Dear Unison,
> Please be nice.
> 
> Yours hegemonisingly,
> ...


a) I'm not, nor have i ever been, a Fabian
and b) I no longer live in Neasden


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 13, 2012)

chilango said:


> Who's ultra-left? And what does that mean?


In a8's world all of us that think Labour is a waste time and that he's a pathetic creep.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 13, 2012)

Only 15% of people think the yellow twats have a positive influence on coalition policy


> The poll conducted by YouGov typically shows that over a range of issues no more than about 15% of voters think the Liberal Democrats are making a positive difference. Only 10% of Labour voters see them as a positive moderating influence on coalition policy.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 14, 2012)

As high as that?


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2012)

Nylock said:


> As high as that?


3% the remaining lib-dem voters, 12% tories who think they're stopping St David from bringing in undiluted laissez-faire


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

If anyone's been following Cable's earlier announcement regarding consultation about the ongoing erosion of employment rights, the consultation papers are here for ease of reference: http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/ending-the-employment-relationship?cat=open

None of this is unexpected for anyone that's been following the unfolding story together with the Beecroft report (so I'm not sure that it's worth starting a new thread on) but the bottom line is that the cap for compensation for unfair dismissal will probably reduce to less than a third of what it is now and employees will have to pay to make an ET claim.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2012)

the one voice allowed to talk about this on the beeb radio news has been some scottish twonk from the CBI. The fucking CBI! not one union voice at all.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 14, 2012)

Doesn't need saying here, really, but _scum_.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

You can listen to Daniel Barnet* talking about it on the Today Programme on iplayer here at 2.51: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mkzbd/Today_14_09_2012/ (if the link's still working)

*Daniel Barnet's reasonably well known for his regular employment update bulletins.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Doesn't need saying here, really, but _scum_.


It's much, much worse than the carefully drafted announcement appears.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 14, 2012)

Make this much worse stuff appear not so bad in comparison to the much more worse proposals that were 'rejected'?


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Make this much worse stuff appear not so bad in comparison to the much more worse proposals that were 'rejected'?


Yep. But anyone that's looked at the two versions of the Beecroft Report will suss that amidst the blatant wackery that he was proposing were measures that had already been set in motion. I personally think that Cable decided to get Beecroft as much adverse publicity as possible, reject the obvious outcry type stuff to soften everyone up, and leave in place what was already proceeding anyway.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 14, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the one voice allowed to talk about this on the beeb radio news has been some scottish twonk from the CBI. The fucking CBI! not one union voice at all.


I haven't really been following on the media today because most of it was already known about, so the media stuff is spin afaic. Does anyone know if it was covered at the TUC conference? It's going to have a major impact on the unions in particular.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

I *really* want a good rant about this, but it would take about a page and a half to first of all explain it, then secondly why I'm ranting about it. Plus it would probably piss off some of the union FTOs more than I already have done. Grr.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2012)

are we to take it that what you'd end up with, is unions having to foot the cost of members ETs? Because theres no gaurentee they would and anyway would this not place them in a position of only taking on rock solid winners because the cost of failures being too much on the overall funds?


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> are we to take it that what you'd end up with, is unions having to foot the cost of members ETs? Because theres no gaurentee they would and anyway would this not place them in a position of only taking on rock solid winners because the cost of failures being too much on the overall funds?


They tend to only take on the rock solid ones at the moment anyway, tbh. But as this all goes ahead, members would be far less accepting of that because they won't have (from next year) a way of resolving disputes via the ET without paying a deposit. Not everyone can get together a few hundred quid to make a claim which then gets topped up to £1200 approx if it goes to full hearing - and the prospect of losing that sizeable amount of cash if they lose - which often happens if they are a litigant in person. Ironically, apart from the deterrence factor it won't help employers either because most cases are settled before the full hearing which means that any settlement figure would need to be increased by the deposit amount.

David Renton (who is probably one of the best to read if you want an employee focused viewpoint) has updated his blog but I notice that he hasn't dealt with the deposit system in today's post, nor how it will impact on the unions. That's probably going to be something he'll do at length at some point though.

Link: http://www.struckout.co.uk/

Edit: sorry I didn't answer your question properly. No, I can't envisage the unions paying the deposits, even of those that they do take on. They couldn't afford it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2012)

cheers, I'll bookmark that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

Fuck you michael gove.


ebac my arse. getting rid of coursework. dropping this shit in 2015 so you can laugh from the shadow cabinet as the opposition cops flak for this blatant attempt to make kids who aren't good at tests fail. such a wanker


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

oh and scrapping resits as well. Clap. Fucking Clap


----------



## Nylock (Sep 17, 2012)

gove being a grade 'a' cunt as usual then


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

saying 'stop the race to the bottom'- stop nicking our phrases gove

saying 'stop the prizes for all culture'- thats better. show your naked contempt so we might better mark you cunts


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Lib-dem badger killers.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 18, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/17/lib-dems-beware-pact-labour-party

Leading lib dem commentator spouts utterly delusional nonsense in the graun. As well as blaming the voters for hating them.  




> Liberal Democrats do not need pollsters to tell us that we have lost the support of many people who saw us not as a separate party with our own distinctive set of values but merely as an alternative to the Labour party – a position encouraged by our campaigning stance to win tactical Labour votes in Tory-inclined seats and disillusioned Labour votes in Labour-inclined seats.
> Those people were ill-prepared for an outcome that led to the current coalition, even though the leadership made it crystal clear we would first seek to work with the largest party in the event of no one winning outright. Simplistically, for those people, the main thing wrong with the present arrangement is that we are in coalition with the "wrong" party


 
He seems to be saying that their legions of bitterly disillusioned ex-voters were stupid becasue they belived that the lib dems were what they claimed to be when they were campaigning.

Hardly a vote winning argument I feel.


----------



## Santino (Sep 18, 2012)

They sound - and I don't say this lightly - like an abusive spouse justifying their actions.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

lying lib dem from tim's quote said:
			
		

> Those people were ill-prepared for an outcome that led to the current coalition, even though the leadership made it crystal clear we would first seek to work with the largest party in the event of no one winning outright


Crystal clear, by not saying what largest meant (vote/seats/popular vote etc) - in order to make all sides not paying full attention think that you are theirs.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 18, 2012)

I like this line


> nevertheless, socialism is illiberal – it subordinates the individual to the collective and has ridden roughshod over our hard-won civil liberties.


Made by a party pushing for secret courts.

It nicely illustrates what cunts they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Picked out from the comments:




> Oh dear. First of all you say:
> a position encouraged by our campaigning stance to win tactical Labour votes in Tory-inclined seats and disillusioned Labour votes in Labour-inclined seats.​and then go on to say:
> Those people were ill-prepared for an outcome that led to the current coalition, even though the leadership made it crystal clear we would first seek to work with the largest party in the event of no one winning outright.​Do you not see what you've written here? You admit you campaigned on left-of-centre positions to attract left-of-centre voters then _blame the same voters_ for being disappointed in you abandoning all your principles and beliefs.


 
The total intellectual laziness and this will do, they'll eat any old shit attitude behind it is a large part of they they are _dead men on furlough._


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2012)

two year freeze on inflation related rises to benefits. Dave claims he'll bring the rises in line with average wage instead. this will not happen


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

How to piss money away

_Boundary Commission for England_ _Cost_
February 2012 
27,651.74
March 2012 
348,398.68
April 2012 
104,405.84
May 2012 
96,133.52
June 2012 
189,370.32
July 2012 
255,357.11


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Must...resist...obvious...poke in the ribs


----------



## Santino (Sep 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Must...resist...obvious...poke in the ribs


It was a fair price to pay for getting a referendum on AV.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

Santino said:


> It was a fair price to pay for getting a referendum on AV.


impulse too strong was it  I (and others in Labour) argued for them to be decoupled from the start.  Not only wasn't it a fair quid pro quo, but the association of AV with "Tory interests" meant that it cross contaminated the referendum campaign too.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Did you _call upon_ the coalition to do that then?


----------



## Random (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> impulse too strong was it  I (and others in Labour) argued for them to be decoupled from the start.  Not only wasn't it a fair quid pro quo, but the association of AV with "Tory interests" meant that it cross contaminated the referendum campaign too.


Well done for trying to achieve socialist hegemony over tory and lib dem interests. Bravely fought.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> impulse too strong was it  I (and others in Labour) argued for them to be decoupled from the start. Not only wasn't it a fair quid pro quo, but the association of AV with "Tory interests" meant that it cross contaminated the referendum campaign too.


 
And you, you could have stopped it by refusing to administer the referendum under those conditions. But you didn't.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

We didn't "administer" the elections - that's a statutory power.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Tell us what your role was, the one that if you refused to have carried it out have fucked up the referendum then. Outline your failing precisely.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

_My_ role


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

You said 'we' - who did you mean, precisely.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

You even fuck up this little 3 or 4 post exchange and manage to make yourself look shifty and unreliable in double quick time. What on earth do you think you look like to people?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

Electoral Refom Society is a campaign organisation which is relatively autonomous from its commercial sister organisation Electoral Reform Services Ltd.  That latter is sometimes contracted to provide balloting services (eg like printing ballot papers) on a commerical basis for public elections - however electoral administration is something different altogether.    Frankly, I've no idea whether Services were paid for anything referendum related.  But it certainly doesn't follow that Society policy was determined by this.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

What fucking politician waffle. Who mentioned payment? You could have stopped this thing that you're pretending to moan about by taking  a few small steps. You didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Note how you suddenly know who 'we' and 'you' are.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

In fact, thank you for reminding us that you most likely were _paid to take this course of action_, to do something you so manifestly opposed _in such a principled manner_. You can't help yourself can you?


----------



## Random (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Frankly, I've no idea whether Services were paid for anything referendum related.  But it certainly doesn't follow that Society policy was determined by this.


No idea? Not something that you even think is important to find out?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

> You could have stopped this thing that you're pretending to moan about by taking a few small steps


 
Well we could technically have gone into the first ever UK-wide referendum on the voting system by attacking the very idea of it, and threatening not to campaign for a Yes.  But the LDs could have called our bluff - you can't very well be the Electoral Reform Society campaigning against electoral reform.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

OOH nooo, the lib-dems might have called your bluff! You mewling pissbag.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

Random said:


> No idea? Not something that you even think is important to find out?


 
Not particularly - Osborne tried to make out their was a conflict of interest, since services would stand to benefit from more complex electoral arrangements.  But he backed down in the end, as he couldn't substantiate it.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> OOH nooo, the lib-dems might have called your bluff! You mewling pissbag.


 
hmm...who was responsible for the boundary change fuck up?  What is it a) The Tories, b) the Lib Dems, or c) the electoral reform society


----------



## Santino (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well we could technically have gone into the first ever UK-wide referendum on the voting system by attacking the very idea of it, and threatening not to campaign for a Yes. But the LDs could have called our bluff - you can't very well be the Electoral Reform Society campaigning against electoral reform.


Even when it was a reform that the Society had explicitly said was shit? Except after the referendum was announced and the website was redacted to remove the arguments against it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> hmm...who was responsible for the boundary change fuck up? What is it a) The Tories, b) the Lib Dems, or c) the electoral reform society


Who could have stopped it, who said they were opposed to it. Who agreed to make sure that as far as possibkle that it would happen and that they would be paid to make it happen?

Do you have any idea what you look like to people?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

no point re-running this debate now.  AV is shit.  Only less shit than FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who could have stopped it, who said they were opposed to it. Who agreed to make sure that as far as possibkle that it would happen and that they would be paid to make it happen?


I don't accept that we could have stopped it - and we didn't "pay to make it happen".  We wanted the referendum, but were agnostic or critical (opinions differed) about the boundary changes - and suggested that they issues needed to be decoupled.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't accept that we could have stopped it - and we didn't "pay to make it happen". We wanted the referendum, but were agnostic or critical (opinions differed) about the boundary changes - and suggested that they issues needed to be decoupled.


Yes you could, but you didn't have the principles or the bottle.

Can you read - who on earth mentioned you paying for the referendum to happen?  I said that you were paid to make sure the thing you were so opposed to happened.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

This is a stupid argument - I opposed and oppose the boundary changes.  I supported holding a referendum on the voting system.  I argued they should be decoupled.  End of.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

No, not end of. You helped as far as possible to implement the thing you claim to be opposed to - and as you point out - you took money for it. No matter who or what you called upon or for.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

Lib Dem to take drugs live on TV

Let's hope this 'evidence based' lib dem twat ends up needing NHS treatment and can't get it.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 18, 2012)

can they just swap his e for a cyanide?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> OOH nooo, the lib-dems might have called your bluff! You mewling pissbag.


 
Quoted for posterity, as "mewling pissbag" is a fine insult!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 18, 2012)

Malcolm Tuckeresque


----------



## Balbi (Sep 19, 2012)

Text from a friend at freshers fair...

"Lib dems recruiting on softening drug policy, obviously hoping students get so stoned they forget about tuition fees lies. Students giving them shit"


----------



## chilango (Sep 19, 2012)

Some mildly amusing digs at the Lib Dems on Bad Education last night.


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2012)

Clegg:




			
				Clegg said:
			
		

> "There's no easy way to say this: We made a pledge, we didn't stick to it - and for that I am sorry. When you've made a mistake you should apologise.
> 
> "But more importantly - most important of all - you've got to learn from your mistakes. And that's what we will do.
> 
> "I will never again make a pledge unless as a party we are absolutely clear about how we can keep it"


 
And literally in the next breath he says the lie was forced on him by labour and the tories.

And the apology only exposes his lies even further - when questioned on an apology over the lie in December 2010 he boasted:



> To govern is to choose particularly when there is not very much money and we have chosen and I am not going to apologise for this for one minute.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 19, 2012)

He really really does deserve an egging this Saturday.


----------



## JimW (Sep 19, 2012)

Even taken at face value which obv you shouldn't he's still digging isn;t he? Saying he had to learn that it's not OK to make false promises, that famously tricky ethical question that has vexed philosophers and priests for so long. And how did he learn? By not getting away with it, as otherwise it's business as usual.


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2012)

Suppose he will apologise next for three line whipping an abstention over a referendum on the EU constitution. A referendum being a manifesto commitment


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2012)

He reckons people have mixed feelings about the lib dems? lol.. he got the anger bit right though.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2012)

everything he's said since 2010 seems to have been carefully crafted to invite the most ridicule possible. Its hard to believe anyone ever thought him a viable politician.


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2012)

killer b said:


> everything he's said since 2010 seems to have been carefully crafted to invite the most ridicule possible. Its hard to believe anyone ever thought him a viable politician.


Gordon Brown made him look good


----------



## JimW (Sep 19, 2012)

He was youngish and his hideous moral deformities didn't show up on a casual appraisal. His party would have known what they'd signed up for, of course.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I expect clegg to get more jittery as 2015 draws closer.A dead man walking


----------



## gosub (Sep 19, 2012)

Clegg" said:
			
		

> I shouldn't have committed to a policy that was so expensive when there was no money around.
> Not least when the most likely way we'd end up in Government was in coalition with Labour or the Conservatives, who were both committed to put fees up.
> 
> I know that we fought to get the best policy we could in those circumstances.
> ...


 

um, logically next election they could only end up in power is again in coalition. And he can only deliver pledges if other parties share the same commitment....so what's the USP? If you want the policies Labour or Conservatives offer, why not just vote Labour or Tory


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2012)

the video laughs keep on coming:

What makes you proud to be a Liberal Democrat


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 19, 2012)

BigTom said:


> He reckons people have mixed feelings about the lib dems? lol.. he got the anger bit right though.


I've got mixed feelings about the lib dems; a mixture of derision and contempt.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> the video laughs keep on coming:
> 
> What makes you proud to be a Liberal Democrat



i like how none of them can actually look into the camera and meet your eye at they parrot the lies.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2012)

god you're right none of them are meeting the camera


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

Steve Richards on the crisis of the Lib dems:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...they-offer-than-nobody-else-does-8157083.html

Richard Reeves on the case for "a truly liberal party":
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...they-offer-than-nobody-else-does-8157083.html


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Steve Richards on the crisis of the Lib dems:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...they-offer-than-nobody-else-does-8157083.html
> 
> Richard Reeves on the case for "a truly liberal party":
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...they-offer-than-nobody-else-does-8157083.html


 
Both links to the same article?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

It's in the NS.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

It says the same stuff they've always said  - we are the modernsing party, the others have only a passing commitment to civil liberties, vested interests blah blah Clegg is the man to do this, but were they kill him were best to do it quick, oh yeah and we are after a million more votes than last time.


----------



## Santino (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It says the same stuff they've always said - we are the modernsing party, the others have only a passing commitment to civil liberties, vested interests blah blah Clegg is the man to do this, but were they kill him were best to do it quick, oh yeah and we are after a million more votes than last time.


I wish I hadn't bought that cunt's book on John Stuart Mill now.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Btw, the same Richard Reeves was claiming in 2009  that "There are signs that the Conservatives are sincere about creating a fairer society."



> The progressive Conservative vehicle is still on the road, albeit badly dented by the need for recessionary economics. Glaring old Toryisms remain – most obviously in the proposal to financially reward marriage – and there is a huge challenge to be progressive and prudent with a ballooning deficit. There are many areas of policy where the slate is still too blank to form a judgment. But while the prospect of a Conservative government was once a chilling one to any progressive, there is now the possibility that Cameron, supported by his small band of cutlery-rattling progressives, really has changed his party, as Peel, Disraeli and Thatcher did before him. We'll know soon enough.


 
No, the rest of us will know - you've fucked off to a well paid elite job in the US .


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Santino said:


> I wish I hadn't bought that cunt's book on John Stuart Mill now.


Have you read it yet? Just been reading a number of his pieces and they are shockingly lightweight.


----------



## Santino (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read it yet? Just been reading a number of his pieces and they are shockingly lightweight.


Read half of it and then abandoned it. Take that, you Lib Dem shitbag!

There was no sense of what was really going on in the wrold, no actual sense of history, just one thing after another happening.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It says the same stuff they've always said - we are the modernsing party, the others have only a passing commitment to civil liberties, vested interests blah blah Clegg is the man to do this, but were they kill him were best to do it quick, oh yeah and we are after a million more votes than last time.


 
Slightly more interesting as it's essentially saying the whole SDP/Liberal alliance was a cul-de-sac - in fact more than that, the whole Lloyd-George era turn in Liberal thinking - was a mistake.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

That's not more interesting at all. It's what people like Reeves who joined the lib-dems from a SDP style position have all been saying since the Orange book - he himself said that SDP style members should leave the party before the election. This is not a new thing for them. There has always been an element of the party who argued that the SDP incursion was the aberration - from the 88 merger and before.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

Well, it's very hard to see, say, Charles Kennedy or Shirley Williams taking that view. Is Cable prepared to fall in with where Clegg/Reeves want to go with it? Tempting to wonder (with Steve Richards) whether they might split down the middle and have one wing basically orienting to the Tories, and another to Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Of course it's hard to see people who don't agree with that view taking that view. What an odd thing to say. Is Cable prepared to? He already has. _He is one of the Orange bookers_. He said and did nothing when Clegg basically said the same as Reeves - that social democrats should get out of the party. Update your maps again please.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

well I'm not sure how far down Orange Bookery really goes.  And even if that does represent an irreversible shift in their party's direction, I don't think lots of members and activists have caught up with it yet.  It's like the reaction of quite a few people in Labour after 97 - Christ, they weren't just saying it for reasons of expediency, it's much worse - they really mean it


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

I reckon that you're the one who needs to catch up - all those people you refer to are gone, as members and voters. The bloody lib-dems recognise this, why can't you?

I reckon it's because the long-term historic bloc that you bubbletarians thirst for _requires_ there to be a party of nice people outside and to the right of labour.


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well I'm not sure how far down Orange Bookery really goes.  And even if that does represent an irreversible shift in their party's direction, I don't think lots of members and activists have caught up with it yet.  It's like the reaction of quite a few people in Labour after 97 - Christ, they weren't just saying it for reasons of expediency, it's much worse - they really mean it


You need to help them reclaim the Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Reclaim the golf club.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 20, 2012)

Random said:


> You need to help them reclaim the Lib Dems.


Already trying to do it in preparation for his progressive coalition.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2012)

maybe they could all be split down the middle, one at a time.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon that you're the one who needs to catch up - all those people you refer to are gone, as members and voters. The bloody lib-dems recognise this, why can't you?
> 
> I reckon it's because the long-term historic bloc that you bubbletarians thirst for _requires_ there to be a party of nice people outside and to the right of labour.


 
 there is a residual presence - sometimes more - in local government.  Are 100pc of these councils pro-orange book, anti-SDP?  I doubt it.  And the fact that they've lost support doesn't automatically mean that is gone irretrievable.  OK, they aren't getting the student vote back anytime soon.  And there will be a backlash at the next election.  But there will be a proportion of LD voters who are disaffected at present, but still see themselves as kind of anti-Tory centrists and who would flock back if they got rid of Clegg.  Richards says that Miliband's team don't expect Clegg to lead them into the next election.  So, much is fluid.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is a residual presence - sometimes more - in local government. Are 100pc of these councils pro-orange book, anti-SDP? I doubt it. And the fact that they've lost support doesn't automatically mean that is gone irretrievable. OK, they aren't getting the student vote back anytime soon. And there will be a backlash at the next election. But there will be a proportion of LD voters who are disaffected at present, but still see themselves as kind of anti-Tory centrists and who would flock back if they got rid of Clegg. Richards says that Miliband's team don't expect Clegg to lead them into the next election. So, much is fluid.


Fluid as regards what?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

You working for the Guardian now btw? If not, someone is muscling in on your turf.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

fluid as regards whether they exist as a force which has any kind of appeal to people with a broadly SPD type politics, or whether they are now forever and eternally condemned to be a small rump of socially and economically (neo)liberal Cameroonian fellow-travellers.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You working for the Guardian now btw? If not, someone is muscling in on your turf.


No.  My turf


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> there is a residual presence - sometimes more - in local government.  Are 100pc of these councils pro-orange book, anti-SDP?  I doubt it.  And the fact that they've lost support doesn't automatically mean that is gone irretrievable.  OK, they aren't getting the student vote back anytime soon.  And there will be a backlash at the next election.  But there will be a proportion of LD voters who are disaffected at present, but still see themselves as kind of anti-Tory centrists and who would flock back if they got rid of Clegg.  Richards says that Miliband's team don't expect Clegg to lead them into the next election.  So, much is fluid.


How things have changed, that a Marxist now thinks that they need to offer comfort and aid to the ragged remnants of the SDP. Even the Greens have a more sincere stance than this "socialism".


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

Random said:


> How things have changed, that a Marxist now thinks that they need to offer comfort and aid to the ragged remnants of the SDP. Even the Greens have a more sincere stance than this "socialism".


 
Who's offering comfort? I'm coldly analysing the situation that the LDs find themselves in, and only in so far as it effects the political situation the left is faced with. I am not holding hands with Shirley Williams FFS! 

It is quite *possible* that they are now too far down the road of the orange bookery.  But it's not yet certain.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> fluid as regards whether they exist as a force which has any kind of appeal to people with a broadly SPD type politics, or whether they are now forever and eternally condemned to be a small rump of socially and economically (neo)liberal Cameroonian fellow-travellers.


I think that question has been answered as it goes - once those left in local councils lose their seats it's over inside the party. They are losing members hand over fist and what is coming in is unambiguously neo-liberal. Outside, have you taken any notice of the wall of hatred from ex-lib-dems, the consistent repeated polls that indicate that soppy left vote is gone forever? The lib-dems themselves have. They knew it would happen before the coalition as well and said fuck it let them pick up their mat and walk. They are not going to be courting that vote every again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Who's offering comfort? I'm coldly analysing the situation that the LDs find themselves in, and only in so far as it effects the political situation the left is faced with. I am not holding hands with Shirley Williams FFS!
> 
> It is quite *possible* that they are now too far down the road of the orange bookery. But it's not yet certain.


Are you blind? How can you not see the obvious right in front of your face? This is the easist thing in the bloody world to look at and come up with the right answer, yet you can't.


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> It is quite *possible* that they are now too far down the road of the orange bookery.  But it's not yet certain.


 "Too far" for what? This isn't cold analysis, you're eying them up as a potential mate, or engångsligg at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Random said:


> "Too far" for what? This isn't cold analysis, you're eying them up as a potential mate, or engångsligg at least.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think that question has been answered as it goes - once those left in local councils lose their seats it's over inside the party. They are losing members hand over fist and what is coming in is unambiguously neo-liberal. Outside, have you taken any notice of the wall of hatred from ex-lib-dems, the consistent repeated polls that indicate that soppy left vote is gone forever? The lib-dems themselves have. They knew it would happen before the coalition as well and said fuck it let them pick up their mat and walk. They are not going to be courting that vote every again.


 
Don't underestimate the possibility that Clegg might act as a lightning rod for all the hate and a post-Clegg era LD might start to rebuild bridges that he (and Laws/Alexander et al) burnt.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

Random said:


> "Too far" for what? This isn't cold analysis, you're eying them up as a potential mate, or engångsligg at least.


I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft barge pole...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Don't underestimate the possibility that Clegg might act as a lightning rod for all the hate and a post-Clegg era LD might start to rebuild bridges that he (and Laws/Alexander et al) burnt.


 
Who is going to do the rebuilding? Why would anyone want to be linked to them?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Don't underestimate the possibility that Clegg might act as a lightning rod for all the hate and a post-Clegg era LD might start to rebuild bridges that he (and Laws/Alexander et al) burnt.


You're quite mad. How can you have such a lack of reality in your cold analysis? Who are you talking about bridges with and to?


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft barge pole...


It's hard to believe this, since your fingers still smell of LibDem.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

this analogy is making me slightly sick


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You're quite mad. How can you have such a lack of reality in your cold analysis? Who are you talking about bridges with and to?


 with what was formerly the liberal core vote - not the extra 7% or whatever that got suckered in around fees/Iraq.   There's every chance a bunch of them will emerge after this like a battered wife who was treated horribly by a nasty bloke they unaccountably fell for and supported even though they knew how bad it was for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> with what was formerly the liberal core vote - not the extra 7% or whatever that got suckered in around fees/Iraq. There's every chance a bunch of them will emerge after this like a battered wife who was treated horribly by a nasty bloke they unaccountably fell for and supported even though they knew how bad it was for them.


What does this mean? Who/what was the lib-dem core vote? How big is it? Why would them feeling they were betrayed and treated like shit by the party mean that they would be open to voting for or joining the party?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> with what was formerly the liberal core vote - not the extra 7% or whatever that got suckered in around fees/Iraq. There's every chance a bunch of them will emerge after this like a battered wife who was treated horribly by a nasty bloke they unaccountably fell for and supported even though they knew how bad it was for them.


 
No - they will be consigned to polical wilderness for decades. Much of their vote was based on not being duplicitous lieing scum like the other two parties and - more recently - on being a vaugely more leftwing alternative to labour (pro public services - but agasint Iraq and ID cards).

On both counts they have spectacularly proved to be the opposite.

That only leaves their core support of 10% or so - and a good chance they will no longer be able to continue as a national party as their activist base drains away and the funding dries up.

The Greens could inherit their mantle with not too much ideological wriggling - soft focus social democracy plus whale songs and a 'clean' poltical slate.


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> with what was formerly the liberal core vote - not the extra 7% or whatever that got suckered in around fees/Iraq.   There's every chance a bunch of them will emerge after this like a battered wife who was treated horribly by a nasty bloke they unaccountably fell for and supported even though they knew how bad it was for them.


And you'll be on hand, to offer a cup of tea, a shoulder to cry on. And then rebound sex.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

Random said:


> And you'll be on hand, to offer a cup of tea, a shoulder to cry on. And then rebound sex.


 
well done - in nearly a decade on here that's by the far most offensive post I've ever seen directed at me (and very possibly at anyone else either) - that I would cyncically befriend a victim of domestic violence as a ruse for getting my leg over


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would them feeling they were betrayed and treated like shit by the party mean that they would be open to voting for or joining the party?


 
People with little if any politics who by inclination like to see themselves as moderate, centrist - not Tory not Labour but a "nice compromise".  Feel pissed off at Clegg for jumping into bed with the Tories and evacuating the centre.   Could be tempted back to a suitably chastened and apologetic LDs.


----------



## Santino (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well done - in nearly a decade on here that's by the far most offensive post I've ever seen directed at me


The afternoon is young.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

would have to go some to top that


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well done - in nearly a decade on here that's by the far most offensive post I've ever seen directed at me (and very possibly at anyone else either) - that I would cyncically befriend a victim of domestic violence as a ruse for getting my leg over


Don't be ridiculous. If anyone, you're the guilty party here, deciding to use a metaphor about domestic violence to describe a party that is attacking real vulnerable people.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> People with little if any politics who by inclination like to see themselves as moderate, centrist - not Tory not Labour but a "nice compromise". Feel pissed off at Clegg for jumping into bed with the Tories and evacuating the centre. Could be tempted back to a suitably chastened and apologetic LDs.


Why did you chop off the first set of questions? "What does this mean? Who/what was the lib-dem core vote? How big is it?". These need answering to make your later conjecture relevant.

Have you noticed all these people that you're talking about today saying that they'll never vote lib-dem ever again. And have you seen the share of the vote for the two big parties rise from 66% at the time of the election to around 80% today? Those votes are gone. Get your head around it.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you noticed all these people that you're talking about talking about never voting lib-dem ever again. And have you seen the share of the vote for the two big parties rise from 66% at the time of the election to around 80% today? Those votes are gone. Get your head around it.


 
Typical short-sighted empiricist method.  As though the structural role of a third party in British politics has evaporated because they aren't flavour of the month



> Why did you chop off the first set of questions? "What does this mean? Who/what was the lib-dem core vote? How big is it?"


It is much as I definted it above - except there is the added question of tactical votes they receive as the best placed candidate to challenge. 

There's no question that they will do very badly at the polls for as long as Clegg is in charge.  No question at all.  But what is much less certain is whether - from self interest as much as ideological inclination - they'll chuck him overboard, and whether - if they do - they are capable of pulling back a section of their support that has got disillusioned.

Obviously, there is going to be a "don't trust the bastards ever again" element - but they might want to cut their losses.  Alternatively, they really are bound to be a small rump adjunct to the Tories.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 20, 2012)

Are you really saying the lib=dems will rise in popularity again? they are finished as a party. completely finished for the next 90 odd years


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2012)

> I have just read something in the Eye about the fact that PwC provided a total of 3,454 hours of free technical support to political parties during the year. They worked for Labour for 2,622 hours.


 
Don't know where to put this bit its quite shocking,


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Typical short-sighted empiricist method. As though the structural role of a third party in British politics has evaporated because they aren't flavour of the month
> 
> 
> It is much as I definted it above - except there is the added question of tactical votes they receive as the best placed candidate to challenge.
> ...


Typical intellectual - caught out by reality. The question of Clegg's leadership is irrelevant - apart from to people wishing to construct an _elegant_ theory of the party coup, of the rank-and-file really just being jolly decent people suffering under a leadership that they elected and repeatedly endorsed.

What do you mean it's much as you defined it? You didn't define it - you offered some vague waffly _type_ words that amounted to saying that the lib0-dems core vote is people who don't vote labour or tory but vote lib-dem - you didn't do what i asked. That is, identify this core vote, and who they are, what they represent and how big they are. That's what you need to do to make your suggestions about where the lib-dems might be going have some relevance.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 20, 2012)

I think that in future elections people will consider voting LibDem as similar to voting Raving Loony, UKIP, Green or other fringe protest vote material. With the effective merging of Tory and Labour policies the minority parties will pick up such protest votes, but they will be spread thinly viewed from a national perspective even if in certain localities they get noticeable numbers. LibDems might still get votes in Devon and Cornwall where they for years served as opposition to the Tories in the absence of Labour presence because of a lack of industrial work. Strangely UKIP features quite highly in that quarter in the media.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

I don't discount (indeed have predicted elsewhere) a surge in UKIP support - especially around the Euro elections.   But although they are in grave danger of killing themselves off altogether, I don't think they're there yet, by any means.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't discount (indeed have predicted elsewhere) a surge in UKIP support - especially around the Euro elections. But although they are in grave danger of killing themselves off altogether, I don't think they're there yet, by any means.


Gross empiricism.

Who else could come up with such a cler and cold analysis as UKIP  - a party who always do well in european elections - _doing well in european elections._


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That is, identify this core vote, and who they are,


what names and addresses?



> how big they are


.
Mostly between 4ft 2 and 7 ft.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> what names and addresses?
> 
> .
> Mostly between 4ft 2 and 7 ft.


Oh right, you hinge your cold analysis on the existence of this core vote yet cannot identify them, cannot, in fact, say a damn thing about them or who they are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Don't underestimate the possibility that Clegg might act as a lightning rod for all the hate and a post-Clegg era LD might start to rebuild bridges that he (and Laws/Alexander et al) burnt.


 
Rebuild what, though? They're sucking exhaust membership-wise even worse than Labour. They've lost the mass of the new members they got in 2008/2009/2010, plus alienating a good percentage of their activist base, who although a lot of them are right-of-centre Liberals, are not *neo* liberals in the way Clegg, Cable, the thief Laws and Beaker are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I wouldn't touch them with a 10ft barge pole...


 
With your mouth is a different story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Are you really saying the lib=dems will rise in popularity again? they are finished as a party. completely finished for the next 90 odd years


 
It's far more likely that the Lib-Dems will do what the Liberals used to. Split, with the rightwingers going over to the Tories, and the centrist and left-ishist rump carrying on under a slightly different name and a different branding.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rebuild what, though? They're sucking exhaust membership-wise even worse than Labour. They've lost the mass of the new members they got in 2008/2009/2010, plus alienating a good percentage of their activist base, who although a lot of them are right-of-centre Liberals, are not *neo* liberals in the way Clegg, Cable, the thief Laws and Beaker are.


Yes it's not just the fact that they're share of the vote has dropped through the floor and that they're held in utter contempt by most of the electorate.

As you say they're bleeding members, they've lost over a thousand councillors, even before the coalition they were being forced out of their Scottish heartlands by the SNP and they are now the 4th party in Scotland, Wales and London. They are big enough that they won't completely combust but they are nothing for the foreseeable future.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Regional party of the affluent parts of the south east. That's it.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

all depends how long Clegg can stay put, and whether they can make him into a lighning rod for everything since May 2010


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

They can't. Why are you so scared to say something definite - why hedge it about with ifs and onlys and depends? You always get it wrong anyway and us crude empiricists get it right time after time.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all depends how long Clegg can stay put, and whether they can make him into a lighning rod for everything since May 2010


 
No it depends on loads of things such as what Labour does, what the Tories do. The Lib dems future is in their own hands (and not just Clegg's) only to a degree.  They can make their own history, but they will  not make it as they please and they will not make it under circumstances of their own choosing; you know this.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

To move on to another deluded fool:



> Andrew George, the St Ives MP, said: The majority of the general public will quietly admire [Clegg] for having spoken his mind and expressed himself and explained that difficulty and the evident pain that he faced.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Of course, george is going to lose his seat to the tories when the anyone but tory vote stays at home or votes labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Who is this little shit on the right (someone?)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 20, 2012)

moon23


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

David Laws: All Lib Dems have 'collective responsibility' for breaking tuiton fee promise

Do they all have collective responsibility for your thievery Laws? You thief.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> moon23


Good call 

Seems he's gone again again.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

I wonder, if we had a referendum on the 2 million quid it's costing to save the lib-dems from public anger this coming week how heavily they'd lose the vote?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

My god, back to the monster-paedo lib-dems - they've put this one up for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Police and Crime Commissioner - this i presume is the best pic they could come up with - what's he trying to hide?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this little shit on the right (someone?)


Don't know about that, more stunned to find my f-i-l on the far left.. and I'm sure he will be too!


----------



## rekil (Sep 20, 2012)

This George Ferguson who's running for mayor of Bristol - Is he a Libdem?




			
				Kerry McCarthy MP ‏@KerryMP said:
			
		

> So @GeorgeFergusonx got into a bit of a policy muddle at today's city debate and said "I'm sorry if that sounds a bit Irish". Really George?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Don't know about that, more stunned to find my f-i-l on the far left.. and I'm sure he will be too!


who's the schoolboy on the far right?


----------



## rekil (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this little shit on the right (someone?)


Someone from Liberal Youth is my guess. Conor McKenzie?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

copliker said:


> This George Ferguson who's running for mayor of Bristol - Is he a Libdem?


He's a _secret lib-dem_ - ex-lib-dem councillor, only way they are getting near elected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 20, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Don't know about that, more stunned to find my f-i-l on the far left.. and I'm sure he will be too!


 
fucking hell Lusty's dad?!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 20, 2012)

Ha Ha.


----------



## Random (Sep 20, 2012)

Playing LibDem organs now


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 20, 2012)

Not going to live this one down.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this little shit on the right (someone?)


 
He's probably Member of Parliament for Nether Wallop


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2012)

he's got tim farron's mouth.

i didn't realise till just now tim farron was from preston. too many cunts from round here.


----------



## gosub (Sep 20, 2012)

articul8 said:


> He's probably Member of Parliament for Nether Wallop


That would be Sir George Young,whose tory. (sadly I knew that without looking it up)


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 20, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> fucking hell Lusty's dad?!


joking


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 21, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> joking


 
fierce backpeddling here


----------



## articul8 (Sep 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> i didn't realise till just now tim farron was from preston. too many cunts from round here.


 
oi


----------



## Nylock (Sep 21, 2012)

articul8 said:


> OK, they aren't getting the student vote back anytime soon _ever_. And there will be an epic backlash at the next election.


Fixed that bit for you


----------



## co-op (Sep 21, 2012)

gosub said:


> That would be Sir George Young,whose tory. (sadly I knew that without looking it up)


 
Don't think so old bean.


----------



## gosub (Sep 21, 2012)

co-op said:


> Don't think so old bean.


 
 now you made me look it up


taking the post code from here: http://www.netherwalloptrading.com/contact.php
SP10 1DR
and sticking it in here:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/


it is Sir George Young


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2012)

gosub said:


> now you made me look it up
> 
> 
> taking the post code from here: http://www.netherwalloptrading.com/contact.php
> ...


 


We're at cross-purposes! To be honest I'd never heard of Nether Wallop and I thought articul8 had made it up. There you go, you learn something new each day.

But what butchers was after was the name of the creepy little lib-demmy-boy sitting front right of the photo. And that sure ain't George Young.

(unless I've misunderstood it all again).

PS Little-known fact; I was sent on a work-placement at George Young's constituency office when I was on the dole in the 80s. Enjoyed myself mis-filing things all day and generally twiddling my thumbs. It was in Acton and I was there about 8 days and the front window of the office got bricked in twice in that time. Those were the days...


----------



## BigTom (Sep 22, 2012)

Lib Dem councillor: "some see the benefits of domestic violence"

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/...violence-columba-blango-lib-dem-simon-hughes/



> The former mayor of Southwark has *compared domestic violence with smacking* — and refused to apologise after *claiming that some see “benefits” in the crime*.
> Cllr *Columba Blango*, who is a colleague of *Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes* and represents the ward neighbouring his house, has shocked colleagues with his views on the subject:
> ​“It’s like smacking. Some people see the benefits of smacking. Some don’t see it.”​​In remarks recorded in official council minutes and later attributed to Blango, the councillor claimed *“some perpetrators might not be able to prevent themselves” from slapping their partner* in “the spur of the moment.”
> 
> ...


 
(PS Book's emphasis)

 wtf?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2012)

Just because you're called Columba Blango doesn't mean that you can say what you want.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2012)

they murder cats and beat their partners


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 22, 2012)

Fucking hell, you sometimes wonder if they've been infiltrated by a group with the intention to fuck things up for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2012)

co-op said:


> We're at cross-purposes! To be honest I'd never heard of Nether Wallop and I thought articul8 had made it up. There you go, you learn something new each day.
> 
> But what butchers was after was the name of the creepy little lib-demmy-boy sitting front right of the photo. And that sure ain't George Young.
> 
> ...


 
Sure you're not thinking of George Younger?


----------



## JimW (Sep 22, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, you sometimes wonder if they've been infiltrated by a group with the intention to fuck things up for them.


Entryism under the new conditions. I sense a Proletarian Democracy position paper in the offing.


----------



## Santino (Sep 25, 2012)

> Lib Dem internal documents leaked to the Spectator warn that the party has no branding strategy, staff ‘lack research literacy’ and campaigns are based on ‘received wisdom’ rather than any evidence that current tactics are working.


 
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...-we-have-no-evidence-our-tactics-are-working/


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

I can well believe that - their staff is totally clueless - this is the party that turned Clegg-mania into a loss of seats *in the good times*


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell, you sometimes wonder if they've been infiltrated by a group with the intention to fuck things up for them.


the orange book brigade?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 29, 2012)

The Lib Dems are shit because at the Hallam University freshers fair they were giving away beer mats that said "I (picture of a heart) me". I shit you not. They even had it on a poster behind the stall. A mate picked one up, if I can I'll take a pic and post it up.

And despite dishonestly claiming to oppose their own party in government over the Richard O'Dwyer extradition (O'Dwyer is a Hallam student) by having a petition against it only 5 people signed up on their mailing list. My loony left group got almost 50 - nearly 10 times as many. That's fucking funny when you consider that they're in government whereas no fucker has even heard of us!


----------



## chilango (Sep 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The Lib Dems are shit because at the Hallam University freshers fair they were giving away beer mats that said "I (picture of a heart) me". I shit you not. They even had it on a poster behind the stall. A mate picked one up, if I can I'll take a pic and post it up.
> 
> And despite dishonestly claiming to oppose their own party in government over the Richard O'Dwyer extradition (O'Dwyer is a Hallam student) by having a petition against it only 5 people signed up on their mailing list. My loony left group got almost 50 - nearly 10 times as many. That's fucking funny when you consider that they're in government whereas no fucker has even heard of us!



I hope it was PD you got 50 sigs for?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 29, 2012)

Of course. Also managed to arrange a debate on the Iranian nuclear programme with the AWL (we're arguing in favour, naturally).


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

This was smooth - pictures of industry and smiling workers to show they care about you and your fellow brothers.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

He's a hundred times worse than anyone who 'Pauline Calf' might be based on.


But I like his haircut.


----------



## Random (Oct 2, 2012)

Hope that's not a recent picture and Coogan has ditched the LDs by now. Good to see you back, btw sihhi.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Hope that's not a recent picture and Coogan has ditched the LDs by now. Good to see you back, btw sihhi.


 
He was on QT last week and was talking about having a private meeting with Clegg about something or other.. so I don't think so.


----------



## Santino (Oct 2, 2012)

He's lobbying on press regulation.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Hope that's not a recent picture and Coogan has ditched the LDs by now. Good to see you back, btw sihhi.


 
As far as I know he's not (and never has been) a LD - he's visiting all the conferences talking about media reform, so has that round his neck as a security credential.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 2, 2012)

He's lobbying for 'Hacked off'.

I think Charlotte Church is going to the Tory conference in the same capacity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2012)

did the papers catch him being adulterous or something?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2012)

Steve Coogan: “I support Labour and I would certainly get involved under Miliband – I’m not bothered about personality,... I used to be apolitical; I didn’t want to alienate people, and all the rest of it, but I don’t really care about that anymore. I’m sometimes very Left-wing, other times I’m a little Left-wing, but I never go right of that centre post." (Telegraph 29 Jan 2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9046812/A-ha-Can-Steve-Coogan-save-Ed-Miliband.html


----------



## articul8 (Oct 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> did the papers catch him being adulterous or something?


 
Wasn't he after sleeping with someone on a bed of cash or something?  Ironic given the above.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 2, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Steve Coogan: “I support Labour and I would certainly get involved under Miliband – I’m not bothered about personality,... I used to be apolitical; I didn’t want to alienate people, and all the rest of it, but I don’t really care about that anymore. I’m sometimes very Left-wing, other times I’m a little Left-wing, but I never go right of that centre post." (Telegraph 29 Jan 2012)
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9046812/A-ha-Can-Steve-Coogan-save-Ed-Miliband.html


 
Were Coogan's family in Mayo FF or FG, does anyone know?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 10, 2012)

Their thames valley police comissioner cant string togeth an intelligible sentence

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2121958_police_commission_candidates_take_to_the_hustings

Lib dem Howson said: “I will represent all of the people if elected, even those that wouldn’t vote for  you."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Now the latest stage of the boundary changes proposals have been published and shown to be pretty generous to the lib-dems i predict their commitment not to vote for them will bought off by a proposal to state fund them (the party that is) in one way or another.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Now the latest stage of the boundary changes proposals have been published and shown to be pretty generous to the lib-dems i predict their commitment not to vote for them will bought off by a proposal to state fund them (the party that is) in one way or another.


You might be right, although even by his own abysmal standards Clegg would have to do some amazing u-turn after having absolutely categorically ruled it out.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

I think that should pretty much nail it on to be honest.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 19, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You might be right, although even by his own abysmal standards Clegg would have to do some amazing u-turn after having absolutely categorically ruled it out.


 
I think there will have to be another general election before it will be proposed again.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Dare i ask, before what will be proposed again?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2012)

Lib-dems made big fuss about their proposed modernisation of the electoral system via introducing a recall of MPs mechanism in their manifesto:



> Give you the right to sack MPs who have broken the rules. We would introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a by-election for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing.


 
They claimed that they forced it onto the formal coalition agreement as well:



> We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.


 
Well, now their govt have responded to Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's scrutiny of the proposed bill. We now find they endorse this finding:




			
				 commttee said:
			
		

> We believe that a system of full recall may deter MPs from taking decisions that are unpopular locally or unpopular in the short-term, but which are in the long-term national interest. It may also discourage them from taking on powerful interests, or expressing controversial or unusual opinions. *The Government argues that a recall mechanism should not leave MPs vulnerable to attack from those who simply disagree with them*. We agree. For these reasons, we cannot support a system of full recall.


 



			
				lib-dem/tory govt said:
			
		

> The Government welcomes the Committee's conclusion on a system of full recall.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2012)

Lib-dem mayoral candidate had the cheek to turn up at the _hardest hit_ demo yesterday - chased off pretty sharpish but not before claiming to the paper that a local SP member had assaulted him by spitting in front of him - really.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem mayoral candidate had the cheek to turn up at the _hardest hit_ demo yesterday - chased off pretty sharpish but *not before claiming to the paper that a local SP member had assaulted him by spitting in front of him* - really.


 
Complete fail of an 'assault' shocker!


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem mayoral candidate had the cheek to turn up at the _hardest hit_ demo yesterday - chased off pretty sharpish but not before claiming to the paper that a local SP member had assaulted him by spitting in front of him - really.


Fucking vermin, I take it he will be annihilated in the election?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2012)

cesare said:


> They tend to only take on the rock solid ones at the moment anyway, tbh. But as this all goes ahead, members would be far less accepting of that because they won't have (from next year) a way of resolving disputes via the ET without paying a deposit. Not everyone can get together a few hundred quid to make a claim which then gets topped up to £1200 approx if it goes to full hearing - and the prospect of losing that sizeable amount of cash if they lose - which often happens if they are a litigant in person. Ironically, apart from the deterrence factor it won't help employers either because most cases are settled before the full hearing which means that any settlement figure would need to be increased by the deposit amount.
> 
> David Renton (who is probably one of the best to read if you want an employee focused viewpoint) has updated his blog but I notice that he hasn't dealt with the deposit system in today's post, nor how it will impact on the unions. That's probably going to be something he'll do at length at some point though.
> 
> ...




Incidentally, a while later Renton did actually cover my above  point on this (Socialist Review Oct 2012 and on his blog):



> Not in the Bill, but providing the context to it, is the government’s plan to introduce from summer 2013 hearing and issuing fees in the Tribunal ranging from £400 in unlawful deduction of wages cases, £1200 in unfair dismissal and £1600 in discrimination claims. Workers will pay the fees; employers will pay nothing. These fees represent roughly 25% of a claimant’s likely award, in theory they could be claimed back on winning the claim, save that Tribunal awards are poorly enforced and only around 40% of employers pay Tribunal awards in full.
> 
> Fees are also a threat to unions. Around 2% of employees are dismissed in any year. If you take a union like the RMT with around 75,000 members, that’s 1,500 people. If each was to bring an unfair dismissal claim, with the union’s backing, that would require the union to pay £1.8 million a year, merely to get the same limited access to Tribunals that workers have now. This is equivalent to around 25% of the union’s entire national budget. No union could cover the “hit” that fees will represent without to some extent cutting back on the number of cases they fund.
> 
> ...



What I don't understand is why there still seems to be no action from the TUs, or have I missed it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking vermin, I take it he will be annihilated in the election?


 
Liquidated like the greedy _kulak_ that he is, comrade.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2012)

May 2010:





butchersapron said:


> Smug lib-dem face, coat and cafe


 
November 2012:



> “I hope that these voices – whether they be socialists, anarchists, agitators, Chartists, suffragists, Lollards or Levellers – serve as a reminder that much of what we feel entitled to today, much of what we accept as civilised or decent, began as treason.
> 
> “Was fought for by men and women who weren’t endowed with any political power, who were hanged for it, transported, tortured or imprisoned until eventually their ideas were adapted to, adopted and handed down to us as basic rights.
> 
> “These freedoms are now in our care. And unless we act on them and continue to fight for them, they will be lost more easily than they were won”.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2012)

Even when he was eschewing the LibDems he was still brown nosing Clegg, so no surprises there then.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2012)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> Fucking vermin, I take it he will be annihilated in the election?



He's on 3% in local polling.


----------



## magneze (Nov 16, 2012)

LibDems ask for 2 recounts in Corby - not in case they win, to see if they lose their deposit or not. Which they did. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Lib-Dem-call-for-recount-to-save-deposit.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

What's the trail of lost deposits since barnsely - anyone keeping count?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's the trail of lost deposits since _Barnsley_ - anyone keeping count?


 
Fixed.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm a london bigwig, it go down how i say it goes down.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 16, 2012)

Seen a couple of people on twitter saying that more people spoiled their ballot papers than voted lib dem (e2a in coventry) 

Can't find a breakdown of the vote to verify that though.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Twats. Each and every one.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 16, 2012)

Northants Lib Dems in Corby by election demanded limited recount, as they were within 9 votes of getting their deposit back.

Recount occurred, they ended up 14 votes away from it and lost their deposit. Bahaha.


----------



## moochedit (Nov 16, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Seen a couple of people on twitter saying that more people spoiled their ballot papers than voted lib dem


They did in coventry (i posted a link on another thread). I don't know nationally.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Northants Lib Dems in Corby by election demanded limited recount, as they were within 9 votes of getting their deposit back.
> 
> Recount occurred, they ended up 14 votes away from it and lost their deposit. Bahaha.


If they can't keep their local party together for the want of 500 quid they are in real on the ground trouble.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If they can't keep their local party together for the want of 500 quid they are in real on the ground trouble.



They went from 20+ councillors and control of, to 4 cllrs, in 2011. They are in trouuuuuuble.


----------



## killer b (Nov 16, 2012)

Fwiw any agent would have asked for a recount if they were that close. Still funny mind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2012)

Let's hope that becomes under-the-ground. Dead.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 16, 2012)

I get the feeling their 'war chest' for the next election won't amount to very much - who the fuck is going to fund them?
I wonder how many candidates they are going to be able to field.
They'll be severely lacking in foot soldiers as well.

Death Spiral.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2012)

I wonder what property/land they own - any way we can check?


----------



## Random (Nov 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what property/land they own - any way we can check?


They probably have a labyrinthine system of foundations and institutes dating back to 1688. The Independent and Rowntrees give them some money, IIRC.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 16, 2012)

moochedit said:


> They did in coventry (i posted a link on another thread). I don't know nationally.


 yeah, i meant to say in coventry.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 17, 2012)

> *DORSET*
> (First Count)
> Martyn Underhill (Ind) 43,425 (45.16%)
> Nick King (C) 31,165 (32.41%)
> ...


Screw lost deposits in Corby. 4th in Dorset with 10% is the big story, the whig dems are not able to muster a challenge in their home turf.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 17, 2012)

that's amazing


----------



## BigTom (Nov 17, 2012)

ferrelhadley said:


> Screw lost deposits in Corby. 4th in Dorset with 10% is the big story, the whig dems are not able to muster a challenge in their home turf.


 
Independent won though.. not that I've looked but there were quite a few lib dems running as independents. Do you know the background of the winner?


----------



## Combustible (Nov 17, 2012)

ferrelhadley said:


> Screw lost deposits in Corby. 4th in Dorset with 10% is the big story, the whig dems are not able to muster a challenge in their home turf.


 
They also came 4th in Avon and Somerset.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2012)

CPS statement on the Smith file - given liberals and labour (he was a labour Councillor during part of the period in which the child abuse took place) were whispering or worse, dismissing it (Liberal leader David Steel in response to PE publishing the allegations: "not a very friendly gesture, publishing that, all he seems to have done is spanked a few bare bottoms.") about it decades ago, who of the lib-dem big-wigs in that and the following period knew?


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 27, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I get the feeling their 'war chest' for the next election won't amount to very much - who the fuck is going to fund them?
> I wonder how many candidates they are going to be able to field.
> They'll be severely lacking in foot soldiers as well.
> 
> Death Spiral.


Losing people on the ground will hurt them most.And lack of people willing to stand at elections eg Liam Preston who we all remember


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 27, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I get the feeling their 'war chest' for the next election won't amount to very much - who the fuck is going to fund them?
> I wonder how many candidates they are going to be able to field.
> They'll be severely lacking in foot soldiers as well.
> 
> Death Spiral.


 
Back to the ancient days of two-party contests  in one or two seats, possibly?


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Back to the ancient days of two-party contests in one or two seats, possibly?


 
Even where there are LD candidates, and even in areas where they are historically very strong they are in deep shit.




> Consider Devon and Cornwall, home to five Lib Dem MPs with small majorities. In all five seats the Conservatives were in second place in the 2010 election. In that election, 31% of all Devon and Cornwall votes went to Conservative candidates and 26% to Liberal Democrat candidates. In the 2012 PCC election, 28% of first preference votes went to the Conservative candidate (who with second preferences won with 65%) and 12% to the Liberal Democrat candidate. Even if the relative collapse of Lib Dem support at the 2015 election is much smaller than this, it is hard to see how the party’s MPs in the region will keep their seats.


 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2012/11/lots-elections


----------



## Kippa (Nov 28, 2012)

At a local level our Lib Dem core grass roots members numbers have more or less stayed the same.  Even if we loose a lot of seats (which we will), there is still a core membership that will exist after the general election.


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2012)

Kippa said:


> At a local level our Lib Dem core grass roots members numbers have more or less stayed the same. Even if we loose a lot of seats (which we will), there is still a core membership that will exist after the general election.


 
O rly? When Lib Dem membership levels nationally 2010-2011 have plummeted 25% to their lowest in over 40 years?


----------



## Kippa (Nov 28, 2012)

I am talking about *local* membership numbers, people that I see all the time.  I can't speak for other areas.


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2012)

Kippa said:


> I am talking about *local* membership numbers, people that I see all the time. I can't speak for other areas.


 


OK then your area is an exception - do you mind sharing where it is?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 28, 2012)

co-op said:


> OK then your area is an exception - do you mind sharing where it is?


 
The borough of la la land. where most liberal democrats live these days.


----------



## JimW (Nov 28, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The borough of la la land. where most liberal democrats live these days.


Ooh yeah, that's just up the end of Shit Creek, isn't it?


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The borough of la la land. where most liberal democrats live these days.


 
I think the Borough of La La is now a unified authority with the relevant parts of the County Council of Denialshire.

But even so, 25% of their membership quit in the 12 months to Dec 2011, so some of them can read the writing on the wall.

I wouldn't be surprised if they lose over half their members 2010-2015. This would be bad news for anyone but especially for the LDs if they are really starting to try and design their 2015 GE strategy around the "75 bye-elections" idea that they've been discussing recently; that needs boots on the ground, and plenty of them.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 28, 2012)

co-op said:


> I think the Borough of La La is now a unified authority with the relevant parts of the County Council of Denialshire.
> 
> But even so, 25% of their membership quit in the 12 months to Dec 2011, so some of them can read the writing on the wall.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if they lose over half their members 2010-2015. This would be bad news for anyone but especially for the LDs if they are really starting to try and design their 2015 GE strategy around the *"75 bye-elections"* idea that they've been discussing recently; that needs boots on the ground, and plenty of them.


 
Surely good bye and good riddance elections.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Surely good bye and good riddance elections.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
A bye-bye-election?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 29, 2012)

Anyone want to predict how many deposits they'll lose today?


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2012)

How many ya got?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 29, 2012)

Results at 2010 general election


General Election 2010: Croydon North
Party Candidate Votes% ±%
Labour Malcolm Wicks 28,947 56.0 +2.4
Conservative Jason Hadden 12,466 24.1 +1.9
Liberal Democrat Gerry Jerome 7,226 14.0 −3.2
Green Shasha Khan 1,017 2.0 −0.9
UKIPJonathan Serter 891 1.7 −0.0
Christian Novlette Williams 586 1.1 N/A
Respect Mohommad Shaikh 272 0.5 N/A
Communist Ben Stevenson 160 0.3 N/A
Independent Mohamed Seyed 111 0.2 N/A
Majority 16,481 31.9 +0.5
Turnout 51,676 60.6 +8.0
Labour hold Swing +0.3


General Election 2010: Middlesbrough
PartyCandidateVotes%±%
Labour Sir Stuart Bell 15,351 45.9 -11.7
Liberal Democrat Chris Foote-Wood 6,662 19.9 +1.2
Conservative John Walsh 6,283 18.8 +2.3
Independent Joan McTigue 1,969 5.9 +5.9
BNP Michael Ferguson 1,954 5.8 +3.3
UKIP Robert Parker 1,236 3.7 +1.3
Majority 8,689 26.0
Turnout 33,455 51.4 +2.7
Labour hold Swing -6.4

General Election 2010: Rotherham
PartyCandidateVotes%±%
Labour Denis MacShane 16,741 44.6 −13.1
Conservative Jackie Whiteley 6,279 16.7 +3.4
Liberal Democrat Rebecca Taylor 5,994 16.0 −0.4
BNP Marlene Guest 3,906 10.4 +4.5
Independent Peter Thirlwall 2,366 6.3 +6.3
UKIP Caven Vines 2,220 5.9 +2.0
Majority 10,462 27.9
Turnout 37,506 59.0 +4.9
Labour hold Swing −8.3


----------



## chilango (Nov 29, 2012)

I'd like to see 4th place  or lower in at least 2 out of 3 of the by-elections and lost deposits in 2 out of 3. I'd call that a successful outcome for us.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2012)

definitely in Croydon. I'll be generous with the other two and say they might just scrape in.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 29, 2012)

I reckon they'll lose their deposits in both Croyden and Rotherham, I don't know if they'll manage a third place in any.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2012)

One other point is I think the likely morale of the Lib Dem campaigners phoning up punters to get them to vote at the election. I had two phone calls before the last election, and I for one will be rehearsing my tirade several weeks in advance (I'm tempted to do a script to read out to them after they've gone through their own, ending off with 'and don't you EVER fucking contact me again').


----------



## belboid (Nov 29, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I reckon they'll lose their deposits in both Croyden and Rotherham, I don't know if they'll manage a third place in any.


They wont.  Lost deposits in all three (may just scrape home in Middlesbro), and down in 6th in Rotherham


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> I'd like to see 4th place  or lower in at least 2 out of 3 of the by-elections and lost deposits in 2 out of 3. I'd call that a successful outcome for us.



A successful night. Better than I'd hoped.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 30, 2012)

Two lost deposits, one third place, one fourth and one eighth


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2012)

Less than 200 ahead of the TUSC candidae as well, magnificently dire


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Being forced to retreat into a regional party - and within that region only the more affluent bits.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 30, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I reckon they'll lose their deposits in both Croyden and Rotherham, I don't know if they'll manage a third place in any.


 


> Again polling under 5%, the Liberal Democrats lost their second deposit of the night.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20541136

You've earned a cigar ;-)


----------



## two sheds (Nov 30, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/30/nigel-farage-ukip-third-party

*Nigel Farage: Ukip is now Britain's third party*



> The leader of Ukip, Nigel Farage, has claimed that his party has now displaced the Liberal Democrats as the "third force" in British politics after it performed strongly in three byelections.


 
At least will annoy some of the right people


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 3, 2012)

Danny 'Cunt' Alexander defending companies who don't pay any tax


----------



## yield (Dec 3, 2012)

^ link?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2012)

Just had a day of the most tedious work in my life courtesy of the lib-dems objecting to the content of a free newspaper written by a council (a letter from a labour councillor who led the council who said things that they didn't like). It was a days work (and good money too) so I'm not complaining but having to take two covers of the same newspaper which looked exactly the same, folded into each other and take them out and place them on top of each other, repeat 27000 times, really??


----------



## two sheds (Dec 3, 2012)

That'll go down under 'Work creation' in government statistics.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2012)

http://www.oxfordlibdems.org.uk/students-oxford-university-liberal-democrats


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2012)

*LibDems in Westminster Coalition*



​*Why is it good for the country that the LibDems are in coalition with the Conservatives at Westminster?*
No one party ‘won’ the General Election in 2010. So it was right that the Government should be formed from a coalition of two or more parties to address the dire financial situation inherited from the Labour administration of the previous thirteen years. 
Households have to balance their budgets and nations are no different – spending more than you are receiving ends in disaster sooner or later. What the Liberal Democrats have done is to focus cuts as far as possible on those most able to bear them – the fact that the Tory right feels hard done by is a tribute to the success of the moderating influence of the LibDems. 
Two million low-paid people taken out of paying tax altogether, the tax bill for anyone paying basic rate cut by £45 a month.   Taxes on the wealthy raised so that those on annual incomes of over £150,000 will be paying on average an additional £1,300 a year in tax.  
LibDems championed the Pupil Premium, which will provide £600 a year in the next school year for every schoolchild qualifying for free school meals or who has been on free school meals in the last six years. LibDems have extended free early years education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds.  
Caring for the environment and reducing climate change are LibDem concerns – the Green Deal to be launched in the autumn will see the biggest home insulation programme ever, reducing energy bills and providing over 65,000 new jobs. 
Of course as a junior partner we cannot get everything our own way – but the country is the better for having LibDems in government.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 3, 2012)

"What the Liberal Democrats have done is to focus cuts as far as possible on those most able to bear them "

Jesus


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2012)

http://www.readinglibdems.org.uk/category/students/ Look at this. (from 2009)


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 5, 2012)

Kippa said:


> I am talking about *local* membership numbers, people that I see all the time. I can't speak for other areas.


You or any of the other remaining yellow scum left on U75 prepared to defend your parties attack on those on benefits?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 6, 2012)

two sheds said:


> "What the Liberal Democrats have done is to focus cuts as far as possible on those most able to bear them "
> 
> Jesus


 
And Danny Alexander is the monkey to Osborne's organgrinder ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 6, 2012)

If the LibDems, in future elections,  were stupid enough to put out a leaflet anything like the one above, they'd get slaughtered to a point beyond that already on the cards ....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2012)

According to the Twittersphere Chris Huhne's case is going to be thrown out, anything from other sources? I haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> According to the Twittersphere Chris Huhne's case is going to be thrown out, anything from other sources? I haven't seen anything yet.


i would prefer it if you could excise the word 'case' from your post.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i would prefer it if you could excise the word 'case' from your post.


 
so would I


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2012)

Truly epic levels of self-delusion in this article...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Lordy. Remember, Reeves wrote in 2009:



> There are signs that the Conservatives are sincere about creating a fairer society.
> 
> ...
> 
> The progressive Conservative vehicle is still on the road, albeit badly dented by the need for recessionary economics. Glaring old Toryisms remain – most obviously in the proposal to financially reward marriage – and there is a huge challenge to be progressive and prudent with a ballooning deficit. There are many areas of policy where the slate is still too blank to form a judgment. But while the prospect of a Conservative government was once a chilling one to any progressive, there is now the possibility that Cameron, supported by his small band of cutlery-rattling progressives, really has changed his party, as Peel, Disraeli and Thatcher did before him. We'll know soon enough.


 
The he fucked offtoa high paid elite job in the US. Cheers for that _Reeves_.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 17, 2012)

Has this been posted?

http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-lib...lors-autumn-statement-announcments-32150.html


Lib Dem members in a poll by Lib Dem Voice, its main web presence, fairly strongly support the key regressive Osborne measures:




> Cutting main rate of corporation tax by extra 1% to 21% from April 2014
> 
> Strongly support 16%
> Support 44%
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Truly epic levels of self-delusion in this article...


What a fucking cunt, neckshot the scumbag.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Has this been posted?
> 
> http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-lib...lors-autumn-statement-announcments-32150.html
> 
> Lib Dem members in a poll by Lib Dem Voice, its main web presence, fairly strongly support the key regressive Osborne measures:


 
I wonder what the results would have been if the same questions had been asked two or three years ago. Rather different, I suspect, given that it seems logical to suppose that a lot of the members the Lib Dems have haemorrhaged have been from the left of the party.



redsquirrel said:


> What a fucking cunt, neckshot the scumbag.


 
That was roughly my first reaction, but then I just thought 'fuck it - they've made their bed, and now they've got to lie in it.' Reeves and Cleggy and the rest of them can huff and puff all the like, but the reality is that they made a suicidal political miscalculation going into coalition with the Tories, and recovering from it will take decades, not years, if it's even possible.

There are some spectacularly deluded people around at the grassroots, though. I was talking recently with someone - not a fool, by any means - who worked for Tim Farron briefly a couple of years back. When I made some cynical remark about that being just as the Lib Dem collapse started he came back with a pile of clichés about how the situation on the ground actually wasn't too bad, and people would respect them for taking tough but necessary decisions, and so on and so forth. He also suggested that people in cities such as Hull (where this conversation took place) must be 'stupid' if they won't vote Lib Dem again. I took umbrage at that one and demanded to know why people should be expected to carry on voting for a party that had ditched all of its manifesto commitments, and allowed a right-wing Tory government to inflict the worst of the spending cuts on the poorest areas of the country, including a lot of former Lib Dem strongholds. He didn't have much answer to that, and still less when I pointed out the UKIP-esque opinion poll ratings, two rounds of disastrous local elections and Farron's own admission that the Lib dems will not be able to fight another election as a national political force if things don't improve for them. He still didn't seem to get it. Didn't stop us ending up in bed tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> That was roughly my first reaction, but then I just thought 'fuck it - they've made their bed, and now they've got to lie in it.' Reeves and Cleggy and the rest of them can huff and puff all the like, but the reality is that they made a suicidal political miscalculation going into coalition with the Tories, and recovering from it will take decades, not years, if it's even possible.


 
On this point, if you go back and look at the threads on here from around elction time they were full of people saying just that, that a coalition with the tories would likely destroy them, but their paid political/electoral experts couldn't manage to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest of us stinking norms.


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2012)

The LibDem Daily by Cllr Darren Fower 'Active Liberal Democrat City Councillor for the South Werrington and North Gunthorpe ward. Plus, Leader of the Lib Dem group on Peterborough City Council' is out guys. Check it out! Click Ctrl F + 'shit'

(It's funny, I'd better get a screenie before it's gone)

Ok, Click to enlarge obv.



Can they do anything right?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Weird use of Active there. Good to see that he has some Indiana and Texas  news for the people  of Peterborough.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Hang on:









> Do you live in Werrington and/or Gunthorpe? Are you retired and looking for something fun and different to do? Then this new club for “older people” is just what you need!


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> On this point, if you go back and look at the threads on here from around elction time they were full of people saying just that, that a coalition with the tories would likely destroy them, but their paid political/electoral experts couldn't manage to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest of us stinking norms.


 
Oh I can well believe that. And then they wonder why no bugger will vote for them.  And get paid for it.


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2012)

For it is he. Alright Darren?


----------



## JimW (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on:


New Lib Dem-backed  policy; only the winner gets to keep their mobility allowance


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> There are some spectacularly deluded people around at the grassroots, though. I was talking recently with someone - not a fool, by any means - who worked for Tim Farron briefly a couple of years back. When I made some cynical remark about that being just as the Lib Dem collapse started he came back with a pile of clichés about how the situation on the ground actually wasn't too bad, and people would respect them for taking tough but necessary decisions,


I have had one tell me that if they had not gone into coalition with the tories, a LibLab government or Tory with only LibDem confidence and supply would have collapsed in a year and a tory majority would have come from the following election.

People just dont understand the sacrifice they have made for the good of the country to prevent a tory government.

A tear may have trickled down my face at the thought of such self sacrifice.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Clegg says party has prevented Tory right imposing draconian welfare cuts. Serious. As opposed to ensuring draconian welfare cuts are imposed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

I think this speech (made to mark five years of Clegg being lib-dem leader) shows that their electoral strategy will be fought on right-wing territory. They seem to get that any left vote they managed to attract is gone. That's good news fro MIliband and labour strategists as it opens up a gap that they would have had to work and fight to open (or at least make it appear as if there is a gap). The tories will eat them (lib-dems not labour) alive on that ground. They're even fucking up their death.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 17, 2012)

Had to turn over as I couldn't stand the BBC repeatedly telling us that the libdems and politics in general is in the "centre ground".


----------



## co-op (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> On this point, if you go back and look at the threads on here from around elction time they were full of people saying just that, that a coalition with the tories would likely destroy them, but their paid political/electoral experts couldn't manage to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest of us stinking norms.


 
There looks like some history re-writing going on in that Reeves article, apparently



> Clegg and the wiser heads among his parliamentary colleagues knew there would be a price to pay.


 
when they plainly hadn't got a clue.

If anyone needs any evidence of just how politically inept the LDs were, they only need look at the decision to have a referendum on AV. Referendums are a Politics A level topic now, since New Labour were so keen on them. If you do a Politics A level you will almost certainly know that the answer to a referendum question is "no" - the exceptions being when the whole political/media elite line up behind a policy (eg membership of the EEC etc). This truth is so well known that when that crook Berlusconi found himself facing a vote on nuclear power in Italy he reversed it so that "no" meant "yes". And even that didn't work either, although fair play for trying it on so blatantly.

Little Cleggy and his advisors fixed bayonets and marched straight into the AV referendum. They are political idiots, simple as that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

It really is astonishing just how inept they are  - it's normal to see people or parties destroyed by venality or just being behind the times - but to be destroyed by basic ineptness, to be destroyed by what you're supposed to be good at....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 17, 2012)

Yep - its almost as if the senior lib dems only concern was to get themselves ministerial seats and not care if the party got fucked as a result.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

Serious question: what's the profile of potential lib-dem voters for may 2015?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Serious question: what's the profile of potential lib-dem voters for may 2015?


Someone that's been in a coma for the last 5 years?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

How many are they? People in affluent areas that the cuts haven't directly effected. Who else can they tailor their pleas to? They have fucked over pretty much every interest group.


----------



## co-op (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How many are they? People in affluent areas that the cuts haven't directly effected. Who else can they tailor their pleas to? They have fucked over pretty much every interest group.


 
Do you think this may be what Cameron's thing about gay marriage is? It doesn't make sense to me otherwise, but if it takes out the LDs ability to portray themselves as nice social liberals against horrid tory reactionaries then it might win the tories seats off the LDs by collapsing the LD vote even further? I ahven't looked at the figures at all so just thinking off the top of my head here. I guess I'd be looking at fairly well-off socially liberal south-east seats, sw London etc, where the tories are second to the LDs.

Also possibly places like Hove where Labour ought to win (and will I suppose) but where there's a narrow tory margin vs Labour but there are a lot of LD votes - dunno if there are any examples of this.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> Do you think this may be what Cameron's thing about gay marriage is? It doesn't make sense to me otherwise, but if it takes out the LDs ability to portray themselves as nice social liberals against horrid tory reactionaries then it might win the tories seats off the LDs by collapsing the LD vote even further? I ahven't looked at the figures at all so just thinking off the top of my head here. I guess I'd be looking at fairly well-off socially liberal south-east seats, sw London etc, where the tories are second to the LDs.
> 
> Also possibly places like Hove where Labour ought to win (and will I suppose) but where there's a narrow tory margin vs Labour but there are a lot of LD votes - dunno if there are any examples of this.


I think that's exactly what it's about and exactly in those areas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> I wonder what the results would have been if the same questions had been asked two or three years ago. Rather different, I suspect, given that it seems logical to suppose that a lot of the members the Lib Dems have haemorrhaged have been from the left of the party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Anger fuck!


----------



## co-op (Dec 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anger fuck!


 

I think "grudge fuck" is the technical term.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on:


 
I spent my teenage years living in Werrington. It was shit.


----------



## Random (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> I wonder what the results would have been if the same questions had been asked two or three years ago. Rather different, I suspect, given that it seems logical to suppose that a lot of the members the Lib Dems have haemorrhaged have been from the left of the party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That escalated quickly


----------



## sihhi (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How many are they? People in affluent areas that the cuts haven't directly effected. Who else can they tailor their pleas to? They have fucked over pretty much every interest group.


 
Lamely trying to fight Labour councils' ineptness is the strategy. I'll try and scan a Focus leaflet round here it's dire.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I spent my teenage years living in Werrington. It was shit.


 
 me too


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Serious question: what's the profile of potential lib-dem voters for may 2015?


I'm getting the distinct impression that they're hoping to nick Tory voters who're put off by the tories turning back into the nasty party that Cameron pretended they weren't at the last election.

I'm guessing that the idea for them would be that if they can do this then they might get enough off the tories to end up in coalition with Labour. I suspect that's their strategy, though I honestly think that those in ministerial positions don't give a shit who they're in coalition with as long as they get to keep their sniff of power.

I don't think Clegg really believes the Labour line that they might go into coalition with lib dems if needed, but not with Clegg as leader either.

This is just my impression though, and I've no inside line on this stuff these days as my brother really doesn't like talking about it anymore, I think he just stays as a member mainly because he's now mates with quite a few of them in the local party after helping out for a decade or so. I can't remember the last time he actually delivered any of the leaflets that the lib dems keep dropping off for him to deliver. I think he may have done it once this year, the rest went in the bin - he spent about a month solid putting poster boards etc up for them at the last election.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2012)

Clegg making clear his intention to attack universal benefits.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> Do you think this may be what Cameron's thing about gay marriage is? It doesn't make sense to me otherwise, but if it takes out the LDs ability to portray themselves as nice social liberals against horrid tory reactionaries then it might win the tories seats off the LDs by collapsing the LD vote even further? I ahven't looked at the figures at all so just thinking off the top of my head here. I guess I'd be looking at fairly well-off socially liberal south-east seats, sw London etc, where the tories are second to the LDs.


 
Yes, I think that very probably is it.

That said, I do think the Cameron types do genuinely believe gay marriage is at least no bad thing. Gay rights - or at least, the right of gay people to be 'good' Tory-voting, married, property-owning citizens - is something that can be pretty easily incorporated into their view of the world.


----------



## co-op (Dec 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Yes, I think that very probably is it.
> 
> That said, I do think the Cameron types do genuinely believe gay marriage is at least no bad thing. Gay rights - or at least, the right of gay people to be 'good' Tory-voting, married, property-owning - is something that can be pretty easily incorporated into their view of the world.


 
Yep it's pretty reactionary really, extending the nuclear unit to gay people and generally universalising its wonderfulness.

I was more wondering about why he would go strong on it when he's already got a significantly large disgruntled trad clique grumbling on the sidelines but it may be that decent polling data will show him that the tories have more to gain from LD floating voters than he has to lose in UKIP defecting voters. But I haven't looked at the numbers in any seats so I don't know how well it stands up.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 17, 2012)

co-op said:


> Yep it's pretty reactionary really, extending the nuclear unit to gay people and generally universalising its wonderfulness.
> 
> I was more wondering about why he would go strong on it when he's already got a significantly large disgruntled trad clique grumbling on the sidelines but it may be that decent polling data will show him that the tories have more to gain from LD floating voters than he has to lose in UKIP defecting voters. But I haven't looked at the numbers in any seats so I don't know how well it stands up.


 
I've no idea what the figures are either, but I suspect that or something like it is the game he's playing, yes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> This is just my impression though, and I've no inside line on this stuff these days as my brother really doesn't like talking about it anymore, I think he just stays as a member mainly because he's now mates with quite a few of them in the local party after helping out for a decade or so. I can't remember the last time he actually delivered any of the leaflets that the lib dems keep dropping off for him to deliver. I think he may have done it once this year, the rest went in the bin - he spent about a month solid putting poster boards etc up for them at the last election.


 
That's interesting in and of itself - I would wager it took Labour until 2005 on some level and not really until 09-10 to get to a similar state with it's average activist behaving like that. It's taken the Libdems under three years to reach the same level and from a much lower base.

I think that really does show how far they have got to climb out of their self dug pit for 2015.

The Euros will be the next big test as they get annihilated by Labour and UKIP and the Greens might even see a resurgence just off the back of the Libdem collapse.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I'm getting the distinct impression that they're hoping to nick Tory voters who're put off by the tories turning back into the nasty party that Cameron pretended they weren't at the last election.
> 
> I'm guessing that the idea for them would be that if they can do this then they might get enough off the tories to end up in coalition with Labour. I suspect that's their strategy, though I honestly think that those in ministerial positions don't give a shit who they're in coalition with as long as they get to keep their sniff of power.
> 
> ...


 
LOL! I hope he tells them that they've been delivered!


----------



## free spirit (Dec 17, 2012)

nah, he's told them he's busy and can only deliver them when he get's chance, and if they can find someone else who's more reliable etc..... but they're still happy enough to drop them off and don't seem to say anything even when the old leaflets are still in the cupboard when they deliver the next lot.

That's how desperate they are, and this is / was one of their strongest constituencies.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2012)

We get focus leaflets through our door, I always try to catch them in the act so I can abuse/take the piss out of them but I think the crafty buggers are expecting it and use what is, in all honesty, a very impressive drive by/hit and run leafleting strategy cos I've never seen so much as the back of their heels and given that there's 3 flights of stairs down from my flat that's pretty impressive.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 18, 2012)

I agree with the analysis that the lib dems are now trying to pitch themselves as a right of centre socially liberal party - as UKIP pulls the tories right the lib dems are trying to capture their 'moderniser' wing.
Its where the orange bookers are ideologically. They maybe guess that they are not going to get the left of centre vote anymore so are targeting 'moderniser' tories. Welcoming right wing cunts regardless of ethnicity, gender of sexuality - something which the tories are having trouble with as its driving up the UKIP vote.

Who knows? With this strategy the lib dems might one day get up to 15% of the vote. 

And the right of centre vote gets split 3 ways.


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> And the right of centre vote gets split 3 ways.


 
4 ways.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 29, 2012)

More Coalition shadow-boxing: Clegg urges Lib Dems to criticise Tories


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2012)

Quick, people have noticed our mask is slipping. We need to publicly pretend not to be cut from the same neoliberal cloth as the Tories.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

This thread's pretty good as a *advance* post-mortem on those reality-avoiding numpties


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

Whatever the thinking behind the internal Lib Dem memo and its leak, it combines self delusion and woeful incompetence strategically.

(Just adding to Spiney's and Roadkill's posts here I appreciate)

It's far, far too late for the LibDems to start affecting 'equidistance' again. Even if they ever had any in the first place. Once the Orange Book gang gained control they became even closer to the Tories than before ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> This thread's pretty good as a *advance* post-mortem on those reality-avoiding numpties


 
You mean like an _ante-mortem_, Will?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

Lib-dem Child. 



> I am thirteen years old.I am an ardent Anglican. I started my political blog libdemchild in April 2010 to support the Liberal Democrat party. I have given 5 speeches at Lib Dem conferences.


 


> Is Christmas about Rampant Capitalism or Baby Jesus?


This child was just on The Big Freaks Questions as well.


*************

Fallon up to his usual nice-dut-dim delusion as well:



> After 65 years in the wilderness, the Liberal Democrats found themselves in government at just the right time for the UK.


 
You write the Lib Dems off at your peril


----------



## binka (Jan 6, 2013)

what a waste of a childhood. someone should tell her that by the time she's 18 there wont be a lib dem party left


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2013)

_ Capitalism doesn't bother me but rampant capitalism does. By this I mean that people are worshipping shops whilst the number of food banks are increasing and there is evermore  need for donations. Rampant capitalism has created a culture where charity is out ruled by consumerism and the poor are blamed for their misfortune and the rich are praised and supported._


----------



## binka (Jan 6, 2013)

you can only blame the parents. where are social services?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2013)

favourite books - the orange book


----------



## Combustible (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fallon up to his usual nice-dut-dim delusion as well:
> 
> You write the Lib Dems off at your peril


 


> Did you know that .... our poll ratings are no worse than they were at the same point in the last parliament?


 
This is a blatant lie.  This point last parliament was January 2008 and the Lib Dems polled at 14% with YouGov compared to the 9-10% they are polling now.  Also he is cherry picking a time when the Lib Dems had reached their lowest point, Campbell resigned in October 2007 and Clegg only became leader in December,  They went on to poll more like 17-18% whilst they have now been on around 9-10% for over 2 years.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 7, 2013)

> Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is to hold a weekly radio phone-in in a fresh attempt to reconnect with voters.
> The Liberal Democrat leader will take calls from listeners to London's LBC 97.3 radio with presenter Nick Ferrari for half-an-hour every Thursday morning.
> "I'm doing this because I don't think politicians get to hear enough from people directly," Clegg said.
> "You can't do the right thing in government unless you keep in touch with how people are thinking and feeling."
> LBC 97.3 broadcasts in Greater London but is available online across the UK.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2013)

ask him where they keep mings corpse


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


>


 
Best bet is to phone up saying you want to defend/praise Clegg - there'll hardly be any of those.  Then give him both barrels!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2013)

Blood pressure warning....

http://www.guardian.co.u...e-cuts-on-way-david-laws

Self-confessed benefits cheat tells us that there are "_More cuts on the way_" that will impact upon millions of honest, hardworking families.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

the noted thief david laws said:
			
		

> There are still cuts to come and everyone in the country knows why


 because you are a thief david?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 7, 2013)

yes, because him and his mates stole all the money.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2013)

This just gets better and better...

http://www.telegraph.co....alition-renews-vows.html


Quote:


_The deputy Prime Minister will now take weekly questions on Thursdays from the public on LBC Radio as part of an effort to reconnect with voters._



_*The radio phone-in sessions will be known as "Call Clegg"* in a rare move by a politician to take questions from voters so publicly on a regular basis._


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2013)

Wonder how many people who're determined to hurl abuse at Clegg, or at least _determined but rational invective _ will succeed in getting through? 

ETA  : New thread started on it


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 7, 2013)

binka said:


> what a waste of a childhood. someone should tell her that by the time she's 18 there wont be a lib dem party left


There wasn't much of a liberal party when i was 18 in 1970


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2013)

lol, Lib Dems consider tuition fee pledge for next election  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ction-pledge-to-cut-tuition-fees-8454698.html



> The Liberal Democrats are considering whether to promise to reduce the £9,000 cap on university tuition fees in their manifesto at the next general election.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 17, 2013)

BigTom said:


> lol, Lib Dems consider tuition fee pledge for next election
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ction-pledge-to-cut-tuition-fees-8454698.html


 
That can only mean they intend to double tuition fees. £20 grand a year. Cunts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

fool people once shame on you


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2013)

yes at this point the libs could put 'ensuring daily sunrise in the east' as a pledge and nobody would believe them


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

BigTom said:


> lol, Lib Dems consider tuition fee pledge for next election
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ction-pledge-to-cut-tuition-fees-8454698.html


Astonishing, they would actively foster focus on the thing that killed them. Beyond inept. I bet they paid someone one to come up with this as well.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> yes at this point the libs could put 'ensuring daily sunrise in the east' as a pledge and nobody would believe them



For a brighter tomorrow.


----------



## Voley (Jan 17, 2013)

BigTom said:


> lol, Lib Dems consider tuition fee pledge for next election
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ction-pledge-to-cut-tuition-fees-8454698.html


Oh fucking hell, I hope they go ahead with this.  What a bunch of stupid fucking twats.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing, they would actively foster focus on the thing that killed them. Beyond inept. I bet they paid someone one to come up with this as well.


Yes, why would you draw attention to the one of the issues that most clearly marks you out as a bunch of lying scumbags. 

If they had any sense at all they'd keep schtum on this issue and just hope that it dies down.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 17, 2013)

It'd be like Labour campaigning on a 'tidy up Iraq a bit' platform.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 17, 2013)

Tories campaigning in celebration of their record on the poll tax, but 'politely' and 'moderately'

</old school  >


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Look at this weasel Clegg blaming it on his wife, when we have the evidence on this thread that he publicly said that he was considering it years ago:

I won't stop my wife if she wants to send our eldest son to a private school, says Clegg



> Nick Clegg has signalled that he may send his eldest son to a private school, potentially sparking controversy about his commitment to state education.
> 
> The Deputy Prime Minister said he would put his children’s education first and would not overrule the wishes of his wife or son for ‘political reasons’.
> 
> Mr Clegg and his Spanish wife, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, have looked around several schools, including the exclusive Catholic state school The London Oratory and a £30,000-a-year independent school.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

two grand a year more than his own schooling. Inflation or temple priest fees


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

It's not the money that's the key here, we all knew he would likely come to this  - he openly said so himself - no, the story here is how he is attempting to wipe his hands of it_ and blame his wife rather than take a single ounce of responsibility for it himself._


----------



## youngian (Jan 25, 2013)

Did I hear Clegg the other night say "we all support that" on the subjet of Cameron's EU renogitation to withdraw from the social chapter?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the money that's the key here, we all knew he would likely come to this - he openly said so himself - no, the story here is how he is attempting to wipe his hands of it_ and blame his wife rather than take a single ounce of responsibility for it himself._


 
Surely if he had any balls he would say "I've moved to the right" and not try and blame his wife


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

they all do it, Diane Abbot claimed she sent her kid private because he begged her too- he may have but its not the point is it


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Surely if he had any balls he would say "I've moved to the right" and not try and blame his wife


That's it though, he hasn't really anywhere - he was openly talking about sending them private years ago. It's all part of liberal freedom to choose, to dispose of ones property as one sees fit, always has been.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Surely if he had any balls he would say "I've moved to the right" and not try and blame his wife


 
Swap 'Integrity whatsoever' for balls?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they all do it, Diane Abbot claimed she sent her kid private because he begged her too- he may have but its not the point is it


did she? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-230293


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> did she? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/diane-abbott-i-sent-my-son-to-private-230293


 

two part excuse, niether acceptable




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Her son contacted a radio phone-in to say that his mother was following his own wishes: "She's not a hypocrite, she just put what I wanted first instead of what people thought," he told LBC. He added that he had wanted to go private rather than attend a local state school in Abbott's Hackney constituency.


 
put that in your pipe and smoke it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> two part excuse, niether acceptable
> 
> 
> 
> put that in your pipe and smoke it


Mail on Sunday (London)
October 26, 2003

Diane Abbott, Left-wing firebrand, sends her son to 10,000 private school

*BYLINE:* MARTIN DELGADO

*SECTION:* STH1; Pg. 11

*LENGTH:* 684 words

HARD-LEFT Labour MP Diane Abbotthas opted out of the state education system and sent her son to a 10,000a-year independent secondary school.
Ms Abbott, who belongs to the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, has rejected comprehensives in Hackney one of the country's poorest boroughs and sent James, 12, to the City of London School, a boys' day school with an entrance examination, excellent league table results and sporting and academic facilities to match.
Earlier this month Ministers hailed Hackney's improved GCSE results as vindication of their decision to take responsibility for schools away from the local council and give it to a Learning Trust chaired by former Chief Inspector of Schools Mike Tomlinson.
But in an apparent snub to the Government, Britain's first black woman MP has apparently concluded that educational standards in the borough are still unacceptably low. She has told friends her priority is to ensure that James receives a good education, even if this leaves her open to charges of abandoning her political beliefs.


Ms Abbott, 50, a Cambridge graduate who was elected MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington 16 years ago, has been a constant irritant to New Labour.
She criticised Tony Blair for choosing a selective school outside his area for his children; she rounded on Labour colleague Harriet Harman for doing the same; and only last month she wrote that a good education should not be dependent on the ability to pay.
Ms Abbott's decision is sure to fuel the row over Private v State education in the wake of Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin's declaration that he would rather beg in the streets than send his children to their local comprehensive in Lambeth.
It could also alienate friends one of her closest political allies, Leftwing MP Jeremy Corbyn, broke up with his wife Claudia over her insistence that their son went to a grammar school rather than an Islington comprehensive.
James's school, which dates from the 15th Century, is situated next to the Thames with views of St Paul's Cathedral. It has a 200-seat theatre and large sports hall with indoor cricket nets, three squash courts, a climbing wall and a 25-metre swimming pool.
Head Dr David Levin says the school has achieved 'academic success of the highest order' and offers 'an altogether inspiring environment in which to study and grow up'. Boys who get high marks in the entrance exam but whose parents cannot afford the fees can get a bursary. The school came 43rd out of 287 in this year's independent school A-Level league table, with 85.4 per cent of pupils achieving A or B grades.
In Hackney the number of state pupils achieving at least five good GCSE grades rose this year to 36.8 per cent still below the national average of 51 per cent.
The borough is one of five identified by the Government as having the worst education standards. Comprehensives close to Ms Abbott's home include two church schools Hackney Free and Cardinal Pole and Homerton, which is boys-only.
The Mail on Sunday made several attempts by telephone, in writing and in person to ask Ms Abbott about her choice of school for her son but she declined to discuss the matter.
James's father is Ghanaian architect David Thompson, who was married to Ms Abbott in the early Nineties.
Don't do as I do...her views on education
"The people of Brent East, like others elsewhere in Britain, need education on the basis of merit, not ability to pay" Diane Abbott last month after Labour's defeat in the Brent-East by-election
"She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another" Criticising Labour colleague Harriet Harman in 1996 for sending her son to the opted-out London Oratory school, where Tony Blair's sons have been educated
"Education in this country is debated around class and to a lot of Labour supporters these issues of equality and egalitarianism go to the core of why they are Labour voters and find these things difficult" Reaction to Blair's plans for second son Nicky to follow Euan to London Oratory


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

so as I said, a two part excuse- have you filled your bowl yet


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

Hard left lol


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Clegg (and this was after pretty much everything was known):



> “Cyril Smith was a larger-than-life character and one of the most recognisable and likeable politicians of his day. I am deeply saddened to hear the news of his death today, and offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends.
> 
> “Everybody in Rochdale knew him not only as their MP but also as a friend. He was a true Liberal, dedicated to his constituency, always showing great passion and determination. Cyril was a colourful politician who kept the flame of Liberalism alive when the party was much smaller than it is today.
> 
> “Rochdale and Britain have sadly lost one of their great MPs, and I think we can safely say there will never be an MP quite like Cyril Smith again.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so as I said, a two part excuse- have you filled your bowl yet


i suppose he demanded to be sent to school in ghana too

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bott-sent-son-6-000-private-school-Ghana.html

anyway, given abbott's other reasons for sending her son to city of london school it doesn't ring true imo the phone call to the radio show.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2013)

More from Clegg : the Master Strategist pronounces his Thoughts on all sorts of subjects ...


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

meanwhile, Clegg praises the fact that HS2 is coming to Sheffield - despite the fact that by only going to Meadowhell, it will actually take _longer_ to get from city centre to city centre than it does at the moment!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2013)

Now the tories know how it feels to be let down by the LDs.

LOL


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

The boundary vote? Lovely


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The boundary vote? Lovely


 
Yep, apparently everyone else plus 4 tories.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Now the tories know how it feels to be let down by the LDs.
> 
> LOL


 
Or, now Cameron knows how it feels to be shafted by Clegg.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

And the better thing is that Clegg has also done himself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2013)

lol gerrymandering fail


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

The guy who once attacked those who propped up private schools 
"Right now there is a great rift in our education system between our best schools, most of which are private, and the schools ordinary families rely on. That is corrosive for our society and damaging to our economy." (May 2012)

The leader of the party channeling income into private education with an implicit threat to Putney Council 'make sure the kids gets into the 10%-selective middle-class heavy specialist school or else'.

And how do the Lib Dems on the ground see it? 
Nick Clegg’s son’s schooling is none of your business
Lib Dems love the public.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The boundary vote? Lovely


The tories are absolutely spewing over this. Toys out the cot all over the place.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the better thing is that Clegg has also done himself.


 
I don't see that it makes that much difference tbh. It's not going to make much difference to the coalition in the short term, even though a lot of Tories no doubt have steam coming out of their ears atm, and the Lib Dems are fucked at the next election, boundary changes or no.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 29, 2013)

Clegg will now be a marked man by the tory back benches and press. I think they will make it personal, about Clegg.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Clegg will now be a marked man by the tory back benches and press. I think they will make it personal, about Clegg.


 
Most of them hate the Lib Dems anyway...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 29, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Most of them hate the Lib Dems anyway...


There is hate and there is Clegg hate. The man who stole the next election from them*.

*Not true but when has that ever stopped them?


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 29, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> There is hate and there is Clegg hate. The man who stole the next election from them*.
> 
> *Not true but when has that ever stopped them?


 
On the other hand, it should make quite clear to the same lot that they can't do without the Lib Dems.  _Should_.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, apparently everyone else plus 4 tories.


 
From the BBC report the 4 Tories are :




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Four Conservatives - David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron - also rebelled against their party.


 
Just out of interest like ...


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 29, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Clegg will now be a marked man by the tory back benches and press. I think they will make it personal, about Clegg.


Cave men to a man.They just don't know how to behave with dignity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Cave men to a man.They just don't know how to behave with dignity


you think that's peculiar to cavemen?


----------



## Bluesman (Jan 29, 2013)

"Why lib-dems are shit"

Don't invertebrates* live* in shit, rather than *be* shit?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jan 30, 2013)

Roadkill said:


> Most of them hate the Lib Dems anyway...


 
...and the others haven't as yet met any.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Marvelous, Huhne goes for a guilty.


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 4, 2013)

Go to prison....wanker.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> Go to prison....wanker.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Given that he's messed the OB around and carried on lying for the last 18 months before his guilty plea (ongoing perversion really) he should surely be looking at the harsher end of this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> Go to prison....wanker.


i hope he doesn't get any credit for his late guilty plea


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Looks ripe for an 'independent' type candidate to swan in and mop up?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/b57.stm


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Looks ripe for an 'independent' type candidate to swan in and mop up?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/b57.stm








any candidate who promised to mop up would almost certainly gain votes in eastleigh due to its problems with flooding.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> any candidate who promised to mop up would almost certainly gain votes in eastleigh due to its problems with flooding.


 
How fast was that car driving? And who was driving....?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2013)

Will there be a bi-election?

My understanding is that he only has to resign his seat if he gets more than a year in prison.

If there is it will be an interesting one as its a tory target seat - labour are third, but if about half the lib dem vote switch to labour, labour will win.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 4, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Will there be a bi-election?
> 
> My understanding is that he only has to resign his seat if he gets more than a year in prison.
> 
> If there is it will be an interesting one as its a tory target seat - labour are third, but if about half the lib dem vote switch to labour, labour will win.


 
If there's a bi-election, I'd expect to see a large amount of swing, both ways.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 4, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Will there be a bi-election?
> 
> My understanding is that he only has to resign his seat if he gets more than a year in prison.
> 
> If there is it will be an interesting one as its a tory target seat - labour are third, but if about half the lib dem vote switch to labour, labour will win.


 
Closer to 2/3rds

Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat 24,966 46.5%
Maria Hutchings Conservative 21,102 39.3%
Leo Barraclough Labour......... 5,153 9.6%

Would need 16,000/25,000 votes or 30% of 46.5% to win, if the Tory vote stays the same.

Looks like an easy Tory win to me, especially if they get their vote out by making people worried about how many Lib Dem voters will switch to Labour. Of course many people will come out to vote against the Tories, but I think by-elections usually get lower turnouts than general elections so I'm not sure how much of a factor that would be.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Looks ripe for an 'independent' type candidate to swan in and mop up?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/b57.stm


 Ukip don't look to have much of a presence, but they might do something here - anti-(pro European) lib dem vote; Bufton-Tufton Tories doing an anti-Cameron thing...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Def by-election, now he's never going to be able to challenge for the party leadership he will be off to make big money even if he gets under a year inside. Labour unlikely to take the seat, higher end of their vote there was 14-15 000 in 97,that won't be enough unless there's a low turnout, and the overwhelming majority of people deserting the lib-dems go straight to labour or stay at home and tories sit on their hands too - on that last point there is a UKIP presence as well which could do some damage, esp as the demographics suggest a sizable older population. Not impossible, but big ask.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 4, 2013)

Had forgotten about UKIP... they split the Tory vote, Lib Dems switch en masse to Labour, Labour squeeks in. Could happen I suppose, but if I was a betting man, I'd be betting Tory.


----------



## co-op (Feb 4, 2013)

Easy tory win.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

So, the lib-dem big five:

David Laws - Thief (Oxbridge)
Chris Huhne - lying pervert (Oxbridge)
Vince Cable - murderer (Oxbridge)
Danny Alexander - Tax avoider (Oxbridge)
and the least of these 
Clegg: Liar (Oxbridge)


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

Ladbrokes have Libs as favourite to keep the seat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/04/osborne-speech-banks-live-blog

Doubt it myself but there could be some complex calculations in play here (for the voters). Most LDs in that particular seat won't dream of voting Labour - and they may stick with the Libs if they field a 'popular local candidate'.  Turnout and UKIP effect will also make it unpredictable.  Probably a close race, I'm just not sure between who.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Resigning


----------



## BigTom (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, the lib-dem big five:
> 
> David Laws - Thief (Oxbridge)
> Chris Huhne - lying pervert (Oxbridge)
> ...


 
Cable murderer?

Also, Clegg is an Arsonist http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/nick-clegg-is-convicted-arsonist/


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

Amid all these psephological calculations, I'd just like to emit a hearty ha ha!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

> It is also not the first time questions have been raised about Dr Cable's close relationship with Shell. He joined the company in 1990 as an enthusiastic number-cruncher, becoming the company's chief economist from 1995 to 1997. During this period the company allegedly paid and supported the Nigerian military to commit international crimes. In 1995 the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the southern Nigerian Ogoni ethnic group were executed by the Sani Abacha military government. This was after a waves of state-sponsored violence in the south of the country. In 2011, relatives of the assassinated Ogoni 9, as they became known, began legal proceedings against Shell, accusing the company of collaborating in the murders. Shell agreed an out-of-court settlement in which they paid the victims' families $15.5m, rather then face a New York federal court.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

This huhne pervert actually wants _credit_ for being caught lying to everyone:




			
				Huhne said:
			
		

> But having taken responsibility for something that happened 10 years ago the only proper course of action for me is to resign my Eastleigh seat..


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

From the grauniad link above:
Granting Huhne, whose father was also in court today, unconditional bail until a sentence date to be fixed, Mr Justice Sweeney told him: "I will deal with your sentence on a date to be notified.​"It is essential that you attend, obviously, on that date.​"As Mr Kelsey-Fry [Huhne's barrister] has foreshadowed, you should have no illusions whatsoever as to the sort of sentence that you are likely to receive*.*"​​​Farage has already said he's standing.​edit: my fuckin eyesight   - said he probably _*won't*_ run.​


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Wilf said:


> From the grauniad link above:
> Granting Huhne, whose father was also in court today, unconditional bail until a sentence date to be fixed, Mr Justice Sweeney told him: "I will deal with your sentence on a date to be notified.​"It is essential that you attend, obviously, on that date.​"As Mr Kelsey-Fry [Huhne's barrister] has foreshadowed, you should have no illusions whatsoever as to the sort of sentence that you are likely to receive*.*"​​​Farage has already said he's standing.​


in an hour or two, after having a few drinks, he'll have sat back down again


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Wilf said:


> From the grauniad link above:
> Granting Huhne, whose father was also in court today, unconditional bail until a sentence date to be fixed, Mr Justice Sweeney told him: "I will deal with your sentence on a date to be notified.​"It is essential that you attend, obviously, on that date.​"As Mr Kelsey-Fry [Huhne's barrister] has foreshadowed, you should have no illusions whatsoever as to the sort of sentence that you are likely to receive*.*"​​​Farage has already said he's standing.​​


He's said he'll think about it. Not sure that's the right place for him.

edit: ah, you spotted that now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2013)

given the nature of the constituency (as outlined above) it looks like a close call between tory and lib dems. Lib dems will def lose a chunk of their vote to labour, but - given that labour winning looks a long shot - it wont be as much as in other by-elections. Meanwhile the tories will def lose a chunk of their vote to UKIP - which will be a 'safe' protest vote for disgruntled tories, because - again labour are unlikely to win. 
Could get very poisonous between the the yellow and blue tories.
This might be fun.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2013)

Talk of Boris being the tory candidate. Not convinced as its not a safe seat and it would be a masive political risk. Farrage looks like hes got cold feet  as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

I don't expect either to stand, UKIP will be on the lookout for a high-profile well know face though.

Just saw this daftness:



> Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said: "The last three elections have been very close but the odds suggest the Lib Dems will take pole position once again."


 
er...you set the odds Jessica.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

The Guardian has piece outlining years of lies from Huhne which i think they should use as a separate article headlined _Four and a Half Years of Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

so is huhnes wife also looking at some time in holloway?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 4, 2013)

Surely if they have any kind of presence UKIP will go for it all guns blazing. After all they don't need to win to do well; this is not true for any of the others (LD, Lab, Con).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. LD's will do badly; they are unpopular nationally and the local party picked, promoted and stood by self serving liar and criminal Huhne.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so is huhnes wife also looking at some time in holloway?


Depends if they find her guilty or not.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

Irony is, if Labour decide they can't win, they'd probably want ukip to get it to cause the maximum disruption for Cameron.  There's nothing positive for Labour in either a Tory or Lib win.  Following the same logic, they might _just_ see a silver lining if Boris got it for the Tories - for the same reason.  I agree though, it's a bit early for him to show his hand.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Good grief, this is absolutely tragic.
Apparently, in an attempt to get the case against him dropped, Huhne's team submitted these very personal and private texts between Huhne and his son Peter and therefore opened them up to the public domaine when reporting restrictions were lifted. Huhne must have been aware that media reporting would ensue when he offered them up as evidence. What a monster.

As well as feeling so sorry for Huhne's family, I can't help but feel some admiration for Huhne's son and the very eloquent integrity he showed when dealing with his lying father.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 4, 2013)

Libdems are extremly strong and well organised in Eastleigh (huge majority on the council) and the surrounding areas they will put up a good fight imo - and UKIP could do quite well as well as they have a strong base in the wider south Hants/Solent area - however as we know they can be erratic.

I think there is a chance if UKIP and Libdems do well the Libdems could just keep the seat - I think any other result at least partly depends on having really strong hard working Tory and Labour candidates, not that Labour will win but they could take enough Libdem votes to help the Tories in.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Depends if they find her guilty or not.


 
Isn't her defence marital coercion?

Today's revelations in court can only strengthen her case?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Someone @ LP has got a sense of humour...



> _Labour has been in touch to point out that Eastleigh is 258th on its list of target seats and that, if it were to win it at a general election, it would be mean the party was on course to win with a majority of 362._


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Isn't her defence marital coercion?
> 
> Today's revelations in court can only strengthen her case?


Yes it is,and i would think so, but judges and juries can be surprisingly harsh on people who they may see as using the law for revenge type stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Farage has stood in Eastleigh before, didn't do very well - 925 votes. Almost beaten by Lord Sutch.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Maybe Christian anti-gay marriage candidate too - stranger things have happened?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Maybe Christian anti-gay marriage candidate too - stranger things have happened?


 
UKIP?


----------



## binka (Feb 4, 2013)

farron on channel four news saying labour supportes in eastleigh not voting libdem will be 'letting the tories in the back door'. nearly spat my tea out!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, the lib-dem big five:
> 
> David Laws - Thief (Oxbridge)
> Chris Huhne - lying pervert (Oxbridge)
> ...


Oaten gets off?

Re the by-election: I think it'll be a Tory win for sure with the LibDems in fourth place.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 4, 2013)

binka said:


> farron on channel four news saying labour supportes in eastleigh not voting libdem will be 'letting the tories in the back door'. nearly spat my tea out!


As opposed to opening the front door of Downing Street for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> As opposed to opening the front door of Downing Street for them.


binka wouldn't be let into downing street itself let alone be given the task of opening the door of number 10.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Maybe Christian anti-gay marriage candidate too - stranger things have happened?


You mean like the last tory to stand in the seat.


----------



## JimW (Feb 4, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Oaten gets off?


We try not to think about how Oaten gets off.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Another example of Clegg's uncanny eye for talent - he offered disgraced thief and liar David Laws job to disgraced pervert and liar Huhne according to the FT.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Another example of Clegg's uncanny eye for talent - he offered disgraced thief and liar David Laws job to disgraced pervert and liar Huhne according to the FT.


well, that was only fair.  After all, Huhne did actually win the libscum leadership election, so its only right he gets a good post!


----------



## magneze (Feb 8, 2013)

Good statistic in the latest Private Eye. The Liberal Democrats have 22.5% of the ministerial posts, 40% of those have resigned in disgrace.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

...and the rest are yet to be found out.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 10, 2013)

Labour : they've been second in Eastleigh in the past, and could be again. But will have to try harder to win back disaffected Lib Dem defectors. They won't win, but maybe? could do enough to damage the Lib Dems (especially) and the Tories too, with UKIP help ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

*David Ward* ‏@*DavidWardMP* 
There are too many who do politics in theory - it is not an interesting debate but a battle between those with power and those without

Raise the red banner!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

@*MarkJLittlewood* yes Mark but you know I never meant that - hence the apology - you also know "some" "many" etc wud av made no difference

dem jews, dey wud av tried to shut me up if dey cud like


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

anyone fancy laughing at this prick on twitter, he really is digging himself deeper and deeper


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

He also pretended to be a constituent on his own twitter acccount and said that he'd been helping the community for ages  Twat.

http://www.politwoops.co.uk/p/ukmps/DavidWardMP/301017576316751872

David Ward (UKMPs) : @SabrinaAbbas1 @1FreeUmmah @MPACUK Then you are willfully ignoring his record. I live in Bradford, he has been helping community for ages


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Feb 11, 2013)

Keeping the tories in power says all you need to know about the fib dims sold out to the banksters and fatcats in the city and docklands just like nu-labour od the grinning spinning blair and callmedave and co have allways been the pockets of the banksters and fatcats


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2013)

I'd agree with that.


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Labour : they've been second in Eastleigh in the past, and could be again. But will have to try harder to win back disaffected Lib Dem defectors. They won't win, but maybe? could do enough to damage the Lib Dems (especially) and the Tories too, with UKIP help ...


 
Oddly enough, the _Mirror_ has:

*Two tribes go to talks: Lib Dems in policy pow-wow with Labour, reveals Vince Cable*

...which deliberate leak just has to be Eastleigh-related.


----------



## gosub (Feb 14, 2013)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...eg-for-a-Tory-truce-before-next-election.html


----------



## brogdale (Feb 16, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/ministers-oppose-more-welfare-cuts



> _The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, is forming a common front with the Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, to oppose further welfare cuts in a spending review this summer due to set out departmental spending limits in 2015-16, the first year after the election_.


 


Horsesh1t.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

A  united against Kornilov/Cameron. The key thing is that the Guardian has published it in exactly the way these thieving murderers would like,


----------



## brogdale (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The key thing is that the Guardian has published it in exactly the way these thieving murderers would like,


 
Yes, it was a toss-up as to which of the excremental threads it went in.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2013)

Assuming that Miliband is sensible enough not to announce a pearl necklace tax  ...here's another LD tax plan that he could nick...



> Owners of holiday homes and rental properties would be drawn into paying a "mansion tax" under Liberal Democrat proposals to extend the policy beyond £2m main residences.
> An internal policy consultation has concluded there "may be merit" in imposing the 1% levy instead on anyone with a land and property portfolio worth above the same threshold.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2013)

And Huhne wouldn't pay a single extra penny on the eight houses he owns and gets around a 100 grand year rental income on if these plans were introduced.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And Huhne wouldn't pay a single extra penny on the eight houses he owns and gets around a 100 grand year rental income on if these plans were introduced.


 
Yep.
Soon going to have a ninth residence!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2013)

Tommorrow there will be a formal announcement to close the A&E/Maternity at my local hospital.
Here is a picture taken at one of the protests against this decision:-






On the left, Paul Burstow (Minister of State for Care Services 2010-2012), and on the right Tam Broke (Privy Counsellor & Deputy leader of House 2012 - ). So, at the time this was taken, both members of the coalition government; "save" from whom might be the question for these slimey hypocrites.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Proper scumbags - surprised they had the cheek to turn up given what could have happened - lib-dem MP was chased off a demo outside the town hall here a few month back.

Anyway, the lib-dems donation have dropped by 40% over the last year. £4 million to £2.5


----------



## co-op (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter Tatchell's claiming today that he has info that the infamous "Which Queen will you vote for?" leaflet that was circulated anonymously during the 1983 Bermondsey by-election and was previously assumed to be delivered by the National Front was in fact the work of a "now top Liberal Democrat politician". The leaflet in question included Tatchell's name address and telephone number and was an obvious incitement to attack, I remember it well.
He also reckons that,




> “If it is true that the leaflet was produced by the Liberals, it may call into question the legality of Simon Hughes's election to parliament in 1983. Anonymous election leaflets are illegal. They are serious infringements of electoral law,” said Peter Tatchell.


 
If this ^^ is true it'd make a gorgeous court case to stink up a few of the last months of this miserable little government's miserable existence. If anyone really wants to remind themselves how disgusting the liberals* were back in the 80s, and what a disgusting hypocrite Simon Hughes is they should read Tatchell's book The Battle for Bermondsey.

* Labour don't exactly come out smelling of roses


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

co-op said:


> Peter Tatchell's claiming today that he has info that the infamous "Which Queen will you vote for?" leaflet that was circulated anonymously during the 1983 Bermondsey by-election and was *previously assumed to be delivered by the National Front* was in fact the work of a "now top Liberal Democrat politician".


was it?  I'd always thought it was a libscum leaflet.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Tatchell has been claiming this for years - including being told by lib-dem members involved, would be good to see him join up with the desperate skin-saving Radford to put the spotlight back on it, rather then nauseating stuff in the link above.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> was it? I'd always thought it was a libscum leaflet.


This is a different one from the _straight choice_ that they did put out.


----------



## co-op (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> was it? I'd always thought it was a libscum leaflet.


 
Well I've had my memory prompted that this is what was said now so I'm fucked if I can remember. The independent Labour guy was the one running the most openly homophobic campaign as I remember but although they were arseholes they seemed to claim responsibility for everything they did.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> was it? I'd always thought it was a libscum leaflet.


 
I've only ever seen the 'Straight Choice' one. Is there a scan of this anonymous leaflet anywhere?


----------



## co-op (Feb 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tatchell has been claiming this for years - including being told by lib-dem members involved, .


 
I didn't know that, I just got sent this in a forwarded email. I guess the fact that he's got someone who'll let their name out in public means he's keeping the pressure on. Any guesses who the un-named senior liberal is?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

co-op said:


> I didn't know that, I just got sent this in a forwarded email. I guess the fact that he's got someone who'll let their name out in public means he's keeping the pressure on. Any guesses who the un-named senior liberal is?


No idea, probably easier to work backwards and rule people out - i.e SDP members, those too young etc


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Labour : they've been second in Eastleigh in the past, and could be again. But will have to try harder to win back disaffected Lib Dem defectors. They won't win, but maybe? could do enough to damage the Lib Dems (especially) and the Tories too, with UKIP help ...


They were (always) second when there were only two real parties contending. From1983- they were only ever second in the 1994 by-election. Which would bode better for them if Labour weren't still despised by much of their base and considered to have only a very small chance of winning it.

I think they'll do well to break 20% this time. UKIP are gaining one third of their extras from Labour and Lib Dems (yougov national polling data), half the tactical LD voters hadn't switched back to Labour by the time Ashcroft polled them (at 19%), and by-elections are for protest votes, not rewarding recently defeated and much despised opposition parties who haven't exactly tried very hard to make amends yet. Labour are still pro-austerity and it will hurt them; Eastleigh isn't particularly rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2013)

Anyone see this (if it's been featured yet that is)?

Investigation with @FirecrestFilmsinto Lib Dem failures over allegations of sexual impropriety at 7 @Channel4News


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 21, 2013)

http://www.channel4.com/news/lib-dem-allegations-of-sexual-impropriety

Chris "cunt" Rennard their leading campaign strategist.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/lib-dem-allegations-of-sexual-impropriety
> 
> Chris "cunt" Rennard their leading campaign strategist.


 
Burstow in the frame for cover-up, and Swinson.


----------



## binka (Feb 22, 2013)

tatchell and hughes are both on newsnight tonight apparently talking about bermondsey


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2013)

binka said:


> tatchell and hughes are both on newsnight tonight apparently talking about bermondsey


 
What they say? Don't go on matchdays?


----------



## binka (Feb 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> What they say? Don't go on matchdays?


not a lot it was a bit shit and not very interesting. simon hughes did make it abundantly clear that he personally has always been on the same side as tatchell and his regret is that he didn't take personal control over the campaign


----------



## elbows (Feb 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/lib-dem-allegations-of-sexual-impropriety
> 
> Chris "cunt" Rennard their leading campaign strategist.


 
Telegraphs version of the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...Rennard-sexual-harassment-claims-in-2010.html


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the money that's the key here, we all knew he would likely come to this - he openly said so himself - no, the story here is how he is attempting to wipe his hands of it_ and blame his wife rather than take a single ounce of responsibility for it himself._


 
Agreed. Really underscores exactly what an utterly repellent, spineless, cowardly and nasty piece of work that worthless sack of shit really is. These fucking lib dem cunts are completely happy to use their wifes as human shields for their own lack of backbone - just like that criminal liar chris huhne vermin. They should all be rounded up and then be subjected to something adverse to their interests.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2013)

binka said:


> not a lot it was a bit shit and not very interesting. simon hughes did make it abundantly clear that he personally has always been on the same side as tatchell and his regret is that he didn't take personal control over the campaign


 
Abundantly clear he's a liar.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Abundantly clear he's a liar.


 
He's a lib dem with a pulse after all. No further evidence needed.


----------



## co-op (Feb 23, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Abundantly clear he's a liar.


 
Make that a fucking liar. This is from wikipedia but it certainly corresponds with how I remember his coming out and it doesn't seem to have been challenged.



> Hughes has never married, although in an interview with _The Daily Telegraph_ in 2006, he claimed he had been turned down by "several women". He denied persistent rumours about his sexuality, when asked if he was gay, saying "The answer is no, as it happens, but if it were the case, which it isn't, I hope that it would not be an issue." Two days later, in an interview with _The Independent_ he again denied being gay,[34] and later in an interview with _The Guardian_ he repeated the denial.[35]
> However, on 26 January 2006, after _The Sun_ newspaper told him that they had proof that he had used a gay chat service known as 'Man Talk', Hughes admitted that in the past he had had relationships with both women and men.[36] He said he had revealed the truth when it became apparent that not doing so was not stopping rumours: "_ was overly defensive last week. That was a mistake. I did it and I was trying to make sure that even in the circumstances of potentially standing as leader of the party — or for high office — that private life was private. It was clear even afterwards that the question from colleagues and the press and elsewhere was not going to go away."[37]
> _


_





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hughes#cite_note-kavanagh-38
Referring to his change from previous denials about his sexuality and recent Liberal Democrat difficulties he said, "I hope that any colleague in any party at any time who might not have been entirely honest for good reason or who may have made a mistake is accepted back at the right time." and also "I gave a reply that wasn't untrue but was clearly misleading. I apologise." He confirmed to PinkNews that he is bisexual.[39] 

Click to expand...

 
Remember this was nearly ten years after openly gay MPs had been elected and re-elected (Stephen Twigg, Chris Smith). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hughes#cite_note-shoffman-39_


----------



## where to (Feb 23, 2013)

not a great source, but it looks like Clegg may be drawn into this Rennard scandal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sex-scandal-years-ago.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Libertad (Feb 23, 2013)

brogdale said:


> What they say? Don't go on matchdays?


 
When I lived on the Lockyer I used to wear my Irons scarf all the time, never touched me.  MillwallShoes that's you I'm looking at. 
[/derail]


----------



## MillwallShoes (Feb 24, 2013)

Libertad said:


> When I lived on the Lockyer I used to wear my Irons scarf all the time, never touched me.  MillwallShoes that's you I'm looking at.
> [/derail]


it's because they have class and style in SE1 - millwall never pick on scarfers


----------



## MillwallShoes (Feb 24, 2013)

hughes goes to millwall loads...sits in the west stand. he is not hated in bermondsey or amongst millwall fans.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 24, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> it's because they have class and style in SE1 - millwall never pick on scarfers


 
Pffft.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2013)




----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2013)

Songs that nick clegg cries to:


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

This last fee days reaslly sums up the remaining lib-dem voters: do you want to vote for a party that covers up sexual harassment and possibly worse allegation? _Damn right i do. Bring in on!_


----------



## ymu (Feb 26, 2013)

Whilst I'm all for bashing Lib Dem voters, which party _isn't_ guilty of that?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 26, 2013)

Lib Dems now on 8%, according to a ComRes poll for the Indie.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Why do the always ignore the yougov dailies which have shown them on 7% a number of times? At least 10 times.


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...have-almost-no-female-mps-after-next-election



> The Rennard story has prompted much comment on the dramatic under-representation of women in the Lib Dems. Just 12.5 per cent (seven) of the party's 56 MPs are female, compared with 31 per cent of Labour MPs (the only party to use all-women shortlists) and 16 per cent of Tories. Aware of this problem, the Lib Dems will debate proposals at their spring conference next month to introduce "job-share candidates" in order to improve female representation. But barring a significant improvement in their poll ratings, the likelihood is that the diminished parliamentary party that returns to the Commons after 2015 will be even more male-dominated.
> 
> Back in 2011, research by the Fabian Society showed that five of the Lib Dems' seven female MPs, including Sarah Teather, Jo Swinson and Tessa Munt, hold seats among the party's 12 most vulnerable, while none hold any of the 20 safest.
> 
> In addition, the two 'safer' seats held by Lib Dem women - Cardiff Central and Hornsey & Wood Green - are vulnerable to a Labour challenge. As Sunder Katwala noted, "both were gained in 2005 from Labour, through appeals to students and voters disillusioned with Labour over Iraq and other left-of-centre issues."


 



> *Women MPs in the 12 most vulnerable Lib Dem seats*
> *1. Lorely Burt (Solihull) 0.3%, 175 votes*
> *2. Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset) 0.6%, 269 votes*
> 3. Norwich South 0.7%
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2013)

Lib-dem sex parties anyone?


----------



## Firky (Mar 6, 2013)

What a shit story.


----------



## JimW (Mar 6, 2013)

It must be really embarrassing for the sex party attendees to be associated with filth like the Lib Dems.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 6, 2013)

clear yellow waterplay


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2013)

JimW said:


> It must be really embarrassing for the sex party attendees to be associated with filth like the Lib Dems.


 
No wonder they hide their faces going in.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2013)

> *Nick Clegg tells Lib Dem conference party 'let people down'*


 


Just for once....


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2013)

Cathy Newman is not fobbed off with all the guff spouted by Swinson & Clegg at Brighton....



> We have now requested interviews with Nick Clegg and Jo Swinson over the Rennard affair for 18 days. They have repeatedly declined.
> Some have suggested we should drop it and move on. But when Ms Swinson, the women's minister, spoke to the Lib Dem faithful in Brighton tonight, her address failed to answer the questions we'd like to put to her. So the interview bid stands.
> Apart from a brief written statement, tonight was the first time Ms Swinson had responded in person to the investigation we aired last month, which alleged that the party's former chief executive Lord Rennard abused his power by behaving inappropriately towards women.
> *'Unwanted advances'*
> ...


 
Top work Cathy!


----------



## Badgers (Mar 9, 2013)

Totally nicked from Twitter  

The Lib Dem Spring conference is taking place in Brighton. They've sold out. Loads of tickets still available though...


----------



## elbows (Mar 9, 2013)

> *Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrat's former leader has called on his party to win a second term in office.*
> Mr Ashdown, heading the party's election strategy, told the Brighton spring conference he wanted being in government to "become a habit" and not be a "blip".



Good luck with that!



> He added: "You can't change a country overnight. You can't deliver on the liberal promise in just one government. It takes time.
> "And that's why, at the next election, we can and we must ensure that we have the votes and seats to continue the job we have, with such courage, started together."


Fuck off.


> Earlier, Business Secretary Vince Cable warned industry would suffer if areas like health were spared spending cuts.


 
Fuck off x 100



> Lib Dem president Tim Farron said on Friday the party was in a "critical state" and its survival was not guaranteed.


 
Thats a real shame now isnt it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 9, 2013)

Today's Guardian : Jonathan Freedland drivelling on about prospects of hung parliaments, Clegg still holding balance of power, etc, after the next GE. Talking as if the Eastleigh result is more than just a Hampshire-specific freak result.

He's not quite as bad (IMO) as Patrick Wintour, but so many Graun opinionators seems as oblivious to their coming electoral destruction as the Lib Dems themselves. Believing what they want to believe maybe. Local elections may force some reality onto them a bit more.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 9, 2013)

Lib Dems to lose 30 seats, and Labour to gain a shedload more (over 100), according to latest Lord Ashcroft poll ...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Lib Dems to lose 30 seats, and Labour to gain a shedload more (over 100), according to latest Lord Ashcroft poll ...


 
YouGov's Anthony has put some flesh on (C)Ashcroft's latest polling on the LDs...



> Perhaps the more interesting findings are what the poll says about the Liberal Democrats – the Con-v-Lab battle normally follows national polls, the Lib Dem battleground is sometimes different. When PoliticsHome asked the two stage voting intention question structure back in 2009 it found the Lib Dems did 10 points better in LD-Con seats when people were prompted to think about their own constituency (and conseqently was actually quite a good pointer to how well they’d do at the 2010 election – it had them getting 55 seats, compared to the 57 they actually got). In the Ashcroft poll today the tactical/incumbency boost the Lib Dems get in LD-Con seats when people are prompted to think about their own constituency is a mighty 13 points.
> This is naturally good news for the Liberal Democrats, but still means they will lose a lot of seats. The reason that tactical/incumbency boost is bigger is probably simply because they are starting from a much lower base. Even with this prompting the poll suggests the Lib Dems will lose around 17 seats to the Conservatives. In seats where they are up against Labour the swing is bigger, the tactical/incumbency boost is smaller, and the Lib Dems face wipeout. Overall, if this poll was reflected at the next general election – still two years away remember- it would leave the Lib Dems with around 25 seats, a very sizeable loss, but not the complete wipeout that some have predicted, feared or hoped for.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 10, 2013)

A few of them are quitting and the party is unhappy over the secret courts. Its not a bad thing to hate this, but is sums up the innate process over people nature of the party. People getting shat on is not a big deal but when the process, the legal rules are changed they go up in arms.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> A few of them are quitting and the party is unhappy over the secret courts. Its not a bad thing to hate this, but is sums up the innate process over people nature of the party. People getting shat on is not a big deal but when the process, the legal rules are changed they go up in arms.


 
They're tories, in a tory party helping to run a tory government. What do you expect?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

> Mr Clegg described the Conservatives as "like a kind of a broken shopping trolley. Every time you try and push them straight ahead they kind of veer off to the right hand side."


 


But you chose that trolley, and did bother to change it when you found out it was fucked. In fact you keep on pushing it don't you? Twunt.


----------



## FNG (Mar 11, 2013)

That clegg quote is quite remarkable,despite all the evidence to the contrary he still believes that his party is the tail that wags the dog not vice versa.

Their purpose seems to me Rather to more to just waft Tory policies around like they were a particularly stinky doggy fart.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Cash for planning permission:



> Easy access to local politicians, ensuring planning committees contained “friendly faces” and above all “a bit of cunning” — these were the keys to winning planning permission for developments across the country, he said.
> The consultant, in his 30s, was in a relaxed and confident mood as he boasted to the two people sitting opposite how his company could help a group of overseas investors win approval for schemes in the face of local opposition.
> But, unknown to him, he was talking to undercover reporters from The Daily Telegraph investigating how councillors and officials are working as consultants for companies trying to gain planning permission. And Mr Stone is not just a paid adviser, he has been a Liberal Democrat councillor for 12 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## FNG (Mar 12, 2013)

just seen retweeted on twitter



> @labourwhips 49 Lib Dems voted against the mansion tax. The rest of their party were absent. So not one Lib Dem voted for their own policy


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 15, 2013)

Made mugs of again by Cameron on Levenson


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

This viper of a Lib Dem is a good reason why yoking together the Mirror with the Mail:

"On Monday the Mirror shouted ‘Shameful’, with a cartoon showing Thatcher, Cameron, Osorne and Clegg banging in the final nail of a coffin marked ‘RIP Welfare’. Each is exaggerating to make their own point. Both are gross over-statements: trollemics."


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2013)

> Amid deep unease among senior Lib Dems...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/05/george-osborne-playing-politics-philpott


 
And what?

Could have posted in the Why the Guardian thread, obs.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 8, 2013)

In a nutshell...that last sentence.






FFS

e2a : my MP


----------



## sihhi (Apr 15, 2013)

This weasel piece from Clegg whilst supporting £350mil legal aid cuts to ensure people in Britain can't access their human rights: _Human rights: we won't be silent Britain must not step back from its historical commitment to human rights for the sake of commercial expediency_


----------



## youngian (May 3, 2013)

If you are not convinced Lembit Opik hasn't already flushed his dignity down the toilet check out his foray it zero budget film cameos-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVbbi3Hl ... r_embedded


----------



## Santino (May 22, 2013)

Calling a constituent a 'little shit' lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...887.html?1369219918&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2013)

Santino said:


> Calling a constituent a 'little shit' lol.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...887.html?1369219918&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008


 


Their 10th safest seat, with a maj of over 9000.

Hmmm...we'll see.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2013)

Hancock looks like having the whip withdrawn and suggestions he even may be forced to stand down on the sexual harassment charges (civil case entered today).


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2013)

*Michael Crick* @MichaelLCrick
Nick Clegg asks Carmichael to convene urgent disciplinary meeting to consider Mike Hancock

This is the same Clegg who flat out refused to deal with and claimed that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the party. He'll now be demanding applause.


----------



## Streathamite (May 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Michael Crick* @MichaelLCrick
> Nick Clegg asks Carmichael to convene urgent disciplinary meeting to consider Mike Hancock
> 
> This is the same Clegg who flat out refused to deal with and claimed that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the party. He'll now be demanding applause.


I guess he's broken so many promises, done so many twists and turns, that he's lost all touch with reality. Nothing about clegg surprises me now


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2013)

(The loathsome) Staines is claiming that Clegg's tardy decision to act over Hancock arises from the propect that he, and other former LD leaders, may be called to give evidence in a forthcoming civil case against Hancock.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2013)

Cleggocracy in action:

'Money for votes' row as Nick Clegg is accused of funnelling taxpayer funds to key Lib Dem constituencies 



> Nick Clegg was last night accused of playing ‘pork barrel’ politics by funnelling taxpayer funds into the constituencies of key Lib Dems.
> According to claims made by a Coalition whistleblower, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg and his right-hand man, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, have used their influence over public spending decisions to covertly boost the re-election chances of Lib Dem MPs.


 
(It's not a TPA story btw - they were just asked to provide comment - and they did exactly what was required)


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

the lib-dem mayor of oxford is facing perssure to resign after trying to go to an EDL demo and complaining about anti-fash


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the lib-dem mayor of oxford is facing perssure to resign after trying to go to an EDL demo and complaining about anti-fash


 
ffs.  what a wanker.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

http://www.change.org/petitions/ton...or-of-oxford-and-lib-dem-councillor-to-resign 

butchersapron


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

coalition not working out for them - next stop the extreme right!


----------



## Quartz (Jun 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the lib-dem mayor of oxford is facing perssure to resign after trying to go to an EDL demo and complaining about anti-fash


 

Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.



> Now I want to be very clear that I in no way support any sort of hate activities that are associated with any political group, including the EDL, but today I saw absolutely no sign of any EDL banners or clothing and no sign of any stereotypical EDL behaviour.  What I saw was a loud and unruly bunch who were showing hate towards what seemed to me to be a peaceful and lawful act of remembrance for a young solider who had lost his life at the hands of two very badly misguided other young men.  If I do see any hate activity from ANY group in Oxford I will challenge it rigorously but the only hate I saw today was from the protesters in the picture above.


 

Being an anti-fascist doesn't excuse cuntish behaviour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an anti-fascist doesn't excuse cuntish behaviour.


 
Tell me Quartz, why would you unquestioningly believe what a lib-dem politician says happened actually happened?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

Apparently it's a complete lie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an anti-fascist doesn't excuse cuntish behaviour.


 
And no, there was no official event, so he wasn't there in any official capacity. You might as well argue he goes to the pub in an official capacity. He signed up for and attempted to attend an edl event knowing full well that it was an edl event. It's that simple. And if he did do it an official capacity - or thought that he did - then that's actually worse.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.change.org/petitions/ton...or-of-oxford-and-lib-dem-councillor-to-resign
> 
> butchersapron


signed


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've not read the comments and his squirming, wriggling responses then.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Apparently it's a complete lie.


 

Then you'll be able to post a link to an accurate version.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

that thread is hilarious.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Then you'll be able to post a link to an accurate version.


 
Looks like you just did you fool, whilst demanding that others read it without having done so yourself - and unquestioningly believing the claims of a lib-dem politician.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

Read the comments ffs!


----------



## Quartz (Jun 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Read the comments ffs!


 

You're assuming I haven't; you are mistaken.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> You're assuming I haven't; you are mistaken.


 
Had you read them you posted your defence of Brett? If so, what led you to dismiss them and to decide that his account of events is accurate?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2013)

he changes his story constantly though


----------



## Nylock (Jun 3, 2013)

The wriggling and pathetic self-justifications in the face of his own constituent's outrage, how very typical of today's politician...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 3, 2013)

The fool is now threatening to sue for defamation and describing himself as a "battered hero" on twitter. (That's brett, not quartz btw).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2013)

Scottish delicacy


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The fool is now threatening to sue for defamation and describing himself as a "battered hero" on twitter. (That's brett, not quartz btw).


I just read some of that feed, and now I feel the need of a shower to wash away that slime.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 3, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an anti-fascist doesn't excuse cuntish behaviour.


 
You fucking mug.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2013)

...talking of which...

Han(dy)cock has (finally) been stripped of the whip...



> _Following our meeting today I have decided to offer to temporarily withdraw from the parliamentary party in the Commons until the civil court case against me has been concluded._
> _I can assure you that I will continue to vigorously defend my position and that I completely refute the allegations made against me._
> _I’m doing this in the best interests of the party nationally and in Portsmouth and for my family. _
> _I will continue to work hard for my constituents in Portsmouth as I have always done._
> _Mike Hancock MP_​




I have decided....LOL ​


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 4, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Have you read his blog post? He's right on the mark. The event was within his ward. He was attending in an official rather than personal capacity. His description of the behaviour of the anti-fascists indicates that they were behaving in a very disrespectful manner - he even accuses one of stealing the flowers.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an anti-fascist doesn't excuse cuntish behaviour.


tbh, at Best Brett is being mindblowingly naive, as are you here.
At worst, he's fucked up, and knows it, can't bring himself to admit it, so he's wriggling like an eel


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The fool is now threatening to sue for defamation and describing himself as a "battered hero" on twitter. (That's brett, not quartz btw).


 
Appositely, "Brett" is the German word for "plank".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> he changes his story constantly though


 
Quartz or the councillor?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 4, 2013)

Just voted down a measure to decarbonise energy generation. In other words helping green light fracking and new coal sans Carbon Capture. It will not really affect our climate, what it will mean is we are building new generating capacity that has significant risk of being obsolete long before it has recouped its capital cost and the consumers and tax payers lumped with much bigger bills to a) pay for a shrinking resource in a world where other economies have more and more cash to outbid us and b) have to pay for a much more rushed decarbonisation at higher cost and with less time to plan for the changes.

You will never get a bill and go "oh thats high because of the whig dems in '14". But we will have to increasingly bid against China, India and Turkey for Qatari gas, hope to hell our shale resources are real and not as polluting as some fear and be paying for thermal coal for energy generation in a world that is likely to be placing increasingly higher costs on carbon consumption.*

They have just shackled people in 15-30 years with a big fat assed bill in order to expediently kick the can of the UKs energy mix further down the road.

*Edited to add, thermal coal is not a hydrocarbon so does not have love lovable hydrogen atoms in its molecular structure unlike methane. The H4 in CH4 means heat is produced for 4 water molecules (H20) for each CO2 molecule when methane is burnt, this is why natural gas is so much lower in CO2 outper per unit of energy compared with coal that is just effing great lumps of C. So by tying us to thermal coal our energy production will have much more CO2 per unit than from CH4 (which we will have tobe bidding like fuckery against the new economies to buy) or wind\ nuclear\ solar etc etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2013)

Nick Clegg calls everyone else thick:

Nick Clegg: public would not understand if MPs took pay rise


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2013)

> Mark Pritchard, an influential Tory backbencher who was one of the few MPs to countenance a rise in public, called for "a mature debate" on the issue. He said: "We do not want to go back to the past when the house was populated by multimillionaires and the landed gentry."


 
with a straight face


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2013)

He's a tory but an open class traitor. I can respect that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2013)

Just a little reminder of the quality of their leading long term members:

Senior Lib Dem joins Hampshire Tories:



> ONE of Hampshire’s leading Liberal Democrat councillors has defected to the Conservatives.
> 
> Adam Carew, pictured, a Liberal Democrat for 30 years, has described the national party as “utterly shambolic” and claims to have become disillusioned in the wake of the row over university tuition fees.
> 
> Now he has crossed the floor at Hampshire County Council, where he has been a member since 2005, and at East Hampshire District Council, where he represents Whitehill and Bordon.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 14, 2013)

Sarah Teather fails desparately to retain her seat in 2015


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2013)

Lib Dem money woes grow as party membership hits new low 



> First, to the grim state of the Lib Dems. The party raised £6.02m last year but spent £6.4m resulting in a deficit of £410,951. Over the same period, its membership fell from 48,934 to 42,501, a fall of 35% since 2010 (when it stood at 65,038) and the lowest annual figure in the party's 23-year history. Based on the current rate of decline, UKIP, which now boasts more than 30,000 members, will soon supplant them as the third largest party by membership.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 26, 2013)

Membership dues may well be down, but IIRC donations have gone up some way since entering government. This will have nothing to do with corrupt infulence of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2013)

Their total income has dropped significantly since 2010 - by over a 1/3. The same as membership has dropped.That wouldn't suggest a rise in donations.

In fact, checking the register, their total donations for
2011 =  £4,131,750
2012 = £2,481,707

2010 is different because of the election (and short money for 4 months) but in the first quarter alone they received almost as much as all of last year.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

New lib-dems life peers - this is people who have taken the lib-dem whip in the house of lords - what do we know about them -  we know the second one down is a regular new statesman contributer - effectively an employee of laurie penny. I wonder how many articul8 knows?

Liberal Democrat Party
Catherine (Cathy) Mary Bakewell MBE - former leader of Somerset County Council
Rosalind (Olly) Grender MBE - former Director of Communications for Shelter; former Director of Communications for the Liberal Democrats
Christine Mary Humphreys - President of the Welsh Liberal Democrats; former Member of the National Assembly for Wales
Zahida Manzoor CBE - former Legal Services Ombudsman; former Deputy Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality
Brian Paddick - former Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Service
James Palumbo - co-founder and chairman of Ministry of Sound Group, the international music and entertainment business
Jeremy Purvis - former Member of the Scottish Parliament for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale
Alison Suttie - former Press Secretary to the President of the European Parliament; former Deputy Chief of Staff to Nick Clegg and Election Manager for the 2010 General Election
Rumi Verjee CBE - entrepreneur and philanthropist
Sir Ian Wrigglesworth - Liberal Democrat Treasurer; former MP for Teeside Thornaby and for Stockton South


----------



## articul8 (Aug 1, 2013)

None


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Have you never talked to dear old olly on twitter? Think very carefully.


----------



## laptop (Aug 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> we know the second one down is a regular new statesman contributer - effectively an employee of laurie penny.


 
Er, no, Penny's a freelance, editor is Jason Cowley (2008–), effective proprietor is... businessman Mike Danson,who lacks a WikiPage.



butchersapron said:


> Liberal Democrat Party
> Catherine (Cathy) Mary Bakewell MBE - former leader of Somerset County Council
> Rosalind (Olly) Grender MBE - former Director of Communications for Shelter; former Director of Communications for the Liberal Democrats
> Christine Mary Humphreys - President of the Welsh Liberal Democrats; former Member of the National Assembly for Wales
> ...


[/QUOTE]

We know those in bold


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

It was a joke about everything being pinned on penny - and she's a salaried contributing editor. Palumbo was a tory before the last election i think, lib-dems have basically sold him a peerage for a few million quid.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2013)

wrigglesworth?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2013)

Ex-labour MP. Practically runs the north east.


----------



## rekil (Aug 1, 2013)

Sounds like a Roald Dahl character.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 1, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Membership dues may well be down, but IIRC donations have gone up some way since entering government. This will have nothing to do with corrupt infulence of course.


 

Perish the thought!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2013)

Any civ lib voters?  



> Nick Clegg has endorsed the government's decision to ask the Guardian to destroy leaked secret NSA documents on the grounds that Britain would face a "serious threat to national security" if they reached the "wrong hands".
> 
> In a statement, a spokesman for the deputy prime minister gave the first official confirmation that the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, made the request to the Guardian


 
I can't find the statement anywhere.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 24, 2013)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lembit-opik-bitten-privates-dachshund-2214312

from the goat shagging thread via Bakunin

_Talking recently about his fall from grace with his former leader Mr Clegg, Lembit said: “There was one moment at the spring conference when I was going down the stairs and Nick was coming up._
_"He chose to stare straight through me. Now I know what it’s like to be the Invisible Man.”_

_Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lembit-opik-bitten-privates-dachshund-2214312#ixzz2cuMckvqo _
_Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook_​


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lembit-opik-bitten-privates-dachshund-2214312
> 
> from the goat shagging thread via Bakunin
> 
> ...


Who said dogs are not intelligent


----------



## elbows (Aug 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any civ lib voters?
> 
> I can't find the statement anywhere.


 

Not found statement myself, although its quoted fairly extensively in that article anyway,  but I was amused for all the wrong reason by this Nick Cohen piece about how the Lib Dems used to keep us honest.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/lib-dems-no-longer-radical


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

A list of libdems in the Syria vote.



> Thirty-three Lib Dems voted for the government’s motion; 9 voted against; one abstained and 14 did not vote.
> 
> Alexander, Danny: For
> Baker, Norman: For
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 30, 2013)

whats the difference between abstaining and not voting


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> whats the difference between abstaining and not voting


 
overt complicity vs passive complicity. You can tell your constituents with a straight face that you did not vote for *insert unpopular thing*. Most people will recognize that as the act of a weasel, but then its lib dems. A given in any case


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 30, 2013)

so in one you don't even turn up and at the other one you do?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

abstention means you are eligible to vote but do not- I'm pretty sure that counts if you just overslept and missed the vote as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

Abstention/not voting on this kind of question is rather extraordinary. I can imagine votes where you might abstain in a principled way - perhaps it is something you genuinely don't care about, or you think the way the debate has been framed is so wrong that the question is meaningless, or you think that it is a matter of only regional relevance and those from the affected region should decide.

But that can't apply here. Either you agree with allowing the government the option of attacking Syria or you don't. If you can't have an opinion on that, you have no place being an MP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> abstention means you are eligible to vote but do not- I'm pretty sure that counts if you just overslept and missed the vote as well.


The one abstention was someone who voted both for and against, apparently. One tory did it as well.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The one abstention was someone who voted both for and against, apparently. One tory did it as well.


 

for in principle, against in the manner proposed?

I suppose you CAN play that one in good conscience but its still off. Why not just No it entirely


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> for in principle, against in the manner proposed?
> 
> I suppose you CAN play that one in good conscience but its still off. Why not just No it entirely


How? 

In this case they voted both for and against the motion stating that the govt should have the option of military action. They are in some kind of quantum superposition where they both agree and disagree with the motion at the same time. Perhaps at some point in the future, they will decohere.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

a schrodingers vote then? mealy mouthed scum etc


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 30, 2013)

so cameron lost a vote even with the help of the lib-dems? that's amazing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

if I was clegg I'd have three line whipped every member of my party into an abstention, revenge for the AV betrayal!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> so cameron lost a vote even with the help of the lib-dems? that's amazing.


 
It's been a rather tricky one to sort out, in terms of what it all means. 9 libdems and 30 tories voted against, so roughly similar proportions in both parties - tories marginally more bomby. Around 30 labour mps didn't vote against, but I'm guessing many of those just weren't there.

So despite his mealy-mouthed amendment, Milliband at least came out and voted against this motion, and he largely carried his party with him. Or should that be the other way round - his party carried him with them?

Cameron and Clegg, meanwhile, could not carry enough of their respective parties to win the vote. But they carried roughly the same numbers.

The difference between being in and out of govt is interesting to me here. In govt, New Labour were similarly bomby to the libdems. Out of govt, they are similarly non-bomby. This tells me that the same people are voting very differently on a question ostensibly about principle depending on where they see their own personal career interests lie. It's an interesting way of gauging the proportion of principled MPs in parliament. Between 10 and 20 percent - and many of those only rediscovering their principles when a government position is no longer a realistic ambition for them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2013)

I think there is probably a thing about being the party in power and not being. Bear with me here.

When your party is in power you have a massive hard on for your role in The Mother of Parliaments and your Soverign Duty to do things that Affect the United Kingdom.

when you aren't you just like the salary and spend more time on bread and butter constituency work rather than pretending you are in some grand Game of Thrones internationalist schemeing.

thats just my theory anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2013)

Maybe. And my estimate of principled mps is probably an overestimate, given that many of those voting against their party leader are those who have already given up on ambitions to be in government themselves.

Looking at New Labour and Iraq, where precisely one government minister was prepared to put principle above career, perhaps the real figure is less than 10 percent. I don't believe for one second that a majority of govt ministers actually believed in the Iraq war. That they were prepared to vote for it anyway shows that they didn't really believe in anything except being in power. Same can now be said for the majority of the libdems.


----------



## trampie (Aug 30, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Abstention/not voting on this kind of question is rather extraordinary. I can imagine votes where you might abstain in a principled way - perhaps it is something you genuinely don't care about, or you think the way the debate has been framed is so wrong that the question is meaningless, or you think that it is a matter of only regional relevance and those from the affected region should decide.
> 
> But that can't apply here. Either you agree with allowing the government the option of attacking Syria or you don't. If you can't have an opinion on that, you have no place being an MP.


 
Sinn Fein have taken a stance for many years, do you think they should participate playing politics within the British State ?, if they did wouldn't that be some form of acceptance ?.....hmm


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How?
> 
> In this case they voted both for and against the motion stating that the govt should have the option of military action. They are in some kind of quantum superposition where they both agree and disagree with the motion at the same time. Perhaps at some point in the future, they will decohere.


 
MPs do this when they want to register their abstention as an active abstention, rather than them simply not being there for the vote. Or being too drunk to know what they are doing


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2013)

Here we go, going to have to keep out eyes open for this stuff over the coming period. Lib-dems push through a bill to stop the NUS being able to campaign against lib-dems in marginal seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2013)

> A chapter written by the president of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron ( Back Page Interview, 20 May 2011), makes a case for the intellectual credibility of Christianity. If the stories in the Gospels weren't true, he says, "there were hundreds of people to contradict them - but they did not do so."



Wow. That's not a case for the "for the intellectual credibility of Christianity" - that's a bizarre truth claim about the four canonical gospels that appears to be based on ignorance of the historical provenance of the same and of the history of interpretation of the gospels. I would suggest a reading of people like John Dominic Crossan, Bruce Chilton, E.P sanders, John Gager, Marcus Borg and many many others before putting pen to paper next time Tim.

edit: there were literally hundreds of people in Galilee and Jersualam in the first century eh Tim?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2013)

...and they can't even keep their stupidity honest:

Lib Dems 'freezing out Christians'



> A Catholic Liberal Democrat MP has warned that his party is in danger of pushing out its Christian members by adopting an intolerant, secularist agenda.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Sep 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go, going to have to keep out eyes open for this stuff over the coming period. Lib-dems push through a bill to stop the NUS being able to campaign against lib-dems in marginal seats.



Aw, poor lib dems. I don't remember them giving a toss how much the NUS was spending when this was going on.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The one abstention was someone who voted both for and against, apparently. One tory did it as well.


technical abstention. Paul Burstow the MP in question. remarkable how these ex-ministers have a fit of the consciences _after_ they've been sacked!


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> looking at New Labour and Iraq, where precisely one government minister was prepared to put principle above career, perhaps the real figure is less than 10 percent.


not so. One _cabinet_ minister (cook), and a few junior ministers (denham, for one). would have been 2 in the Cabinet, 'cept Clare Short made a complete bollix of it.
interestingly though, 145 Labour MPs voted against. Now given that all govt members (whips and PPS's included) had to vote for the war, that meant taht some 40% of Labour backbenchers voted against


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow. That's not a case for the "for the intellectual credibility of Christianity" - that's a bizarre truth claim about the four canonical gospels that appears to be based on ignorance of the historical provenance of the same and of the history of interpretation of the gospels. I would suggest a reading of people like John Dominic Crossan, Bruce Chilton, E.P sanders, John Gager, Marcus Borg and many many others before putting pen to paper next time Tim.
> 
> edit: there were literally hundreds of people in Galilee and Jersualam in the first century eh Tim?


Does tim farron not quite understand that media, opinion polling and publishing weren't all that sophisticated in Judaea and Samaria, c. 0AD - 200AD? Or in fact, that nothing was?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and they can't even keep their stupidity honest:
> 
> Lib Dems 'freezing out Christians'



He's right, support for gay marriage is massively intolerant


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and they can't even keep their stupidity honest:
> 
> Lib Dems 'freezing out Christians'





> In his contribution to a new collection of essays by Christian Liberal Democrats, _Liberal Democrats Do God_, published by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, Mr Mulholland argued that religious views were being increasingly seen as unwelcome within the party.



I don't know about anyone else but that one goes right to the top of my reading list.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2013)

he would have scourged those pusillanimous fucks from the temple, then chased then down the road screaming 'You dickheads! I do this in my Fathers name'


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he would have scourged those pusillanimous fucks from the temple, then chased then down the road screaming 'You dickheads! I do this in my Fathers name'


Not sure why you think his most conservative and reactionary act is somehow radical.


----------



## co-op (Sep 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure why you think his most conservative and reactionary act is somehow radical.



Not sure why you think it isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Sarah Teather fails desparately to retain her seat in 2015


Well she's rather ambiguously 'quit' - the article doesn't say what she's quit though - on further research it appears she is just not to stand as a lib-dem candidate in 2015. Doesn't say she's leaving the party or anything. You can bet labour tried to woo her.


----------



## killer b (Sep 8, 2013)

you can, although fuck knows why they would have bothered.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

co-op said:


> Not sure why you think it isn't.


Because far from being the attack on the encroachment of mercantilism into social life of popular myth it was rather an aggressive violent attempt to re-impose externally formulated hierarchical and authoritarian notions of the scared and the profane on a populace who were moving beyond such restrictive practices and the processes that produced them. Pure social conservatism and defence of the status quo - the sort of thing Simon Heffer or Peter Hitchens would do.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

_ "I still love my party," she says_


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> you can, although fuck knows why they would have bothered.


For embarrassment purposes mainly i suppose. Would have pissed off a lot of LP people - prospective candidates especially.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For embarrassment purposes mainly i suppose. Would have pissed off a lot of LP people - prospective candidates especially.



Actually the story is that she tried to woo them and they told her to fuck off. 

I'm sure the leadership would have loved to poach her, but the local party would probably have done a Blaneu Gwent (without the politics).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2013)

Teather should really have stood down and forced a by-election, but she's just shown what a useless fuck she is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because far from being the attack on the encroachment of mercantilism into social life of popular myth it was rather an aggressive violent attempt to re-impose externally formulated hierarchical and authoritarian notions of the *scared* and the profane on a populace who were moving beyond such restrictive practices and the processes that produced them. Pure social conservatism and defence of the status quo - the sort of thing Simon Heffer or Peter Hitchens would do.



The post is good, but the typo improves it massively.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Teather should really have stood down and forced a by-election, but she's just shown what a useless fuck she is.



I'm not sure, but I think that the changes to the parliamentary pension mean that if she goes before the next GE is called, she'll lose part of her pot.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The post is good, but the typo improves it massively.


Do you know what, that was also after i already fixed a typo on the same bloody word


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure, but I think that the changes to the parliamentary pension mean that if she goes before the next GE is called, she'll lose part of her pot.


Ah, there had to be a reason. That makes sense. I mean, let's face, honourable is one thing she isn't.


----------



## killer b (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know what, that was also after i already fixed a typo on the same bloody word


if you're editing from a mobile, the edit doesn't seem to save properly. for me anyway, i think i've noticed other people complaining the same.


----------



## co-op (Sep 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because far from being the attack on the encroachment of mercantilism into social life of popular myth it was rather an aggressive violent attempt to re-impose externally formulated hierarchical and authoritarian notions of the scared and the profane on a populace who were moving beyond such restrictive practices and the processes that produced them. Pure social conservatism and defence of the status quo - the sort of thing Simon Heffer or Peter Hitchens would do.



Wow .

I'm sure you've got some references for this pov but it looks like quite a stretch to me. What are the "restrictive practises" you're talking about here? And where is the evidence that the populace were "moving beyond them"?

And calling this "pure social conservatism" is pretty far-fetched; starting a large-scale fight at the Temple could surely never be called that, regardless of what the motive was - it had to be an attack (of some sort) on the dominant class (or at least the local collaborators with the Roman regime) and that makes it at least ambiguous in terms of its politics, even if you can argue the motives were reactionary (which I'd be really interested to hear more about).

What do you think of the phrase "my house shall be a house of prayer for all nations"? Why do you think that's thrown in here? It doesn't look like a socially conservative slogan to me.


----------



## Combustible (Sep 9, 2013)

Chris Huhne is back and is blaming the Murdoch press for his predicament. Apparently it was all because he was the one brave enough to challenge Murdoch when he was in opposition.


> Most of the saga was played out brutally in public, but there are some hidden eddies that reveal how politicians have become so distrusted. My endgame began when Neville Thurlbeck, the chief reporter of the now defunct News of the World, heard gossip that I was having an affair. Rather than cheapskating on the proposed investigation by hacking my phone, the News of the World put me under extensive surveillance by a retired policeman, a more expensive exercise.
> 
> Why was News International prepared to invest so much to tail an opposition Liberal Democrat back in 2009? Maybe it was coincidence, but that summer I was the only frontbencher who, with Nick Clegg's brave backing, called for the Metropolitan police to reopen the voicemail hacking inquiry into Rupert Murdoch's empire.
> 
> Given that I was falling in love with someone who was not my wife, you might think that it was an act of folly to court Murdoch's hostility, but the journalist in me rebelled. Publish and be damned. If I was not in parliament to speak out when I saw an abuse, why was I there?



And the moral of the story is that the fact he went to prison for lying and perverting the course of justice isn't just a problem for himself but is a problem for us all!



> Ultimately, the new media aggression is not just a problem for those individuals directly affected, it is a problem for us all. Media ownership must be more diverse because it is the lifeblood of public debate. If competition policy is not enough, then we should have statutory limitations or even help for small media outfits (as other countries do). It is not only votes that make a democracy, but voices too.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/despise-politicians-my-part-murdoch-machine


----------



## Sue (Sep 9, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Chris Huhne is back and is blaming the Murdoch press for his predicament. Apparently it was all because he was the one brave enough to challenge Murdoch when he was in opposition.
> 
> 
> And the moral of the story is that the fact he went to prison for lying and perverting the course of justice isn't just a problem for himself but is a problem for us all!
> ...



Poor, poor Chris Huhne. He was just on Today coming out with the same bollocks.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 9, 2013)

That Lying Bastard Huhne said:
			
		

> The truth is, politicians are no more venal or self-serving than people outside politics, and often far more high-minded. (Anyone who wants to make money should go into business. *You lose money in politics*.)


Utter Shite.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

Contemptible. He's unreformed and unrepentant. I think - along with much of his party comrades - that he is a sociopath. A genuine sociopath. He has turned being caught publicly lying to a whole range of people - professional, personal and gods knows what else - into him being persecuted for seeking to talk truth to power. He's exactly the sort of person who would have flourished in the nazi bureaucracy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 9, 2013)

Sue said:


> Poor, poor Chris Huhne. He was just on Today coming out with the same bollocks.


He's suffered because of our sins.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 9, 2013)

It's hilarious he is actually engaging with the comments, so sure in his inner perfection. I wonder if Laurie Penny can pull some of her old Lib Dem strings and get him on here?


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 9, 2013)

How come a decent bloke I worked with some years ago tried to take the blame for his son driving and take the three points so his son wouldn't lose his license, he got six years for perjury and Chris Huhne thinks he is badly done to! Arsehole of the highest order


----------



## JimW (Sep 9, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> He's suffered because of our sins.


He just wants us to take a few points for him, no biggie.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2013)

I always knew the cunt, Huhne would land on his feet once he left the big house.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2013)

Nylock said:


> Utter Shite.



Well, you may lose money *while you're in* politics, but you soon make up for it when everyone you've done favours for while in power bungs you a sinecure.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 9, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, you may lose money *while you're in* politics, but you soon make up for it when everyone you've done favours for while in power bungs you a sinecure.


I'd contest that it's more the case that you *earn less than you would outside politics** which is not the same as actually losing money (running at a deficit and getting into hideous debt).

(*On a like-for like position in the private sector, and considering all the subsidies and expenses that MP's get/claim I would imagine you are still (largely) better off being a run-of-the-mill MP than being in the private sector and being un-subsidised on a higher (on paper) income bracket).


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

co-op said:


> Wow .
> 
> I'm sure you've got some references for this pov but it looks like quite a stretch to me. What are the "restrictive practises" you're talking about here? And where is the evidence that the populace were "moving beyond them"?
> 
> ...



Well, references are going to be hard to produce given we're talking about an interpretation of events and words that we don't have any proof actually happened rather than a question of producing evidence of straightforward facts. So what i'm left with is showing that my reading is internally consistent with the core of the four different tellings in the canonical gospels (there are undoubtdly other versions and interpretations in the Apocrypha and non-canonical gospels but i'll leave that for now), that this is also consistent with other words and deeds of jesus and finally that the material conditons i suggested were in place were actually in place.

Right, the core of each of the canonical gospels versions relies on the temple being sacred, that means that certain things or activities are not to be allowed to happen there. That is central to all. Jesus' violent rage is at the encroachment of these profane practices onto that sacred area. The two mentioned in the gospels are money-lending and the selling of animals for sacrifice (and the money-changing was to allow pilgrims with money from different areas to buy those animals for sacrifice).

Now these are not profane activities in themselves but only in specific contexts - one important one in this case, if the authorities running the temple decided they were. In this case the Pharisees had outlawed these activities and banished them to the desert - at this time the raising of sheep and goats for sacrifice, for hides, wool, meat, butter and cheese constituted much of the peasant economy of the time so this obviously seriously messed up this peoples livelihoods.(see E. P. Sanders Judaism Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE).

The choice was give up their work or give up their religious rights. Well, there was another option actually - they could rebel against the ruling , ignore it and continue to practice their trade - including in the temple. Which they did, which got jesus in a mighty sore rage. This is both the restrictive practices that i mentioned and the people moving beyond them. The evidence of this happening is in his very actions. He violently attempted to re-impose the externally created laws of the Pharisees onto the people. He tried to restore a situation that the people had found damaging and so moved beyond. I cannot think of something more clearly reactionary or socially conservative. (The fight wasn't that big btw the temple was many football fields big, and filled with thousands and thousands of people, overturning a few tables and doing a bit of shouting wouldn't have been that big a deal).

The phrase "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" appears in mark alone and it is mark choosing to place the words of Isaiah 56:7 in jesus' gob. This is very important for two reasons. Firstly, it is Mark saying that jesus based his violent attempt to re-impose authority on the people specifically on scriptural authority, he is arguing that jesus re-asserted the rights of orthodox authority demanding that people adhere strictly to religious law and religious authority.

Secondly, at the time of writing the gospel the mark-tradition church were tied up in a bitter war with the other churches over whether to evangelise gentiles or to stick with converting jews alone. The gospel itself was addressed specifically to gentiles in rome at the time. So what we have here is an attempt to place the idea that Gentiles should be pursued into christianity in the mouth of jesus' hmself - "a house of prayer _for all nations_". It is an attempt to give Mark's view Jesus's authority (and remember it's first use to emphasise the strict following of religious authority - that means jesus' authority too). It's a low-down dirty political trick that requires some unpacking. This is why it doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.

(Not quite where i expected the thread to go, but there you are! )


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 9, 2013)

Any discussion of the sanctimonious shits must inevitably end up in biblical criticism


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Any discussion of the sanctimonious shits must inevitably end up in biblical criticism


 
Inevitably! 

Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 9, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Inevitably!
> 
> Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....


My thought exactly when I saw the story


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Inevitably!
> 
> Was just going to comment in the latest self indulgent Sarah Teather story, linked to by butchers' earlier. Nowhere in that story was any suggestion or even hint made that she'd inevitably lose her seat (and probably by miles) if she stood again. Funny that ....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 9, 2013)

I look forward to the day - possibly  the day after the next general election - when this thread title is changed to 'why the lib dems _were _shit'.


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (Not quite where i expected the thread to go, but there you are! )





Me neither although the christian/lib-dem venn diagram did have a significant overlap in allowing use of the slag-off "sandal-wearing". But that was in the 70s and youngsters nowadays are sadly ignorant of these ancient cusses. 



butchersapron said:


> Well, references are going to be hard to produce given we're talking about an interpretation of events and words that we don't have any proof actually happened rather than a question of producing evidence of straightforward facts. So what i'm left with is showing that my reading is internally consistent with the core of the four different tellings in the canonical gospels (there are undoubtdly other versions and interpretations in the Apocrypha and non-canonical gospels but i'll leave that for now), that this is also consistent with other words and deeds of jesus and finally that the material conditons i suggested were in place were actually in place.
> 
> Right, the core of each of the canonical gospels versions relies on the temple being sacred, that means that certain things or activities are not to be allowed to happen there. That is central to all. Jesus' violent rage is at the encroachment of these profane practices onto that sacred area. The two mentioned in the gospels are money-lending and the selling of animals for sacrifice (and the money-changing was to allow pilgrims with money from different areas to buy those animals for sacrifice).
> 
> ...



But thanks for the rest of this reply, very interesting. But why was Jesus suddenly so keen to uphold the pharisees here? He clearly is generally bent on undermining them. And do we have decent evidence for this prohibition on trade in the temple?  

Good point about the 'for all nations' quote though. I must admit I'd assumed it was in all the gospels and I assumed it was one of the ticklist of 'prophecy fulfillments' that Jesus was so obviously going through in order to bolster his credibility, but obviously if it's just Mark then it gets more likely that this is an addition. I mean we're always in this problem of what was said (i.e. formally) and what was added, but I'd see this phrase as a typical attack on the pharisees - and I think it's at least arguable that Isaiah uses it in a universalist sense, as an attack on the tribal nature of judaism.

Seriously though this is a divert, if you don't have the time, ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 9, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> I look forward to the day - possibly  the day after the next general election - when this thread title is changed to 'why the lib dems _were _shit'.








when did you last see a lib dem?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2013)

co-op said:


> <snip>
> 
> Seriously though this is a divert, if you don't have the time, ignore.



I reckon leave it for now, but next first century/NT/etc stuff thread i'll jump on it! Got cricket in a minute anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2013)

The Greens in Bristol, in order to pose as radicals put forward a motion that the council will 

exclude companies involved in blacklisting of workers from securing future Council contracts.

·        require companies tendering for contracts to demonstrate that they are not using blacklists.

·        require that companies that tender for Council contracts demonstrate that they have processes in place to encourage the reporting by workers of workplace concerns, particularly in respect of health, safety and welfare.

·        seek, where this can be done without financial or legal penalty, to terminate contracts where companies are found to be using blacklists.

·        examine existing contracts with any of the companies listed by the ICO and ask for reassurances that the company uses no form of blacklisting to inform their employment decisions.

The motion passed. The lib-dems _abstained_. (and some Greens who peddle a radical image couldn't even be bothered to be in the right country).

I cannot see the poltical logic here -in this city their vote is a crossover to with the green party, they are/were in direct competition and here they are handing over something they could potentially use on the doorstep for those hippy-ish areas they are both competing in, and turned it into a weapon for people to demand of them why they didn't vote for it. Political madness.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 14, 2013)

So it appears that the Cleggon is championing a tax on carrier bags as his flagship going into conference.
I can imagine the scene in cabinet: Cleggy: "in return for our support for war, we demand something in return"
 Dave: " here you are minion, have this important green initiative"
Cleggy: " that'll show them I'm still relevant"
Minion: "bottom"


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 14, 2013)

Because I used the word minion


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> So it appears that the Cleggon is championing a tax on carrier bags as his flagship going into conference.
> I can imagine the scene in cabinet: Cleggy: "in return for our support for war, we demand something in return"
> Dave: " here you are minion, have this important green initiative"
> Cleggy: " that'll show them I'm still relevant"
> Minion: "bottom"



I genuinely believe that this is how it works with some of the 'social justice' types in the Lib Dems. This type of initative is especially appealing to them because it punishes people who don't have the 'right priorities' which I think is of more interest to most environmentalists than the actual fucking environment.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2013)

Punish the poor who have to use public transport for their one big shop a month and are forced to use the bags for their rubbish rather thnan having a 100 quid brabantia bin, or their kids packed lunch or for freezer bags and reward those with a nice eco-car to drive to the supermarkets with and who have a huge freezer, tupperware etc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 14, 2013)

indeed wasn't there a good argument that taxing carrier bags would just force people to buy more purpose made plastic bin bags and the like rather than reusing their carrier bags?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2013)

re use your bags to pick up dog shit. then hurl at cleggs house.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Punish the poor who have to use public transport for their one big shop a month and are forced to use the bags for their rubbish rather thnan having a 100 quid brabantia bin, or their kids packed lunch or for freezer bags and reward those with a nice eco-car to drive to the supermarkets with and who have a huge freezer, tupperware etc



Brabantia bins - Shiny, over-priced and easily dented.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 15, 2013)

What an absolute shit cunt Clegg is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24099255



> He said the UK needed Lib Dems in government because they would act as a moderating influence on the bigger parties, telling Andrew Marr coalition was "much better than either the left or the right messing things up on their own all over again".
> 
> "It is my genuine belief that if we go back to the bad old days, not of coalition or balanced politics, but of either the left or the right dominating government on their own, you will get a recovery which is neither fair nor sustainable.



In other words, I don't really give a fuck who's in government I'll slither up to anyone just as long as I can keep a modicum of power.  Does he really believe that anyone in the country will accept that as a sincere statement?  One of the most weasily statements I've ever heard a politician utter.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2013)

I've got my own plastic bag policy for Nick Clegg


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 15, 2013)

Carrier bags already all cost 5p a pop here in Wales.

We just help ourselves to a few each time we visit London ... or Bristol


----------



## CyberRose (Sep 15, 2013)

Lib Dems to make no income tax for minimum wage workers policy for any future coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24099255

Hmmm, why wasn't that a condition for the coalition they're currently in?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've got my own plastic bag policy for Nick Clegg



So have I. The one that West Midlands Serious Crime Squad pioneered.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 16, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Chris Huhne is back and is blaming the Murdoch press for his predicament. Apparently it was all because he was the one brave enough to challenge Murdoch when he was in opposition.


Is it me, or is Huhne making a major, and desperate, bid for rehabilitation? Artciles by him everywhere, not least in the LD house rag? (aka The Guardian)


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I cannot see the poltical logic here -in this city their vote is a crossover to with the green party, they are/were in direct competition and here they are handing over something they could potentially use on the doorstep for those hippy-ish areas they are both competing in, and turned it into a weapon for people to demand of them why they didn't vote for it. Political madness.


just a wild guess here. They are so delusional as to think they might get power in Bristol one day, and don't want to be constrained (but it is a wild guess).
That, or they've completely lost the plot.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 16, 2013)

Why are people comparing the fibdims to shit as shit makes a good natural fertiliser and so is useful unlike the fibdims who are only useful if you have some Semtex or AK47's handy


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 16, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> Why are people comparing the fibdims to shit as shit makes a good natural fertiliser and so is useful unlike the fibdims who are only useful if you have some Semtex or AK47's handy


Lib dems would also be good fertiliser


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2013)

Great stuff, they vote to remind all the people they tricked that they tricked them:



> The deputy prime minister won a controversial motion saying the Liberal Democrats were right to sign up to reduce the deficit through cuts to public spending.





> A string of Lib Dem heavyweights lined up in favour of the leadership's position, including Vince Cable, the business secretary. He had been expected to stay away from the debate, but decided to turn up at the last minute after his absence was interpreted as a failure to back Clegg over the economy.



Is there no end to their political nous?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> indeed wasn't there a good argument that taxing carrier bags would just force people to buy more purpose made plastic bin bags and the like rather than reusing their carrier bags?


 
carrier bags are so fuckin flimsy anyway, you always have to get more


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 16, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> just a wild guess here. They are so delusional as to think they might get power in Bristol one day, and don't want to be constrained (but it is a wild guess).
> That, and they've completely lost the plot.


 
fixed it for you


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 16, 2013)

If it weren't for the havoc and hell the Coalition's policies are causing to people's lives, I do admit I'd find it funny watching the LD's endless wriggling and self-justification as they approach their rendezvous with oblivion.
But the consequences of what they do nare too real.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> fixed it for you


indeed!


----------



## Nylock (Sep 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Great stuff, they vote to remind all the people they tricked that they tricked them:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FTFY


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2013)

> A string of Lib Dem heavyweights



LOL


----------



## JTG (Sep 18, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> just a wild guess here. They are so delusional as to think they might get power in Bristol one day, and don't want to be constrained (but it is a wild guess).
> That, or they've completely lost the plot.


They've already had it. They were shit.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 18, 2013)

clegg goes on about what they stopped the tories from doing ,but he will be remembered for what he as allowed then to do.He is practically begging for our votes now ,the turd


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 18, 2013)

Liberal Democrat minister rues party's record on female MPs
Leadership ponders positive discrimination amid fear that party's female MPs face election rout



> The party already has the worst gender balance of the three major parties. With seven women out of 57 MPs, the proportion of 12% compares with 16% for the Conservatives, after David Cameron temporarily brought in an "A-list" to promote women ahead of the 2010 election. Of Labour MPs, 31% are women, supported by a policy of female-only shortlists in some constituencies.


Teather 3%
Jenny Willott 13%
Jo Swinson about 4%
Tessa Munt 1.5%
Lynne Featherstone* 12%*
Lorely Burt 0.3%
Annette Brooke 0.6%


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 18, 2013)

Back in the 80's i seem to remember the libs saying "go back to your consituencies and prepare for government" they then blew it now the fibdims should be saying "go back to your constituencies and prepare for oblivion" which in 2015 has a very real chance of happening


----------



## Nylock (Sep 18, 2013)

Go back to your constituencies and prepare to sign on...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2013)

If there were any justice it would be go back to your constituencies and prepare your suicide notes.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2013)

has this been posted yet? (from 2010)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> has this been posted yet? (from 2010)



I'm nicking that!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2013)

That was from Simon Huges constituency - on top of that he also wrote to the council attacking free school meals. So we have a local party opposing if across the board from the MP to the Councillors and they had made attacking free meals central to their election stratgey  -why else would they have printed up posters and leaflets against the policy. And just to make matters worse, the pic they usd to illustrate their contempt for free school meals is a crop of a pic from outside the gates of eton (no free school meals inside the gates of eton):






So using that pic actually says that the kids on the right there should not be receiving free school meals because the rich kids on the right might get a formal unused right to those meals too. The argument effectively is that the poor should have less because the rich are richer than them.


----------



## JTG (Sep 19, 2013)

Point of order: I always believed that pic was taken outside the Grace Gates at Lord's


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2013)

Clegg is now backing the Tories plans for HB,

Er, hasn't Clegg made great play of the fact it was them who has moderated the coalitions welfare plans including "stopping Hb for under 25 year olds"...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

JTG said:


> Point of order: I always believed that pic was taken outside the Grace Gates at Lord's



Yep, and they were harrow boys apparently.

Very interesting read.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

I'll tell you why the lib-dems are shit. The association of lib-dem councillors used to run an by-election results service that i found very useful for laughing at their results and generally keeping informed of electoral movements They've just made it members only. And not only lib-dem members only but only fee-paying lib-dem members only.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'll tell you why the lib-dems are shit. The association of lib-dem councillors used to run an by-election results service that i found very useful for laughing at their results and generally keeping informed of electoral movements They've just made it members only. And not only lib-dem members only but only fee-paying lib-dem members only.



How odd. You'd expect the 'by-election experts' to want to publicise their gains as widely as possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

brogdale said:


> How odd. You'd expect the 'by-election experts' to want to publicise their gains as widely as possible.


Like this sort of thing - compare their performance to UKIPs...


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, and they were harrow boys apparently.
> 
> Very interesting read.


 
good find, I always wonder what happens to people in these iconic pictures

what about the young lad doing the v sign in that iconic picture of a Sheffield gang playing near a bonfire with a Union Jack on the top.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2013)

> In 1998, the journalist Geoffrey Levy published a fine piece in the_ Daily Mail _that for the first time named all five. The “toughs” in the picture turned out to be George Salmon, Jack Catlin and George Young, three 13-year-olds who lived close to Lord’s and were in the same class at a Church of England school, St Paul’s Bentinck, a few minutes’ walk away in Rossmore Road. According to Levy’s account, all three had been to the dentist that morning and then decided to skip school and hang around instead outside Lord’s, where the Eton-Harrow match offered money-making opportunities to any boy willing to open taxi doors and carry bags, or to return seat cushions to their hirers and claim the threepenny deposit. “We did OK that day,” George Young told Levy. “I think we made about two shillings each. We didn’t really think about the way the toffs were dressed – we just assumed they were rich. And suddenly there was a photographer saying: ‘Just stand a bit closer together while I take your picture.’ ”


 
That Geoffrey Levy...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2013)

Hilarious stuff from the old lag himself, claiming that no-one told him that UK spooks were spying:-



> Cabinet ministers and members of the national security council were told nothing about the existence and scale of the vast data-gathering programmes run by British and American intelligence agencies, a former member of the government has revealed.
> 
> Chris Huhne, who was in the cabinet for two years until 2012, said ministers were in "utter ignorance" of the two biggest covert operations, Prism and Tempora. The former Liberal Democrat MP admitted he was shocked and mystified by the surveillance capabilities disclosed by the Guardian from files leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.
> 
> "The revelations put a giant question mark into the middle of our surveillance state," he said. "The state should not feel itself entitled to know, see and memorise everything that the private citizen communicates. _*The state is our servant*_."



_*The state is our servant*_! How liberal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

Norman Baker for State

shit or shrewd? he seems to have a record of awkward question-asking...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Norman Baker for State
> 
> shit or shrewd? he seems to have a record of awkward question-asking...


 LD therefore shit. That aside, it is interesting to speculate exactly what Clegg was up to when he placed this high-profile conspiracist into such a role. 

Bliar can't be pleased.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2013)

He's a conspiracy freak. He thinks the police, who his department now run, were involved in covering up the actions of an Iraqi hit squad who killed David Kelly and made it look like murder rather than suicide. And that's just the start of it. Still, nice to see such fearless truth seekers can be bought by a few shiny baubles.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

well good to see the graun leading with the idea that this will anger Theresa rather than pointing out that he's a conspiracy loon.

Wiki (yes I know, my research skills shine once again) credit him with awkwardly questioning mandleson into resignation.

written by himself?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's a conspiracy freak. He thinks the police, who his department now run, were involved in covering up the actions of an Iraqi hit squad who killed David Kelly and made it look like murder rather than suicide. And that's just the start of it. Still, nice to see such fearless truth seekers can be bought by a few shiny baubles.



Suicide rather than murder.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2013)

Maybe, I'll have a look in a sec. What it does demonstrate is that the lib dems have no one left to promote. No talent. No experience. No skill. But they need to keep their ministerial numbers up. So they promote jazzz.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe, I'll have a look in a sec. What it does demonstrate is that the lib dems have no one left to promote. No talent. No experience. No skill. But they need to keep their ministerial numbers up. So they promote jazzz.



All about Clegg's desperate attempt(s) to salvavge some support from his own core/activists. Apparently Clegg regarded both Browne & Moore had 'gone native' and started to appear more indistinguisable from those who were supposed to be their political opponents.

Desperate stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

I have been utterly baffled by Nick Robinsons analysis of this round of reshuffles, he seriously seems to be claiming that this draws definite lines between 'red' ed and the coalition. He's just not even bothering is he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

how much are we paying the slapheaded liar anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> how much are we paying the slapheaded liar anyway.


The BBC won't tell you what they pay 'talent' (their term). I expect it's around 3000 million pounds a year though. Another one who had to struggle to overcome his private school then oxbridge background.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> T*he BBC won't tell you what they pay 'talent' *(their term). I expect it's around 3000 million pounds a year though. Another one who had to struggle to overcome his private school then oxbridge background.




so what we ( I use the term loosely cos I don't) pay these people to disseminate lies, half truths and state pravda is not even available via FoI?

welcome to the free world


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2013)

Correct. As they take great pleasure in telling you if you bombard them with FOIs about it - and they'll place you in the vexatious file as soon as they can.


----------



## treelover (Oct 11, 2013)

Lid Dems come seventh in Manchester bye election behind the BNP and a man in a pirate suit!


----------



## Nylock (Oct 11, 2013)

lol


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lid Dems come seventh in Manchester bye election behind the BNP and a man in a pirate suit!


 

 Wouldn't mind seing the actual result there!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2013)

Please tell me TUSC beat the pirates at least


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lid Dems come seventh in Manchester bye election behind the BNP and a man in a pirate suit!



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/why-the-lib-dems-are-shit.248656/page-219#post-12599842


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lid Dems come seventh in Manchester bye election behind the BNP and a man in a pirate suit!



 have you got a link for that mate?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 11, 2013)

Couldn't find it when I searched just now ....


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Couldn't find it when I searched just now ....



http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/362/elections_and_voting/4981/your_next_election

Turn-out 13.56%


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> have you got a link for that mate?



Was it this one?

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/362/elections_and_voting/4981/your_next_election

No left/socialist candidate. Labour utterly dominant.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Was it this one?
> 
> http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/362/elections_and_voting/4981/your_next_election
> 
> No left candidate. Labour utterly dominant.


 Ha! Some of these lame-brains can't do internet!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2013)

This the result:

Ancoats & Clayton By-Election 

Labour 1239
UKIP 166
Green 89
Conservative 82
Pirate 79
BNP 58
Lib Dem 44

Turnout 13.5%


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2013)

Anyone else?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2013)

> Turnout 13.5%



on what planet is this fucking quorum


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2013)

...and they couldn't even find a candidate to stand in Salford where they used to get elected.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Ha! Some of these lame-brains can't do internet!


 

Or patience 

I got as far as to the same MCC 'elections and voting' page but went fail after that ...


----------



## se5 (Oct 12, 2013)

...Bracknell Lib Dems are trying to sell the Bracknell bandstand on ebay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-BRACK...dern-Pavilion-Gazebo-Going-soon-/251355653049 even though they have no authority to sell it having zero councillors in Bracknell. Currently the bids are around £150,000 which makes it look like the cheap publicity stunt that it is


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2013)

se5 said:


> ...Bracknell Lib Dems are trying to sell the Bracknell bandstand on ebay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-BRACK...dern-Pavilion-Gazebo-Going-soon-/251355653049 even though they have no authority to sell it having zero councillors in Bracknell. Currently the bids are around £150,000 which makes it look like the cheap publicity stunt that it is



Total bell-ends.

This sounds very LD...





> 5. We reserve the right to add any reasonable terms or conditions that may need to added on issues that we become aware of during the auction....


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2013)

these mugs haven't realised that political obscurity becons come 2015


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> these mugs haven't realised that political obscurity _*becons*_ come 2015



That is a superbly apposite typo!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 12, 2013)

Best thing about election night 2015 by far will be the steamroller-style obliteration of almost all Lib Dems. Can't wait!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Best thing about election night 2015 by far will be the steamroller-style obliteration of almost all Lib Dems. Can't wait!



Yes....but let's not forget that most LD incumbents have tories in 2nd place. Sure, they'll be a few gains by NL, but with a projected swing against the tories and the LDs fabled incumbency/local machine, they may hang on to more of their seats than we might anticipate?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on what planet is this fucking quorum



The issue of voter numbers not constituting a quorum/being quorate is certainly a "live" one.  Too many "democracies" (including ours) don't ask themselves "how few is *too* few?" or "why so few?", because it isn't in the interests of power to interrogate such questions..


----------



## weepiper (Oct 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lid Dems come seventh in Manchester bye election behind the BNP and a man in a pirate suit!



They came _eighth_ in the Govan by-election

Labour 2055
SNP 1224
No 2 Bedroom Tax 446
Tories 215
UKIP 113
Green 112
Ind 103
Lib Dem 73
Christian Party 60
Fans Against Criminalisation 52
Communist Party 35
Solidarity 28
BNP 19

Turnout was 20%


----------



## brogdale (Oct 12, 2013)

weepiper said:


> They came _eighth_ in the Govan by-election
> 
> Labour 2055
> SNP 1224
> ...





Beat the christos, though!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

A thief speaks:



> Parliament has forsaken our liberty. Law is the last resort
> Who sanctioned the snatching powers of the secret state? Blair? Straw? David Miliband? It's ripe for judicial review



This is your govt and your votes that are leading to Judicial Reviews being out of the range of most people subject to the law. It's happening. Not to you you Private school oxbridge dick - you own the law.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2013)

'No 2 Bedroom Tax' candidate in Glasgow came 3rd, which is surely cool as fuck


----------



## weepiper (Oct 21, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> 'No 2 Bedroom Tax' candidate in Glasgow came 3rd, which is surely cool as fuck



He was a previous Labour councillor, well-known in the local area apparently


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 21, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> 'No 2 Bedroom Tax' candidate in Glasgow came 3rd, which is surely cool as fuck



Sad to see the Communist Party doing so badly, historically wouldn't that area have been one of their strongest? Wasn't Jimmy Reid from Govan?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Sad to see the Communist Party doing so badly



Who gives a shit? 

Well done to the anti-bedroom tax person


----------



## weepiper (Oct 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Sad to see the Communist Party doing so badly, historically wouldn't that area have been one of their strongest? Wasn't Jimmy Reid from Govan?



Not that sure of your point here, given that AFAIK Jimmy Reid spent longer as a Labour Party member and as an SNP supporter than CPGB


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 21, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Not that sure of your point here, given that AFAIK Jimmy Reid spent longer as a Labour Party member and as an SNP supporter than CPGB



True enough I was just thinking of that time in February 74 when he looked like he was gonna win a sit for a short while, but it was a different constituency so nevermind. 

Just my inner stalinist pining for the 70's that's all


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Think we mentioned in thread, but he's now been convicted and sentenced:

Denbigh ex-mayor John Larsen jailed for 18 years for bomb explosions



> A former mayor has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for a series of explosions in Denbigh which a neighbour described as sounding like a "battlefield".
> 
> John Larsen, 46, got a "thrill" from his actions, which had the potential to kill, Caernarfon Crown Court was told.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2013)

This is the uk polling report summary of the latest Ashcroft polling in scotland:



> Anyway, I’ll leave you to read Lord Ashcroft’s report for yourselves, but for the record it also contained Westminster voting intention figures for Scotland, concucted earlier this month. CON 18%(+1), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 6%(-13), SNP 31%(+11), UKIP 2%(+1). Changes are from the 2010 election and reflect a big swing from the Lib Dems to the SNP. If it was repeated as a uniform swing across Scotland the Lib Dems would be reduced to three seats in Scotland, the Tories would gain two seats, Labour would gain two and lose one, the SNP would go up to 11 seats.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2013)

> Nick Clegg has said he is entitled to call Tory climate sceptics "deniers" despite a warning by the government's chief scientist that it is an "abusive" term.
> The Deputy Prime Minister said that while he accepts the advice of Sir Mark Walport, he does not agree with his choice of "verbs, adjectives and nouns".



And we're entitled to call you a lying tory cunt.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 7, 2013)

Chris Huhne's ex on Question Time tonight. Probably have Jeffrey Archer lined up for next week.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

Beaten by the BNP ,Greens UKIP and two independents in Stoke last night:


Anthony Munday (City Independents) 861 (32.27%)
Sam Richardson (Conservative Party) 504 (18.89%)
Candi Chetwynd (Labour) 444 (16.64%)
Mick Harold (UK Independence Party) 333 (12.48%)
Gary Elsby (Independent) 313 (11.73%)
Michael Anthony White (British National Party) 79 (2.96%) 
Adam William Colclough (Green Party) 50 (1.87%)
Tom Grocock (Liberal Democrat) 32 (1.20%)
John Davis (Independent) 27 (1.01%)
Liat James Norris (Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts) 25 (0.94%)

(And if TUSC are returning those figures in Stoke it's time to give up. I think the City Independents are ex-labour who left went Tristram Hunt was selected, need to check though)


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the City Independents are ex-labour who left went Tristram Hunt was selected, need to check though)


they are - as was Gary Elsby


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

On top of that 32 votes in stoke they also got 30 and 26  in two seaton seats  (UKIP scoring around 450 in same seats - in fact UKIP stuff them in every seat contested last night).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 15, 2013)

How long can they keep chanting 'mid term blues'? They have been flat-lining on 10% for three years now with no variation other that which is down to margin of error. That is not a 'fickle' electorate - swinging from party to party on the back of a soundbite -  that is cast iron contempt. Those votes are not coming back. A year ago, I thought their vote in the GE would maybe climb back to the mid teens - but now I'm pretty sure they are stuck on 10%.

The breezy lack of concern from the lib dems over their imminent destruction  is breathtaking - no plots, no rebellions - nothing. I'm disappointed - I want to hear the squeals of political agony from the cunts. 

After 2015 they will be hollowed out - no money, half of their mps gone, their local  council base withering away - and who in their right mind is going to join them as an activist?


----------



## co-op (Nov 15, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> How long can they keep chanting 'mid term blues'? They have been flat-lining on 10% for three years now with no variation other that which is down to margin of error. That is not a 'fickle' electorate - swinging from party to party on the back of a soundbite -  that is cast iron contempt. Those votes are not coming back. A year ago, I thought their vote in the GE would maybe climb back to the mid teens - but now I'm pretty sure they are stuck on 10%.
> 
> The breezy lack of concern from the lib dems over their imminent destruction  is breathtaking - no plots, no rebellions - nothing. I'm disappointed - I want to hear the squeals of political agony from the cunts.
> 
> After 2015 they will be hollowed out - no money, half of their mps gone, their local  council base withering away - and who in their right mind is going to join them as an activist?




I think it's Eastleigh - it's made them unbelievably complacent. But Eastleigh isn't going happen in 50 seats at once, you can't flood 50 seats with activists from all over the country. And you're not going to be up against a really really bad candidate like they were in Eastleigh.

They are sleepwalking over a cliff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2013)

co-op said:


> I think it's Eastleigh - it's made them unbelievably complacent. But Eastleigh isn't going happen in 50 seats at once, you can't flood 50 seats with activists from all over the country. And you're not going to be up against a really really bad candidate like they were in Eastleigh.
> 
> They are sleepwalking over a cliff.


i think they'd struggle to flood any more than five seats with activists - no chance of fifty eastleighs


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2013)

If they replicate anything like Eastleigh on more than about 2 or 3 seats at most, I'd be very surprised indeed. Highly possible they wouldn't be able to replicate it at all (not even in Easteigh itself?


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2013)

UKIP wont do anything like as well in a General as they do in by-election either tho. And, absurdly, come the final day, in the Tory-Lib seats there'll still be a fair few who'll do anything to stop the 'out and out' Tory.  So they will improve a little bit. Wont be worth more than 3% for them tho, tops.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> The breezy lack of concern from the lib dems over their imminent destruction  is breathtaking - no plots, no rebellions - nothing. I'm disappointed - I want to hear the squeals of political agony from the cunts.
> 
> After 2015 they will be hollowed out - no money, half of their mps gone, their local  council base withering away - and who in their right mind is going to join them as an activist?


It is quite amazing just how stupid/deluded the members are. I mean you'd think some of them would be smart enough to realise that they are going to be killed in 2015 and that they need to do something pretty drastic just to make sure they keep enough MPs/councillors/members that they can at least attempt to re-build. But they don't appear to have either the intelligence or even enough self interest to recognise this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> It is quite amazing just how stupid/deluded the members are. I mean you'd think some of them would be smart enough to realise that they are going to be killed in 2015 and that they need to do something pretty drastic just to make sure they keep enough MPs/councillors/members that they can at least attempt to re-build. But they don't appear to have either the intelligence or even enough self interest to recognise this.


 
They're not going to be wiped out though even the worse case scenarios only show them going back down to immeadiately pre Ashdown levels of MP, although the councillor base is and will still take a serious hammering and that is where the real damage is being done, they have been through dark days before and I wouldn't underestimate their ability to adapt and survive like cockroches


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 15, 2013)

But pre-Ashdown they hadn't lost their Highlands base to the SNP, they are already the 4th party in Scotland, Wales and London.
They will keep some MPs in the South-East but they going to be wiped out in the North and they are losing councillors hand over fist. The fact that most of the party can't see that this isn't a sudden blip which is likely to be reversed in 2020 is just mad.

I think there is a good chance that their time as the third party in British politics is coming to an end.

Their rise came in large part from the fact that they were the only viable option for many people who didn't want to vote Labour or Tory. Not only is that no longer, but as the poll on the previous page shows that sort of 'not the big two' vote has been significantly damaged.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 21, 2013)

Excellent smackdown of Clegg and the Sheffield Liberal Democrats by the Chief Exec of Sheffield City Council in this letter which has gone public.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

Beaten by BNP and Greens in St Helens last night:

ST HELENS Billinge and Seneley Green

Dennis MCDONNELL (Labour Party Candidate) 936 (50.7%)
Laurence ALLEN (UK Independence Party) 442 (24.0%)
John CUNLIFFE (The Conservative Party Candidate) 248 (13.4%)
Sue RAHMAN (The Green Party Candidate) 94 (5.1%)
Alan BRINDLE (British National Party) 73 (4.0%)
Noreen KNOWLES (Liberal Democrat) 52 (2.8%)


----------



## Nylock (Nov 29, 2013)

I look forward to posting on the post 2015 GE "Why the lib-dems are shit dead" thread....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

Finally, after coming behind the greens, the bnp and independents for successive weeks, the lib dems more manage to get beaten by tusc in not one but two seats. One in Glasgow and one in Cardiff.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Finally, after coming behind the greens, the bnp and independents for successive weeks, the lib dems more manage to get beaten by tusc in not one but two seats. One in Glasgow and one in Cardiff.



Have you got the figs for that butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

I have in two secs after I've give the cat a tablet.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

LAB HOLD Glasgow Shettleston
Lab 2025
SNP 1086
Con 225
UkIP 129
TUSC 68
LD 53
No Bedroon Tax 50
GRN  41
Soc 35
Christian 34 
Britannica 

LAB HOLD Cardiff Riverside 
Lab 1120 
Plaid 773 
Con 107
UKIP 97 
TUSC 70 
LD 58


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I have in two secs after I've give the cat a tablet.



I really hope that "giving the cat a tablet" isn't a euphemism!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> LAB HOLD Glasgow Shettleston
> Lab 2025
> SNP 1086
> Con 225
> ...



What's Britannica and did it actually get 0 votes??


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What's Britannica and did it actually get 0 votes??


No idea and 31 votes.


----------



## belboid (Dec 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What's Britannica and did it actually get 0 votes??


bunch of bigots (I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn). Against mass immigration, for offensive behaviour at football matches
http://britannicaparty.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 6, 2013)

Cheers, they look lovely.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 6, 2013)

Cheers butchersapron  - Very enjoyable.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Finally, after coming behind the greens, the bnp and independents for successive weeks, the lib dems more manage to get beaten by tusc in not one but two seats. One in Glasgow and one in Cardiff.



actually not all that surprised by this. The Lib Dems support in Labour areas like Glasgow and Cardiff will have partly come from disaffected/protest voting ex-Labour people, turned away by the war and tuition fees and stuff. It should really be no surprise that a handful of those voters would switch to voting TUSC - although with these two places there's also the fact there's viable left-ish nationalist parties, no doubt they've taken a big share of the ex-Lib Dem voters too. Amongst those ex-LD voters who won't vote Labour there's a range of possibilities (UKIP, TUSC, Green, SNP/Plaid...) for them to vote for instead of the LIb Dem. 

The share of the vote is too low to really read deeply into anyway, looking at these results on this thread i'd say the Lib Dems are in deep trouble, Labour are winning everywhere they ought to, UKIP's vote isn't just the polls it's real and the "others" section of fringe parties will keep getting higher and higher.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> actually not all that surprised by this. The Lib Dems support in Labour areas like Glasgow and Cardiff will have partly come from disaffected/protest voting ex-Labour people, turned away by the war and tuition fees and stuff. It should really be no surprise that a handful of those voters would switch to voting TUSC - although with these two places there's also the fact there's viable left-ish nationalist parties, no doubt they've taken a big share of the ex-Lib Dem voters too. Amongst those ex-LD voters who won't vote Labour there's a range of possibilities (UKIP, TUSC, Green, SNP/Plaid...) for them to vote for instead of the LIb Dem.
> 
> The share of the vote is too low to really read deeply into anyway, looking at these results on this thread i'd say the Lib Dems are in deep trouble, Labour are winning everywhere they ought to, UKIP's vote isn't just the polls it's real and the "others" section of fringe parties will keep getting higher and higher.



Given the numbers are so small there is no evidence of any Libdem votes passing to TUSC on the basis of these two results of course.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Given the numbers are so small there is evidence of any Libdem votes passing to TUSC on the basis of these two results of course.



Of course, and out of the potential "others" I think they're way behind UKIP or the Greens as a potential new home for ex LD voters, even though they have the sort of left-of-Labour policies Lib Dems used to campaign on in Labour areas. But I wouldn't be surprised to see those fringe protest vote parties collectively picking up a much higher share of the vote, and TUSC might even marginally benefit from that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2013)

Corker this one:

Locked up for EIGHT hours for telling Nelson Mandela joke



> Neil Phillips said he was fingerprinted, DNA-swabbed and had his computers seized.





> Mr Phillips, who runs Crumbs sandwich shop in Rugeley, Staffs, was arrested after complaints by Cllr Tim Jones about the one-liners, aired when the anti-apartheid hero was critically ill.





> In May 2011 he was elected to Rugeley Town Council for the Etchinghill ward as a Liberal Democrat.



And this from the party that only three years ago made an explicit manifesto commitment to _introduce apartheid style pass laws_ in this country.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 9, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I really hope that "giving the cat a tablet" isn't a euphemism!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

Kill, or at least starve - the old  - they are useless eaters says very rich man who lived a taxpayer  subsidised life first in parliament then in prison.



> Someone needs to fight the selfish, short-sighted old. They are the past, not the future.


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> LAB HOLD Glasgow Shettleston
> Lab 2025
> SNP 1086
> Con 225
> ...



they nearly came elenth.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2013)

where to said:


> they nearly came elenth.



...out of 10.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Kill, or at least starve - the old  - they are useless eaters says very rich man who lived a taxpayer  subsidised life first in parliament then in prison.



I am still struggling to think of any response to this other than "fuck off and die, cunt" which is probably against the CIF house rules.



(for clarity, i mean huhne, not ba)


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What's Britannica and did it actually get 0 votes??



had a look at their website.  the two shown in photographs are ex-BNP, one was top of the Scottish list at the last Euros and was leading their attempts to hold a stall in Glasgow city centre (they were sent packing).


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ...out of 10.



out of 11.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Kill, or at least starve - the old  - they are useless eaters says very rich man who lived a taxpayer  subsidised life first in parliament then in prison.




Trying to send out an olive branch to his kids?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 2, 2014)

> *Mumsnet bans MP John Hemming after he outs users*
> * Liberal Democrat John Hemming banned from online forum after inadvertently breaking code of anonymity and defying court order*
> *http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10547625/Mumsnet-bans-MP-John-Hemming-after-he-outs-users.html*





> Mr Hemming, _*who once nominated himself as Love Rat of the Year*_, after admitting a string of affairs, has also been accused of taking to the parenting website while drunk.


----------



## killer b (Jan 2, 2014)

christ. i didn't realise it was him - the one with the cat murdering love triangle. he's one odd cunt isn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Laos the dick promoting Bookers social workers stole baby from wombs story (as well as other stuff for booker). 

Remember, this is who a group of lib-dem members chose as their best face. Probably the last honest thing they did.


----------



## killer b (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Laos the dick promoting Bookers social workers stole baby from wombs story (as well as other stuff for booker).


yeah, i'd seen his name around a load with that, but hadn't made the connection.


> Remember, this is who a group of lib-dem members chose as their best face. Probably the last honest thing they did.


this isn't something unique to the lib dems tbf - all the parties have a few mouth-breathers round the periphery. does seem to be a stronger faction in the lib dems mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah, i'd seen his name around a load with that, but hadn't made the connection.
> 
> this isn't something unique to the lib dems tbf - all the parties have a few mouth-breathers round the periphery. does seem to be a stronger faction in the lib dems mind.


It's more pronounced as they have less members and less space to hide in. Less norms.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah, i'd seen his name around a load with that, but hadn't made the connection.
> 
> this isn't something unique to the lib dems tbf - all the parties have a few mouth-breathers round the periphery. does seem to be a stronger faction in the lib dems mind.


Also, would you be entirely surprised to learn that he's private school and oxbridge?


----------



## killer b (Jan 2, 2014)

i bet he was bullied on the quads.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Laos the dick promoting Bookers social workers stole baby from wombs story (as well as other stuff for booker).
> 
> Remember, this is who a group of lib-dem members chose as their best face. Probably the last honest thing they did.



 I'm told (by a reliable source, but at least second hand nonetheless) that the reason he got the selection is cos he's a millionaire and he said he'd put loads of his own money into the campaign. I suppose in some ways that is actually properly honest about politics. He's properly weird is John.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2014)

Not exactly "_Why..._", but sound evidence of quite how shit the electorate think their leader is...if anymore proof were needed...

Source







> Cover image: collected answers to the question
> “_*what is the first word or phrase than comes to mind when you think of......Nick Clegg*_"


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 5, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not exactly "_Why..._", but sound evidence of quite how shit the electorate think their leader is...if anymore proff were needed...
> 
> Source



Id like to see that image with the responses included from people who answered the question 'what is the first word of phrase that comes to mind when you think of nick clegg?' with  'cunt' 'wanker' 'shitbag' etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2014)

That Clegg is fantastic.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That Clegg is fantastic.


The smaller image is better but you can't read the words


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2014)

> "You've got a Conservative party now who are driven, it seems to me, by two very clear ideological impulses. One is to remorselessly pare back the state – for ideological reasons just cut back the state.
> 
> "Secondly – and I think they are making a monumental mistake in doing so – they say the only people in society, the only section in society, which will bear the burden of further fiscal consolidation are the working-age poor."



...said...the DPM of HMG.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Laos the dick promoting Bookers social workers stole baby from wombs story (as well as other stuff for booker).



Even went on the Alex Jones show to do it.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...said...the DPM of HMG.


The clock is running down for Clegg.I would expect more of this bullshit as may 2015 comes closer


----------



## treelover (Jan 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Not exactly "_Why..._", but sound evidence of quite how shit the electorate think their leader is...if anymore proof were needed...
> 
> Source



Hope they do one of Duncan Smith


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2014)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinp16/10-reasons-you-will-fall-back-in-love-with-nick-cl-i7sk


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinp16/10-reasons-you-will-fall-back-in-love-with-nick-cl-i7sk



How could someone form those 9 words into that sentence?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinp16/10-reasons-you-will-fall-back-in-love-with-nick-cl-i7sk



Amazing 

love point 5, showing how the deficit 'soared' under labour - weird how that started in 2008, just after the financial crisis. New labour are cunts but it does my nut in when people try and pull that one.


----------



## yield (Jan 7, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinp16/10-reasons-you-will-fall-back-in-love-with-nick-cl-i7sk


WTF 

https://plus.google.com/+MartinPetts/about


> I'm a politics geek of the Liberal persuasion. I am currently chairman of the Spanish branch of Liberal Democrats Abroad.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

Reminds me of this


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2014)

> *Clegg makes the case for a further coalition*
> It was Nick Clegg’s turn this morning to tour the radio and TV studios and his most interesting line was this from 5Live:-
> 
> _“Actually, if you look at some of the polls, there’s polls suggesting more people want another coalition of one description or another than they want a single party government. And by the way, I think they’re right, because I think right now for this country, *the biggest risk to our economic recovery is a single party government of either left or right.,,”*_



As opposed to the 1.2 party government of the far right in which he deputises as leader.

Desperate fuckwit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> As opposed to the 1.2 party government of the far right in which he deputises as leader.
> 
> Desperate fuckwit.


His reading of ashcroft is totally wrong. As is that bizzare chart from Smithson.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 13, 2014)

John hemming should have a thread all to himself, the cunt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25641247


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 13, 2014)

Sheffield: And another former Lib Dem Cllr and Parliamentary candidate fucks off and joins Labour.

https://twitter.com/PaulBlomfieldMP/status/422760788512632832/photo/1


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> His reading of ashcroft is totally wrong. As is that bizzare chart from Smithson.



Yep, but Smithson seems to have regained his senses _a little_ today with this post, outlining the unrealistic nature of LD hopes of joining Lab in coalition. Smithson assumes that, if Lab found themselves in a position of needing the LD rump, they'd have come second in terms of the popular vote...and the LDs would have some problem "in principle" with joining the party coming second in the popular vote.

The psephology looks reasonably sound, but the assunption of any principled position from the LDs is somewhat laughable. If a result like the one envisaged did pan out, I'm damn sure that any surviving LD ministers would jump at the chance of retaining their ministerial car, even if it did meaning hooking up with the 'second choice' of the voters.



> ...what sort of result would lead to such a move. Featured _below_ is a seat projection from Electoral Calculus on what happens on a uniform national swing if LAB gets 34% of the GB vote and CON 36%.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I'll post this in 'Polling' as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

Cheers, yes - that's far more like it.

 Odd fish that Smithson chap btw.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Can the LDs do the right thing?


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Sheffield: And another former Lib Dem Cllr and Parliamentary candidate fucks off and joins Labour.
> 
> https://twitter.com/PaulBlomfieldMP/status/422760788512632832/photo/1


you seen the latest local lib-dem leaflet?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> you seen the latest local lib-dem leaflet?



You've got to be shitting me?

Mind you - they've got form for this kind of shit.

Cleggers is doing a town hall meeting type thing in Nether Green next week I think - might take this along.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> you seen the latest local lib-dem leaflet?


Looks like they've just picked up an old job lot of Brown's Labour 2010 electoral literature.


----------



## elbows (Jan 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Can the LDs do the right thing?



Of course not:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25747951



> The Lib Dems have said there is insufficient evidence to justify further action against peer Lord Rennard over sexual harassment claims.
> 
> Following an internal inquiry into allegations made by activists, the Lib Dems concluded the evidence against the peer was "broadly credible".
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2014)

i.e we have no intention of allowing Rennard in his defence, to ask Clegg why, if he was guilty of harassment  he did sweet FA when it was first reported to him and instead covered it up. 

Remarkably similar to the Duggann defence as well - no intention/honest belief.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

Some reaction...



> I feel quite sick and very glad I'm no longer a member. #LibDems #Rennard—
> Jo Shaw (@_JoShaw) January 15, 2014
> Utterly ashamed of my party.—
> Charlotte Henry (@charlotteahenry) January 15, 2014
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 15, 2014)

elbows said:


> Of course not:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25747951


Urgh, what kind of spineless low life do you have to be to think that doesn't stink.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Urgh, what kind of spineless low life do you have to be to think that doesn't stink.



The (long) piece on C4 News was top value telly. Firstly the two victims of Rennard were eloquent, brave and feisty stating quite clearly that the party should expell him. Next up was the oleaginous, disingenuous and patronising liar Farron; what a complete arsehole. He came out with the mealy-mouthed shit about not be able to do anything cos of rules...FFS. But to cap it all they then went to the stangers lobby to interview Rennard's mate and legal advisor Carlile; brilliantly bonkers interview. Cathy Newman did quite well with the whole thing, but failed to land the knock-out question about this all being put in place to protect Clegg, Swinson and those who knew.

Worth a look if you missed it.

e2a : mostly here


----------



## elbows (Jan 15, 2014)

Look at the scum,
And how they cover for you,
And everything you do,
Yeah they were all yellow.

I drew a line,
I drew a line for you,
Oh what a thing to do,
And it was all yellow.


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2014)

The wriggling and fallout in more detail:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/16/lib-dems-accused-secret-justice-lord-rennard


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

elbows said:


> The wriggling and fallout in more detail:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/16/lib-dems-accused-secret-justice-lord-rennard


 Clegg flabbergasted by the situation; bollux. This has been engineered to protect him, Swinson and the others that facilitated thte long-standing cover-up.



> Alison Smith said: "The Liberal Democrats have much soul-searching to do. They orchestrated a cover-up for many years to avoid dealing with the serious and numerous allegations against Lord Rennard."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

Sounds like they know they have Clegg and co over a barrel here -  note the confidence here:



> Carlile claimed Rennard would not be apologising since he had done nothing wrong, adding he would be resuming his position on the Liberal Democrat federal executive.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

Lib-dem incompetence truly knows no bounds - they've manged to piss off every single interested party here whilst weakening the leadership and strengthening its internal critics, effectively handing them a massive bargaining chip in future party stuff. Whilst simultaneously opening the party up to external attack for not taking sexual harassment seriously either in the attempt to hide the original complaints or the ongoing cover-up. What a shambles these people are.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds like they know they have Clegg and co over a barrel here -  note the confidence here:



Quite, because Clegg etc. have clearly opted for an impression of corporate impotence/incompetence rather than publically risk (even more if that is possible) damage to his personal integrity and that of other senior LDs/ministers. Rennard feels completely safe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

If, as they went to great lengths to point out, Rennard is not a lib-dem employee, then surely they could have handed the _investigation _to someone outside of the party rather than one of the parties big-wigs. That stinks.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but Smithson seems to have regained his senses _a little_ today with this post, outlining the unrealistic nature of LD hopes of joining Lab in coalition. Smithson assumes that, if Lab found themselves in a position of needing the LD rump, they'd have come second in terms of the popular vote...and the LDs would have some problem "in principle" with joining the party coming second in the popular vote.



Today's Ipsos MORI (Evening Standard) monthly political monitor poll... 





> "had some interesting questions on coalitions. *60% of people now think it was a bad thing that we had a hung Parliament in 2010, 32% a good thing.* This compares to 40% good, 52% bad when it was asked in May 2010. Looking forward, only *26% think it would be a good thing if we had another hung Parliament at the next election, 65% see if as a bad thing* (thought 51% of people think it is very or fairly likely). MORI also asked if people would support the party they support going into a coalition in the event of a hung Parliament.
> 
> 
> 70% of Tory voters would support another coalition with the Lib Dems, _*only*_ 40% would support a coalition with UKIP.
> ...



"Only" 40% tories would support a coalition with UKIP....that sounds a little bit more than "only" to me, and Lab voters liking the idea of coalition with "the greens"; LOL. Mind you, I suppose a coalition with a party with no MPs in 2015 should make for a pretty united one! And 65% of the LDs still wanting more of the tories....fuckers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Got a chart for this somewhere, hang on...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 17, 2014)

62 % of labour supporters would support a coalition with the yellow tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

That's not favoured outcome, it's if push came to shove.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not favoured outcome, it's if push came to shove.



I realise that, but even so.  I'd still have thought that a greater proportion of labour supporters would be inclined towards "fuck off you bunch of spineless, principle-less cunts"

maybe that wasn't a poll option...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2014)

I imagine the thing in peoples minds would be 'if it were that, or 5 more years of Lord Bastard and his merry Eton Men'


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I realise that, but even so.  I'd still have thought that a greater proportion of labour supporters would be inclined towards "fuck off you bunch of spineless, principle-less cunts"
> 
> maybe that wasn't a poll option...


Yeah, it's doesn't fit my current picture at all. Maybe the fact of the election being in the bag bred sympathy for these devils. Or there was no option along the lines of your latter suggestion for all other parties. This is a good question  though as it feeds into tactical voting in lib-dem/tory marginals.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Got a chart for this somewhere, hang on...



I reckon the lib dem section is quite telling. If the pre-2010 lib dems I knew were anything to go on, the stats for favouring/opposing coalition with labour/tory would have been the other way round, probably with a majority opposed to coalition with the tories. I think those stats say a lot about who's left in the party/among voters - looks like the orange bookers are now in control of the grassroots as well as the leadership.

I guess there's a chance that the lib dems I knew tended to be more to the left than the rest, skewing the impression I got, but I reckon there's something to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Nope, that was my first though on seeing that  - was going to post a thing about what the lib-dem party is now, then couldn't be bothered, but you've just done it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2014)

UKIP one's interesting as well - not sure what it tells us but it's not what I'd expect (esp the fact that more support coalition with labour than oppose - I know they're not just euroskeptic Tories but I'd have expected more opposition than that even if it's only on the basis of labour's association with 'mass immigration').


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

All set for intra-party, bicameral, inter-generational warfare. Popcorn time!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25788034

Clegg tells C4 News that unless Rennard apologises the whip will be withdrawn. C4 news must have screened this picture about 40 times during the show!





http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nard-lib-dem-activists-demand-withdrawal-whip
This total up-fuck couldn't happen to a nicer party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Newman is on the warpath after that stuff the other night.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2014)

The barrister says it would be _'good manners'_ for the groper to apologise.  Crazy, full on guys these Libdems. 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rd-apology-behaviour-common-manners-barrister


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2014)

What's likely to come out of this then? Also, surely an apology is an implicit admission of guilt, and if he's guilty (obvs he is - he's a lib dem) how can they let him remain in the party? 

There are, surprisingly enough, still relatively active lib dem student groups. If they don't happen anyway I'm tempted to help organise 'interventions' at, well, everything they try to do.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 19, 2014)

They've fucked themselves quite hilariously over this haven't they? 

Their response to gropegate has been to try and mollify the victims without actually tackling lord sexpest and hoping all sides just move on and forget about it.  Now all sides are even more pissed off then they were before and clegg is being publicly humiliated.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 19, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> They've fucked themselves quite hilariously over this haven't they?
> 
> Their response to gropegate has been to try and mollify the victims without actually tackling lord sexpest and hoping all sides just move on and forget about it.  Now all sides are even more pissed off then they were before and clegg is being publicly humiliated.


John Major must look on in awe at the levels of incompetence Clegg exhibits.  He's trapped by history, stuck with the Tories, without even the chance of his own MPs putting him out of his misery. A truly filthy, slithering thing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 19, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> They've fucked themselves quite hilariously over this haven't they?
> 
> Their response to gropegate has been to try and mollify the victims without actually tackling lord sexpest and hoping all sides just move on and forget about it.  Now all sides are even more pissed off then they were before and clegg is being publicly humiliated.


Yeah made an a solute mess of it and I can't see this just dying away.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2014)

I wonder what moon23 thinks of it all now?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 19, 2014)

and Kippa 
(are there any other LDs left on U75)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wonder what moon23 thinks of it all now?



Probably trying his very best to pretend he never had anything to do with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> and Kippa
> (are there any other LDs left on U75)



trevhagl .


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wonder what moon23 thinks of it all now?



last I heard he'd made the transition to full on right libertarian


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2014)

Ah...the gift that keeps on giving...




> The dispute in the Liberal Democrats over sexual harassment allegations surrounding Lord Rennard, the party's former chief executive, was in danger of spinning out of control as his allies released emails that they claim prove there is a political conspiracy to damage him.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/19/lord-rennard-allies-allege-political-conspiracy



Sounds like this is seriously veering to the law courts. Meltdown acclerates.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 20, 2014)

Love the fact that the mini gallows is made of bits of the clegg pinocchio puppet (a running gag in rowson's cartoons)

The graun seems to have disabled comments on any article or cartoon referring to lord sex pest


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> and Kippa
> (are there any other LDs left on U75)


if there are they should out themselves now


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2014)

Clegg and the pest will have a face to face and hammer out something they're both happy with - (or, more accurately, Clegg will beg Rennard to do something that looks like an apology and not to let too many historic cats out of the bag and promise some future reward). They'll both say that they're now happy and looking forward to moving on. The problem is that this will again carve out the victims, the people in the party concerned with the way this whole thing was carried out and the cynical leadership model both in ignoring the original complaints and the attempted cover-up, and voters outside of the party. There is now no good way out of this for the lib-dems none at all. Not even if Rennard caves completely, that still won't leave Clegg looking strong an decisive - it will leave him looking weak, unable to control the party and the party itself internally divided, and internal division is electoral poison. Great stuff.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 20, 2014)

*Sky News* ‏@SkyNews  20s
Liberal Democrats Suspend Lord Rennard


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2014)

...and faces investigation for bringing the party into disrepute. Now he has the motivation to press the button. Do it!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2014)

They've fucked up the fuck up as well. Now it appears that this is being taken more seriously than the sexual harassment. Cheeking Clegg is the more serious issue. So incompetent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2014)

Blimey, have a good read of Rennards statement this afternoon. Fucks ups and twisting within fuck ups and twisting.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2014)

wow.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 20, 2014)

His mate Lord Reese is defending him.
WHAT A JUMPED UP PRAT!


----------



## yardbird (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm 66 in despair that men my age can be such fucking sexists.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2014)

essentially his statement is _the party is run by incompetent cowards, and I didn't mean to put my hand there so they should get over it._

I agree completely with the first bit.


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Blimey, have a good read of Rennards statement this afternoon. Fucks ups and twisting within fuck ups and twisting.



So it was all dirty tricks against the Party to which he is so loyal? Before the incompetence started, anyway...


----------



## Tankus (Jan 20, 2014)

Maybe he _should go to France_ like all good  _bunnies can and will
_


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 20, 2014)

Just heard a Libdem say they are at civil war over the Rennard sex-pest stuff, "each half lobbing grenades at the other". 

Curious how that didn't happen over demonising the poor, protecting the banking crimewave and driving vulnerable people to suicidal despair.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2014)

Having proved themselves incapable of government, the Rennard debacle shows the LDs to be the world's first _*post-figurative *_political party. Some achievement.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Having shown themselves incapable of government, the Rennard debacle shows the LDs to be the world's first _*post-figurative *_political party. Some achievement.


"What do you find the most frustrating, the most incompetent, the most embarrassing, the most morale sapping?  Right! Build your temple here!  I am Nick Clegg, look on my works and lol."


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2014)

Clegg has the appearance of a prisoner approaching the gibbet in this clip from channel 4 news. 

http://link.brightcove.com/services...p_Vh4qBcIZDrvZlvNCU8nxccG&bctid=3081809775001


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2014)

So where are they now with all this?

The party has chucked him out, he's going to sue them, and there seem to be claims from the victims that he is about to smear some of them. Is that it? Is that up to date?

Going well, isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2014)

looks to me like he smears them in his statement tbh. 'complainants' in inverted commas, a suggestion that as one of them accepted his apology previously she should have shut the fuck up.

lib dem tops going to war against clegg. everyone loses.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2014)

In all the media frenzy it's easy to overlook some of the back-story in all of this. I thought it might be a good moment to remind ourselves of the LD 'big beasts' who are being protected from reputational damage.

If my memory serves me correctly, the following have been implicated in the Rennard cover-up(s)...

Clegg
Alexander
Lamb
Swinson
Burstow
Any others that I've missed?

I suppose if Rennard or one, or more, his victims actually 'pulls the pin' and goes legal...then all this stuff would tumble out?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2014)

just read that during huhne/clegg leadership contest rennard discounted a load of delayed pro-huhne postal votes, thusly giving clegg the leadership. Bet huhnes smirking about the big fellas downfall now


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2014)

Farron's bid to 'captain the titanic' is, to some extent, driving this affair. We can only hope that Farron's mob are successful in pushing Rennard into the courts. 



> * Rennard's allies think Tim Farron, the party president, is a key influence blocking attempts at mediation.* Farron wants Rennard expelled from the party, Rennard's allies believe. They think this is part of a long-term attempt to position himself to win the next Lib Dem leadership contest. They say that Farron was presenting himself as a "new broom" who would be able to clean up the party (implicitly criticising the current leadership) when he said yesterday that an apology was owed not just to the women who complained about Rennard, but to Rennard himself. And Farron did say that. This is what he told Radio 4.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> *just read that during huhne/clegg leadership contest rennard discounted a load of delayed pro-huhne postal votes,* thusly giving clegg the leadership. Bet huhnes smirking about the big fellas downfall now



I read that too. Very believable,, but is it definitely true?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I read that too. Very believable,, but is it definitely true?




tonybee? christ knows I find her tone insufferable in all she writes but she's not a known fibber/inventor is she?


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2014)

1300 votes were delayed in the christmas post so missed the deadline. Huhne would have won if they'd been allowed. Rennard, the fox, was in charge of the election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

But not the post.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2014)

Tonybee has it that 'rennard adjudicated in Cleggs favour'. If the deadline was missed he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, christmas delay or no. Twisty wording.


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2014)

With a bit of forethought, the election coordinator should have known that it would be a bloody stupid time to set a deadline of a week before christmas. A liberal sense of fair play would have meant a ruling the other way.  But, fuck em either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

And Clegg blinks. Says it all about who has the power here.



> Nick Clegg has indicated that the Liberal Democrat leadership may be prepared to accept a qualified apology from Lord Rennard in which he admits that he caused inadvertent offence to women.





Note 'lib-dem leadership'


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Excellent - like the 'should've joined labour' 

Rafa would cost but he could only help. However, if you read his blog, he's a very clever chap whom takes things very seriously. So i think it'll be a no from him.


----------



## poului (Jan 22, 2014)

Benitez as interim leader, please.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

Quilliam foundation co-founder and Lib Dem PPC Maajid Nawaz posted a 'Jesus and Mo' cartoon to his twitter, saying that as a Muslim he was not offended by it.

He has received death threats for the tweet. The source of some of the threats seems to be fellow Lib Dem Mohammed Shafiq who has labelled Nawaz an 'enemy of the prophet'.

Predictably the Lib Dem support for their PPC, who has been receiving death threats, is lukewarm at best, "The Liberal Democrats are a party of respect, tolerance and individual liberty. We fundamentally believe in freedom of expression and as such defend Maajid’s right to express his views. But as a party we urge all candidates to be sensitive to cultural and religious feelings and to conduct debate without causing gratuitous or unnecessary offence."

No condemnation of Shafiq or calls for him to stop inciting people against Nawaz.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Ooh yes, meant to post about this yesterday - so many angles on this.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

Shafiq even suggests that he can't, but someone else should campaign against Nawaz if he stands as a Lib Dem PPC https://twitter.com/mshafiquk/status/425667763815059456

The Lib Dems still seem to be taking his side though, I bet Nawaz gets deselected.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

Guido claiming to have the report in to Mike Hancock that the Lib Dems are trying to quash

Here it is https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=01a784143c206d42&id=1A784143C206D42!105

Some lowlights (according to Fawkes, I've not read it yet



> Told constituent _“women had bucket crotches after hysterectomies”_. Asked to be_ “first to road test it”._
> Hancock _“started rubbing himself”_ begging for _“a quick w*nk and said he wasn’t very big. I picked up guitar to distract him”_.
> Hancock said he could not leave constituent’s house because _“I have a peg leg and it won’t go down”_
> Hancock to ill female constituent: _“You have one of those faces. You have a f**k face.”_
> _“He knew I was sexually abused as a child and he asked me what sex was like with previous partners. I asked him to stop. He wouldn’t stop.”_




They are so fucked.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2014)

Just beat me to it - what a shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Oh jesus.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

And you know what, last night the lib-dem council in Portsmouth who commissioned the independent report, voted to keep it secret. I didn't think my hatred of these scumbags had anywhere else to go. It does now.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And you know what, last night the lib-dem council in Portsmouth who commissioned the independent report, voted to keep it secret. I didn't think my hatred of these scumbags had anywhere else to go. It does now.



staggering isn't it. glad someone had the gumption to leak it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Maybe a _qualified apology_ would clear it all up?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

And remember -  this is very very important - Clegg was told about this behaviour as far back as mid 2011.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And you know what, last night the lib-dem council in Portsmouth who commissioned the independent report, voted to keep it secret. I didn't think my hatred of these scumbags had anywhere else to go. It does now.



holy shit


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

Solicitor representing the victims calling for Hancock to resign http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/lo...p-mike-hancock-1-5824285#.Ut-lf1WRhfQ.twitter


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

My reading of the report is that he targeted one woman because he thought she was particularly vulnerable.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

Yeah, representing the victim*


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

once the rest of the media stop trying to score PMQ's, wonder how much traction this will get.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

A lot i reck.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2014)

Scumbags.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Btw, the lib-dems have already - post allegations  - selected him as their parties 2015 candidate.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A lot i reck.



i hope so. really can't wait to see how this plays out.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Btw, the lib-dems have already - post allegations  - selected him as their parties 2015 candidate.


 
Maybe they can pool resources with the SWP to send both him and comrade delta to university


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Hancock speaks. Or his mate does. What he says is a re-hash of what he/they said in December. His tactic is clear -  hide/avoid. Too late.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Thought it wouldn't be long. C4/ newman should now be on the case.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Thought it wouldn't be long. C4/ newman should now be on the case.



i tweeted her earlier about this story, as have others by the looks of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Excellent, well done.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

Nigel Pascoe QC now saying he is glad the partial report has been made public 

https://twitter.com/BBCPeterH/status/426025915983077376/photo/1


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

Cathy Newmans article on Rennard has been unfirewalled for 24 hours btw

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/...e?shareToken=ce1bc6c25dc2a5346e60df1b9bc3bf42


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Pascoe said in the leaked report that he both recommended and assented to full publication. The lib-dems decided, _nah, let's cover it up._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Now suspended. From what though? The lib-dem whip in portsmouth? The party?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Cathy Newmans article on Rennard has been unfirewalled for 24 hours btw
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/...e?shareToken=ce1bc6c25dc2a5346e60df1b9bc3bf42


Ta.

They smell big blood.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

Councillor according to Guido. Who is now cock a hoop and gonna have to ignore his twitter for a bit


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

That times link is well worth the long read  - ta again.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That times link is well worth the long read  - ta again.



interesting isn't it, good to see it laid out like that and how long its taken them to get this story stood up with the lawyers.

proper journalism.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

As they'll firewall it soon, best to have a record of it here:

The presenter of Channel 4 News tells the story behind the allegations that have left the Liberal Democrats in turmoil

Just over a year ago, I sat in an old Oxford pub, the Royal Oak, with Alison Smith. I’d never met her before and we were both nervous — she because she was about to reveal intimate allegations against the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard; I because I was due back in London within hours to present _Channel 4 News_, and it was starting to snow heavily.

It was unfortunate that the prospect of bad weather and cancelled trains weighed on my mind. Because above all else I didn’t want to rush her story. She’d e-mailed me not long previously asking to meet and I knew it had taken considerable courage to talk to me about the claims that have now engulfed the junior party in the coalition.

I needn’t have worried. She gave her account calmly and concisely and I got on the train back to London knowing that I had the germs of a politically explosive story.

The tale really begins four years ago. I was contacted by someone who wasn’t herself claiming to have suffered at Lord Rennard’s hands, but said she knew of many others who had. I made strenuous efforts to get in touch with various women at the time, including Alison Smith herself, but none wanted to appear on camera, fearing the peer’s immense power, how the public and press would react and what the repercussions would be for family — and of course their political family, the Liberal Democrats.

I was advised by the _Channel 4 News _lawyer that anonymous allegations simply wouldn’t stand up in court. And that was that. Another story bites the dust.

Then, a year ago, Smith e-mailed me out of the blue, suggesting the culture had changed and that there was a growing intolerance of sexual harassment in Westminster and elsewhere. As a politics lecturer, she wanted to make life easier for the next generation of women, helping to transform the political culture for good by rooting out casual sexism in the Lib Dems and beyond.

And so I met Smith with my producer, Nicole Kleeman of Firecrest Films, in the Royal Oak and she agreed in principle to sit down with me and do an interview on camera.

The very same day I got in touch with Alison Goldsworthy, a Lib Dem activist who’s now vice-chairman of the party’s federal executive. She was incredibly worried about participating in my research, knowing Lord Rennard’s godlike status. He was the man who’d won elections for the Lib Dems and pulled the strings of a succession of leaders. As an active party worker, Goldsworthy worried that if she spoke out she could be turned into a political pariah.

Reluctantly, she said she’d do an interview so long as we concealed her identity. It was only during the furore that followed that she publicly declared herself as one of the women behind the original allegations.

We returned to Oxford a week later and filmed Smith in the Old Bank hotel. She was extremely nervous because she’d never done any TV before. Shortly afterwards I met Goldsworthy again and filmed her, or at least mainly the back of her head. Even though we repeatedly assured her that her words would be voiced by an actor she was understandably embarrassed to be talking so intimately to an almost perfect stranger.

Despite those two women risking personal and professional humiliation, it wasn’t enough to get the story on air. We needed much more. While I carried on with the day-to-day business of presenting _Channel 4 News_ and stories came and went, Kleeman started travelling the length and breadth of the country, talking to as many Lib Dem women as possible. It was painstaking work with many blind alleys and fruitless inquiries.

The turning point came, prosaically enough, in a Costa Coffee in Bedford. Kleeman had gone to meet Bridget Harris, who’d been a special adviser to Nick Clegg until recently. After talking round the houses about women in politics for nigh on 40 minutes, Kleeman raised the subject of Lord Rennard. Harris was quite clear about what she says happened to her, but she was astonished when she was told we’d heard similar stories from other women.

She promised she’d think about talking publicly, but was by no means sure she would. What she did disclose however was a document — the first independent proof of the women’s claims that they’d told senior figures in the party about what they say happened and that decisive action wasn’t taken. We were inching towards securing the evidence we needed.

Susan Gaszczak, another activist, gave us a statement revealing her allegations against Lord Rennard. She was too apprehensive to put anything on e-mail — so she sent a typed sheet of paper anonymously to Kleeman’s office in Glasgow. Other women talked to us anonymously, so finally we had allegations from a number of women. We spent the next three weeks going back to each of the women, checking their stories and testing their credibility because we knew the level of scrutiny they, and we, would be under once the investigation was broadcast.

We still weren’t sure if we’d get it on air until Harris decided that she, like Smith, was prepared to speak publicly. She was frustrated that she felt she had to: she’d left Nick Clegg’s office and was embarking on a new life as an entrepreneur. This was an episode from her past that she really didn’t want to revisit. In the end, however, having complained to her line manager more than a decade ago, she decided she wanted the party to deal with her allegations once and for all. Above all, she was quite determined that subsequent generations of women should get a better deal from politics.

By February 18 we were ready to go. We gave Nick Clegg, the party and Lord Rennard several days to respond. Lord Rennard himself denied the allegations and continues to do so, saying he had “no recollection of any inappropriate behaviour” and that he was “unaware of any complaint” about his conduct.On February 21, we put the finishing touches to the story.

At 6.59pm that day, a minute before we went on air, a statement came through from the Lib Dem HQ. It set in motion the train of events that have now split the party and left it facing the prospect of legal action from the man who helped propel it into government. It said an internal investigation into the allegations had begun under the party’s disciplinary procedures.

Even so, there wasn’t a huge amount of coverage in the next day’s papers and it was only at the weekend that the momentum started to build. A bungled response by the Lib Dems was what kept it on the front pages day after day. Nick Clegg at first claimed he only knew of the allegations when alerted by _Channel 4 News_ before having to admit that his office was aware of “indirect and non-specific” concerns from as long ago as 2008. He and other senior figures had missed the opportunity time and again to deal with the allegations, leaving the women feeling they had no choice but to have it played out in the media.

The police investigation came and went without any charges being brought. It was only when the Lib Dems resumed their own internal inquiry that events began to spiral out of the leader’s control. To justify kicking Lord Rennard out of the party, Lib Dem rules stipulated that the allegations had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. With these kinds of claims, there’s rarely an independent witness to what really happened, so it was always going to be a challenge for those making the allegations to satisfy that level of proof. So when the inquiry, carried out by Alistair Webster, QC, concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to dismiss Lord Rennard from the party, but that he should instead apologise to the women for the “distress” he’d caused them, neither side was ever going to be happy.

I spoke to all the women who’d formed the basis of my original report. They were angry at what they saw as their party’s ineptitude, frustrated that they’d risked everything and achieved nothing, and upset that their evidence — “broadly credible”, Webster concluded — was being called into doubt, particularly by parliamentary colleagues.

When Baroness Williams dismissed the allegations last year as “hopelessly exaggerated”, it hurt. When the Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies said that “touching someone’s leg through clothing” was akin to an Italian man pinching women’s bottoms, it not only betrayed a thoroughly old-fashioned sexism, but also a lack of awareness of the claims the women originally made.

One of the women alleged that, during a photo opportunity at a party event, Lord Rennard “shoved his hand down the back of my dress”, while Alison Smith claimed he’d sat between her and a female friend, “moving his hands down our backs and places where they had absolutely no business being”.

Over the past year all the women have been under considerable pressure from some within the party but also from the media. One told me she’s twice had to leave her home, and once the country, to try to put some distance between herself and the story. Smith told me yesterday she never thought it would be easy, “but I’ve been shocked by how difficult it’s been to get a proper investigation”. Despite all of this though, what’s impressed me most is that all the women say they have no regrets about speaking out. Harris texted me to say: “It’s a relief to be able to talk about these issues”.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

Susan Gaszczak resolutely didn’t want her name to appear in our original investigation, because she said she was terrified about the impact the ensuing scandal would have on her teenage children. Last week, she came into the _Channel 4 News _studio and waived her anonymity to give her reaction to Lord Rennard’s return to the Lib Dem fold. She was so nervous I could see her trembling slightly. But she spoke resolutely and powerfully — determined to change the Lib Dems, and political culture, for good.

She e-mailed me yesterday, saying her children’s reaction had given her strength. “They are now proud that I have done this and this has empowered me, and I hope this gives other people the courage to speak up for what they know is right,” she said.


Nearly a year after we broadcast her allegations, we’re still waiting for Nick Clegg to appear on our programme about the Rennard affair, to tell us what he knows is right.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2014)

Dan U said:


> interesting isn't it, good to see it laid out like that and how long its taken them to get this story stood up with the lawyers.
> 
> proper journalism.



Quite right.

btw, this story is having quite a surprisingly high degree of impact....




> YouGov also asked whether or not people were paying any attention to the Rennard story. *Only 6% of people said they were following it closely, 30% said fairly closely, 25% not very closely, 39% that they were not following the story at all or were totally unaware of it. *Generally speaking this _should_ be a Westminster bubble story – it’s about a disciplinary procedure against a backroom figure most of the public have never heard of, in normal terms it should be the sort of thing that only the most politically minded notice and which is rapidly forgotten by next week. However, the fact that it is dragging on and on does increase the possibility of “normal” people noticing.http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/




..not just us 'anoraks', then?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 22, 2014)

Looking at the mess the LDs have made of sorting out this Lord Sex-pest stuff made me wonder:

What sort of calamity would befall us if, led by some sponging dweeb like Danny Alexander, they negotiated coalition terms with a party of finance cult fanatics who'd been in power more than any other in history, including a squillion political stich-ups large or small, and the building of an empire often through mass murder and divide and rule?

Doesn't bare thinking about does it boyz n girls!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Now suspended. From what though? The lib-dem whip in portsmouth? The party?



Handycock suspended from party.



> _“The Liberal Democrats have this afternoon, for the first time, had sight of a Portsmouth City Council report by Nigel Pascoe QC into allegations of sexual impropriety by Mike Hancock.  Mike Hancock resigned as a Liberal Democrat MP last year in order to contest allegations of sexual impropriety in a High Court civil action. Given Nigel Pascoe QC’s conclusions in his report, *we have immediately suspended Mike Hancock’s membership of the party*.”_



Let's hope he sues as well!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Looking at the mess the LDs have made of sorting out this Lord Sex-pest stuff made me wonder:
> 
> What sort of calamity would befall us if, led by some sponging dweeb like Danny Alexander, they negotiated coalition terms with a party of finance cult fanatics who'd been in power more than any other in history, including a squillion political stich-ups large or small, and the building of an empire often through mass murder and divide and rule?
> 
> Doesn't bare thinking about does it boyz n girls!


Eh? And dweeb? And the Savile allusion - why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Handycock suspended from party.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope he sues as well!


Yep.membership now. Which open the question of thay they a) failed to act for so long despite it being on Clegg's personal desk and b) how they acted so 'swiftly' now. but not in Rennard's case. Joke people, joke party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Lib-dem statement:



> The Liberal Democrats have this afternoon, for the first time, had sight of a Portsmouth City Council report by Nigel Pascoe QC into allegations of sexual impropriety by Mike Hancock.



Open with an easily provable lie that _will _be followed up. You fucking clowns.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

Lib-dems promised a right of recall for these people in his cast in stone coalition agreement. Where is it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 22, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Guido claiming to have the report in to Mike Hancock that the Lib Dems are trying to quash
> 
> Here it is https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=01a784143c206d42&id=1A784143C206D42!105
> 
> ...


Fucking hell if that's correct, urgh. What a vile cunt.



butchersapron said:


> And you know what, last night the lib-dem council in Portsmouth who commissioned the independent report, voted to keep it secret. I didn't think my hatred of these scumbags had anywhere else to go. It does now.


Scum


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking hell if that's correct, urgh. What a vile cunt.
> 
> Scum


Oh yes, all of that...and we can only hope that his victim gets justice in court.....but.....but....politically....here, again we see those sticklers for justice and probity using rate-payers money to go to court, to in an attempt to prevent a report into Handycock's behaviour, (that  they have comissioned using public money), being used as evidence in another court in the civil action being taken against Handycock by his victim.

FFS, how piss-poor do these fuckers have to be.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/po...-report-into-mike-hancock-s-conduct-1-5808780

e2a : good account of the LD dominated council in action here.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 22, 2014)

http://news.sky.com/story/1199027/vicky-pryce-reinstated-as-govt-economics-adviser



> Vicky Pryce, who served a jail sentence for accepting speeding points from her former husband Chris Huhne, will return to a role advising Government ministers. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary, has decided she will continue on a panel of economists that speaks to ministers and civil servants about the "prospects of growth and business investment". "We believe in restorative justice," said a source.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Eh? And dweeb? And the Savile allusion - why?



Crikey, I only just saw the Savile thing. That was NOT intentional. soz. But he is a fucking dweeb.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems promised a right of recall for these people in his cast in stone coalition agreement. Where is it?



From memory, it might have been supposed to be on the back of the voting reform calamity. They played a total blinder there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> http://news.sky.com/story/1199027/vicky-pryce-reinstated-as-govt-economics-adviser


Of course, there's a long running pryce cable connection, their careers seem intertwined. I need to double check on this before  say more.

Back to Hancock - this is from pompey lib-dems:



> Mike Hancock has loyally represented the people of Portsmouth for over 40 years and he will continue to serve as an excellent constituency MP and as a councillor.



So another internal fron has been opened - this constituency against the leadership. Clowns.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> From memory, it might have been supposed to be on the back of the voting reform calamity. They played a total blinder there.


It was in the coalition agreement signed the week after the general election - writ in stone.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was in the coalition agreement signed the week after the general election - writ in stone.



I agree, but I still think it went out the window with the AV thingy. Not that it should have, but they turned out to be shockingly shit negotiations, as anyone who knew the "character" of DA could have predicted. Never mind knife to a gunfight, this was more of a pea-shooter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

Lib-dems official response to victims letter to Clegg two years ago - making clear that they utterly lied in their statement yesterday that this was the first they had heard of the allegations - that's what the first line  intended to suggest. They will argue that they hadn't seen this report so were unaware of the serious nature of the allegations - well,. they were, and the reason they then chose not to do the sort of report that pascoe did, they decided to fob the victim off rather than take her allegations seriously, so they're doubly damned.



> "Taking into account the contents of that correspondence, and applying the Party Constitution and membership rules, the committee decided that it would not commence any investigation or take any other action in respect of the matter that you have raised.
> 
> "In reaching this decision, the committee also took into account the nature of the police investigation and the stance of the Office of the Parliamentary Commission for Standards (OPCS).
> 
> "As a result, that has to be an end to the matter."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

The sex-pests son just attacked some journos outside the family home.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 23, 2014)

Yep just saw that. Police called.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 23, 2014)

Cleggs admitted he knew about this in Feb last year

as butchersapron noted yesterday, they have set themselves up for this. they are incredibly shit.

eta - even better, he admitted it on his RADIO SHOW in November last year 

etax2 - listen yourself, sorry for the geedo link
http://order-order.com/2014/01/23/clegg-admits-he-was-told-about-hancock-in-february-2013/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

This Hancock's son thing - looks to me like the was hit by a journo/photogrpahers car and retaliated - though he did step into the street without looking as well. Of course, stuff could have happened before this footage.

edit: actually, it seems it was his mum in the car who knocked him over - i thought the car pulled over and he started on the driver, but on second viewing, the car didn't stop and the bloke he hit was on the other side of the road.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This Hancock's son thing - looks to me like the was hit by a journo/photogrpahers car and retaliated - though he did step into the street without looking as well. Of course, stuff could have happened before this footage.
> 
> edit: actually, it seems it was his mum in the car who knocked him over - i thought the car pulled over and he started on the driver, but on second viewing, the car didn't stop and the bloke he hit was on the other side of the road.


 Bad genes, that one.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 23, 2014)

When even your mum doesn't love you enough to slow down, no wonder he's angry


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2014)

Hancock's victim has it right...



> ..._*the Lib Dems should 'hang their heads in shame'*_



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-suicide-after-he-sexually-assaulted-her.html


----------



## gosub (Jan 23, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> When even your mum doesn't love you enough to slow down, no wonder he's angry



she obviously sped past to avoid being photoed by the bloke he punched...

also a weird edit that cuts straight into the assault, a bit suspect


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> trevhagl .



hohoho if i vote Lib Dem at the next election i will also give every single one of you £100


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2014)

trevhagl said:


> hohoho if i vote Lib Dem at the next election i will also give every single one of you £100



Face it, trev.
You're *NEVAH* going to be allowed live down voting lib-dem, even if it was just the once!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> she obviously sped past to avoid being photoed by the bloke he punched...
> 
> also a weird edit that cuts straight into the assault, a bit suspect



Shut it you fuckwit


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 23, 2014)

ITN now running a story that the Lib Dems have known about Hancocks behaviour for 2 years. Emails and letters including one from his office to a victim that he may be 'touchy and feely'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> ITN now running a story that the Lib Dems have known about Hancocks behaviour for 2 years. Emails and letters including one from his office to a victim that he may be 'touchy and feely'.


They knew about this four years ago. As was posted on here at the time.


----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They knew about this four years ago. As was posted on here at the time.



Was this latest timed to spite _Private Eye_, who've been banging on about Hancock for at least that long and now have to wait a fortnight to say "told you so"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

laptop said:


> Was this latest timed to spite _Private Eye_, who've been banging on about Hancock for at least that long and now have to wait a fortnight to say "told you so"?


Nah, was timed to coincide with the portsmouth city council vote on whether to publish the report earlier this week  - if it was timed at all.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2014)

Next election --time for the 'dozer once again!!


----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, was timed to coincide with the portsmouth city council vote on whether to publish the report earlier this week  - if it was timed at all.



Ah, OK, didn't read that far down the _Grauniad_ story.

Does feel as though the day of a new _Eye_ sees a lot of scurrilous stories elsewhere, though...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 24, 2014)

libs trail in in 5th place in Cowdenbeath Scottish Parliament by-election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25850599



> Cowdenbeath by-election result
> 
> Alex Rowley (Lab) - 11,192 votes
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 24, 2014)

Sex pest, violent thug and girl racer - criminal families, broken Britain, ASBO nation etc.


----------



## trevhagl (Jan 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Face it, trev.
> You're *NEVAH* going to be allowed live down voting lib-dem, even if it was just the once!



and so i shouldn't be hoho


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

The leaked report was still redacted, now:

@SkyNewsBreak
 High Court rules alleged victim of Councillor and MP Mike Hancock can see full report into his behaviour conducted for Portsmouth Council


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Clegg on Rennard - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.
Clegg on Hancock - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.

A lie on both counts.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A lie on both counts.



Ally with both cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg on Rennard - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.
> Clegg on Hancock - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.
> 
> A lie on both counts.


there was another lie he told some time ago, where he used the same line. let me go and dig it out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Ally with both cunts.


V good!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> libs trail in in 5th place in Cowdenbeath Scottish Parliament by-election
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25850599



Beaten into fifth place in Scotland by a 'foreign' party of the far right...now that is unpopular!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg on Rennard - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.
> Clegg on Hancock - i wasn't aware of 'specific allegations'.
> 
> A lie on both counts.


yeh, didn't he say the same thing about cyril smith?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, didn't he say the same thing about cyril smith?


Possibly, i think he may have simply said it was all before his time and so couldn't talk authoritatively - don't know.


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2014)

The last thing I remember about Clegg and Cyril Smith was early last year when he was accused of not responding to solicitors acting on behalf of victims:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/27/nick-clegg-ignored-letters-lawyers-cyril-smith

Of fresh relevance later in that February article:



> Clegg has also been accused of ignoring requests to investigate allegations against Mike Hancock, the MP for Portsmouth South, who is being sued for allegedly sexually assaulting a constituent who had approached him for help with noisy neighbours. Hancock denies any wrongdoing. Clegg was sent a complaint in March 2011 but there was no reply or investigation, it is alleged in this week's Spectator.
> 
> The party announced an inquiry last week into how it has handled past complaints of sexual impropriety. Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, has admitted that the party "screwed up" over inquiries into claims that Rennard groped or propositioned female activists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Possibly, i think he may have simply said it was all before his time and so couldn't talk authoritatively - don't know.


certainly the lib dems seem to have handled information about smith with all the tact and decisiveness which has marked the cases of rennard and hancock: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/27/nick-clegg-ignored-letters-lawyers-cyril-smith


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Clegg claimed, when put on the spot about Rennard that he was - despite earlier denials/lies - aware of _non-specific_ allegations about him. I wonder how far back we can date his awareness of _non-specific _allegations around Hancock (in reality, pretty specific). We can go back four years on this thread -as can the papers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Beaten into fifth place in Scotland by a 'foreign' party of the far right...now that is unpopular!


Yes, don't forget that the UKIP total was only 610 votes. We're not talking "behind UKIP who did quite well".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> certainly the lib dems seem to have handled information about smith with all the tact and decisiveness which has marked the cases of rennard and hancock: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/27/nick-clegg-ignored-letters-lawyers-cyril-smith


Starting to look like a pattern. I wonder if those mainstream media places now digging have the brains to connect all this?


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg claimed, when put on the spot about Rennard that he was - despite earlier denials/lies - aware of _non-specific_ allegations about him. I wonder how far back we can date his awareness of _non-specific _allegations around Hancock (in reality, pretty specific). We can go back four years on this thread -as can the papers.



Depends which specifics, he can take his pick, such weasel words. Maybe he wa not specifically aware that Hancock was alleged to have gone on about his peg leg. Perhaps a defence may yet be mounted along the lines of 'he thought peg leg was cockney rhyming slang for nick clegg'. Blair had a Third Way, the Lib Dems have a Third Leg.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

elbows said:


> Depends which specifics, he can take his pick, such weasel words. Maybe he wa not specifically aware that Hancock was alleged to have gone on about his peg leg. Perhaps a defence may yet be mounted along the lines of 'he thought peg leg was cockney rhyming slang for nick clegg'. Blair had a Third Way, the Lib Dems have a Third Leg.


Yep, depends on specifics. That's what will hang him though - because he _was _aware of specific allegations when he said that he wasn't and the people making the allegations have the evidence to prove it. He hopes that _he _get to choose and pick what are specific allegations, but, he doesn't. The victims do. Otherwise he is simply dismissing their specific allegations, refusing to recognise them before it was convenient to him to do so. Like so many of their recent moves, it's inept backfiring and leaves no escape room.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jan 24, 2014)

The lib-dems are shit


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> The lib-dems are shit


you got that right in three or is it four words.It says it all


----------



## Buckaroo (Jan 24, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> you got that right in three or is it four words.It says it all



got it right in four or five words. Says what?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 24, 2014)

*Political Scrapbook* ‏@PSbook  3m
What's coming out of Portsmouth tonight on Mike Hancock is simply fucking astonishing. Post later.

Expand

 Reply 
 Retweet 
 Favorite 
 More


----------



## elbows (Jan 24, 2014)

This I assume?



> MIKE Hancock will keep his seat on the cabinet of Portsmouth City Council.
> 
> The decision was made at a three-hour meeting of the Liberal Democrats at the civic offices.
> 
> ...



http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/hancock-keeps-his-role-on-city-council-cabinet-1-5832940


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2014)

At this rate, Savile's going to get another series of Jim'll Fix it.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2014)

They appear to be entering _*post, post-figurative *_politics.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 25, 2014)

Post-electability politics ...


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Jan 25, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> you got that right in three or is it four words.It says it all



It could be said in three words Conservative-lib/democrat Coalition


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2014)

But say it in more. Go into detail.


----------



## SLK (Jan 26, 2014)

In case you weren't clear, do as you are told.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2014)

SLK said:


> In case you weren't clear, do as you are told.


Total misreading little miss flimsier - i was saying that the more shit people can pile on the lib-dems the better. Better luck next time.

This morning the three lib-dem candidates for the deputy leader position all pulled out of appearing on Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil - one of them literally explaining that as a result of Rennard and other sex-pests they did not want to put themselves in a position where they could be asked difficult questions. That literally was what she told them.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Total misreading missy - i was saying that the more shit people can pile on the lib-dems the better. Better luck next time.
> 
> This morning the three lib-dem candidates for the deputy leader position all pulled out of appearing on Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil - one of them literally explaining that as a result of Rennard and other sex-pests *they did not want to put themselves in a position where they could be asked difficult questions. That literally was what she told them.*




FS


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2014)

New sexual harassment allegations concerning a Welsh Lib Dem http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25897872


----------



## brogdale (Jan 27, 2014)

(The loathsome) Staines is posting that the Sun, (behind their paywall) are reporting on _evidence_ that Clegg's office received "Annie's" complaints about Hancock in 2011:-



> The heartbreaking pleas from a vulnerable young woman to Nick Clegg have been revealed. As reported in this morning’s _Sun_, the Deputy Prime Minister cruelly ignored a letter from “Annie”, sent under her real name, as she begged three years ago to_ “please stop”_ MP Mike Hancock _“before it is too late before someone else gets hurt and abused by him.” _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> (The loathsome) Staines is posting that the Sun, (behind their paywall) are reporting on _evidence_ that Clegg's office received "Annie's" complaints about Hancock in 2011:-


Julie Bindel was quoting from that same letter in an article for the spectator this time last year - and she has seen the full letter. So we have multiple attestations as to its existence. The police were aware of the victims allegations from sept 2010. Clegg here will say it wasn't passed on and the tape doesn't say that it was - or what was passed was non-specific.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2014)

Btw, that Bindel piece has more details on other appalling behaviour by Hancock. After the victim was fobbed off by parliamentary watchdogs:



> In despair, Annie sent details of Hancock’s behaviour directly to Lib Dem-led Ports-mouth City Council, where he sits on several high-profile committees. They replied that their investigation protocol was complicated (they blamed the new Localism Act) and would be dealt with by a subcommittee. Five months later, nothing has happened — because Hancock has repeatedly requested adjournments on grounds of ill health. On 1 February, the day that the subcommittee was due to meet to consider the complaint, Hancock was working at his constituency office, and during the afternoon attended a meeting with local traders.



As well as Ashdown being sent a letter about Hancock's behaviour in the 90s but, again, no reply was ever received.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

Jesus, they're shit....



> A Liberal Democrat councillor who is due to face trial for sexual offences against a child has been suspended by the party.
> 
> Weymouth and Portland Borough councillor Ryan Hope, 22, is accused of seven charges, including rape of a child and sexual assault of a child.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2014)

Maybe they weren't aware of 'specifc allegations". At least they didn't publicly and officially wish him  good luck as the lib-dem council leader did to a lib-dem councillor who went on the run and was subsequently found to have child porn on his computer (late convicted of both the child porn and the charges he legged it from).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they weren't aware of 'specifc allegations". At least they didn't publicly and officially wish him  good luck as the lib-dem council leader did to a lib-dem councillor who went on the run and was subsequently found to have child porn on his computer (late convicted of both the child porn and the charges he legged it from).



Apparently, they were made aware by the local Lab party:-



> The leader of Dorset's Labour Party Richard Baker has written a letter to the head of the Liberal Democrats in Dorset and Borough Councillor Ian Roebuck, saying Councillor Hope should step down from his post:
> 
> "South Dorset Labour calls on you to take action on behalf of the people of Westham North. Giving the safeguarding issues that have been raised in relation to these charges, we question his suitability to continue as a councillor."
> 
> ...


http://www.wessexfm.com/news/dorset...ymouth-councillor-to-resign-amid-sex-charges/


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

This hilarious Exaro story could have ended up in a number of threads , but I thought I'd tuck it in here....enjoy!

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5182/revealed-why-ed-balls-and-nick-clegg-reached-rapprochement



> *Vince Cable is an incredibly vain man.*


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This hilarious Exaro story could have ended up in a number of threads , but I thought I'd tuck it in here....enjoy!
> 
> http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5182/revealed-why-ed-balls-and-nick-clegg-reached-rapprochement


Placed against the arrogance of Clegg. *shivers*.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 3, 2014)

Clegg's spin doctor quits after 3 months in the post: 




			
				Emma Gilpins-Jacobs said:
			
		

> I chose to leave because my strategic global, corporate-focused communications experience will be better utilised in a less day-to day-political operational role – and it’s all very amicable



aka "I tried, I really tried, to polish a turd... but you have to have some material to work with. It's not very amicable."


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Feb 3, 2014)

Wolveryeti said:


> Clegg's spin doctor quits after 3 months in the post:
> 
> 
> 
> aka "I tried, I really tried, to polish a turd... but you have to have some material to work with. It's not very amicable."




Most sane people would not have taken on the job of polishing the lib-democrat turd in the first place


----------



## Nylock (Feb 3, 2014)

It's amazing what you think you can achieve with a dash of hubris...


----------



## laptop (Feb 4, 2014)

Emma Gilpins-Jacob said:
			
		

> I chose to leave because my strategic global, corporate-focused communications experience will be better utilised in a *less day-to day-political operational* role – and it’s all very amicable



I read that as "bastards were yelling at me (when they weren't groping me)".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 6, 2014)

Cant be arsed to find a link, but I saw a pompous PPB type thing for the Euro Elections earlier, or about 20 seconds of it.

In it, Nick Leg said that the May elections are about whether we are "in" or "out" of Europe.

Now, I'd really like to think the Deputy PM knows the basic technicalities of national politics, in that any "in/out" decision is for our parliament and/or people in a referendum (if Mr Leg is abreast of current affairs he will have heard a fair amount of talk of this)

So I guess there's always the possiblity that he's being a disingenous weasle who thinks we're all very stupid, including remaining LD supporters.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2014)

Council by-election result...beaten to Fourth place by TUSC.



> *Arbourthorne on Sheffield (Lab Defence, last elected in 2012)*
> Result: Lab 1,398 (52% -15% on 2012), UKIP 482 (18% +2% on 2012), Con 213 (8% -1% on 2012), *TUSC 204 (8%, no candidate in 2012), Lib Dem 161 (6% -2%),* Green 143 (5%, no candidate in 2012), Eng Dems 75 (3%, no candidate in 2012)
> Labour HOLD with a majority of 916 (34%) on a swing of 8.5% from Lab to UKIP on a turnout of 20%


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2014)

kind of respectable result for TUSC surprisingly. 

what's the story there belboid SpineyNorman ?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2014)

Main thing that I think helped TUSC was having a local candidate, Alan, who's well known and as far as I can tell pretty well respected in the area (it's a huge council estate, and of the candidates only Alan and the Tory actually live there, and IIRC all the rest live in much posher parts of the city), a representative of the residents association who has been involved in bedroom tax meetings  and who has stood there several times before.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2014)

This seems like a good excuse for bumping the why the green party is shit thread.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Main thing that I think helped TUSC was having a local candidate, Alan, who's well known and as far as I can tell pretty well respected in the area (it's a huge council estate, and of the candidates only Alan and the Tory actually live there, and IIRC all the rest live in much posher parts of the city), a representative of the residents association who has been involved in bedroom tax meetings  and who has stood there several times before.



so it's fair to say a respected local organiser with a history of good, meaningful activity based around the community's self identified needs?

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Council by-election result...beaten to Fourth place by TUSC.


Fucking hell, well done TUSC.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 9, 2014)

More differentiating strategy BS and pro-Clegg PR from the Graunid http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/08/clegg-britain-must-join-drugs-debate


----------



## treelover (Feb 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Council by-election result...beaten to Fourth place by TUSC.




Surely the main story there is that UKIP, a party primarily( at least up to now) about leaving the EU got 18% in what is a working class ward.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Surely the main story there is that UKIP, a party primarily( at least up to now) about leaving the EU got 18% in what is a working class ward.


They've been averaging 20%+ in these wards for a year now. And in this ward that's only +2% on two years ago. I.e not that much progress - and on a turnout that was 1/3 down, is actually a step backwards considering results elsewhere.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 9, 2014)

Speaking of UKIP in Sheffield... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-n...xon-whistleblower-home-office-beverley-hughes


----------



## treelover (Feb 9, 2014)

> *Ukip aiming to steal votes from Labour in the north*
> Nigel Farage wants to add working-class patriots to the party's supporters
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/09/ukip-steal-labour-votes-north?





Maybe this is why, UKIP to target 'patriotic working class'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

Well, we'll see how things turn out on thursday - polling suggests they're missing that target vote by some margin,

Anyway, back to the lib-dems - are the poles (so not bothering with a pun of some sort here) going to save them?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

> Nick Clegg: ‘We have just 100 days to stop Ukip becoming a major force’



Oh, fuck.  UKIP are going to become a major force.  In 100 days.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, fuck.  UKIP are going to become a major force.  In 100 days.



More likely the Lib Dems are going to become a spent force in 100 days; UKIP are looking more and more a farce, not a force.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2014)

Quartz said:


> More likely the Lib Dems are going to become a spent force in 100 days; UKIP are looking more and more a farce, not a force.


On what do you base this? Their solid polling across a range of social and geographic areas? Their excellent local election results? Their favourable media image? Their heightened national profile?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, fuck.  UKIP are going to become a major force.  In 100 days.


And the bees.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

Quartz said:


> More likely the Lib Dems are going to become a spent force in 100 days; UKIP are looking more and more a farce, not a force.


Quartz. That was what we call a joke.  Its humour is derived from the idea that Nick Clegg is known to break his promises, and relies as background upon the general shitness of the Lib-Dems.  Its conceit is that if Nick Clagg announces that he intends to work to stop UKIP becoming "a Major Force in 100 Days", the the likely effect is the opposite.  C/F Tuition Fees, the Mansion Tax, VAT etc, and of course the ineptitude of the AV Referendum, which worked out so well for the Lib-Dems*.  Often humour is destroyed by signposting or overworking the punchline, as the laugh is obtained, in this case, by the speed with which the audience recognises and connects the juxtaposition of the relayed news story with the generally held perception, indeed, contemporary social convention, of Clegg as a promise-breaker with a background of ineptitude.  The joke begins with a swear-word, which underlines the horror and frustration at hearing that in this instance an undesired outcome is in fact something Clegg has promised to do something about.  "Oh no", the joke is saying, "that means the undesired outcome will become actuality!"  Laughter is provoked by the coming together, then, of recognition, a release of tension, and, in small measure, a sense of the absurd, as the prospect of UKIP becoming a "major force" is, in the world-view of the joke, both horrifying and ridiculous.

hth








*sarcasm.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/nigel-farage-ukip-european-elections

a 'calm down lads' article from ze groan about ukip


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the bees.


This joke is based upon the meme that so often promises to save us from catastrophe are these days given a time-scale of 100 days.  These time-scales are proven to be meaningless by the frequency with which the deadline is passed and replaced by another, so that our in-boxes are filled with the clamour of what become to us meaningless exhortations for immediate action, day after day, deadline after deadline, and the propsed action is often the call to do something ineffectual, pointless and ultimately disempowering .  These calls are usually made by liberals, and one forms the impression that perhaps disempowerment is the aim.  Here the connection between the 100 day deadline meme and liberal ineffectualness is at the centre of the humour.

Bees, like bananas, are also inherently funny.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Quartz. That was what we call a joke.  Its humour is derived from the idea that Nick Clegg is known to break his promises, and relies as background upon the general shitness of the Lib-Dems.  Its conceit is that if Nick Clagg announces that he intends to work to stop UKIP becoming "a Major Force in 100 Days", the the likely effect is the opposite.  C/F Tuition Fees, the Mansion Tax, VAT etc, and of course the ineptitude of the AV Referendum, which worked out so well for the Lib-Dems*.  Often humour is destroyed by signposting or overworking the punchline, as the laugh is obtained, in this case, by the speed with which the audience recognises and connects the juxtaposition of the relayed news story with the generally held perception, indeed, contemporary social convention, of Clegg as a promise-breaker with a background of ineptitude.  The joke begins with a swear-word, which underlines the horror and frustration at hearing that in this instance an undesired outcome is in fact something Clegg has promised to do something about.  "Oh no", the joke is saying, "that means the undesired outcome will become actuality!"  Laughter is provoked by the coming together, then, of recognition, a release of tension, and, in small measure, a sense of the absurd, as the prospect of UKIP becoming a "major force" is, in the world-view of the joke, both horrifying and ridiculous.
> 
> hth
> 
> ...


I don't get it.


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm looking forward to a Lib Dem having to defend his party having more MPs (possibly as many as 4 or 5) than UKIP despite having a smaller share of the vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the bees.


 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES!!!!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

This is a bee:


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 11, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rne-timetable-eliminate-uk-structural-deficit

Well no surprise here. Despite Cable and others slamming osbournes austerity forever prescription as 'ideological' and commentators predicting that the lib dems would not be able to support this post 2015 - Clegg has signed them up for it. So much for 'differentiation'. 

Strangely, this was on the front of the grauns website but has since vanished - I had to search for it. This is their most significant (and suicidal)  announcement to date  about future policy and it gets no coverage?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 11, 2014)

Quartz said:


> More likely the Lib Dems are going to become a spent force in 100 days; UKIP are looking more and more a farce, not a force.


Christ can you ever get anything right, this is as much nonsense as the "Socialism" of David Cameron. 

They've maintained a largely consistent level in the polls for a year now and the upcoming elections stand a good chance of giving them their best results ever.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 12, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> They've maintained a largely consistent level in the polls for a year now and the upcoming elections stand a good chance of giving them their best results ever.



So? Our comments are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2014)

Yes they are. That's the point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2014)

Magritte/bee meme. Cool.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 12, 2014)

I thought it was a Matrix reference


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2014)

It might be for all I know. That would have passed me by, because I haven't seen the Matrix. 

It has bees, does it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 12, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It might be for all I know. That would have passed me by, because I haven't seen the Matrix.
> 
> It has bees, does it?



no but it has a spoon that is not a spoon


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> no but it has a spoon that is not a spoon


Does it? Is that in homage to Magritte?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 13, 2014)

Danny Alexander says monetary union with an independent Scotland "simply isn't going to happen". That means monetary union with an independent Scotland is going to happen.


----------



## laptop (Feb 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> That means monetary union with an independent Scotland is going to happen.



The bookies haven't heard: best odds (insofar as I understand odds) still 3 to 1 against.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 13, 2014)

laptop said:


> The bookies haven't heard: best odds (insofar as I understand odds) still 3 to 1 against.
> 
> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome


I refer you to my earlier reply to Quartz.


----------



## laptop (Feb 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I refer you to my earlier reply to Quartz.



And I you to "deadpan".

Plus I had the window with the odds open anyway...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2014)

Lost deposit tonight i think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 13, 2014)

laptop said:


> And I you to "deadpan".


I, for one, applaud your syntax.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lost deposit tonight i think.


Yep


Mike Kane (Lab) 13,261 (55.34 per cent, +11.21 per cent)

John Bickley (Ukip) 4,301 (17.95 per cent, +14.50 per cent)

The Rev Daniel Critchlow (C) 3,479 (14.52 per cent, -11.03 per cent)

Mary Di Mauro (LD) 1,176 (4.91 per cent, -17.44 per cent)

Nigel Woodcock (Green) 748 (3.12per cent)

Eddy O'Sullivan (BNP) 708 (2.95 per cent, -0.90 per cent)

Captain Chaplington-Smythe (Loony) 288 (1.20 per cent)

Lab majority: 8,960 (37.39 per cent)

Electorate 85,058; Turnout 23,961 (28.17 per cent, -22.82 per cent)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems promised a right of recall for these people in his cast in stone coalition agreement. Where is it?


Here it is. Another lib-dem victory.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here it is. Another lib-dem victory.



Hilarious tweet from Goldsmith...



> Zac Goldsmith ✔ @ZacGoldsmith
> Follow
> Even by the shitty standards of dishonest UK politics, the LibDems really are revolting. I cannot understand why anyone supports them.
> 
> 10:24 PM - 13 Feb 2014


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2014)

My work colleagues have just been bitching about the lib-dems


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2014)

some amusing links here 

http://www.libdemvoice.org/wythensh...ories-to-2nd-lib-dems-lose-deposit-38222.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/official-lib-dem-voters-least-bothered-about-penis-size-38231.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/lib-dem-...serious-fraud-office-investigation-38235.html

They don't have much luck with their donors do they?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> some amusing links here
> 
> http://www.libdemvoice.org/wythensh...ories-to-2nd-lib-dems-lose-deposit-38222.html
> 
> ...





> The *Lib Dems* will feel hard done by, losing our deposit for the eighth time this parliament – this time, by just a handful of votes. Our vote share collapsed, by an even greater proportion than did the Tories’, down from a decent third placed 22% to a fourth place 5%. *That clearly isn’t a reflection on our candidate, Mary di Mauro, but on the impact on joining the Coalition, especially in northern areas like Greater Manchester.*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2014)

and this riposte from a party member in the comments



> “That clearly isn’t a reflection on our candidate, Mary di Mauro, but on the impact on joining the Coalition, especially in northern areas like Greater Manchester.”
> 
> We were going to take a hit if we entered a coalition with either of the largest two Parties, but I don’t think anyone thinks we got less than 1/4 of the vote in this seat compared to four years ago just because we joined a coalition. The observation insults LDV reader’s intelligence and comes across as rather extreme spin.



lol just you keep thinking that dear


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2014)

i don't think the truth will sink in properly untill the next GE


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 15, 2014)

> As bad as I expected. I expect all our MEPS to be voted out in May. Things are getting worse , they are not stabilizing. The party is finished, we spent 30 – 40 years building it up and have managed to destroy ourselves in the first 6 months of the coalition



LOL.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 15, 2014)

Interesting - Reading LDV, there does seem to be a majority of posters in despair and many now calling for cleggs head. Previously the members were seemed to be making a virtue of being 'grown up' and taking it on the chin - but the mood does seem to have changed - but, apart from Farron, the mps and other senior lib dems are keeping schtumm.

The Euro and council elections in May will likely see the worst electoral disaster for the lib dems since going in to coalition. Their grassroots will be up in arms - but will their finally be a revolt?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2014)

I suspect it is more likely that those who have had enough will simply drift into dispair and apathy, as they know the leadership can't listen to them - they can't bring down the coalition, they need to stick with it now until 2015 and all the ex-councillors and no hope PPCs will often rediscover the world outside politics or at least the joys of being a passive observer for a change. 

This could actually have the effect of leaving those remaining in a more bullish position at they will be focussed in the stronghold areas where their personal experience (for example in the South West) will still be around coming second with Labour a distant third or fourth.


----------



## laptop (Feb 15, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> worst electoral disaster for the lib dems since going in to coalition



Lack of ambition there. Surely they can manage the worst since the 1920s?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2014)

I feel sick.




			
				Chris Huhne said:
			
		

> It is humbling to see protesters in Kiev's Independence Square prepared to lay down their lives for freedoms we take for granted. At its simplest, the Ukraine tragedy is a fight for democratic rights at the frontier of autocracy. It is like Beijing's Tiananmen massacre or Caracas's Altamira Square. In the sound of their gunfire, there is the echo of so many through history who fought against oppression: "Freedom or death!"


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2014)

Jesus - maybe there's room for a bloc with the Russian Liberal Democrats (Zhirinovsky etc) after all.


----------



## seventh bullet (Feb 24, 2014)

Just wanted an excuse to post this again.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 27, 2014)

Via one of Staines' soggy biscuit boys, but still:


----------



## Nylock (Feb 27, 2014)

check out the look on the staff member propping up the wall in the background... doesn't look impressed... 2010 libdem voter maybe?


----------



## Dan U (Feb 28, 2014)

he is not in school today... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ured-at-nick-cleggs-school-visit-9159735.html


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2014)

Dan U said:


> he is not in school today... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ured-at-nick-cleggs-school-visit-9159735.html



Hope his Mum's not too hard on him; personally I'd be pretty proud if my son had done that.

I mean what do these lying fuckers expect? They think they can just swan around schools spouting shit without some of the kids rumbling this? WFT are headteachers doing allowing these vermin in to use their pupils for a photo opp?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 28, 2014)

Vince Cable in 'yet another mistake' shocker ...

Top politico in 'gone bust' gaffe over town pub giant

It's the Burton Mail, who (unsurprisingly) look like an industry mouthpiece in that article -- personally I'd be delighted if Punch did go bust. But Cable's fucked up there nevertheless, or at the very least he's jumped the gun


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Look at these pricks:

Lib Dems prepare for possible talks in 2015 with potential coalition partners



> Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, is to lead a Liberal Democrat team preparing for possible negotiations with other parties in the event of a hung parliament after the 2015 general election, the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, told his MPs late Monday.
> 
> A politically balanced, five-strong team has been appointed: Alexander; general election manifesto co-ordinator David Laws; Lady Brinton; international development minister Lynne Featherstone; and pensions minister Steve Webb. Featherstone and Webb are regarded as on the left of the party.



And Wintour doing his job of attempting to make them appear as credible - another prick.

The comments on that piece are grand - people doubted that we could keep the anger up until the next election, well the response to any article by Wintour, or in fact any about the lib-dems in any paper or media forum, gives the lie to that. Well done all you angry memorious people.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 4, 2014)

More differentiation strategy bullshit here http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...clegg-snowden-security-oversight-internet-age


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

The _team_

Danny Alexander (Oxbridge, tax avoider, bankers cats paw) Semi-marginal Liberal Democrat seat, probably going to be a marginal come 2015
David Laws (Private school, oxbridge, thief) safe, one of the few nailed on ones despite being a thief, south somerset letting the team down.
Lady Brinton (Private school, oxbridge) unelectable so got her mates to do a backroom deal
 Lynne Featherstone (private school, oxfordish, unearthly monster, 999 nuisance caller) Semi-marginal, like Alexander, likely to be marginal next year, i think she's a goner.
 Steve Webb (oxbridge, bedroom tax) Should be a goner as he relies on large labour tactical vote, but if tory vote collapses he might scrape through, on the basis of the electorate hating everyone.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 4, 2014)

even their candidates don't mention their links to Clegg

http://order-order.com/2014/03/04/dont-mention-the-day-job/#comments


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Dan U said:


> even their candidates don't mention their links to Clegg
> 
> http://order-order.com/2014/03/04/dont-mention-the-day-job/#comments


Look at the prat, pointing at pot holes or standing uncomfortably with his arms dangling shiftily to distract attention from his dishonest beard. _What else is he trying to hide?_


----------



## JTG (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The _team_
> 
> Danny Alexander (Oxbridge, tax avoider, bankers cats paw) Semi-marginal Liberal Democrat seat, probably going to be a marginal come 2015
> David Laws (Private school, oxbridge, thief) safe, one of the few nailed on ones despite being a thief, south somerset letting the team down.
> ...


Steve Webb lol


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 5, 2014)

Quite looking forward to seeing how Wintour (and others) attempt to explain away the Lib Dems' non-participation in any post-election decision making -- after they get soundly steamrollered 

He's such a blatant Lib Dem spindoctor (as the below the line comments recognise  )


----------



## Nylock (Mar 5, 2014)

> Clegg has said in the event of a hung parliament the Lib Dems would talk first to the party with most seats and votes, but this does not preclude opening talks subsequently with a party with fewer seats.


Possibility of helping get the tories back in if the labour margin of victory is narrow enough to facilitate the libdems strongarming the tories into pushing through more irrelevant libdem shite on the promise of Clegg & co continuing to facilitate the tories' evil policies for a second glorious term?

I hope they get ground into the dust....


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 5, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Possibility of helping get the tories back in if the labour margin of victory is narrow enough to facilitate the libdems strongarming the tories into pushing through more irrelevant libdem shite on the promise of Clegg & co continuing to facilitate the tories' evil policies for a second glorious term?
> 
> I hope they get ground into the dust....




if the polls and by's are anything to go by the lib dems days as kingmakers are well and truly over. They just haven't realised it yet.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 5, 2014)

Yeah, great innit


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2014)

Looking forward to this Clegg/Farage one-on-one debate now. Clegg comprehensively and easily outplayed by Farage this morning. Clegg has realised UKIP have now got all his protest vote so is ineffectively and desperately gunning for them. His first salvo was to say Farage leaves the UK isolated in europe by being too 'lazy' and so only turning up to 50% of votes. Of course, Clegg being incompetent and arrogant didn't bother to check his own record - which reveals that he only bothers to turn up to 22% of votes. One nil to Farage.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 5, 2014)




----------



## Wilf (Mar 5, 2014)

'Daddy, _why_ do people hate you?'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 5, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Daddy, _why_ do people hate you?'


Oh go on then, i can't resist:


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2014)

Crying to music.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh go on then, i can't resist:


cats do it better


----------



## Wilf (Mar 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


>


 _Nick's journey up the boulevard of broken dreams. Weep, weep the Tears of Nick Clegg._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> cats do it better


 
Appropriate given the lib-dems' cat-murdering ways


----------



## J Ed (Mar 5, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-nothing-about-the-world-of-work-9171019.html

Vince Cable: 'Teachers know absolutely nothing about the world of work'



> Vince Cable has been accused of being “crass” and “insulting” to teachers after he said they are to blame for the lack of quality careers advice in Britain’s schools, claiming they “know absolutely nothing about the world of work”.



T


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-nothing-about-the-world-of-work-9171019.html
> 
> Vince Cable: 'Teachers know absolutely nothing about the world of work'
> 
> ...


that's ok, vince cable knows nothing about the world of work either


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2014)

Yes! Lib dems beaten by Bus-Pass Elvis party:

Clifton N, Nottingham

LAB 1,179
CON 1,025
UKIP 536
Bus-Pass Elvis Party 67
LD 56


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes! Lib dems beaten by Bus-Pass Elvis party:
> 
> Clifton N, Nottingham
> 
> ...


 Have you seen that they've also polled last in all the other declared bys from yesterday?

The 56 votes in Nottingham at *2 %* was actually their best performance!

In Bury (Ramsbottom) they got 38 votes = *1.3%
*
And in Ashford (Wye) they polled just 13 votes (!) =* 1.7%
*
Haven't seen the Kings Lynn or Wiltshire numbers yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2014)

They did well  in Wilts i'm afraid: Con 480 Lib Dem (27% +3) 372 UKIP 236 Ind 192 Lab 69


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2014)

...and apparently not standing in Kings Lynn.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They did well  in Wilts i'm afraid: Con 480 Lib Dem (27% +3) 372 UKIP 236 Ind 192 Lab 69





Perhaps them farmers think Clegg can stop the floods?

Here's the guy who beat the LDs in Notts...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2014)

...and just to remind people, here's Professor Pongoo the penguin that beat the lib-dems in an Edinburgh by-election:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Perhaps them farmers think Clegg can stop the floods?
> 
> Here's the guy who beat the LDs in Notts...



Thangyew ver'much


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Thangyew ver'much


 ...Mr Clegg has left the building.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Perhaps them farmers think Clegg can stop the floods?
> 
> Here's the guy who beat the LDs in Notts...


I'd vote for him


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 7, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> I'd vote for him


He wrote my favourite poem of all time:

Ode to a people's princess:

fucking
die


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 7, 2014)

Do you think the Elvis bloke is getting together a working group to look at possible options for coalition post 2015?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> He wrote my favourite poem of all time:
> 
> Ode to a people's princess:
> 
> ...



Is that true?

Howsomedever....brilliant!

A tad OT...but that poem reminds me of my all time fave TV moment....t'was the BBC review of the year thingy for 1997 an they played this over footage of Chuck walking behind the cortege...comedy gold.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Is that true?


'Tis indeed. He's a good mate, been standing in elections for ages. The Hamilton one down South is the first I remember, but he's done three local elections in the last few months. Does most of his campaigning in pubs.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2014)

The very definition of risable....

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/07/nick-clegg-crimea-deal-vladimir-putin-kgb-mentality



> *Nick Clegg hints at Crimea deal if Vladimir Putin 'drops KGB mentality'*
> Deputy prime minister says Crimea is in different category from rest of Ukraine, and Russia has 'pronounced imprint' there



Not enough  combos.

Obviously, if I could have been arsed, this could equally well sit in the 'Guardian Shit' thread


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2014)

clegg vs farange is going to be either hilarious or the worst thing since ebola


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> clegg vs farange is going to be either hilarious or the worst thing since ebola



It will be brilliant, whether Farange wins outright or makes a twat of himself (unlikely to be honest when it comes to this subject) Clegg will be hammering further nails into the coffin of his own party. Just as lots of people who vote Ukip do not rank their position on Europe as the number one issue; many Libdems voters I would suspect do not realise how supine the Liberals are on the issue.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2014)

> "I love Britain. I love it for all its contradictions. I love that we are as modest as we are proud.
> 
> "I love that a country capable of extraordinary pomp and ceremony can still retain a spiky irreverence towards its establishment. A country where we line the streets waving our Union Jacks wildly to welcome the arrival of Prince George, and the next moment we're chuckling at Private Eye's front page: 'Woman Has Baby'."



Man of the people.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2014)

You aren't going to be in a coalition with anyone you turd.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> You aren't going to be in a coalition with anyone you turd.



There's got to be a chance that he might lead an 'Orange' faction of his current party into formal unification with the tories...where they so obviously belong. Thereafter his work would be complete and he could take up numerous highly remunerated non-exec directorships in the city.


----------



## Combustible (Mar 10, 2014)

Another Lib Dem attempt at humour...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

thanks for reminding me of teathers stand up routine


----------



## hipipol (Mar 10, 2014)

"I love that we are as modest as we are proud."

Hmm, Clegg

"A modest man, with much to be modest about"

Intially said referring to Clem Atlee


----------



## brogdale (Mar 12, 2014)

Good 'Inside Croydon' report on a dark day for Sutton....

http://insidecroydon.com/2014/03/12/bad-day-for-libdems-in-sutton-and-for-st-helier-hospital/

Venal scum MPs and a nasty little corrupt, racist fucker who's landed greater Croydon with the incinerator.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

RT @LeftieHamster A headline in the Telegraph today: "Vince Cable: Bankers are not motivated by money". The Lib Dems, everybody.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 13, 2014)

Jesus Christ 

...although not entirely unsurprising tbf....


----------



## TopCat (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm a bit late arriving on this thread, apologies and that. In response to the OP, it's because they are a bunch of cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2014)

TopCat said:


> I'm a bit late arriving on this thread, apologies and that. In response to the OP, it's because they are a bunch of cunts.


end of thread, i think


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26602996



> Former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has called for No campaigners to be "more positive" ahead of the referendum on Scottish Independence.
> The Highland MP said a negative approach from Better Together would not resonate with voters.
> He also warned supporters of the Union that interventions by UK government ministers could be counterproductive.
> Mr Kennedy called for a "more coherent blueprint" on further devolution to be agreed before September's vote.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

A lib-dem representing the interest of students.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

lol, they've put snowden in as a replacement.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> lol, they've put snowden in as a replacement.


 
Wtf why, hasn't he got better things to do?? or is it an honoury post?

why the hell would he care about things like that? and how is he in a position to "represent the students of glasgow"? unless it's an honoury post, in which case, does he even know about it?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2014)

he's sitting on his arse in russia, waiting for interviews.  He has all the time n the world.  Not that there's anything to do as Rector, normally its a turn up once a year and make a speech job


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2014)

he'll be doing that by video link then.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

genius


----------



## JimW (Mar 17, 2014)

We had a cracking weekend in [area name] a couple of years back, shame to see such a nice little town in tough times.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 17, 2014)

Yup.  They made great [local speciality] too.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

Pity about the [lost deposit].


----------



## Nylock (Mar 17, 2014)

And the rise of [right-wing/far right euroskeptic party]


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2014)

if as it looks likely the lib dems are cast into the outer darkness at the next election- what then for the body of voters they once had? back to labour, perhaps forming some sdp type tendency within the labour party itself?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2014)

No need or space for that really. 40% labour voting, rest non-voter or swing voter as conditions dictate. Members, slowly dying off. No new membership. Game over really.


----------



## Santino (Mar 17, 2014)

Only the LibDems can beat the [standing party] in [your constituency]. The [other party] don't have a chance!


----------



## Balbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Santino said:


> Only the LibDems can beat the [standing party] in [your constituency]. The [other party] don't have a chance!



Delightful how you can put Lib Dems in the first and last blank space and the message remains true.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 17, 2014)

Hello everyone and it's great to be here in [town name] tonight. I always like a couple of drinks before I come on stage, so this afternoon I popped into [insert name of rough pub here - ask local theatre staff]. Blimey! - I think it was their quiz night, and the first question was 'Do you want your fucking head kicked in!'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

Lib-dems got 13 votes in Staffordshire Moorland, Cellarhead last night. Only 3 more than need to sign the nomination forms. So effectively 3 votes.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 21, 2014)




----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

that suggests that over half the nominators couldn't even get their partners to vote lib dem.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that suggests that over half the nominators couldn't even get their partners to vote lib dem.


I think suggesting they may have partners is over optimistic.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems got 13 votes in Staffordshire Moorland, Cellarhead last night. Only 3 more than need to sign the nomination forms. So effectively 3 votes.



Full result here.  Blimey.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No need or space for that really. 40% labour voting, rest non-voter or swing voter as conditions dictate. Members, slowly dying off. No new membership. Game over really.


 
Room at the top of the Lucas Arms


----------



## Balbi (Mar 21, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/21/student-fees-policy-costing-more

Sold their core vote out for fuck all


----------



## Balbi (Mar 21, 2014)

Those 13 votes are on top of not fielding a candidate three years ago too. Oof.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2014)

One of their councilors took a selfie of himself holding an AK-47 and put it on Facebook


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 27, 2014)

Grade a twat. 

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Cou...ear-campaign/story-20855672-detail/story.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2014)

that thing looks rusty.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2014)

Who is in the pic behind him - that could be key here. Might be some sectarian nutjob.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 27, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> One of their councilors took a selfie of himself holding an AK-47 and put it on Facebook





The face of the Liberal Democrats

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-26764022


----------



## DairyQueen (Mar 27, 2014)

Can't do much worse than Clegg.


----------



## laptop (Apr 3, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> One of their councilors took a selfie of himself holding an AK-47 and put it on Facebook



Shouldn't he have cleaned and oiled it first?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2014)

That picture isn't even level!


----------



## belboid (Apr 4, 2014)

Quartz said:


> That picture isn't even level!


the pictures level, its him that's unstable


----------



## Quartz (Apr 4, 2014)

The one does not preclude the other.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 7, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2014)

Was only the other day wondering what had happened to this sorry tale...and low, the Shit dems have been busy trying to smooth over the consequences of Rennard's behaviour with secret meetings. How very liberal.



> Lord Rennard, the former Liberal Democrat chief executive, and the four party activists who have accused him of sexual misconduct have been in secret talks to resolve the dispute, the Guardian has learned.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2014)

Scumbag wants the 40p tax rate back, and grumbles about the large unaffordable state.

Positioning himself for a transition to the Tories and a safe by election seat after the next election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26926302

Another one for the lamppost.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Look at this hancock related stuff:

With a QC having found *“compelling prima facie evidence”* that Mike Hancock *sexually harassed a vulnerable constituent*, the Portsmouth MP and councillor was *finally suspended from the Liberal Democrats* after the confidential report was leaked — not that this has made much difference in practice.

As reported by _Scrapbook_ previously, Hancock, who denies the allegations:


still *attends Lib Dem group meetings*
still *sits in the middle of the Lib Dem group in council*
As expected, council leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson has also confirmed that the Lib Dems will be standing in every ward in the city for May’s local elections … *except the one that Mike Hancock is defending.*

Followed as speaker at Pensioner's AGM by @geraldvjuk who confirmed that#libdems will not be standing against Mike Hancock in May.

— Cllr John Ferrett (@John_Ferrett) April 7, 2014








To top it off he’s *still printing Liberal Democrat-style ‘Focus’ leaflets* (above) with the exact same graphic design.

_He’s still a party candidate in all but name._


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2014)

Someone on Twitter told me that he was a lib-dem because he wanted to smash the current system


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Someone on Twitter told me that he was a lib-dem because he wanted to smash the current system


 tbf, if by that he meant the public sector or welfare state, he'd wouldn't be far off, really.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> tbf, if by that he meant the public sector or welfare state, he'd wouldn't be far off, really.



He didn't


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> He didn't



Didn't suppose he did really. Sounds like a bit of plum.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2014)

Lib dems stopped the privatization of the NHS apparently!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Lib dems stopped the privatization of the NHS apparently!


 Stop it, you'll make me sweary.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

He did, he really really did:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Look at him top right, like some shit singer from the rakes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2014)

NO to AV as well.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Look at him top right, like some shit singer from the rakes.


 looks more like some southern, snake-botherer preacher to me


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2014)

This from the lib-dems is going to come back and bite them very very soon:




			
				lib-dem liars said:
			
		

> ‘Cyril Smith’s acts were vile and repugnant and we have nothing but sympathy for those whose lives he ruined. His actions were not known to or condoned by anyone in the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats.’



Some of the people he assaulted were lib-dem members ffs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 12, 2014)

Apologies for linking to the Daily Heil but this is explosive:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yril-Smiths-industrial-scale-child-abuse.html


----------



## J Ed (Apr 13, 2014)

Surely this has to be sabotage http://labourlist.org/2014/04/another-lib-dem-bar-chart-fail/


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2014)

Surprised it's as high as 6% tbh....



> Support for the Liberal Democrats amongst student voters has slumped catastrophically since the last election, a new poll reveals today.
> 
> 
> A poll of 1,200 students in higher education institutions throughout the UK reveals it has fallen from a high of 50 per cent just before the last election, following leader Nick Clegg's first TV debate of the campaign, to just six per cent in the latest poll.
> ...





and Anthony @YouGov says the methodology was valid...





> Just for the record though, today’s Independent has a properly conducted poll of students by YouthSight(we’ve met them here before, under the name of Opinionpanel). This was a panel based survey amongst undergraduate full-time students, recruited via UCAS and validated through an ac.uk email address, weighted by type of university (Russell, pre-1992, post-1992, specialist), year of study and gender.



Also posted in the polling thread.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Surprised it's as high as 6% tbh....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


aaahahahahahahahaaaahahahahahahaaaahhahahaaaaa!

from 50% to 6%...

...i guess that's what you get when you decide to fuck your constituents up the arse


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> aaahahahahahahahaaaahahahahahahaaaahhahahaaaaa!
> 
> from 50% to 6%...
> 
> ...i guess that's what you get when you decide to fuck your constituents up the arse



In a sense, that's what's happened to nuLabour too, but they've found replacement constituents from a different class (or something)


----------



## Nylock (Apr 19, 2014)

true... trouble is for the libdems, the majority of their support in recent years has come from students -the very constituents they immediately shafted on gaining power. At least for nulab there were enough voters on the right of the labour party plus voters on the left of the tory party to help sustain their 'project'*.

*yes, this is a very simplistic reading of things wrt nulab etc


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

It is all very well, they may be shit, but that does not prevent there being a possibility they could still be in a power sharing agreement after the next election.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is all very well, they may be shit, but that does not prevent there being a possibility they could still be in a power sharing agreement after the next election.


What do you estimate the likelihood of that at?

And any coalition the lib-dems may be in will most def not be a 'power-sharing' agreement - it'll be a clinging on by their fingertips agreement.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> true... trouble is for the libdems, the majority of their support in recent years has come from students -the very constituents they immediately shafted on gaining power. At least for nulab there were enough voters on the right of the labour party plus voters on the left of the tory party to help sustain their 'project'*.
> 
> *yes, this is a very simplistic reading of things wrt nulab etc


Yes, i need to do a lib-dem seats with significant student populations thing to work out just how many seats this tuition fees stuff has cost them.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What do you estimate the likelihood of that at?


Impossible to estimate, why what is your view?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Impossible to estimate, why what is your view?


It's not impossible to estimate. It's quite easy. There will be no hung parliament, there will be a labour majority.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It is all very well, they may be shit, but that does not prevent there being a possibility they could still be in a power sharing agreement after the next election.



Surely a Labour + Nationalist coalition is more likely than a Lib Dem + anyone else coalition?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2014)

they will go into coalition with the Buspass Elvis Party, being as they'll be on about the same vote share


----------



## brogdale (Apr 19, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Surely a Labour + Nationalist coalition is more likely than a Lib Dem + anyone else coalition?


 If it involved the 6 Scots Nats it might be a very short-lived coalition.


----------



## belboid (Apr 19, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Surely a Labour + Nationalist coalition is more likely than a Lib Dem + anyone else coalition?


it's not really on the nats interest to do that. How could the SNP blame Labour for everything when they were in government with them? Labour could go for a minority government, they probably wont get a majority.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's not impossible to estimate. It's quite easy. There will be no hung parliament, there will be a labour majority.


I am having difficulties seeing Milliband as our PM.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

Who votes on that?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Who votes on that?


Surely he could lose it for them.
If I recall correctly there was due to be a Labour win when Kinnock lost it for them.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

Kinnock didnt lose it for them. The polling was wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely he could lose it for them.
> If I recall correctly there was due to be a Labour win when Kinnock lost it for them.


How could he _lose it for them? _His ratings are well behind the parties. People will vote labour to vote against the tories. It could have your face on it and they would vote labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> Kinnock didnt lose it for them. The polling was wrong.


Bingo - i hate this stuff that 'the polls didn't predict'- they're not there to predict but to record.


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am having difficulties seeing Milliband as our PM.


Unlike the popular, statesmanlike Cameron, you mean?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

Santino said:


> Unlike the popular, statesmanlike Cameron, you mean?


Cameron is a tosser, but he has the slight advantage over Milliband in that he has at least been the PM ...


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> Kinnock didnt lose it for them. The polling was wrong.


Oh, is there any evidence for that? I remember Kinnock whooping it up at a rally before the vote as if he had it in the bag, "were all right" etc I don't think it went down well.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

Yes. The difference between the polls and the results.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Cameron is a tosser, but he has the slight advantage over Milliband in that he has at least been the PM ...


How is that helping the tories in the polls


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yes. The difference between the polls and the results.


Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?


Is your argument that they did because of sheffield?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?


 yes.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?


 yes.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is your argument that they did because of sheffield?


It was a long time ago but that is certainly the impression I had at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It was a long time ago but that is certainly the impression I had at the time.


I'm asking you if it is your argument that this is the case.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm asking you if it is your argument that this is the case.


I am not making an argument, I think I have been quite clear thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

Argument=case= point.

Yeah, you're right.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

The fickle British electorate - swayed by a duffel coat on the cenotaph, Kinnock tripping in the surf and an overly pompous speech. How any cunt gets elected is beyond me.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

not sure why you liked that weltweit, but just in case you're too thick to notice: I was being sarcastic.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2014)

Are you sure there will be a labour majority butchersapron? I don't want these cunts to get back in but you never know...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Are you sure there will be a labour majority butchersapron? I don't want these cunts to get back in but you never know...


Yes i am.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes i am.



Fair enough. my guess is a lot of people who used to vote labour now won't vote at all tbh, so the people who are doing all right and will vote Tory may turn out to vote and a lot of others will end up staying at home. Not that I blame them because I probably won't be voting either.  

I reckon labour will probably get back in but I wouldn't want to put money on it


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Fair enough. my guess is a lot of people who used to vote labour now won't vote at all tbh, so the people who are doing all right and will vote Tory may turn out to vote and a lot of others will end up staying at home. Not that I blame them because I probably won't be voting either.
> 
> I reckon labour will probably get back in but I wouldn't want to put money on it


Most people who normally vote labour but didn't in 2010 will be voting labour this time. Motivated voter. It's over.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2014)

Well yeah the lib-dems are definitely over


----------



## miktheword (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?






yep, both that , and 'it was the sun wot won it' was also a myth debunked 20 years  back .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ut-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

*The press. 'It was The Sun wot won it', boasted Britain's highest-selling tabloid newspaper immediately after the result; and, in his resignation speech, Neil Kinnock said that 'the Conservative-supporting press has enabled the Conservative Party to win yet again'.
We found no support for this theory. Among readers of pro-Tory tabloids, support for the Conservatives fell by three points during the election campaign, and it also fell by one point among readers of pro-Tory broadsheets. Just as perversely, support for the Tories rose slightly among readers of the pro-Labour Daily Mirror. It also rose among people who did not read any newspaper.
This may look like good news for Labour. But there is a sting in the tail. Since 1992, much of the traditional Tory press has turned its fire on John Major's government. Some Labour supporters have hailed this as a decisive change. If the press failed to help the Tories in 1992, however, it must be equally unlikely to do much for Labour in 1996 or 1997.
Kinnock and Major. Many commentators suggested that the voters took a personal dislike to Mr Kinnock, but warmed to Mr Major. As the Sun put it, 'voters just did not believe Mr Kinnock was fit to run Britain'. Or, in the Daily Express's words, 'it was John Major the voters knew they could trust'.
Throughout the 1992 election campaign, Mr Major's personal standing remained much higher than Mr Kinnock's. And the data from our interviews suggests that the Labour leader's standing deteriorated slightly between 1987 and 1992. Voters saw Mr Kinnock as more 'extreme' than Mr Major, less inclined to 'look after all classes' and less 'capable of being a strong leader'.
But do party leaders make a difference to people's votes? The findings showed that they do, but only a little. Some 54 per cent of 'Tory identifiers' - people who normally think of themselves as Tories regardless of how they vote in any election - rated Mr Major highest of the three party leaders, whereas only 36 per cent of 'Labour identifiers' similarly rated Mr Kinnock. 'Identifiers' who did not rate their own party leader highly were more likely than other 'identifiers' to desert the party of their primary loyalty.
But the effects were not enough to make a decisive difference to the election result. Mr Major's appeal as leader, compared with Mr Kinnock's, was probably worth no more than one percentage point to the Tory share of the vote.*


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> not sure why you liked that weltweit, but just in case you're too thick to notice: I was being sarcastic.


If you don't believe the electorate are affected by the behaviour of those who would lead us, you are free to hold that view, I disagree.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If you don't believe the electorate are affected by the behaviour of those who would lead us, you are free to hold that view, I disagree.


Did you steal this post from Johnny Canuck?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

Santino said:


> Did you steal this post from Johnny Canuck?


Yes!

But seriously, if the leader's performances were unimportant why would their parties agonise so much as they do about things like their performances at PMQs, at party conferences, or out on the stump.

I do think Milliband is a disadvantage for Labour. I think there will be a proportion of voters who might vote Labour who will be dissuaded because of him. How many, or if it will make a significant difference to the result of the election I don't know.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes!
> 
> But seriously, if the leader's performances were unimportant why would their parties agonise so much as they do about things like their performances at PMQs, at party conferences, or out on the stump.
> 
> I do think Milliband is a disadvantage for Labour. I think there will be a proportion of voters who might vote Labour who will be dissuaded because of him. How many, or if it will make a significant difference to the result of the election I don't know.


Well, what do the polls indicate?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, what do the polls indicate?


You would probably be in a better position to explain that than I would.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If you don't believe the electorate are affected by the behaviour of those who would lead us, you are free to hold that view, I disagree.


of course we are. But not by single issues of presentation like the duffel coat / mis-fired victory speech. People don't vote on that shit.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)




----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2014)

...and?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> of course we are. But not by single issues of presentation like the duffel coat / mis-fired victory speech. People don't vote on that shit.


Surely those incidents are a part of the impression people make of those who would lead us.
I don't know the stats but I remember at the time ( I would have been quite young ) thinking Kinnock had lost it for Labour with his premature victory posturing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely those incidents are a part of the impression people make of those who would lead us.
> I don't know the stats but I remember at the time ( I would have been quite young ) thinking Kinnock had lost it for Labour with his premature victory posturing.



People don't vote for the Prime Minister.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

Put it another way, I would not be mentioning these thoughts if it was David Milliband at the helm, but Ed is a bit of a geek and I am not sure we are ready for a geek as PM!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> People don't vote for the Prime Minister.


Voters vote for a party that is certainly true if that is your point? but the party usually has as its figurehead a single politician who will go on to wield power. They are critical to the style and substance of the resulting government.

For example, it was clear a vote for Blair or for that matter Thatcher would result in a government dominated by their personalities and ideologies.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Voters vote for a party that is certainly true if that is your point? but the party usually has as its figurehead a single politician who will go on to wield power. They are critical to the style and substance of the resulting government.
> 
> For example, it was clear a vote for Blair or for that matter Thatcher would result in a government dominated by their personalities and ideologies.


And yet...people still didn't get to vote for them. Do you detect a significant groundswell of anti-miliband feeling? If so, strong enough to stop anti-tories voting labour? Of course not.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Voters vote for a party that is certainly true if that is your point? but the party usually has as its figurehead a single politician who will go on to wield power. They are critical to the style and substance of the resulting government.
> 
> For example, it was clear a vote for Blair or for that matter Thatcher would result in a government dominated by their personalities and ideologies.



You don't vote for the prime minister.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You don't vote for the prime minister.


You have made that point.
But in general elections, I do...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> You have made that point.
> But in general elections, I do...


You can't though, it's impossible


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> You have made that point.
> But in general elections, I do...


No, you don't. And i've repeated my point because you started that post off recognising this but then slipped into thinking that you do. When you don't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2014)

if you vote based on what you think of the party leader, you'll be a bit gutted on the theoretical idea that he's knifed out of office 3 months after the GE. Forced out by a scandal or something. Heart attack. Whatever.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You can't though, it's impossible


Voting locally you vote for a candidate, but it is quite clear that your vote may or may not, depending on your constituency, lead to the election of a Prime Minister with whom you may or may not agree.

Therefore I pay particular attention to who the PM may be, as a result of my vote. At least I did till I moved here where my vote is not worth so much.



butchersapron said:


> No, you don't. And i've repeated my point because you started that post off recognising this but then slipped into thinking that you do. When you don't.


In a general election I consider that I am voting for a team with a leader and that if they are elected, the leader will be PM and will have great powers over how the next term of government will shape up.

I don't think that is too hard of a concept to grasp.



DotCommunist said:


> if you vote based on what you think of the party leader, you'll be a bit gutted on the theoretical idea that he's knifed out of office 3 months after the GE. Forced out by a scandal or something. Heart attack. Whatever.


Sure..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

Consider what you like. You're not voting for the prime minister. Your vote doesn't effect who becomes prime minister. At all.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You don't vote for the prime minister.



While this is literally true, most (all?) people vote knowing who is the leader of the party they're voting for, and for many this is a significant factor, though of course not the only or even primary one.

So people's perceptions of the various party leaders are significant, and although the polling on popularity of leaders is indicative of something, I'm not sure it's always as accurate or significant as the question of which party people will vote for.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Consider what you like. You're not voting for the prime minister. Your vote doesn't effect who becomes prime minister. At all.



I think you're in danger of overstating your case here...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> While this is literally true, most (all?) people vote knowing who is the leader of the party they're voting for, and for many this is a significant factor, though of course not the only or even primary one.
> 
> So people's perceptions of the various party leaders are significant, and although the polling on popularity of leaders is indicative of something, I'm not sure it's always as accurate or significant as the question of which party people will vote for.


Well, maybe you can answer the question that weltweit wouldn't - Do you detect a significant groundswell of anti-miliband feeling? If so, strong enough to stop anti-tories voting labour?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Consider what you like. You're not voting for the prime minister. Your vote doesn't effect who becomes prime minister. At all.


Don't be silly. If I had decided I wanted Cameron as my PM and voted for him locally, a tory might have been elected here which would have counted towards a Cameron win.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Don't be silly. If I had decided I wanted Cameron as my PM and voted for him locally, a tory might have been elected here which would have counted towards a Cameron win.


Tell me then, how was this you voting on who becomes prime minister?

if you voted for Cameron locally then yes, a tory (Cameron in fact) could potentially have been elected as your MP.


----------



## belboid (Apr 20, 2014)

Bloody hell, there's some right old bollocksbeing talked here. 

Labour blew it in 92, despite holding a perfectly genuine lead in the polls the whole time. But their economic plans were widely disliked and the vote started slipping away. Come the day itself and Kinnock was too unconvincing, so they didn't vote for him (polls had already indicated his support was shallow). 

Next year will be a repeat, many people wanting to vote Labour, but thinking that,at the end of the day, Miliband is just too weird and crap.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me then, how was this you voting on who becomes prime minister?


I think I have been pretty clear. I usually vote for the party which will give me the prime minister and government I think will be best. Barring local issues which may take precedent.

I doubt I am alone in this view.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I think I have been pretty clear. I usually vote for the party which will give me the prime minister and government I think will be best. Barring local issues which may take precedent.
> 
> I doubt I am alone in this view.


do you mean 'best' or 'least bad'?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean 'best' or 'least bad'?


Well, indeed. That is a good point.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I think I have been pretty clear. I usually vote for the party which will give me the prime minister and government I think will be best. Barring local issues which may take precedent.
> 
> I doubt I am alone in this view.


You've been utterly clear that you think your vote does something that it doesn't, yes. And that by applying this mistake/misreading to current conditions you're coming up with an  odd map of todays electoral realities.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, maybe you can answer the question that weltweit wouldn't - Do you detect a significant groundswell of anti-miliband feeling? If so, strong enough to stop anti-tories voting labour?



No, not in the slightest


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> their economic plans were widely disliked and the vote started slipping away.


you mean, people voted based on their manifesto rather than the sheffield victory rally? I agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, not in the slightest


Well, this is where weltweit came in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> Bloody hell, there's some right old bollocksbeing talked here.
> 
> Labour blew it in 92, despite holding a perfectly genuine lead in the polls the whole time. But their economic plans were widely disliked and the vote started slipping away. Come the day itself and Kinnock was too unconvincing, so they didn't vote for him (polls had already indicated his support was shallow).
> 
> Next year will be a repeat, many people wanting to vote Labour, but thinking that,at the end of the day, Miliband is just too weird and crap.



I'd be thinking that despite people thinking he's weird and crap, the collapse of the LD vote and dislike towards this current shambles will get labour in anyway. Sadly looking forward to seeing him in the leaders debates. I forsee very little agreeing with nick this time round


----------



## belboid (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> you mean, people voted based on their manifesto rather than the sheffield victory rally? I agree.


Sheffield definitely didn't help. Being cocksure and triumphalist never goes down well. Odds on that'll be the only thing Miliband has learned tho.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, this is where weltweit came in.



I'm certainly not arguing in support of his notion of how the electoral system works


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm certainly not arguing in support of his notion of how the electoral system works


If I want Ed Milliband as our next PM, I would need to do my bit to try and get a Labour politician elected in my own constituency which would then count towards Ed's victory.

What is odd about that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If I want Ed Milliband as our next PM, I would need to do my bit to try and get a Labour politician elected in my own constituency which would then count towards Ed's victory.
> 
> What is odd about that?


if you want ed miliband as our next pm you need your head examined.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If I want Ed Milliband as our next PM, I would need to do my bit to try and get a Labour politician elected in my own constituency which would then count towards Ed's victory.
> 
> What is odd about that?



Maybe you just have an odd way of expressing yourself, but do you really see it as wanting Miliband for PM (because you think he personally would make a good PM, regardless of what party he leads or what policies he/they advocate), or is this some sort of shorthand for wanting Labour to form the next govt?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe you just have an odd way of expressing yourself, but do you really see it as wanting Miliband for PM (because you think he personally would make a good PM, regardless of what party he leads or what policies he/they advocate), or is this some sort of shorthand for wanting Labour to form the next govt?


I think the PM is critical to the character of government we then get. They have massive power even over the parties they represent to shape the style, policies and ministers of government.

I think come election time a lot of people think like me, for example they will think ... come 2015, do we want more of the same i.e. Cameron Osbourne and his lot and what they have brought us thus far, or do we want Ed Milliband, Balls et al and what they may bring..

I know some micro manage their local vote depending on local circs but a lot still vote for the party or leader in whom they have greatest trust, or smallest mistrust.

I was just using Ed Milliband as an example, I do think he is a handicap for Labour, he is a little unconvincing as a political leader, a tad geeky, and I am unsure how he would perform if he were elected PM.


----------



## andysays (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> you mean, people voted based on their manifesto rather than the sheffield victory rally? I agree.



I would suggest that most people make their decision to vote based on a number of factors, including (though not necessarily only) the manifesto; their perception of how likely the party is to implement its manifesto; their perception of the leader; their perception of the local candidate; their perception of how likely their preferred party/candidate is to win in their constituency; last minute shit that gets publicised immediately before the election.

I also suggest that these various factors will be of different proportional significance to different people (and possibly change for a given person over time) and that it is more-or-less impossible to judge the significance of the different factors (either for an individual or collectively) with any accuracy.

It's a complex business, this decision making.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely those incidents are a part of the impression people make of those who would lead us.



You mean like Cameron's Bullingdon photo, and Osborne's "sniffing charlie with a black sex worker" photo?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Voters vote for a party that is certainly true if that is your point? but the party usually has as its figurehead a single politician who will go on to wield power. They are critical to the style and substance of the resulting government.
> 
> For example, it was clear a vote for Blair or for that matter Thatcher would result in a government dominated by their personalities and ideologies.



You're missing the point, which is that as many people vote (somewhat) tactically (i.e. for a particular person/personality to be their MP), as vote tribally, and it's the tactical voters - the "swing" voters" - in marginals that are critical, at least in our current clusterfuck of a so-called political system.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean like Cameron's Bullingdon photo, and Osborne's "sniffing charlie with a black sex worker" photo?


Exactly.. yes ..


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 20, 2014)

If labour maintains their lead, Clegg will join with Cameron to attack Milliband in the leader's debates, simply because it will be in their interests to try an bring down that lead to somewhere that might give them a chance of holding the balance of power again. This might trump any value in attacking the Tories to hold up their own vote.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing the point, which is that as many people vote (somewhat) tactically (i.e. for a particular person/personality to be their MP), as vote tribally, and it's the tactical voters - the "swing" voters" - in marginals that are critical, at least in our current clusterfuck of a so-called political system.


Yes, although I would not claim to be any kind of expert, I agree our elections are won or lost in a small number of swing constituencies which makes individual voters votes in other areas worth less than those in critical seats. That is certainly not a fair situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> If labour maintains their lead, Clegg will join with Cameron to attack Milliband in the leader's debates, simply because it will be in their interests to try an bring down that lead to somewhere that might give them a chance of holding the balance of power again. This might trump any value in attacking the Tories to hold up their own vote.


I hope he does as he will drive the few labourish lib-dem voters still hanging around away.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I hope he does as he will drive the few labourish lib-dem voters still hanging around away.



...and, the closer the coalition parties/leaders, the more 'old' tories will be driven into the right split party. Win win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2014)

surely camerons more likely to se the writing on the wall and do his best to distance himself from nick the millstone


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> surely camerons more likely to se the writing on the wall and do his best to distance himself from nick the millstone


 ....but his main problem is that there is no distance to be gained.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 20, 2014)

The next election bares no resemblance to 1992. Its an utterly bullshit comparison - yet many poltical commentators are peddling it.
The 1992 election was decided by how many tory voters from 1987 switched to labour - the famous 'swing voters' of middle england. Some switched, but not enough to stop a tory victory. The replacement of thatcher with major pursuaded enough of their lost support to come back to the tory voting fold.
2015 will be decided on how many 2010 lid dem defectors vote labour. Its a totally different dynamic. These voters are not going to vote tory no matter what - they are the sort of voters who stopped voting labour becasue of shit like Iraq. Eds supposed lack of charisma is not going to be a big factor for them.
Since 2010, very few tory voters have switched to labour - a few percentage points at best, whearas the lid dem defection has gifted labour maybe an 8% boost.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Exactly.. yes ..



You seemed to have missed the point, which is that such bad publicity doesn't appear to have had much of an effect with the Tory core vote, except to make people think "twat!" and reflect on their own youthful hi-jinks.  It certainly didn't affect the only people whose decision-making could have influenced Cameron's or Osborne's positions - the voters of Witney and Knutsford, and the heirarchy of the Parliamentary Conservative Party and the 1922 Committee.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> The next election bares no resemblance to 1992. Its an utterly bullshit comparison - yet many poltical commentators are peddling it.
> The 1992 election was decided by how many tory voters from 1987 switched to labour - the famous 'swing voters' of middle england. Some switched, but not enough to stop a tory victory. The replacement of thatcher with major pursuaded enough of their lost support to come back to the tory voting fold.
> 2015 will be decided on how many 2010 lid dem defectors vote labour. Its a totally different dynamic. These voters are not going to vote tory no matter what - they are the sort of voters who stopped voting labour becasue of shit like Iraq. Eds supposed lack of charisma is not going to be a big factor for them.
> Since 2010, very few tory voters have switched to labour - a few percentage points at best, whearas the lid dem defection has gifted labour maybe an 8% boost.


*tory vote 1987: 13,760,935
tory vote 1992: 14,093,007*


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> *tory vote 1987: 13,760,935
> tory vote 1992: 14,093,007*



higher turnout - good weather, a tighter contest. their share of the overall vote was slightly down. 
please dont make me remember any more of that torrid evening. I combined it with my birthday party as i was fully expecting to see the back of the tory cunts ......


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> higher turnout - good weather, a tighter contest. their share of the overall vote was slightly down.
> please dont make me remember any more of that torrid evening. I combined it with my birthday party as i was fully expecting to see the back of the tory cunts ......


down 0.3% but up 340,000


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You seemed to have missed the point, which is that such bad publicity doesn't appear to have had much of an effect with the Tory core vote, except to make people think "twat!" and reflect on their own youthful hi-jinks.  It certainly didn't affect the only people whose decision-making could have influenced Cameron's or Osborne's positions - the voters of Witney and Knutsford, and the heirarchy of the Parliamentary Conservative Party and the 1922 Committee.


Surely it is impossible to know if Cameron Osbourne might have had more votes if those images had not come out. I do understand your point that the key marginal seem not to have been affected. However I bet Labour will refer to the current tories as the toff party at the next election, or they will if they think there are votes in it.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 20, 2014)

Very hard to predict the next election - Labour has some structural advantages in the distribution of the electorate, but the polls have narrowed to the point where these claims can be made:
http://descrier.co.uk/politics/tories-hold-firm-2015-elections-says-new-forecast/
(that the normal cycle of voting intentions for govt and opposition through to polling day may will deliver a Tory majority)

Be interesting to see what happens after the Euros, with UKIP almost certainly getting a higher vote than the Tories. They'll want to see where those votes are coming from before they decide whether to go into headless chicken mode.

My pessimism is that the Tories are better placed than Labour to construct a political narrative over the next 12 months ('took the painful choices, now seeing recovery, clearing up Labour's mess').  They can certainly make something out of the deficit shrinking and predicted to disappear - even if the overall debt is as big as ever and the deficit is down by welfare slashing (admittedly, a big 'even if').  It certainly blunts Labour's one successful line - 'it isn't working'.  Beyond that, what can Miliband say, given the world view he's committed to?  There are plenty of reasons for most of the electorate to hate the Tories, but little inspiration for Labour voting.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> There are plenty of reasons for most of the electorate to hate the Tories, but little inspiration for Labour voting.


Which in 2010, after 10 years of a Labour gov and with a highly unpopular leader, was enough to stop the Tories getting a majority.

The ABT vote has an very strong core vote, if the Tories couldn't get a majority in 2010 then how are they going to in 2015 in less favourable conditions (Labour better placed, UKIP attacking their right flank). I'm not quite as certain as BA and Kaka Tim that Labout will get a majority but they have to be the favourites atm.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 21, 2014)

the tories have to outperform labour by 5% to get an overall majority - probably 40% of the vote. They have not managed anything close to that sort any poll  - or had any lead -  since the election - bar a very brief blip in dec 2011. They have not achieved 40% of the vote since 1992. They have to increase their vote share on 2010 by several percentage points - no full term incumbent government has ever increased their vote share. The tories have to attract a significant chunk of voters that have never voted for them before. They have to do this with UKIP taking a chunk of their right flank.
Given all this, the tories need a miracle to avoid defeat.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2014)

Ukip vote will shrivel back for the GE. 8% tops! more likely 5. It is true that the governing parties will see a fall in their share of the vote! but it come overwhelmingly from just one of them. Would be labour voters will fail to drag themselves to a polling booth cos Ed is so shit. And the libs won't fall as much as they should cos of those places where labour have no chance, and people will go 'well, I know it didn't work last time, but..,'


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2014)

too small a point for its own thread, but: how long do we give clegg as leader of the libs? I think he will fall on his sword post GE.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2014)

Falling on his sword suggests a modicum of honour. I don't think this is the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Very hard to predict the next election - Labour has some structural advantages in the distribution of the electorate, but the polls have narrowed to the point where these claims can be made:
> http://descrier.co.uk/politics/tories-hold-firm-2015-elections-says-new-forecast/
> (that the normal cycle of voting intentions for govt and opposition through to polling day may will deliver a Tory majority)
> 
> ...



Although you're right that the Tories are better-placed to construct a "winning" political narrative, I'm not sure it can be played widely enough to matter, except in the heartlands.  Although "the green shoots" have supposedly shot, the much-trumpeted recovery hasn't had much of an effect on making people feel more secure, and most of the claims the Tories are making (lower unemployment, economic stability etc) are eminently-refutable even by a 12 year-old with no interest in politics.  I'm not sure there's enough leverage for "The Big Lie" to work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Falling on his sword suggests a modicum of honour. I don't think this is the case.



The "National Liberal" route, post-GE? Leading his fellow ministerial types over to the Tories, and then squatting their constituencies until the next GE?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 21, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/nick-clegg-easter-eggs-labour-3433843#.U1OUagb6lOB.facebook


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2014)

if he won't jump its hard to see who among them is not covered in shit so badly they can lead a pushing. Cable? lol

hopefully though, it'll just implode and we can re name this thread 'why the lib dems were shit'


----------



## Wilf (Apr 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if he won't jump its hard to see who among them is not covered in shit so badly they can lead a pushing. Cable? lol
> 
> hopefully though, it'll just implode and we can re name this thread 'why the lib dems were shit'


Vacancy: Libdem leader
Essential Skills: weeping
Other: Clean driving licence


----------



## magneze (Apr 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Vacancy: Libdem leader
> Essential Skills: weeping
> Other: Clean driving licence


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2014)

it'd be great if huhne had to take both the sentence for lying and the points.


If you are cleared of a wrongful conviction then they take the 'bed and board' costs of being in prison out of your compo. Massively out of order. The door should swing both ways


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 21, 2014)

I guess Tim Farron will lead the charge of the hand-wringers to oust Clegg come the 2015 meltdown.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "National Liberal" route, post-GE? Leading his fellow ministerial types over to the Tories, and then squatting their constituencies until the next GE?


Of course not, he'll probably leave parliament and go into busieness or Eurocracy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Of course not, he'll probably leave parliament and go into busieness or Eurocracy



Fair point.
*Whatever* he does, you can bet it'll be to the benefit of Nicholas Clegg.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

Beaker denies wanting to be LD leader and therefore formally opens his campaign bid in time honoured fashion. 

(Wishfully) thinking ahead to his next coalition, (it doesn't matter who with), Beaker nails down precisely who will be the lucky partner...



> We would seek to work with whichever party, Labour or Conservatives, had *the strongest mandate* from the electorate.



Nicely done. So that could be number of seats or total votes/% popular mandate.

So that's all cleared up, then?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2014)

Beaker as leader? Seriously?

Bring back the drunk bloke, at least he seemed vaguely human and likeable.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Beaker as leader? Seriously?
> 
> Bring back the drunk bloke, at least he seemed vaguely human and likeable.



Laughable though we may find the prospect, in his head, it's clearly a runner...





> Mr Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said the question of whether he could do Mr Clegg’s job was “*a decision that will be made*”.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2014)

Fingers crossed, Beaker as leader would hasten their decline imo


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2014)

The lib dems can have beaker, Tories can have Shapps (sure he was mooted a few years ago before being found out), labour stick with Millibot and UKIP can have that rhombus-headed thunderbird puppet guy. That'll leave the ground clear for a charismatic socialist of some kind to romp home and fix it all. Maybe.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> The lib dems can have beaker, Tories can have Shapps (sure he was mooted a few years ago before being found out), labour stick with Millibot and UKIP can have that rhombus-headed thunderbird puppet guy. That'll leave the ground clear for a charismatic socialist of some kind to romp home and fix it all. Maybe.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 24, 2014)

Christ did you hear that cunt Oakeshott on ch4 news just now? 'We're not centrists we're radical progressives' who the fuck buys this shit anymore? That Clegg arrogantly dismissing that student's question earlier today too. I can't wait for these snivelling, spineless power hungry oxygen thieves to be completely and utterly annihilated at the EU elections and more so at the general elections. I hope they get set on fire, ground into the dirt, pissed on, shit on and their ashes distributed down the toilets at Glastonbury on day five of the festival. 

They're even worse than the tories, at least the tories are straight up about their cuntishness these fucks still try and deny it even now.


----------



## savoloysam (Apr 24, 2014)

That twat Clegg today desperately trying to distance himself today from all the Tory policies that they have supported and held up. Just.Fuck.Off.You.Cunt


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 24, 2014)

After all the shit they've stood behind the tories on, from bedroom tax to flogging off the NHS, they only get in a bit of a tizzle when Cameron starts making negative noises about wind farms.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Dogsauce : Where's this 'Beaker' thing come from? 

I missed that meme ...


----------



## BigTom (Apr 25, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Dogsauce : Where's this 'Beaker' thing come from?
> 
> I missed that meme ...








https://www.google.co.uk/search?sit.....1ac.1.42.img..1.21.720.vUfmjy2fKBo#imgdii=_


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> That twat Clegg today desperately trying to distance himself today from all the Tory policies that they have supported and held up. Just.Fuck.Off.You.Cunt


 
Seen on Lab leaflets...apparently...



courtesy of the loathsome Staines.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seen on Lab leaflets...apparently...
> 
> View attachment 52784
> 
> courtesy of the loathsome Staines.



Which one's the tail?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2014)

clegg


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> clegg


 more winnet than tail, tbh


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

I don't normally big-up tory gains, but yesterday's election in Osbournby (N.Kesteven....tory gain from Ind.) produced a rather amusing result for the LDs.....9.....yes, that's 9 votes, not %. So, beyond Mr Richardson's immediate family, I'm figuring that he came close to zero.



> Con 312 49.68%
> Ind 269 42.83%
> Lab 38 6.05%
> *LD 9 1.43%*
> ...



1.43%...ouch.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

On C4 Crick just did a quick, preliminary look at the reduction in LD council candidates standing, and pointed out about 5 districts/authorities where they've put up a third or less than last time. The famed local base appears less than secure.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2014)

yeah, they've got fuck all. Tories seem to be struggling round here too for local - Lavalette's replacement (my ward) is going to be Labour unnapposed. (well, sort of - there's two seats up in May, one of which is Lavalette's, and three candidates - two Labour one Tory)


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> On C4 Crick just did a quick, preliminary look at the reduction in LD council candidates standing, and pointed out about 5 districts/authorities where they've put up a third or less than last time. The famed local base appears less than secure.


By last time do you mean 2013 or the last time these seats were contested (2010) ?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> By last time do you mean 2013 or the last time these seats were contested?


 The latter, I think...but tbf there weren't many details...Crick made it clear that the piece was a work in progress; it hasn't been very long since the nominations were closed.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2014)

Tele loving this...



> Senior party figures were warned that the party’s electoral unpopularity meant that the party was facing seeing its 11 MEPs *lose all their seats.*
> 
> The warning came at a meeting of the party's hierarchy including Lord Ashdown, the former party leader who is coordinating the party’s election campaign.
> 
> ...



Classic expectation 'management'...when they get one single MEP Clegg will hail it as 'much better than expected!'


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2014)

Comedy gold...



> Nick Clegg is a “*self-obsessed*” and “*revolting character*” who is “*so dishonest*” that he cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, a *former aide to Michael Gove* *has said*...
> 
> ...Clegg is the “*worst kind of modern MP*” and whenever Mr Clegg gave a speech *he used to demand "hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money" for his "latest absurd gimmick"*....
> 
> "He is *self-obsessed, sanctimonious and so dishonest he finds the words truth and lies have ceased to have any objective meaning, and he treats taxpayers money with contempt*.



...but, other than that, he's a fine deputy tory prime minister.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2014)

Hancock has tried to get the civil case against him thrown out/stayed because he “lacks the capacity to instruct his legal team” due to his mental health. 

I take it he'll be standing down as both a councilor and MP then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I take it he'll be standing down as both a councilor and MP then?



Steady - he's only claiming to be mad, not stupid.


----------



## Sue (May 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hancock has tried to get the civil case against him thrown out/stayed because he “lacks the capacity to instruct his legal team” due to his mental health.
> 
> I take it he'll be standing down as both a councilor and MP then?




'Mr Hancock, who is standing as an independent candidate in Portsmouth's Fratton ward in May's local elections, applied to judge Master Leslie for an open-ended stay.

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the constituent, questioned how "a man standing for re-election in under four weeks time" can claim lack of capacity....'

'In a statement his spokesman said was still recovering in hospital from the heart operation and that he also suffered from "a severe depressive disorder".

"He is, obviously, therefore unable to play any active part in his local election campaign," the statement continued.

"His Portsmouth and House of Commons offices remain open and fully staffed and are dealing with his work."'

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27264301

What a piece of work.


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2014)




----------



## SpineyNorman (May 9, 2014)

gosub said:


>




I was enjoying that till it told me to vote fucking labour


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was enjoying that till it told me to vote fucking labour



snap.  did dig out the original video   they didn't change that much


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

Anyone know why the Joseph Rowntree trust gave the lib-dems almost 200 grand this year? One of the largest donations - along with ministry of sound.


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know why the Joseph Rowntree trust gave the lib-dems almost 200 grand this year? One of the largest donations - along with ministry of sound.


Odd. I was just looking at 2013 annual report and there didn't seem to be any overtly political funds given, so I wonder why the change.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Odd. I was just looking at 2013 annual report and there didn't seem to be any overtly political funds given, so I wonder why the change.


Tad at odd with their stated aims - inlcuding:



> Our aim: to identify the root causes of poverty and injustice.
> 
> In a time of globalisation, economic strain and austerity, the poorer members of our society are at greatest risk.
> 
> But poverty isn’t just about money. We want to understand both how much money does matter and what other factors affect equality – housing, education, aspirations, culture.


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Tad at odd with their stated aims - inlcuding:


Yep. 

I did notice somewhere that it also says that all fund giving is at the absolute discretion of the trustees. I wonder if there's been a major change of trustees (or the co-opted contributors) this year.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Yep.
> 
> I did notice somewhere that it also says that all fund giving is at the absolute discretion of the trustees. I wonder if there's been a major change of trustees (or the co-opted contributors) this year.


Possible/likely - though i really can't be bothered to do a trawl through right now  Would be interesting if we found some ex-lib dem notable who recently became a trustee though.


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Possible/likely - though i really can't be bothered to do a trawl through right now  Would be interesting if we found some ex-lib dem notable who recently became a trustee though.


Likewise  Would be interesting for sure ...


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2014)

it's funded them for years, decades even. About six million over the last ten, iirr. Supposedly to counter their historic underfunding compared with Labour and the Tories


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> some ex-lib dem notable who recently became a trustee though.


only huhne stands a chance of that atm


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's funded them for years, decades even. About six million over the last ten, iirr. Supposedly to counter their historic underfunding compared with Labour and the Tories


In that case, how much they given to UKIP this year?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 15, 2014)

There's four trusts administered by Rowntree - some are stated to be apolitical, others not.  Trustees are probably different for each fund.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In that case, how much they given to UKIP this year?


the party funded by a host of millionaires?  They dont need a penny


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's funded them for years, decades even. About six million over the last ten, iirr. Supposedly to counter their historic underfunding compared with Labour and the Tories


The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust? That's the annual report I was looking at


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> the party funded by a host of millionaires?  They dont need a penny


The lib-dems have the same millionaire funding and have for yonks - were they (JRT) giving money to UKIP before sykes then?

They are subsiding the political expression and support of the neo-liberalism they are supposed to be tackling here. Doing if before 2010 - ok, can see why they might even i don't agree - post 2010 - wtf!!?


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

Aha, the one we should be looking at is the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust: http://www.jrrt.org.uk


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

> towards campaigning costs in the lead up to the next general election in 2015



£960800 to the LibDems in 2013 ffs


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> £960800 to the LibDems in 2013 ffs


more money than sense 

how can we get our hands on it instead


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Aha, the one we should be looking at is the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust: http://www.jrrt.org.uk


pls link to an application form for a massive cash handout


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

Button says they're continuing Victorian Liberalism


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust? That's the annual report I was looking at


from the foundation of which the charitable trust is a part.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The lib-dems have the same millionaire funding and have for yonks - were they (JRT) giving money to UKIP before sykes then?
> 
> They are subsiding the political expression and support of the neo-liberalism they are supposed to be tackling here. Doing if before 2010 - ok, can see why they might even i don't agree - post 2010 - wtf!!?


they're the archetypal do-gooder liberals, why are you surprised?


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

> Our values are rooted in liberalism and Quakerism. Recognising the equal worth of every person, we stand for the defence of liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom from all forms of oppression, be that political, religious, economic or social.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Button says they're continuing Victorian Liberalism


neo-victorian neo-liberalism


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

Someone ought to tell em that liberalism and neo-liberalism are different

Just cross posted with you there Pickman's


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Someone ought to tell em that liberalism and neo-liberalism are different


yeh but liberalism doesn't pay so well


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> they're the archetypal do-gooder liberals, why are you surprised?


Because doing this isn't archetypal do-gooderism. It's beyond that.


----------



## cesare (May 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but liberalism doesn't pay so well


Just call ourselves anything with "liberal" in the title and apply for a grant.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 15, 2014)

Should make bother with the charities commission about them not complying with their own mission statement:

"We fund political campaigns in the UK to promote democratic reform, civil liberties and *social justice*."

Bedroom tax?  Millionaire tax cuts?  Legal Aid cuts? ATOS?  Voted for all of this, didn't they?

" it wasn't us, it was the others.  Big boys came."


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

You're an electoral genius clegg - half the counties voters are traitors.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> Just call ourselves anything with "liberal" in the title and apply for a grant.


a liberal grant


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2014)

From the loathsome Staines, but it has to go in here...

In response to this..


Staines has produced this:-
http://order-order.com/2014/05/15/guy-news-special-would-you-really-vote-for-the-libdems/



> *Cyril Smith -* _“Overwhelming evidence”_ that Smith sexually abused young boys.
> *Lord Rennard -* Suspended by the Lib Dems after the long history of sexual harassment allegations against him was exposed.
> *Mike Hancock -* Self-confessed teen fondler. Accused of sexually assaulting a mentally ill constituent. Says he is too ill to face investigation.
> *Chris Huhne -* Liar, crook, criminal. Jailed for perverting the course of justice.
> ...



Not new, but taken as a whole...


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

> The Liberal Democrats face a total wipeout in tomorrow’s local elections and look likely to end up with fewer councillors than when the party was formed in the 1980s, polling experts said yesterday.
> 
> Nick Clegg already faces increasing demands not to enter another coalition in 2015, as the party gets hammered once again for its alliance with the Tories over the last four years.





> In 2010 the Lib Dems had nearly 4,000 councillors but tomorrow — following appalling results for the last three years — its council base could fall to just over 2,100 as the party loses another 350 seats, half of those up for election this week.
> 
> Rob Hayward, a polling expert, said there were now signs that the Lib Dems could do even worse than expected. “They are going to end up with about half the councillors they had four years ago,” he said.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Wave bye bye:



> An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
> 
> Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
> 
> ...



Expected, despite there being no historical precedent and it being part of a wider/longer series of disastrous electoral performances. I reckon the interviewers might just be prepared for that parry. In fact, they should order you off the show for being the minor party finches that you are.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wave bye bye:
> 
> 
> 
> Expected, despite there being no historical precedent and it being part of a wider/longer series of disastrous electoral performances. I reckon the interviewers might just be prepared for that parry. In fact, they should order you off the show for being the minor party finches that you are.


Read that earlier. Given that SW region is the one they have most hope of retaining a seat in, it has made me want to go out and vote Labour tomorrow just to help them on their way


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2014)

_Nick Clegg already faces increasing demands not to enter another coalition in 2015_

ha. like he's going to get the opportunity.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2014)

I have examined their prospects in Bristol tomorrow and expect them to lose 9 or 10 seats


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> Read that earlier. Given that SW region is the one they have most hope of retaining a seat in, it has made me want to go out and vote Labour tomorrow just to help them on their way


They're dead in the cities and towns - and despite received wisdom, a big chunk of their euro vote was from the towns and cities. The sheer concentration of prats in them makes it almost true by default.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> I have examined their prospects in Bristol tomorrow and expect them to lose 9 or 10 seats


I've not done my usual look this year - mostly as it's areas i'm less familiar with. Our lot are getting rather excited about avonmouth though. I've not done leafleting or canvassing so have no on the ground idea.


----------



## JTG (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've not done my usual look this year - mostly as it's areas i'm less familiar with. Our lot are getting rather excited about avonmouth though. I've not done leafleting or canvassing so have no on the ground idea.


I've cobbled together a post in the Bristol forum. Think they'll hold in some of the muesli belt areas but have no chance in Bishopston


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2014)

I'd imagine that the 'expectation of wipeout' line has a deperate element of 'expectation management' about...I can see/hear clegg doing that faux raspy voice thing saying...some people said we'd have no seats whatsoever, but actually, look, we've got one...despite having to take the tough decisions....

What might be even harder to explain is coming fifth.


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

Sure, but this shows that he's got his footlings (ashdown included) circling around him, expecting attack. None will come. I think it's unlikely they'll fail to break 5% in any region - but as eastbourne masked a larger massacre, so PR will mask a personal death  - they're coming for you clegg.


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sure, but this shows that he's got his footlings (ashdown included) circling around him, expecting attack. None will come. I think it's unlikely they'll fail to break 5% in any region - but as eastbourne masked a larger massacre, so PR will mask a personal death  - they're coming for you clegg.


Eastleigh


----------



## butchersapron (May 22, 2014)

That's him. Tired. _So tired._


----------



## weepiper (May 22, 2014)

YouGov's final poll for Scotland for voting intentions for tomorrow puts them on 6%.



> LAB - 28%
> SNP - 26%
> CON - 15%
> UKIP - 13%
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2014)

weepiper said:


> YouGov's final poll for Scotland puts them on 6%.


I think that's the highest UKIP poll so far, and SNP are quite a bit lower than they have been, first poll I've seen where they've been beaten in the second place by Labour.


----------



## weepiper (May 22, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> I think that's the highest UKIP poll so far.



Yeah, that part's not so good. It's only a small sample size (533) though so probs take it all with a pinch of salt


----------



## JTG (May 22, 2014)

weepiper said:


> YouGov's final poll for Scotland for voting intentions for tomorrow puts them on 6%.


That's their Scottish seat lost. Rest of the UK has to step up now


----------



## Dogsauce (May 22, 2014)

They have one in Yorkshire - who would be best placed to boot them out?  This is what we got last time:

_Two Conservative MEPs, one UKIP, one Labour, one Liberal Democrat and one BNP_

I reckon two Labour will be a given, as will two UKIP, with LD & Brons disappearing in a puff of smoke.  Maybe tories could lose one too?  There have been some LD strongholds in the past, Harrogate and Clegg's bit of Sheffield. Not enough for them.

Current inclination is to go for Green party which will probably overtake them here - polled 8.5% last time vs LD on 13.2.  Not sure they will get a seat though.  Chance we could get three UKIP.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2014)

Internet style 'Knocking-up' by the LDs.... 



> If you are one of the two thirds who hasn’t made their way to the polling station yet, please read on. This stuff actually matters.
> 
> Your MEPs and Councillors make decisions that affect your daily life, be it mobile phone charges on your holiday, potentially your job if it’s funded by European money, or the care your parents receive or the quality of your local parks.
> 
> Clearly I’d love it if you voted Liberal Democrat for your benefit as much as mine as a party member. Here are some reasons why:





> Our councillors are embedded in their communities. They know what’s going on, they keep themselves in touch with what people are thinking and they  listen to what’s said to them.....*When they see injustice, they will fight hard for people, leaving no stone unturned. People know who they are and feel comfortable about approaching them with their problems.  Try walking the length of a street in their ward with a Liberal Democrat councillor and see how long it takes you as they are stopped by people who want to ask them things, bring their problems, or offer thanks for a job well done.*


----------



## tbtommyb (May 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Internet style 'Knocking-up' by the LDs....


i'm sure that the % of the population that could recognise their councillor is 0.00001%


----------



## weepiper (May 22, 2014)




----------



## hipipol (May 23, 2014)

Never fully understood why the LibDems inspire such hatred


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2014)

What a fantastic post.


----------



## hipipol (May 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What a fantastic post.


it was, wasn't it?


----------



## Nylock (May 23, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Never fully understood why the LibDems inspire such hatred


No offence intended here but, where have you been these past four years?


----------



## Teaboy (May 23, 2014)

I've just posted this on the other thread but after last night's results in my part of South West London Vince Cable will have some sleepless nights to look forward to.


----------



## hipipol (May 23, 2014)

Nylock said:


> No offence intended here but, where have you been these past four years?


Well in the UK mainly........
It just seems bizarre the level of hatred which even the Tories seem to escape


----------



## Fez909 (May 23, 2014)

> Business secretary Vince Cable has told BBC News that the Lib Dems may have lost support from people as a protest vote, but not necessarily from people who had ideals. "We've certainly lost support from people who voted for us simply as a protest," he said. He said that there was "a price to be paid" for being part of the coalition. "Our results were poor," he added.


----------



## Nylock (May 23, 2014)

hipipol  That's because the Libdems said so visibly and loudly what they would do to, for instance, prevent tuition fee rises and when they got into power they basically chucked their constituents under the bus. Everyone knows when you return a Tory to power they'd be an unmitigated cunt; the biggest mistake the Libdems made was to try convince people they were different from the other two parties and then behave worse than that when elected. They draw opprobium for very good reasons... When you so visibly and totally fuck over your constituents like they did, everyone jumps on you -from the people that hated your party and politics from the outset, right the way to the very voters you fucked over for a sniff of imagined power. How is this difficult to understand?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 23, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Well in the UK mainly........
> It just seems bizarre the level of hatred which even the Tories seem to escape


You've always been a mental twat


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 23, 2014)




----------



## hipipol (May 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You've always been a mental twat


Oh do fuck off theres a good boy, you Mums probably worried about you
I dont know you from Adam nor you me
So calm down little lad, calm down


----------



## hipipol (May 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


>


Oh you're a bit of a shithead aren't you, I do recognise your name


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Oh you're a bit of a shithead aren't you, I do recognise your name



Charming - I turn up here to laugh at the lib dems getting trounced and get an unprovoked shithead for my troubles. No wonder everyone thinks you're a cunt.


----------



## hipipol (May 24, 2014)

Nylock said:


> hipipol  That's because the Libdems said so visibly and loudly what they would do to, for instance, prevent tuition fee rises and when they got into power they basically chucked their constituents under the bus. Everyone knows when you return a Tory to power they'd be an unmitigated cunt; the biggest mistake the Libdems made was to try convince people they were different from the other two parties and then behave worse than that when elected. They draw opprobium for very good reasons... When you so visibly and totally fuck over your constituents like they did, everyone jumps on you -from the people that hated your party and politics from the outset, right the way to the very voters you fucked over for a sniff of imagined power. How is this difficult to understand?


I know that, but thanks for the effort
Was just interested in the degree of vitriol, seems a number of punters are as equally exercised by anyone asking


----------



## hipipol (May 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Charming - I turn up here to laugh at the lib dems getting trounced and get an unprovoked shithead for my troubles. No wonder everyone thinks you're a cunt.


who is "everyone"?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2014)

hipipol said:


> who is "everyone"?



http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/everyone

Since I've responded to your request would you like to explain what provoked the shithead comment? I don't mind getting abuse off people I've been having a heated debate or a barney with, I've usually given out at least as much as I take on those occasions anyway. But this is fucking bizarre, I've not had any interractions with you on this thread.

Did the big boys pick on you and make you want to lash out or something?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Oh do fuck off theres a good boy, you Mums probably worried about you
> I dont know you from Adam nor you me
> So calm down little lad, calm down


Night out on the sauce?


----------



## tony.c (May 24, 2014)

hipipol said:


> Was just interested in the degree of vitriol


Not so much vitriol as schadenfreude imho.


----------



## fractionMan (May 24, 2014)

who the fuck voted libdem lol.  

idiots.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Not so much vitriol as schadenfreude imho.


Vitriol on my part.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

199 and rising


----------



## free spirit (May 24, 2014)

They lost me on this bit



> You made a tough decision to lead the Liberal Democrats into coalition in 2010. It was the right decision for the country.



Even the ones calling for Clegg's head don't get it. Joining the government rather than making the tories attempt to rule alone as a minority government having to negotiate for support for every vote on a case by case basis was the wrong decision for the country and the lib dems are suffering because of that decision, as well as the way they've actually acted in government.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2014)

free spirit said:


> They lost me on this bit
> 
> 
> 
> Even the ones calling for Clegg's head don't get it. Joining the government rather than making the tories attempt to rule alone as a minority government having to negotiate for support for every vote on a case by case basis was the wrong decision for the country and the lib dems are suffering because of that decision, as well as the way they've actually acted in government.


 Yeah, but there's obviously still at least 199 members left!


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 199 and rising



Shame that's not an open petition, like the Keeping The Faith one with Blair a few years ago.


----------



## brogdale (May 25, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Shame that's not an open petition, like the Keeping The Faith one with Blair a few years ago.


 Know what you mean, but the fact that (now) 221 paid-up members of the shitty party have actually, publicly called for his head is rather good.


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Know what you mean, but the fact that (now) 221 paid-up members of the shitty party have actually, publicly called for his head is rather good.



Oh definitely, and that a couple of parliamentary candidates are saying the same, though I can't see knives actually being wielded this side of the general election.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 26, 2014)

> The Liberal Democrats have now lost 1,369 seats in four rounds of local elections since 2011.


Ha Ha


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 26, 2014)

REWIND!



LOL


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 26, 2014)




----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2014)

Looks like the Libs will finish in sixth place in Scotland (one council left to declare)

TOTAL VOTES CAST

SNP 386193

Lab 346377

Con 230569

Ukip 139687

Green 107805

Lib Dem 95076

Britain First 13551

BNP 10150

NO 2 EU 6388


----------



## Quartz (May 26, 2014)

Good showing by the Greens.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Reports of top quality intra-LD squabbling...Pugh having a pop at Clegg via trashing Ashdown's recent behaviour.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Apparently lib-dem HQ's are spinning that leading and prominent lib-dem members who have called for Clegg to go are not in fact members. Heating up.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Oh definitely, and that a couple of parliamentary candidates are saying the same, though I can't see knives actually being wielded this side of the general election.




why not? it looks like its filtering through to the most faithful/deluded that taking the party to GE with clegg at the helm would be a disaster.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why not? it looks like its filtering through to the most faithful/deluded that taking the party to GE with clegg at the helm would be a disaster.


Because they know a split party, one at war, is the biggest vote killer there is. A party civil war has the potential to put them out of business for ever. Hence Ashdown's current frothing.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why not? it looks like its filtering through to the most faithful/deluded that taking the party to GE with clegg at the helm would be a disaster.



The next general election's going to be shit for them whoever's in charge, and getting rid of Clegg now would be messy, not least because he's still got a lot of the party's grandees behind him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Because they know a split party, one at war, is the biggest vote killer there is. A party civil war has the potential to put them out of business for ever. Hence Ashdown's current frothing.



Worth repeating with regards to Labour as well. The Tories are the only ones who might possibly have gone for that if they had done badly.


----------



## binka (May 26, 2014)

paddy ashodwn has a tremendous amount of respect for those cunts trying to wreck the party


----------



## binka (May 26, 2014)

nick clegg: 'thousands of liberal democrats who this morning are feeling bitterly disappointed but also have their heads held high'


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Worth repeating with regards to Labour as well. The Tories are the only ones who might possibly have gone for that if they had done badly.



The Tories have generally been more bloodthirsty than the other major parties when it comes to knifing leaders, but I couldn't see them deposing Cameron now, a year before an election, no matter how badly they did.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

there is that, a house divided never wins and in a year there isn't the time to have a new leader installed, brand built etc

besides, who have they got? cable lol


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> there is that, a house divided never wins and in a year there isn't the time to have a new leader installed, brand built etc
> 
> besides, who have they got? cable lol



Cable would take it if offered but he won't throw Clegg overboard for it, and least of all now.  I reckon the next leader will have to be someone we've not really heard of; someone not too tarnished by association with the Coalition, and certainly not someone who's had a senior appointment in it.  Though on the other hand one wonders if Danny Alexander fancies his chances.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 26, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> The Tories have generally been more bloodthirsty than the other major parties when it comes to knifing leaders, but I couldn't see them deposing Cameron now, a year before an election, no matter how badly they did.


Of course, just saying they're the least unlikely to have a civil war over bad results.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 26, 2014)

is anyone going to want to take over the lib dems right now? They're going to get trampled in 2015 - so surely the best bet for any potential leader - i.e. farron - is to let clegg (and beaker) carry the can - then be in charge of the 'rebuilding'.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

wonder what songs clegg will be crying along to today?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Lovely stuff:

Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015



> The electoral oblivion apparently confronting the Liberal Democrats as led by Nick Clegg was underscored on Monday by leaked opinion polls in four seats showing that the party will be wiped out





> The electoral oblivion apparently confronting the Liberal Democrats as led by Nick Clegg was underscored on Monday by leaked opinion polls in four seats showing that the party will be wiped out.
> 
> Commissioned by a Lib Dem supporter from ICM and subsequently passed to the Guardian, the polling indicates that the Lib Dem leader would forfeit his own Sheffield Hallam constituency at the next election.





> The polls show that if Clegg remains leader he would lose in Sheffield Hallam to Labour by 33 points to 23. He would even come behind theConservatives. In the 2010 election, Clegg obtained 53% of the popular vote.


----------



## free spirit (May 26, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> is anyone going to want to take over the lib dems right now? They're going to get trampled in 2015 - so surely the best bet for any potential leader - i.e. farron - is to let clegg (and beaker) carry the can - then be in charge of the 'rebuilding'.


only if they're sure of keeping their own seat at the election under clegg.

If they realise they're likely to lose their own seat, then the game plan would have to change as they'd stand no chance of being leader if they weren't even in parliament.

I suspect this election will prove to be a huge wake up call for a lot of MPs who'd been intending to just hang on til after the election, then maybe make a leadership challenge, rather than risking taking the blame for a lib dem drubbing by taking over now.


----------



## emanymton (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lovely stuff:
> 
> Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015


Bah beat me to it, I just came to post that.


----------



## Belushi (May 26, 2014)

So who leaked it? 



> _If the business secretary, __Vince Cable__, were to take over as leader, the Lib Dems would perform marginally better, the data suggests. Appointing __Danny Alexander__, the chief secretary, would give the party a more modest boost_.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Handy for the bookers that Vince is in China...allowing Beaker all over the media like a rash.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

who was that prat on last nights beeb coverage of the results bemoaning 'a new spirit of jon bull' amongst the electorate rather than accept that his party was getting pasted cos everyone hates them now? Fallon gong?


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

Oh god, I want them to dethrone Clegg for Alexander. That would be glorious. Can you imagine them going into the next election with him in charge?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

Cable would be funnier- I think Vince of House Cable genuinely believes his shit doesn't stink and the result of reality catching up with him, live on camera, would make my year


----------



## killer b (May 26, 2014)

Whatever happens, it means there'll always be something to smile about, however bleak the political landscape elsewhere.


----------



## teqniq (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Cable would be funnier- I think Vince of House Cable genuinely believes his shit doesn't stink and the result of reality catching up with him, live on camera, would make my year



As it would mine. The guy's a complete fool.


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2014)

I'd like to see David Steel back as leader. At least then he'd get daily stick as to why he didn't think the information he was given about Cyril Smith affected him 'in his role as an MP'.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> Oh god, I want them to dethrone Clegg for Alexander. That would be glorious. Can you imagine them going into the next election with him in charge?



Can't be Alexander...even if re-elected he'd not be a fUK MP after 2016.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

One of the great joys of the last 24 hours has been the dawning realisation on the poor schmucks that they really are staring oblivion in the face. Three decades of slowly climbing back from the Liberal Party in a telephone box years blown away in one term of power.

And they never saw it coming did they? They really didn't - their dreadful local election results consistently explained away with excuses they actually believed. And now this - less popular than the Greens, who haven't had to advance one jot on their 2009 result to move ahead of them. 'South West heartlands' lol - they even believed that for years. Newsflash - many in the West Country were only ever voting for you because they dislike Tories and you were the only viable alternative. Deliver a Tory government and see what your 'heartland' thinks of that.

You divs


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 26, 2014)

Belushi said:


> So who leaked it?



That's a great quote. 'More modest' than 'marginally better.' How many extra voters are they talking?


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> One of the great joys of the last 24 hours has been the dawning realisation on the poor schmucks that they really are staring oblivion in the face. Three decades of slowly climbing back from the Liberal Party in a telephone box years blown away in one term of power.
> 
> And they never saw it coming did they? They really didn't - their dreadful local election results consistently explained away with excuses they actually believed. And now this - less popular than the Greens, who haven't had to advance one jot on their 2009 result to move ahead of them. 'South West heartlands' lol - they even believed that for years. Newsflash - many in the West Country were only ever voting for you because they dislike Tories and you were the only viable alternative. Deliver a Tory government and see what your 'heartland' thinks of that.
> 
> You divs


I think the eastleigh by-election victory really convinced them that it would be alright on the night. In hindsight, i'm glad that they won that now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lovely stuff:
> 
> Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015



oh dear, how sad...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

they scraped beastliegh and lost every other by election. How much self delusion does it take to act like the third wheel of brit politics when most bys see you down in the same vote share as the far right and far left and localist hobby horse parties?


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

When even Bishopston hates them, you know they're fucked


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the tories might just dissolve the coalition themselves. Seeing quite how toxic Clegg is they might just fear collateral damage through such close association with a political corpse ,especially with such a light legislative programme over the 11 months left.


----------



## JTG (May 26, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they scraped beastliegh and lost every other by election. How much self delusion does it take to act like the third wheel of brit politics when most bys see you down in the same vote share as the far right and far left and localist hobby horse parties?


Yep, properly dire results everywhere - the tactical votes of the mid to late 90s onwards lost in time like tears in the rain...

Time to die


----------



## Dogsauce (May 26, 2014)

They'll do worse at GE if Clegg stays, hence probably better that happens.

I wonder if the Tories (and their friends in the press) will stir things or make trouble, in the knowledge that a new leader (as long a it isn't beaker) might improve LD fortunes and perhaps damage Labour's prospects? It's conceivable that if they picked someone reasonably human-sounding it might draw votes from Miliband.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the tories might just dissolve the coalition themselves. Seeing quite how toxic Clegg is they might just fear collateral damage through such close association with a political corpse ,especially with such a light legislative programme over the 11 months left.




like a black widow killing then eating the corpse of its former mate


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2014)

Anthony Wells says icm now have to make the poll public under polling regulations. Nice.


----------



## free spirit (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the tories might just dissolve the coalition themselves. Seeing quite how toxic Clegg is they might just fear collateral damage through such close association with a political corpse ,especially with such a light legislative programme over the 11 months left.


it'd be fucking funny just to see the look on Cleggs face, but would presumably result in a vote of no confidence in the government, resulting in a quick election.

Maybe there would be an advantage to be gained from that, hitting the election while the lib dems are down and out, and labour are at their lowest ebb for several years, but it'd be a high risk strategy.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

free spirit said:


> it'd be fucking funny just to see the look on Cleggs face, but would presumably result in a vote of no confidence in the government, resulting in a quick election.
> 
> Maybe there would be an advantage to be gained from that, hitting the election while the lib dems are down and out, and labour are at their lowest ebb for several years, but it'd be a high risk strategy.



I don't think the LDs would even precipitate a VoC if free of the coalition...I think the tories could bumble through the rest of the fag end of the administration's legislation without them.


----------



## free spirit (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I don't think the LDs would even precipitate a VoC if free of the coalition...I think the tories could bumble through the rest of the fag end of the administration's legislation without them.


could be right I suppose, depends if they value the next years salary more than the possibility of being able to at least go into the election trying to make out that they'd brought the government down.

I suspect Clegg would resign / get kicked out, then they'd have to have a leadership contest which'd take a few months... unless clegg played it clever and called the vote of no confidence before the party could kick him out, then they'd pretty much be stuck with him til the election.

But it wouldn't just be the lib dems, any of the parties could call for the no confidence vote, then the lib dems would have to decide whether to support the party that had just kicked them out or not.

High risk strategy anyway, so probably won;t happen as they're mostly spineless cunts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 27, 2014)

I doubt very much they'll ditch Clegg before the GE. They've had plenty of time up till now. 

A big risk is that his replacement would could be out on their arse next year and they'd end up with 3 leaders in 12 months, adding to the general laughing stock.

Cable and Beaker are both fundamentally weak. Cable sold off Royal Mail to spivs on a "gentlemans agreement", putting someone that naive in charge of the party would be barking.

Beaker is charmless and was in charge of the coalition negotiations, where they had rings run round them, so ditto.

Teather might be less catastrophic but she's already said she's going. The field is pitifully small.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lovely stuff:
> 
> Internal ICM polling shows Clegg would lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in 2015


 



			
				Nick Clegg said:
			
		

> "Just at the point when our decisions, our big judgments are being vindicated, we are not going to buckle, we are not going to lose our nerve and we are not going to walk away."


 



			
				Grand Moff Tarkin said:
			
		

> "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances"


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

These polls aren't cheap either, that someone within the lib dems decided to pay for one suggests preparing the ground for a challenge, building the case. I doubt this was just a let's have a look shall we situation.


----------



## co-op (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> 'South West heartlands' lol - they even believed that for years. Newsflash - many in the West Country were only ever voting for you because they dislike Tories and you were the only viable alternative. Deliver a Tory government and see what your 'heartland' thinks of that.
> 
> You divs





Yes "South West heartlands lol", see also "celtic fringe heartlands lol" - they got 3.9% in Wales (down two thirds) and came 6th in Scotland.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

Lembit on R5 calling for Clegg to resign as party leader yet remain ("Gladstone-like") as DPM.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Lembit on R5 calling for Clegg to resign as party leader yet remain ("Gladstone-like") as DPM.



There's more chance of an asteroid hitting Lembit Opik than that happening, I reckon.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Going back to the clegg poll - BPC rules state that as well as releasing the the data, ICM have to release who commissioned the poll.  That should be pretty revealing.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

From the BPC rules:



> All reports of survey findings of member organisations *that are published*, must include reference to the following:
> 
> 
> Client commissioning the survey;
> etc...



Surely the 'get out' is that this wasn't intended for publication?  All the parties commission private polls, which is a legitimate practice I assume?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> From the BPC rules:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely the 'get out' is that this wasn't intended for publication?  All the parties commission private polls, which is a legitimate practice I assume?


Nah, once it's out in one way or another - like this - they have two days to release the data. And as i type this, they've just released it - without the name of the client. That _will _be chased up.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

oh good.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

btw, the lib-dems actually won this euro election:



> In 1989, that election was fought by six parties – Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem (as SLD), Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru – which also fought the 2014 election.
> 
> Of those six parties, five got fewer votes in 2014 than they got in 1989. One got more. Can you guess which one?
> 
> Let’s look at the figures:








> If you guessed Lib Dem you’re right. To make sure that this is not an artefact of a split vote with the SDP (which won 75,886 votes), I’ve included that in the 1989 Lib Dem total.
> 
> *Of course, this is not grounds for complacency.*


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)




----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

I love a bit of stats-based denial. You haven't been able to move for it since thursday...


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

I shall keep an eye on that lib-dem poll client thing - meanwhile it really has set the cat amongst the lib-dem pigeons. Cleggers claiming it's part of a two month long plan to get rid of him, and the plan included cablers not doing any election work, or saying they would then _forgetting _to do it, leading to the pitiful results (yes, even more self-delusion). Frankly, civil war is far far better than clegg just going and not having to face the music.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

More on Hallam - it appears the tories didn't put candidates in the two of the five wards they do best in in the Hallam Constituency, but managed to put up others in seats across the city that they regularly get hammered in. Which suggests the tories plan to prop up Clegg as best they can.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> More on Hallam - it appears the tories didn't put candidates in the two of the five wards they do best in in the Hallam Constituency, but managed to put up others in seats across the city that they regularly get hammered in. Which suggests the tories plan to prop up Clegg as best they can.


 
Interesting...and pretty desperate...especially at a time when Cameron is manically fending off questions of pacts to do just that.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Interesting...and pretty desperate...especially at a time when Cameron is manically fending off questions of pacts to do just that.



I cannot imagine the Sheffield Conservative Association has more than about 100 members - And they haven't had a single Cllr on in the city for years- so I can completely believe they wouldn't bother fielding candidates in all wards - but it is slightly fishey that they skipped certain wards in the Hallam constituency. Mind you - they put up a candidate against an incumbent Lib Dem in my Ward in Hallam (Ecclesall), but didn't put one up in Hillsborough (not in Hallam). I doubt this will have come down from Central Office tbh - probably just a deep seated hatred for Labour and not wanting to give them any help at all towards an upset.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

Telegraph are piling in on the polling story... I'm now beginning to think that Cable may well have deliberately placed himself in China this week precisely to 'distance' himself from Oakeshott's scheming and present as the 'loyal' minister/"Prince over the water" simultaneously.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I cannot imagine the Sheffield Conservative Association has more than about 100 members - And they haven't had a single Cllr on in the city for years- so I can completely believe they wouldn't bother fielding candidates in all wards - but it is slightly fishey that they skipped certain wards in the Hallam constituency. Mind you - they put up a candidate against an incumbent Lib Dem in my Ward in Hallam (Ecclesall), but didn't put one up in Hillsborough (not in Hallam). I doubt this will have come down from Central Office tbh - probably just a deep seated hatred for Labour and not wanting to give them any help at all towards an upset.


The lib-dem suggesting this reckons the two wards they skipped in hallam are the only two they have ever made any progress in and they managed to put up 20 out of 23 in all other seats across the city. That is well sus. I don't thinkClegg is beyond putting pressure on Cameron to put pressure on the local assoc to do this. That's the way to look at it, as coming from the lib-dems not from the tories i think.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph are piling in on the polling story... I'm now beginning to think that Cable may well have deliberately placed himself in China this week precisely to 'distance' himself from Oakeshott's scheming and present as the 'loyal' minister/"Prince over the water" simultaneously.


Hemming has now said it 100% wasn't him. So finger pointing clearly at Oakshotte for Cable now.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 27, 2014)

So what's in it for Clegg? He might have saved himself one or two councillors on the City Council (including the Lib Dem group leader) this time, but there has to a be a tory on the GE2015 paper. Do you think he just needs to keep a few party stalwarts happy so he's got someone to campaign for him next year?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So what's in it for Clegg? He might have saved himself one or two councillors on the City Council (including the Lib Dem group leader) this time, but there has to a be a tory on the GE2015 paper. Do you think he just needs to keep a few party stalwarts happy so he's got someone to campaign for him next year?


Well, the longer plan would be to remove tories from the doorstep in 2015, cut down on election lit and just scale back operations - whilst lib-dem flood into save the queen. And that's the basic sort of politics that does win votes, does get a certain % of the vote out. So combined tories not doing it and lib-dems doing it helps clegg - maybe helps him over the line.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Fantastic, they've bit - Clegg's office are now demanding the name of the ICM poll client. It's war!


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

WAR


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

excellent- maybe they will eat themselves and implode before the GE. I know you mentioned that anyone with political nous doesn't do this a year before a GE, but then...its the lib dems.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

lovely. has the guardian got a live blog up yet?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

The title of the ICM file (pdf) is libdems_4polls. The anti-clegg campaign (really a tester) is called libdems4change.


----------



## articul8 (May 27, 2014)

Would sacking Clegg help them recover?   I doubt it - they'd look divided on top of everything everyone hates them for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

That's the insight we pay you the big bucks for.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

the more I think about it the idea of 'house divided, face front till the GE' rings hollow. The libs aren't in touch with reality enough to consider that, not even at the top.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

Could make Stephen Williams' weekly email less inane than usual


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

ICM referred self to BPC over lack of client name, BPC Oked it. More to come on this i'm sure. Leaves lib-dems scrabbling around looking for 5th columnists and _knowing stuff _without having the ability to back it up. All good.


----------



## strung out (May 27, 2014)

Steve Comer was on the local news earlier calling for Clegg's resignation


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

Just needs stringing out in as fractious a way as possible - a swift death would be too kind.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

strung out said:


> Steve Comer was on the local news earlier calling for Clegg's resignation


He wants shis seat back the bowl headed cunt. Does he really think there will be a swing back to the lib-dems in eastville whatever happens? De-fucking-luded.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 27, 2014)

i look forward to this thread being retitled 'why the lib-dem is shit'. can't be long now.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i look forward to this thread being retitled 'why the lib-dem is shit'. can't be long now.



'were' would be better


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

strung out said:


> Steve Comer was on the local news earlier calling for Clegg's resignation


Taking orders from Vince in his Beijing bunker


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

Bring back Kennedy, boozing politicians are back in vogue.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

**


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 'were' would be better



And who. As in 'Why who were shit?'


----------



## Roadkill (May 27, 2014)

More Lib Dem self-delusion.  From Shirley Williams this time.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> More Lib Dem self-delusion.  From Shirley Williams this time.


Note she uses almost the same words as ashdown - the party elders have decided this is the way it's going to be and conflabbed. Others may not - more potential for civil war.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Yes, Shirley, "The Liberal Democrats are lucky to have such an able and committed leader". There's slightly out of touch, then there's just daft.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

There are no tanks in Baghdad.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

thats what done my head in over the coverage on sunday night, the lib stooge was using all sorts of fancy pants reasoning to escape the fact that the electorate now despises the lib dems. In doing so he labbeled us all thick borderline racists. 'A new era of Jon Bull' was particularly galling. Can't you accept defeat gracefully? no.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Independent now say the poll was by Cables best mate, Oakeshott.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> (...) the lib stooge was using all sorts of fancy pants reasoning to escape the fact that the electorate now despises the lib dems. In doing so he labbeled us all thick borderline racists. 'A new era of Jon Bull' was particularly galling. (...)



A bizarre interpretation, I doubt much of the Lib Dem vote went to UKIP!


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> More Lib Dem self-delusion.  From Shirley Williams this time.


Ah, it's all about the message - not explaining it well enough


----------



## Dan U (May 27, 2014)

54% want Clegg to stay as Leader

resounding vote of confidence

http://www.libdemvoice.org/exclusiv...tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> A bizarre interpretation, I doubt much of the Lib Dem vote went to UKIP!


I think it did. On the protest vote basis. A large bit i reckon. Lib-dems used to be standard anti-main party vote regardless of policy, now it went UKIP, regardless of policy.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think it did. On the protest vote basis. A large bit i reckon. Lib-dems used to be standard anti-main party vote regardless of policy, now it went UKIP, regardless of policy.


Yep - one of the big mistakes many made is thinking that Lib 15-20% was a committed Liberal vote. Not true


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I think it did. On the protest vote basis. A large bit i reckon. Lib-dems used to be standard anti-main party vote regardless of policy, now it went UKIP, regardless of policy.



I'm less certain - lib dems always managed to do well as an anti-main party vote, but UKIP (as a protest) seems more of an anti-politics vote, which I'm not sure is the same thing/motivation. Will be interesting to see any polling on who voted UKIP, which I'm sure will be undertaken.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm less certain - lib dems always managed to do well as an anti-main party vote, but UKIP (as a protest) seems more of an anti-politics vote, which I'm not sure is the same thing/motivation. Will be interesting to see any polling on who voted UKIP, which I'm sure will be undertaken.


There were the same sort of doubts that there is a UKIP w/c labour vote only a month ago.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 27, 2014)

I can't remember where but there are polling figures showing a higher than expected transfer from Libdems to UKiP. I used to know a Libdem councillor who became one of the first UKIP councillors when he defected to them way back when


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

It gets better, who is buying this:

*Sam Coates Times*@SamCoatesTimes
Cable: “Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament is utterly reprehensible."

This is genius, the plotters turn on each other for plotting/being caught plotting. Is there nothing they can't fuck up.


----------



## Dan U (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It gets better, who is buying this:
> 
> *Sam Coates Times*@SamCoatesTimes
> Cable: “Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament is utterly reprehensible."
> ...



Lord Oakeshott is Cables mate isn't he?

eta - apols, just saw your earlier post. yes!


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I can't remember where but there are polling figures showing a higher than expected transfer from Libdems to UKiP. I used to know a Libdem councillor who became one of the first UKIP councillors when he defected to them way back when



They used to be less 'racist' (for want of a better description) so that early defection is not as surprising - in the early days I think it was about curbing the powers of the superstate and not much else - why there are a few dissenters from this period like Sked throwing muck at Nigel now he's gone more strongly after immigration.  

The Lib dems in the seat next to mine were put there by the student vote, so I'm probably seeing their support through that perspective (plus the Waitrose sect), and I can't see those type of supporters really taking that big an idealogical swing, but I guess that's not the case everywhere.  I'd like to see the post-election polls showing what people's previous votes were when they appear.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

That cable statement:



> ‘Lord Oakeshott’s actions are totally inexcusable and unacceptable. I have made it very clear repeatedly that he does not speak or act for me.
> 
> ‘Commissioning and publishing polls without the consent of the Member of Parliament, as in the case of Sheffield Hallam, is utterly reprehensible.
> 
> ‘There are undoubtedly raw feelings in the wake of poor local and European election results. We need to respond in a measured way. Public speculation about the leadership is an unwelcome distraction and as I made absolutely clear yesterday there is no leadership issue as far as I’m concerned.



and if you believe that you'll believe anything. Tuition fees, NHS, anything.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

> Someone asked me recently why I’m a Lib Dem. It’s because I believe in freedom, in equality, in a decent chance for every child. It’s because I believe in protecting the environment, in international cooperation, in a supportive but submissive state. It’s because I believe that liberalism really is the solution to many of society’s most entrenched problems. I want to shout about that from the rooftops and this is my challenge to my fellow party members.



No it's not. It's because you're a cunt.


----------



## killer b (May 27, 2014)

smart middle class patches AND tougher urban areas eh?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> They used to be less 'racist' (for want of a better description) so that early defection is not as surprising - in the early days I think it was about curbing the powers of the superstate and not much else - why there are a few dissenters from this period like Sked throwing muck at Nigel now he's gone more strongly after immigration.
> 
> The Lib dems in the seat next to mine were put there by the student vote, so I'm probably seeing their support through that perspective (plus the Waitrose sect), and I can't see those type of supporters really taking that big an idealogical swing, but I guess that's not the case everywhere.  I'd like to see the post-election polls showing what people's previous votes were when they appear.


Fair enough am on my phone so will just say Isle of Dogs - Libdems are not all museli belt liberals.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

This graph from Staines is actually quite funny....%'s from LibDem Voice poll of 992 party members asked "should he stay or should he go now?"



.....there will be trouble


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

What does this pious guff mean anyway:




			
				cable said:
			
		

> The commissioning and publishing of polls without the consent of the member of parliament is utterly reprehensible.



Anyone can do a poll on what they like without the MPs permission you freaky authoritarian. Do they need to ask Cleggs permission to wipe their arse on a pic of his face?


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does this pious guff mean anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do a poll on what they like without the MPs permission you freaky authoritarian. Do they need to ask Cleggs permission to wipe their arse on a pic of his face?


Yeah, I wondered that earlier - surely there isn't some kind of convention covering this?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yeah, I wondered that earlier - surely there isn't some kind of convention covering this?


Nothing whatsoever - literally nothing.


----------



## JTG (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing whatsoever - literally nothing.


 Inventing ethical standards that don't exist so he can say he'd definitely never contravene them


----------



## elbows (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> WFT are headteachers doing



Some of the time, some of them are feeding their own ego's.

In 1989-90 at my school the soon-to-retire head tried to get 50 celebs to plant a tree each at the school to celebrate 50 years of the school existing. I'm not sure he got 50, but we did have visits from the likes of Jeffrey Archer and David Owen. At some point Neil Kinnock turned up, a right circus that one was.


----------



## elbows (May 27, 2014)

As for David Owen, he was a charisma black hole.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That cable statement:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you believe that you'll believe anything. Tuition fees, NHS, anything.


Some people bought it:
Vince Cable accuses Lib Dem peer of commissioning unauthorised polls

Cook accuses england of losing ashes?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

elbows said:


> As for David Owen, he was a charisma black hole.


He always thought he was Brian ferry. He was barely Paul Thompson.


----------



## Tankus (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does this pious guff mean anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do a poll on what they like without the MPs permission you freaky authoritarian. Do they need to ask Cleggs permission to wipe their arse on a pic of his face?


It was an internal poll apparently ,members only .........

Fucking hilarious   tbh


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2014)

So is Clegg gonna get shafted or not? I've gone and bet SpineyNorman a tenner he's gonna get thrown to the wolves before the GE.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Tankus said:


> It was an internal poll apparently ,members only .........
> 
> Fucking hilarious   tbh


No it wasn't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> So is Clegg gonna get shafted or not? I've gone and bet SpineyNorman a tenner he's gonna get thrown to the wolves before the GE.


Nope. The wolf just bottled it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nope. The wolf just bottled it.



Ahhh, c'mon, that was just an opening salvo surely? The poll to ram home the concerns over Clegg and the righteous indignation to  appear loyal and selfless. I'm not losing faith in my drunken bets that easy.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 28, 2014)

Its like I said upthread, a major minus to trying to dethrone NC is that the next leader could lose their seat and they'd end up with 3 inside a year. That would greatly lengthen the laughing-stock factor.

All this should have been done before, were it to be done at all. This is the fourth year of shit results.


----------



## Tankus (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't.


Ah ...OK there were two polls , oakeshotts wasn't , my bad .


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Ah ...OK there were two polls , oakeshotts wasn't , my bad .


The party one wasn't even a poll. It was the equivalent of a vote on here (or any other registration required forum), and they shut it down 7 hours before planned as soon as cleggs support went over 50%


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhh, c'mon, that was just an opening salvo surely? The poll to ram home the concerns over Clegg and the righteous indignation to  appear loyal and selfless. I'm not losing faith in my drunken bets that easy.


I reckon there's a 3-4 week window now. After that, no chance. A lost deposit on thursday in newark is what's needed to get the ball properly rolling. Desperate MPs thinking their own pay-cheque is going down the river is a good nerve steadier.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon there's a 3-4 week window now. After that, no chance. A lost deposit on thursday in newark is what's needed to get the ball properly rolling. Desperate MPs thinking their own pay-cheque is going down the river is  good nerve steadier.



20% in 2010; there's real scope for a proper disaster...especially with Bus Pass Elvis as a rival for 5th place!


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

> _Q: [From Sky News] What do you think about Lord Oakeshott's poll? Should he be disciplined? And are you convinced Vince Cable had nothing to do with this?_
> 
> Clegg says it was "odd" for a Lib Dem to spent time and money, when everyone else was out campaigning, on a "specious" poll. And, *by the way, the findings of the poll were confounded by the election results*. In his constituency, the Lib Dems won.



Hmmmm 

That favour from the tories proved very useful, then?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> That favour from the tories proved very useful, then?



If you mean the Tories in Hallam they've been voting Lib Dem for years - I doubt that Clegg proving himself a useful stooge will turn them against him.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you mean the Tories in Hallam they've been voting Lib Dem for years - I doubt that Clegg proving himself a useful stooge will turn them against him.


 Voting tactically is one thing, but not putting up candidates in 2 Hallam wards looks very smelly....almost as though Clegg suspected that Cable's lot were up to something and called in a favour from Dave.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

> norman smith @BBCNormanS
> Follow
> Sources close to Nick Clegg say "100% convinced" that Vince Cable not involved in plot to remove him @libdems





Does make you wonder if that one MEP in the SE was crucial to the 'coup-plotters' game-plan. Perhaps they really were waiting for total wipe-out to mount the challenge?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Voting tactically is one thing, but not putting up candidates in 2 Hallam wards looks very smelly....almost as though Clegg suspected that Cable's lot were up to something and called in a favour from Dave.



Fair, hadn't spotted that actually.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

they have skipped wards in the past, so its not completely uncommon. They only got about 300 in the two they dropped this time in 2012, so it may genuinely be that they just had no one willing to put themselves through it.

Twas even more extreme in Rotherham, loads of seats with just two candidates - always Labour & UKIP.  Which is, partly, why the kippers did so well. Total liberal vote in Rotherham? 136. Only bothered to stand in one seat.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

it's not a matter of 'not being bothered' to stand, just like it's not a case of them 'not bothering' to canvas. They don't have the members anymore - not only to canvas, but to even put up paper candidates. It's an indication of how utterly desperate the situation is for them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

We're on abut the tories here killer.

And they managed to find another 20 candidates. I don't believe they couldn't find anyone for those wards.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> they have skipped wards in the past, so its not completely uncommon. They only got about 300 in the two they dropped this time in 2012, so it may genuinely be that they just had no one willing to put themselves through it.



Of course that may well be the case...but...that said...in the remaining 23 wards of Sheffield, (not exactly traditionally fertile territory for the vermin), the they managed to stand candidates in 20 out of 23 wards.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We're on abut the tories here killer.
> 
> And they managed to find another 20 candidates. I don't believe they couldn't find anyone for those wards.


I know, I was replying to belboid's post about the lib dem vote in Rotherham.

I agree about the Hallam tory situation. fishy as fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> I know, I was replying to belboid's post about the lib dem vote in Rotherham.
> 
> I agree about the Hallam tory situation. fishy as fuck.


Gotcha, thought you mean sheff.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

I've seen a lot of talk recently about the lib dems / tories / labour not bothering to stand / canvas or whatever - I think it's an idea that needs to be challenged. Any serious political party will stand in as many seats as it possibly can, and canvas as hard as possible. 

The only reason they wouldn't do that is because of lack of resources and bodies, or for political reasons. Not standing in Hallam when you've got paper candidates everywhere else in the city is pretty blatantly political - although it might not have been an explicit pact as such.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

> Chris Ship ✔ @chrisshipitv
> Follow
> Lib Dem @oaskeshottm: I am today taking leave of absence from the House of Lords and resigning as a member of the Liberal Democrats.



Clegg seems secure, now. All the better for "wipe-out" in May 2015.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

From Oakeshott's statement..



> _*Several months ago*_ a close colleague, concerned about voting intentions in Twickenham, asked me if I would arrange and pay for a poll to show us Vince’s current position and how best to get him re-elected. I was happy to help, and Vince amended and approved the questionnaire, but at his request I excluded a question on voting intentions with a change of leader. Although Vince had excellent ratings, both as a Minister and a local MP, he was slightly behind the Conservatives in this poll, as the full details on the ICM website (http://www.icmresearch.com/) show. That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. The results were in the Guardian yesterday and on the ICM website (http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/lib-dem-constituency-polling). *Several weeks ago*, I told Vince the results of those four polls too.



This is looking more and more like Clegg did have enough time to manipulate the Sheff tory stuff.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

He's done beaker too!



> On Thursday I also commissioned one more ICM poll, in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey; the results should also be on the ICM website tonight athttp://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_libdems_inverness.pdf andhttp://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_twick.pdf


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2014)

Woah!

Resigning from the party presumably gives him freedom to speak his mind on Clegg - papers are probably already bidding for his side of the story. Could be some nice shit being stirred here.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Comedy gold...the second line of his statement...



> *I am sure the Party is heading for disaster if it keeps Nick Clegg*



Some fucking Sherlock.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> He's done beaker too!


ohh beakers well dodgy for re-election. Could even drop down to fourth - only UKIP look like stopping that (by taking tory votes). 

Why do you think he is against a leadership election now?


----------



## rioted (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> ... is pretty blatantly political...


Political parties get political in election! Well, fuck my boots!


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

Do fuck off. You know what's meant there.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2014)

Shittest machinations ever. Lord Oakeshott lol.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

So we have this...



> norman smith @BBCNormanS
> Follow
> Sources close to Nick Clegg say "100% convinced" that Vince Cable not involved in plot to remove him @libdems



and this...



> Several months ago a close colleague, concerned about voting intentions in Twickenham, asked me if I would arrange and pay for a poll to show us Vince’s current position and how best to get him re-elected. I was happy to help, and Vince amended and approved the questionnaire, but at his request I excluded a question on voting intentions with a change of leader. Although Vince had excellent ratings, both as a Minister and a local MP, he was slightly behind the Conservatives in this poll, as the full details on the ICM website (http://www.icmresearch.com/) show. That poll worried me so much that I commissioned four more in different types of constituency all over the country and added back the change of leadership question. The results were in the Guardian yesterday and on the ICM website (http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/lib-dem-constituency-polling). Several weeks ago, I told Vince the results of those four polls too.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 28, 2014)

I'm sure Labour will welcome Oakeshott.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

he says he's resigning from the lords as well doesn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

He has the names of the other plotters. Please Clegg, make another wrong move and attack him - make him use his insider knowledge against you.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> he says he's resigning from the lords as well doesn't he?


 No, "leave of absence".


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> he says he's resigning from the lords as well doesn't he?


Leave of absence. Which i think means keeping out of politics for a bit as he's sick of not getting his own way.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2014)

It's as if somebody challenged David Moyes - and United decided to stick with him, because the alternative was Joe Kinnear.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

This only highlights their shitness even further.

LO) i've done this, what do you think?
VC) cool, can you remove this bit though?
LO) no probs

LO then proceeds to take it out, then put it  back and expand it by 300%. Lies within lies.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> No, "leave of absence".


  He clearly doesn't understand the expenses system. I thought you had to put a toe over the threshold to get your 'allowance'?


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This only highlights their shitness even further.
> 
> LO) i've done this, what do you think?
> VC) cool, can you remove this bit though?
> ...


Yep, knowing weeks ago that there'd been 3 other polls!



> *He reveals that Vince Cable asked him not to include a question about whether the Lib Dems would do better under a different leader (the anti-Clegg question, because it showed the answer was yes) in a poll he was conducting in Twickenham.* But Oakeshott also reveals that Cable knew several weeks ago that Oakeshott had gone ahead and commissioned polls in four constituencies (including Twickenham) featuring that question.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Wilf said:


> He clearly doesn't understand the expenses system. I thought you had to put a toe over the threshold to get your 'allowance'?


Got to do more than that now as that twice done for expenses fraud lord hanningfield just found out.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Here's the alexander poll (can't see it posted already)

SNP 32 (+14 from GE)
Labour 25 (+3)
Lib Dem 16 (-24)
Tory 12 (-1)


Starting to think even yeovil ain't safe now.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm sure Labour will welcome Oakeshott.




he is one of the few politicians who has spoken out against the welfare reforms, even if he is a City man.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the alexander poll (can't see it posted already)
> 
> SNP 32
> Labour 25
> ...


3rd, eh?  The 'kippers need to do work there.


----------



## Wilf (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Got to do more than that now as that twice done for expenses fraud lord hanningfield just found out.


 Oh yes, 'clocking in' - keep the meter running driver!


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

And the Cable poll

Con 34% (-)
LD 30% (-24%)
LAB 24% (+17%)
UKIP 6% (+5%)


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Seriously, he's just very publicly  accused Cable of lying to Clegg, lying to the lib-dems, lying to the media and lying to himself.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Isn't it time these island(ish) apes were cut free?


GIBRALTARS EURO VOTES 

LD 4,822 (67.1%)
CON 1,236
LAB 659
UKIP 290
OTH 173


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

R4 News bigging up the prospect of 75 local LD party associations opting for leadership challenge.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> R4 News bigging up the prospect of 75 local LD party associations opting for leadership challenge.


I believe they need 10% of MPs as well - at least they did when i looked into this after the coalition was first formed. Pretty sure anyway.

edit: it's actually any leadership challenger must have 10% backing.

This is the live one:

(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75 Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students) following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2014)

Who'll be left come 2015? They'll end up with a leader by default, last MP standing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

That's be noted thief David Laws!


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

I think Fallon is probably safe too?


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think Fallon is probably safe too?


Have a look at the 2005 election - without that 14% rise last time the seat is a marginal, and a marginal with long history of previous tory occupancy. I'd say he's in danger and he knows it, hence putting himself about so much.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does this pious guff mean anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do a poll on what they like without the MPs permission you freaky authoritarian. Do they need to ask Cleggs permission to wipe their arse on a pic of his face?


Yeah that is just an utterly bizarre load of horseshit, it shows just how out of touch these vermin are.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

I'm going to the shops in a bit. Do you think i should ask kerry mcarthy (my mp) if that's ok first?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 28, 2014)

What about Simon Hughes? Seem to remember he had a strong personal vote on account of apparently being a very competent constituency MP - might have dreamed that though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What about Simon Hughes? Seem to remember he had a strong personal vote on account of apparently being a very competent constituency MP - might have dreamed that though.


Yep. He has. Don't know how that will play out. A lot of people on here in that seat though. Interested in how they feel things stand.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look at the 2005 election - without that 14% rise last time the seat is a marginal, and a marginal with long history of previous tory occupancy. I'd say he's in danger and he knows it, hence putting himself about so much.


oh, good. 

My spies in his constituency do claim he's personally well-thought of though, despite popular revulsion for his party. Dunno if that'll be enough...


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Now Wu ming gets involved - a) calls Lord Up himself a liar or b) shows he has no idea of what's happened:

“I shall be very surprised if Vince Cable was made aware of surreptitious polling


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Note also, the lord accused the lib-dems of selling peerages for profit. That's rather gone under the radar.


----------



## co-op (May 28, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What about Simon Hughes? Seem to remember he had a strong personal vote on account of apparently being a very competent constituency MP - might have dreamed that though.



The wards in his constituency went 14-11 to Labour as opposed to 21-6 to the LIb-Dems in 2010. Obviously 2010 was a good year for the LDs and a bad one for Labour, still that's quite a swing. Bermondsey Labour Party was a bit of a notorious shambles for quite a long time after the whole Peter Tatchell candidacy - the LDs got in and were very hard-working on the ground, kind of kept the local LP moribund for a long time. But I'd think Hughes is in trouble now - the huge swing to Labour in London will mean a lot of ambitious councillors eyeing up every parliamentary seat. I'd guess Lib Peck will now have the Vauxhall job stitched up (Kate Hoey has to piss off eventually) - Jowell's obviously going to hang around for a while...someone will look at Bermondsey and think they can 'ave it if they can put together a hard working team.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Note also, the lord accused the lib-dems of selling peerages for profit. That's rather gone under the radar.



It's nothing novel to do that, all the cunts are at it, not really newsworthy I guess.


----------



## JTG (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And the Cable poll
> 
> Con 34% (-)
> LD 30% (-24%)
> ...


Great example of a dormant Labour vote, squashed by nearly two decades of tactical voting, returning to life. You'll see this across the rural West too


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This graph from Staines is actually quite funny....%'s from LibDem Voice poll of 992 party members asked "should he stay or should he go now?"
> 
> View attachment 54633
> 
> .....there will be trouble



*CABLE CAN'T WIN HERE!*


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look at the 2005 election - without that 14% rise last time the seat is a marginal, and a marginal with long history of previous tory occupancy. I'd say he's in danger and he knows it, hence putting himself about so much.


naah. South Lakeland, where his seat is, actually still voted libscum in the Euro's!  The only place in the country that did. Why else would anyone propose him as leader?  He's the only one (other than the scottish lush) who will still have his seat.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> naah. South Lakeland, where his seat is, actually still voted libscum in the Euro's!  The only place in the country that did. Why else would anyone propose him as leader?  He's the only one (other than the scottish lush) who will still have his seat.


I still can't quite see them losing yeovil - the ghost of paddy rides hard in those parts.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> paddy rides hard.


*boak*


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> *boak*


I didn't feel well typing those words.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

No, it wont happen.  We'll still have ten or so of the bastards, maybe even a couple more, as the Billy Bragg type voter, who says they'll vote Labour at the moment, get into the ballot station and go 'oh fuck, but Labour really do have no chance here, and the tories are evil, so...'


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

This really does invite some attention from the big polling bods..



> A spokesman for Alexander has issued this statement.
> 
> This poll does not bear scrutiny. The sample size is too small to be reliable and the whole methodology used has been criticised by other polling companies. Only 309 people contributed to the voting intention question – that is less than half of one percent of the 72,500 in the constituency


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> This really does invite some attention from the big polling bods..


I think there is enough there for ICM to sue.


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

309 is certainly a big enough sample. WTF is he on about?


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Hotting up nicely.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2014)

A bit parochial, but definitely deserves a mention.

*WINNING HERE!*









> Councillor Gary Hopkins has been elected the new leader of the Bristol Liberal Democrats.
> 
> The news was broken by former leader Tim Kent (Whitchurch Park) who put on Twitter “congratulations to Cllr Gary Hopkins on being elected Leader of @BristolLibDems we had 3 great candidates.”



http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Counci...d-new-leader/story-21148230-detail/story.html


----------



## JTG (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> 309 is certainly a big enough sample. WTF is he on about?


Aren't national polls done with around 1000? So for a single constituency that's easily enough


----------



## JTG (May 28, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> A bit parochial, but definitely deserves a mention.
> 
> *WINNING HERE!*
> 
> ...


Fucking Knowle


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

*roadto326*@roadto326
Alexander criticises poll for only asking 0.5% of constituents, but national polls only ask 0.001% of voters, and are broadly accurate...


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

JTG said:


> Aren't national polls done with around 1000? So for a single constituency that's easily enough


 Better to compare with other single constituency polling; Ashcroft's recent polling in marginals was based on a sample size of 1000 in each constituency. I'm assuming that Oakeshott's pockets weren't as deep as the bent baron's.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 28, 2014)

All the twitter chatter about this today - We need a rich mischief maker to just stump up for it to be done properly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Give us money brand. Show yourself.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Anthony Well's take...although nothing on sample size...

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8848


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Anthony Well's take...although nothing on sample size...
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8848





> the effect of incumbency and tactical voting is far higher for Lib Dem MPs


This is something i've been struggling with - the incumbency effect - i can get it's real, and i can get it can help when times are bad - but when times are disastrous? Doesn't it sort of reverse itself and become (apart from real big hitters) and become a drag - something around which people rally or use as an excuse to vote against? I'd need to compare 97 stuff with other landslides but, i think in exceptional conditions the rule won't hold.

Being a lib-dem MP is not going to help when it's being an lib-dem MP that people are reacting against.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is something i've been struggling with - the incumbency effect - i can get it's real, and i can get it can help when times are bad - but when times are disastrous? Doesn't it sort of reverse itself and become (apart from real big hitters) and become a drag - something around which people rally or use as an excuse to vote against? I'd need to compare 97 stuff with other landslides but, i think in exceptional conditions the rule won't hold.
> 
> Being a lib-dem MP is not going to help when it's being an lib-dem MP that people are reacting against.


 Yeah, I get what you're saying...and tbh I've never seen it as anything more than LDs (having the time) to be seen as good constituency MPs being pretty proactive on the dogshit and street lighting front. But, coming from LB Sutton where the local incumbency effect has again apparently cut in to _*increase *_their stranglehold on the borough, and Brake/Burstow look reasonably safe, I'm not really the best person to make such a call.


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I still can't quite see them losing yeovil - the ghost of paddy rides hard in those parts.



Someone else who conducted some surreptitious polling, of course.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2014)

JTG said:


> Great example of a dormant Labour vote, squashed by nearly two decades of tactical voting, returning to life. You'll see this across the rural West too




If the L/D's shift back to the centre left, would this have an impact on the labour vote?


----------



## JTG (May 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> If the L/D's shift back to the centre left, would this have an impact on the labour vote?


No, because they lay down with Tories


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

treelover said:


> If the L/D's shift back to the centre left, would this have an impact on the labour vote?


Of course not.


----------



## treelover (May 28, 2014)

Good.

could you explain why?


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Holy moly...Cable's in up to his neck....



> There has been some confusion in the lobby tonight because the Press Association is running this quote from the Vince Cable interview.
> 
> In this particular case, Lord Oakeshott asked my election campaign manager if we wanted a poll done in my local constituency, we said yes. It was a private, local poll done for general election planning, absolutely nothing to do with national leadership.
> 
> ...



St, Vincent's gotta go...


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

The cover up always gets them...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2014)

shall we have a countdown to resignation?


----------



## ddraig (May 28, 2014)

going out in a few days and there will be a LD strategist and also a prospective LD cllr there!
obviously there is loads but what killer points should i use without making them cry and run away?

not that they will want to talk about it of course


----------



## steeplejack (May 28, 2014)

would be a glorious side effect; Oakshott throws a hand grenade and the shrapnel kills his best pal. 

Cable has been so badly found out since 2010. Generously, he's been a consumate mediocrity, having spent years wringing his hands in opposition and gaining a bizarre reputation as a mixture between an economic sage and the Messiah.

never tire of watching him reduced to a smouldering wreck by Andrew Neill:


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

beaker must be loving this


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

vince is so shit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 28, 2014)

This is great! And theres the potential lost deposit in next weeks by-election to set the cat further amongst the pigeons.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2014)

South Lakeland has a significant proportion of wealthy incomers/second home owners who I wouldn't be surprised to hear exercise their vote there propping up the "safe" LibDem rather than in the safe Labour seats from where many of them hail.

Be interesting to know if this a genuine factor (rather than my over active imagination extrapolating from individuals I know) and whether Labour can harness the resentment of the poorly paid local workers...


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 28, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Oakshott throws a hand grenade and the shrapnel kills his best pal.



 innit! Oh you lib dems - evil, yet pathetic.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

chilango said:


> South Lakeland has a significant proportion of wealthy incomers/second home owners who I wouldn't be surprised to hear exercise their vote there propping up the "safe" LibDem rather than in the safe Labour seats from where many of them hail.
> 
> Be interesting to know if this a genuine factor (rather than my over active imagination extrapolating from individuals I know) and whether Labour can harness the resentment of the poorly paid local workers...


well, Labour got 2.2% in Farrons constituency there last time, down from 20.6% in 1997, so.....no, they cant.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Hughes...



> It's clearly completely unacceptable for somebody who is a party member, who owes his position entirely to the party, not to the electorate, entirely to the party, then to act in a way that is self-evidently against the interests of the party. *Vince is working for the party and the Government in China. We are working here. We have work to do and the party needs to concentrate on our objectives as well as our achievements ...*
> 
> *The only person who has persistently acted in a way which strikes me as a close observer in ways that sought to destabilise the leadership of Nick Clegg*, democratically-elected, the first Liberal Democrat leader in government ever, the first Liberal in government to lead the party since the war, the only person who systematically acted in that way *has been Matthew Oakeshott.*



Desperate stuff.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> well, Labour got 2.2% in Farrons constituency there last time, down from 20.6% in 1997, so.....no, they cant.



Hmmm. Can they get back to somewhere near that '97 result though?


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

not with this shower!


----------



## steeplejack (May 28, 2014)

My reading is this; Clegg may well be privately seething at Cable's disloyalty, but has already worked out that losing Cable at such a sensitive time will be nuclear, therefore he has no choice but to wear the humilation and bluff it out with the press.


----------



## chilango (May 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> not with this shower!



It's an interesting consituency though with the retirees and second home owners on one hand and poorly paid seasonal workers on the other providing the potential for uncertainty.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> My reading is this; Clegg may well be privately seething at Cable's disloyalty, but has already worked out that losing Cable at such a sensitive time will be nuclear, therefore he has no choice but to wear the humilation and bluff it out with the press.


 Yesterday's men....what does beaker [(tory leader) Osborne's man] want?


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yesterday's men....what does beaker [(tory leader) Osborne's man] want?


who cares? He will lose his seat


----------



## steeplejack (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yesterday's men....what does beaker [(tory leader) Osborne's man] want?



I'd imagine, quietly, he will be hatching plans to throw the kitchen sink at retaining his seat over the next year. Not much point in being seen as the "leader in waiting" if you have no seat. Even if he dismisses Oakshott's poll publically, privately it will be a massive concern.

If he is clever he will "rise above" the petty squabbling. If the Lib Dems are to implode best he tries to put a distance between himself and the ferrets in a sack.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

> *Lib Dem chaos...*



Bad, when that's the Grauniad headline.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Smithson on form...



> It takes a very kind of special talent to miss your target, and potentially fatally damage the career of the man you’d like to be the new Leader  though I think Vince safe judging by this tweet.
> 
> Dan Hodges @DPJHodges
> Follow
> ...


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)




----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

What purpose does Hodges serve now? Surely no-one takes him seriously?


----------



## shagnasty (May 28, 2014)

I wonder if Clegg can weather this even so he is deeply damaged Ha Ha


----------



## J Ed (May 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> What purpose does Hodges serve now? Surely no-one takes him seriously?



Right-wingers can use his columns to be like 'wow! even this loony left-winger/trade unionist/Labour writer thinks this, that's _just how_ common sense my preconceived prejudies are!'


----------



## killer b (May 28, 2014)

But he gets it wrong consistently. He's probably the best weathervane the Labour Party have in that sense, although not in the way he'd like. Surely that has an impact on the value of his opinion, even to a R/W paper?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 28, 2014)

JTG said:


> Aren't national polls done with around 1000? So for a single constituency that's easily enough



I haven't done stats for a while but I don't think it quite works like that. Sampling accuracy is a LOT more sensitive to changes in sample size than it is to overall population. 

 There's plenty of calculators you can use - putting the numbers in suggests that given the sample size there's a reasonable degree of potential variance so in a sense they're right to say it's small. It's vanishingly unlikely to be as wrong as they'd like though.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 28, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> My reading is this; Clegg may well be privately seething at Cable's disloyalty, but has already worked out that losing Cable at such a sensitive time will be nuclear, therefore he has no choice but to wear the humilation and bluff it out with the press.


Aye, I think that's right. He must know that if he get's rid of Cable he's going to start an open war.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2014)

shagnasty said:


> I wonder if Clegg can weather this even so he is deeply damaged Ha Ha


holed beneath the waterline


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Ball definitely rolling now. Stephen tall editor of lib dem voice and very well respected among all factions now openly calling for clegg to go. 


http://stephentall.org/2014/05/28/w...hinks-nick-clegg-should-stand-down-as-leader/


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Group of party big wigs have a letter in the times saying clegg leadership should be put to party vote. Time running out, and it looks life he may escape the election humiliation.


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Group of party big wigs have a letter in the times saying clegg leadership should be put to party vote. Time running out, and it looks life he may escape the election humiliation.


 A sort of in/out referendum?


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

I bet they could even lose that!


----------



## brogdale (May 28, 2014)

Televised debate with Oakeshott, maybe?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Televised debate with Oakeshott, maybe?


oakeshott's out of his league


----------



## sptme (May 28, 2014)

to hang Tories use rope. To hang Lib-dems use Cable


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ball definitely rolling now. Stephen tall editor of lib dem voice and very well respected among all factions now openly calling for clegg to go.
> 
> 
> http://stephentall.org/2014/05/28/w...hinks-nick-clegg-should-stand-down-as-leader/



Interesting stuff - the thing about him staying as DPM is a bit weird though. Perhaps highlights more that he'll have to resign prior to any hung Parliament scenario deals rather than resign now though.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 29, 2014)

Is NC still doing that LBC call-in show?


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

Seems a long time since the heady days of 'I agree with Nick'.


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2014)

the real debate isn't about Clegg, tho.  It's about whether to stay in the coalition.  But they can't be seen to be having that argument, so they have to frame it around Clegg instead.

There is a logic in that. Breaking the coalition now would give themselves a chance to reposition themselves as 'remembering their roots,' and going someway to define a space between them and the tories. The tories wouldn't mind as they could then swing more right-wing, move onto UKIP ground, get a couple more of those vital poll points back. 

Problem is, it might lead to a couple more libscum MP's saved, but it would hand the tories a better chance of winning an outright majority.


----------



## Wilf (May 29, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is NC still doing that LBC call-in show?


He may cry off with infected tear ducts this week.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> the real debate isn't about Clegg, tho.  It's about whether to stay in the coalition.  But they can't be seen to be having that argument, so they have to frame it around Clegg instead.
> 
> There is a logic in that. Breaking the coalition now would give themselves a chance to reposition themselves as 'remembering their roots,' and going someway to define a space between them and the tories. The tories wouldn't mind as they could then swing more right-wing, move onto UKIP ground, get a couple more of those vital poll points back.
> 
> Problem is, it might lead to a couple more libscum MP's saved, but it would hand the tories a better chance of winning an outright majority.



I agree that's the strategy they're considering -not sure it would really help the Tories though, would leave them more exposed for the last year of the Parliament.


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I agree that's the strategy they're considering -not sure it would really help the Tories though, would leave them more exposed for the last year of the Parliament.


what have they got left to push through tho?  there's pretty much nothing in the pipeline, what have we felt the need to start a campaign about in the last couple of months? nothing - because they have no plans beyond more general austerity, a couple more cuts here, a bribe there. it's almost as if they were plannig for this.

if the libs break away, the tories can propose some measures that will be rejected, but will show UKIP voters that this is what they'd be doing if it weren't for those pesky kids. Which would also let the kids say 'hey, look how bad they'd have been if it weren't for us'

Obviously there's a big problem with the libs' argument, but they might hope to get away with it. Cable could go 'we've learnt our lesson' - it could be good enough to save a couple of seats. especially his


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> what have they got left to push through tho?  there's pretty much nothing in the pipeline, what have we felt the need to start a campaign about in the last couple of months? nothing - because they have no plans beyond more general austerity, a couple more cuts here, a bribe there. it's almost as if they were plannig for this.
> 
> if the libs break away, the tories can propose some measures that will be rejected, but will show UKIP voters that this is what they'd be doing if it weren't for those pesky kids. Which would also let the kids say 'hey, look how bad they'd have been if it weren't for us'
> 
> Obviously there's a big problem with the libs' argument, but they might hope to get away with it. Cable could go 'we've learnt our lesson' - it could be good enough to save a couple of seats. especially his



Well yeah, but then what you mean is they want to posture to the Right, and they're already free to do that aren't they?


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well yeah, but then what you mean is they want to posture to the Right, and they're already free to do that aren't they?


yeah, but it just doesn't ring true when they are putting forward legislation that doesn't match that right tone.  and one of the things the UKIP success shows is that 'ringing true' really matters. Without actually putting forward legislation, their words are just posturing. Putting forward actual Bills - even if they're defeated - has a much better resonance.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> what have they got left to push through tho?  there's pretty much nothing in the pipeline, what have we felt the need to start a campaign about in the last couple of months? nothing - because they have no plans beyond more general austerity, a couple more cuts here, a bribe there. it's almost as if they were plannig for this.
> 
> if the libs break away, the tories can propose some measures that will be rejected, but will show UKIP voters that this is what they'd be doing if it weren't for those pesky kids. Which would also let the kids say 'hey, look how bad they'd have been if it weren't for us'
> 
> Obviously there's a big problem with the libs' argument, but they might hope to get away with it. Cable could go 'we've learnt our lesson' - it could be good enough to save a couple of seats. especially his



Actually to be fair I reckon there's a decent chance it would work - well enough to keep 40-45 seats anyway, if its done well. Cable is being touted but I think it would be more effective if they went for Tim Farron. He's the only Lib Dem with a profile who has criticised the coalition a bit and he hasn't taken a position in the cabinet. Danny Alexander could easily jump to the Tories, Cable is a bit too old to provide a long term leadership figure to "rebuild" around and nobody can really remember who anyone else is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> yeah, but it just doesn't ring true when they are putting forward legislation that doesn't match that right tone.  and one of the things the UKIP success shows is that 'ringing true' really matters. Without actually putting forward legislation, their words are just posturing. Putting forward actual Bills - even if they're defeated - has a much better resonance.



Surely we're talking margins here though? They can easily leak a load of things they wanted to do but LD's blocked.


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Actually to be fair I reckon there's a decent chance it would work - well enough to keep 40-45 seats anyway, if its done well. Cable is being touted but I think it would be more effective if they went for Tim Farron. He's the only Lib Dem with a profile who has criticised the coalition a bit and he hasn't taken a position in the cabinet. Danny Alexander could easily jump to the Tories, Cable is a bit too old to provide a long term leadership figure to "rebuild" around and nobody can really remember who anyone else is.


45-50! I cant get it beyond 30 absolute tops. 

Farron  could work, he is just about recognisable without being completely identified with the coaliton. And, as I said before, he will retain his seat, which is pretty bloody handy.



SpackleFrog said:


> Surely we're talking margins here though? They can easily leak a load of things they wanted to do but LD's blocked.


leaking is not legislating tho. Gove keeps talking like a 'kipper - Farage has even half-endorsed him, iirr - but being a 'whatif' alternative isn't the same as trying somethng and being stopped. Cameron IS the leader, so if 'kippers want to have a 'real change' they have to allow him to actually win a majority. If there's another coalition, Gove won't become leader, so the better odds are on giving the buggers a real majority.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> 45-50! I cant get it beyond 30 absolute tops.
> 
> Farron  could work, he is just about recognisable without being completely identified with the coaliton. And, as I said before, he will retain his seat, which is pretty bloody handy.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure it makes much difference anyway-whatever happens the Tories will probs stick to a fixed-the-economy-vote-Farage-get-Millibot type schtick.

Is Farron definitely safe then? Sorry if I've missed a post, how safe are we talking?


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not sure it makes much difference anyway-whatever happens the Tories will probs stick to a fixed-the-economy-vote-Farage-get-Millibot type schtick.
> 
> Is Farron definitely safe then? Sorry if I've missed a post, how safe are we talking?


his was the only council that still voted lib-dem in the euro's. labour were on 2% in the last election. he's as safe as blunkett

and, yeah, that'll be the tory schtick whatever, but i think it'll work better for them if they can break the coalition....soonish


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

Ahh, with you now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/farron-stronger-position-ever-be-next-lib-dem-leader


----------



## J Ed (May 29, 2014)

I am really enjoying this. If they keep Clegg then they are fucked, if they get someone else then they are fucked.

Except I bet that Clegg is heading straight for a top EU job, then again with any luck given his incompetence that will help lead to the collapse of the EU project.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2014)

how would the tories moving to the right help them win an outright majority? Am I missing something?


----------



## Tankus (May 29, 2014)

Wouldn't it be delish  if he didn't get that EU job... As he has no party left in the UK to network with , with Van Rumpy himself taking the decision that any post offered would be pointless due to Clegg s political inconsequence and voter turnoff detrimental to the great cause !

I think I would hurt  myself laughing so hard ...


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2014)

Clegg, the humiliated and friendless backbencher post-2015, the only one of a dozen remaining LDs without portfolio responsibility.

great propsect.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (May 29, 2014)

Clegg The Unemployed has a better ring to it.  Tries to claim on the sick due to the stress of his predicament, ATOS declare him fit for work and ends up doing Workfare at Tesco.


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2014)

just can't see it. Whatever Oakshott's dubious polls say, I think that a rump- Farron, Clegg, Alexander, Laws, Hughes, Andrew George, the enduringly weird Norman Baker, Alistair Carmichael, Hughes, Charles Kennedy, Norman Lamb, John Pugh, Steve Webb, and Roger Williams will all be back as the unflushable turds next time.

Wouldn't rule out Alexander and Laws crossing to the Conservatives, in time. Farron will be the captain of this political Marie Celeste, back to the role David Steel used to play- emitting a good deal of pious high-toned flatulence that gets wafted away in a gust of media indifference before it has any impact.

Oakshott's polls were commisioned with a "sack Clegg" agenda in mind so I doubt very much whether things are as bad as they make out.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 29, 2014)

He should bring out his own range of eye drops.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

Telegraph reporting "man in grey suit" 



> ....a long standing Liberal Democrat MEP (Sir Graham Watson) has said.....*Vince Cable was “treacherous*” in his failure to stop harmful polls commissioned by one of his allies that were used in an attempted coup to oust the Nick Clegg. Watson... said *Mr Cable should have stopped his friend Lord Oakeshott from publishing the polls.*...which were later used to try and undermine Mr Clegg’s position. Sir Graham said Vince Cable had shown “*treachery*” by not stopping his friend Lord Oakeshott the moment he heard of his plans for the potentially damaging polls. “*Of course it is the case that sometimes we can be as treacherous as our failure to stop something as we can by being involved..."*



but the article says...



> However, critics have said *Mr Clegg’s failure to sack or even condemn Mr Cable is a sign of his weakened position* following his party’s wipeout in the local and European elections.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

Sorry about link to Staines (please ignore if you don't want to click-support his site), but here you can hear Clegg's account of _that polling...
_
http://order-order.com/2014/05/29/clegg-confirms-cable-didnt-tell-him-about-oakeshott-polls/

Pretty con-vincing, eh?

Not enough 's  really....


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

Woah! Delusional, even by the usual high level of the LDs....and, setting aside all the many valid resons not to vote LD, if I were one of his constituents I'd be pretty motivated to punish such rank hubris...



> Alexander said he had not seen "a more useless opinion poll in my time".
> 
> "It was constructed by a malicious peer trying to damage the Liberal Democrats," he said. "I think we should take it with a very heavy pinch of salt. I'm content to stand on my own record in my own constituency and *I think I will get very strong support at the next general election, and look forward very much to serving in parliament and I hope in government too in the next parliament*."


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Woah! Delusional, even by the usual high level of the LDs....and, setting aside all the many valid resons not to vote LD, if I were one of his constituents I'd be pretty motivated to punish such rank hubris...



Which party will he stand for though?


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Which party will he stand for though?



Oh it'll be LD, but to see what policies he'd enact in government you'd have to look at the manifesto of another party...any big one would do.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Oh it'll be LD, but to see what policies he'd enact in government you'd have to look at the manifesto of another party...any big one would do.



We'll see...if they decide Clegg is for the chop, Danny boy might find he's none too popular either.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> We'll see...if they decide Clegg is for the chop, Danny boy might find he's none too popular either.


 
For the time being, and at least until 2015, the 'bookers' still dominate the parliamentary party.


----------



## steeplejack (May 29, 2014)

...not _all_ Orange Bookers made it, though



butchersapron said:


> Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are *shit *- personalities and policies.


----------



## brogdale (May 29, 2014)

Just when Clegg thought it couldn't get any worse....Rennard 'apologises' and, in doing so, admits wrong-doing (causing harm etc.), sufficient for some of his victims to call for his expulsion from the party.

http://blogs.channel4.com/cathy-newman-blog/dilemma-nick-clegg-lord-rennard-apologises/691



> Ms Goldsworthy says Lord Rennard’s admission he behaved inappropriately means Nick Clegg should kicked him out of the party: “The right thing is to look at the body of evidence that has come before them which is currently being considered, to look at the fact that Chris Rennard has now accepted that his behaviour was untoward -  which he has spent the last 15 months denying and trying to discredit anybody who spoke out – and to say, ‘No, that is not acceptable and you should be kicked out’.”
> 
> Ms Goldsworthy insisted: “There is no reason for him to be cowed by Lord Rennard.”
> 
> The question is whether Mr Clegg is strong enough to act.



The gift that keeps on....


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Just when Clegg thought it couldn't get any worse....Rennard 'apologises' and, in doing so, admits wrong-doing (causing harm etc.), sufficient for some of his victims to call for his expulsion from the party.
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/cathy-newman-blog/dilemma-nick-clegg-lord-rennard-apologises/691
> 
> ...



Can we assume any of his victims are still members of the party do you think?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Actually to be fair I reckon there's a decent chance it would work - well enough to keep 40-45 seats anyway, if its done well. Cable is being touted but I think it would be more effective if they went for Tim Farron. He's the only Lib Dem with a profile who has criticised the coalition a bit and he hasn't taken a position in the cabinet. Danny Alexander could easily jump to the Tories, Cable is a bit too old to provide a long term leadership figure to "rebuild" around and nobody can really remember who anyone else is.



Simon Hughes?


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Can we assume any of his victims are still members of the party do you think?



Yes. Susan Gaszczak remains chair of the party’s conferences, and Alison Goldsworthy is still a senior official in the party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

Has Rennard made his apology now because a) he wants to pile pressure on Clegg or b) wants to demonstrate the uses a real friend has to Clegg? I think the latter - and it will blow up in his face again. Clegg let's the sex pest back in and catches the flak from the party and press or he definitively says that he is on the outside (maybe even expelled) and risks the informed ire of the sex-pest. Yet another lose-lose situation they have engineered themselves by being spineless bastards who were prepared to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour if it helped them.


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Has Rennard made his apology now because a) he wants to pile pressure on Clegg or b) wants to demonstrate the uses a real friend has to Clegg? I think the latter - and it will blow up in his face again. Clegg let's the sex pest back in and catches the flak from the party and press or he definitively says that he is on the outside (maybe even expelled) and risks the informed ire of the sex-pest. Yet another lose-lose situation they have engineered themselves by being spineless bastards who were prepared to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour if it helped them.



Yes. and I would imagine that Rennard sensed that such a point of weakness/crisis was a moment/the only moment(?) in which he had a chance of Clegg confirming his rehabilitation.


----------



## Wilf (May 30, 2014)

Milord Steel wants Rennard back:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-apology-dispute-lord-steel-liberal-democrats
Maybe he'll have Cyril Smith back as well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Simon Hughes?



Technically, yeah, but also, no, he's an irrelevance. Has Simon Hughes been covered on this thread yet by the way?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Technically, yeah, but also, no, he's an irrelevance. Has Simon Hughes been covered on this thread yet by the way?



Since I have never been a member I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the internal workings of the lib dems  

You mean the 'straight choice' stuff? If so yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Milord Steel wants Rennard back:
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-apology-dispute-lord-steel-liberal-democrats
> Maybe he'll have Cyril Smith back as well.


he can have cyril smith back but we haven't finished with "lord" rennard yet





cyril smith recently


----------



## sptme (May 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he can have cyril smith back but we haven't finished with "lord" rennard yet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He seems to have lost a lot of weight.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2014)

sptme said:


> He seems to have lost a lot of weight.


and he no longer fiddles kiddies.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> holed beneath the waterline


First Spanky Smith and now Ken Stott Vince Cable - just what is it with Liberals and plimsolls?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> First Spanky Smith and now Ken Stott Vince Cable - just what is it with Liberals and plimsolls?


cheap tools to hit people with and can be worn inconspicuously


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yes. and I would imagine that Rennard sensed that such a point of weakness/crisis was a moment/the only moment(?) in which he had a chance of Clegg confirming his rehabilitation.



Also a carefully constructed timeline designed to portray the sex-pest in the best possible, loyalist light. So calculating.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lections-carlile-liberal-democrats-nick-clegg

So Clegg knew weeks ago.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Also a carefully constructed timeline designed to portray the sex-pest in the best possible, loyalist light. So calculating.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lections-carlile-liberal-democrats-nick-clegg
> 
> So Clegg knew weeks ago.


Oooh, they've even fucked this up. Now it's all yours clegg. Own this issue.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

A quick read of the 16th/17th jan press shows that even this fuck up is wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

It's fantastic that lib-dem policy and media presentation is basically three lords and Clegg.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> First Spanky Smith



What??


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

Look who's calling for the LDs to restore the whip to Lord sex-pest.....



> Lord Steel told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he thought Lord Rennard had brought "*closure*" to the "*very unfortunate episode*" with his apology.
> 
> He said: "*I'm glad it is now over and we can get back to normal. I think he should come back, he has made an apology.* He thinks his conduct was less than it should have been."



Yep, it's "spanky Smith's" old mucker.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 30, 2014)

how much longer must this bunch of inept coupists, sex pests, theives and triple faced bastards be allowed to continue.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2014)




----------



## elbows (May 31, 2014)

Shirley Williams plays it down again:



> Lady Williams told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the issue had been "hugely blown up".
> 
> "He was a very decent and loyal member of the party as the chief executive, he did huge amounts for the party," she said.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27647721

It's not serious,move along now, stop getting in the way of our politics and our party, which matters more than any of these other trivialities. Well, fuck off Shirley.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2014)

elbows said:


> Shirley Williams plays it down again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yes, quite.

Meanwhile Rennard's victims are calling from his removal from the Lords, not only the party.


----------



## Sue (May 31, 2014)

And what's all this calling his statement an apology?  Surely you have to first acknowledge you've done something wrong not all this 'may' and 'inadvertent' bollocks.

'The statement said Rennard recognised that he may have encroached upon "personal space" and would "therefore like to apologise sincerely for any such intrusion and assure them that this would have been inadvertent".'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sibly-encroaching-on-activists-personal-space


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2014)

Sue said:


> And what's all this calling his statement an apology?  Surely you have to first acknowledge you've done something wrong not all this 'may' and 'inadvertent' bollocks.
> 
> 'The statement said Rennard recognised that he may have encroached upon "personal space" and would "therefore like to apologise sincerely for any such intrusion and assure them that this would have been inadvertent".'
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sibly-encroaching-on-activists-personal-space


believe you me you don't want to see lord rennard intrude upon your personal space advertantly


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

To go back to the question of Hughes hanging on:

Simon Hughes set to lose his seat in 2015 

This is the total from the locals in his seat:


----------



## William of Walworth (May 31, 2014)

There's not been any serious chance of SH losing that seat since ... erm ... the early 1980s?

Until now


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2014)

elbows said:


> Shirley Williams plays it down again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Williams is particularly vile even for a LD scumbag, happy to give a free pass to a sex-pest but not to give equal rights to homosexuals.


----------



## co-op (Jun 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> To go back to the question of Hughes hanging on:
> 
> Simon Hughes set to lose his seat in 2015
> 
> This is the total from the locals in his seat:



The swing to Labour/away from the Lib Dems in London was so huge that I think he's a goner. They were losing council seats they've held for decades. Sadly there are only three seats in London where the Lib Dems beat Labour (Bermondsey, Brent - Sarah teather - and Hornsey - Lynne Featherstone) but I can't see how any of them aren't going to Labour in 2015. 

The interesting ones will be the suburban seats where the Lib-Dems beat the tories. They all have tiny Labour votes but of course quite a lot of that will be because Labour voters are voting tactically there to beat the tory so these could all fall to the tories if that tactical vote is large enough and we assume it no longer votes lib-dem. Cable is probably safe but I'd rate Ed Davey as only a "maybe just" while neither Sutton or Carshalton look like survivors. So from 7 down to ?1 in London I guess.


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 1, 2014)

If that poisonous dangleberry Cable loses his seat then that will probably be the "Portillo moment" of 2015. I just can't see Clegg losing.

Lib Dems often rely heavily on incumbency for holding onto seats but the universal silent loathing they face from the electorate may well render incumbency irrelevant.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2014)

why can you not see clegg losing?


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 1, 2014)

because the numbers involved are simply too great, and Labour will not overcome them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 1, 2014)

I can see it being highly borderline for  Clegg in Sheffield myself -- Labour will put in a HUGE effort to unseat him there you'd have thought, and Northern hostility to the LDs is huge.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

co-op said:


> The swing to Labour/away from the Lib Dems in London was so huge that I think he's a goner. They were losing council seats they've held for decades. Sadly there are only three seats in London where the Lib Dems beat Labour (Bermondsey, Brent - Sarah teather - and Hornsey - Lynne Featherstone) but I can't see how any of them aren't going to Labour in 2015.
> 
> The interesting ones will be the suburban seats where the Lib-Dems beat the tories. They all have tiny Labour votes but of course quite a lot of that will be because Labour voters are voting tactically there to beat the tory so these could all fall to the tories if that tactical vote is large enough and we assume it no longer votes lib-dem. Cable is probably safe but I'd rate Ed Davey as only a "maybe just" while neither Sutton or Carshalton look like survivors. So from 7 down to ?1 in London I guess.



I wouldn't be so quick to right off Car&Wall and Sutton, (Brake & Burstow). I know it doesn't serve to translate local into national sentiment too literally, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that LB Sutton, as an authority, actually saw LD gains in the recent locals making it a virtual one-party fiefdom for the LDs and their longest continuous controlled authority. Set against that it's also important to acknowledge that not only are Brake & Burstow seen by many as popular and effective MPs, but the alternative is the vermin. The tories fortunes are going to have to undergo a pretty substantial up-swing if they have a chance of nicking the Sutton seats, particularly given that, (broken down by authority), Sutton's Euro vote was the only LB to see the 'kippers win! I wouldn't put money on either of them losing, particularly not Brake.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2014)

Clegg today has achieved the worst ever approval rating for a party leader in YG's latest for the ST - minus 65%. (In 2010 he was on +72% - the highest post-war rating ever). And the party also have equaled their lowest ever for YG 7%.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I can see it being highly borderline for  Clegg in Sheffield myself -- Labour will put in a HUGE effort to unseat him there you'd have thought, and Northern hostility to the LDs is huge.



He got 19,000 more votes than Labour in the last election. It would indeed be monumental if Labour could win the seat.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 1, 2014)

co-op said:


> The swing to Labour/away from the Lib Dems in London was so huge that I think he's a goner. They were losing council seats they've held for decades. Sadly there are only three seats in London where the Lib Dems beat Labour (Bermondsey, Brent - Sarah teather - and Hornsey - Lynne Featherstone) but I can't see how any of them aren't going to Labour in 2015.
> 
> The interesting ones will be the suburban seats where the Lib-Dems beat the tories. They all have tiny Labour votes but of course quite a lot of that will be because Labour voters are voting tactically there to beat the tory so these could all fall to the tories if that tactical vote is large enough and we assume it no longer votes lib-dem. Cable is probably safe but I'd rate Ed Davey as only a "maybe just" while neither Sutton or Carshalton look like survivors. So from 7 down to ?1 in London I guess.



Good analysis. In Southwark, Labour gained 12 seats from the Lib Dems (and 1 from the Tories). There's all sorts of reasons why Labour, the governing party, should be unpopular in that borough, but the Lib Dems are clearly even more disliked


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 1, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> He got 19,000 more votes than Labour in the last election. It would indeed be monumental if Labour could win the seat.




Very tough sure, but still worth a pop!  

Even a fat swing against Clegg with him narrowly surviving, would be welcome. I'd be dancing around the TV if he lost ...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg today has achieved the worst ever approval rating for a party leader in YG's latest for the ST - minus 65%. (In 2010 he was on +72% - the highest post-war rating ever). And the party also have equaled their lowest ever for YG 7%.


 
Anthony Wells has this up now...

The figures amongst "lib Dem supporters" (now just 7%) are very interesting...



> However, amongst Lib Dem supporters (a small sample, given their decline!), *62% want Clegg to stay*. YouGov asked about alternative leaders, but the most important finding there is quite how unknown they all are – the majority of people say they don’t know enough about Ed Davey, Tim Farron or Danny Alexander to answer, while opinions are evenly divided over whether Vince Cable would be better or worse. *Bear that in mind when you see any polls asking about alternive Lib Dem leaders – the people answering don’t know who these people are.*



 Just 62% of the "7%" want him as leader! And...



> Amongst Liberal Democrat supporters themselves 51% want them to stay in government, *40% would like them to leave (24% to leave and support a minority Tory government, 16% to leave and bring the government down). *While most Lib Dem voters still back their coalition with the Tories, their hearts are elsewhere – *if they had to choose 57% would rather work with Labour than the Conservatives*.



...and that's those self-describing as supporters.


----------



## co-op (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to right off Car&Wall and Sutton, (Brake & Burstow). I know it doesn't serve to translate local into national sentiment too literally, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that LB Sutton, as an authority, actually saw LD gains in the recent locals making it a virtual one-party fiefdom for the LDs and their longest continuous controlled authority. Set against that it's also important to acknowledge that not only are Brake & Burstow seen by many as popular and effective MPs, but the alternative is the vermin. The tories fortunes are going to have to undergo a pretty substantial up-swing if they have a chance of nicking the Sutton seats, particularly given that, (broken down by authority), Sutton's Euro vote was the only LB to see the 'kippers win! I wouldn't put money on either of them losing, particularly not Brake.



This is all true and I have to guard against wish-fulfilment in my predictions, but in Sutton the LDs have a majority of just 1600. And the "only alternative are the vermin" argument is gone now since the LDs ARE the vermin. You're right the tory vote will go down but so will the LD one the point of decision is whose vote will collapse most and my bet would be on the LD one since we know for sure that several thousand of those voters are Labour anti-tories - the only question being how many thousand. The X factor is the UKIP vote and how many of those will be from the tories. But I'd bet against the LDs holding Sutton - Carshalton maybe they will hold.


----------



## chilango (Jun 1, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> He got 19,000 more votes than Labour in the last election. It would indeed be monumental if Labour could win the seat.



Fingers crossed it'll be 2015's "Portillo moment"....but better.


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


>


 

I think that's out of date, most of the sandal wearing types have left, etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think that's out of date, most of the sandal wearing types have left, etc.


And that's the sort of great contribution that makes you one of this sites most well loved contributors


----------



## treelover (Jun 1, 2014)

bugger off,

Sunday seems to bring out the worse in posters, hang over/come down?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> bugger off,
> 
> Sunday seems to bring out the worse in posters, hang over/come down?


I'll point out your tedious pointlessness any day of the week


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

co-op said:


> This is all true and I have to guard against wish-fulfilment in my predictions, but in Sutton the LDs have a majority of just 1600. And the "only alternative are the vermin" argument is gone now since the LDs ARE the vermin. You're right the tory vote will go down but so will the LD one the point of decision is whose vote will collapse most and my bet would be on the LD one since we know for sure that several thousand of those voters are Labour anti-tories - the only question being how many thousand. The X factor is the UKIP vote and how many of those will be from the tories. But I'd bet against the LDs holding Sutton - Carshalton maybe they will hold.



Yes, Brakes majority of 5000+ is significantly higher than Burstow's, and that might be significant. And yes, to you and me the LDs are THE VERMIN, but I think the perceptions of many constituents well used to supporting the LDs might well be more forgiving/delusional. Most significantly though, on the ground here, it is evident that the tory party 'machine' has died..quite literally; they don't have the local capacity to launch an all-out 'ground-war' in Sutton. I seriously wouldn't bet against Brake.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2014)

More Lib Dem schadenfreude fodder

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1417419.ece



> NICK CLEGG suffered two fresh blows last night as the police were called in to investigate claims that he sold peerages for cash, and Liberal Democrat members said plans to oust him were back on track.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> More Lib Dem schadenfreude fodder
> 
> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1417419.ece


 Shame that only exists behind the £wall...as such, it's not a news story.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Shame that only exists behind the £wall...as such, it's not a news story.



I don't have access to most of it either, but I thought what was there sounded pretty fantastic..

Spread to other sources now though

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-calls-for-cashforpeerages-probe-9452216.html



> Scotland Yard was today urged to investigate a bombshell claim by a Liberal Democrat peer that his party has been embroiled in a cash-for-peerages scandal.
> 
> Lord Oakeshott made the extraordinary allegation as he stormed out of the Lib-Dems yesterday after a failed bid to spark a coup to topple Nick Clegg.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quartz (Jun 1, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think that's out of date, most of the sandal wearing types have left, etc.



Examine the picture more closely.


----------



## nessa239 (Jun 1, 2014)

How long did it take people to work this out - some of us always knew it


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 2, 2014)

*norman smith* ‏@*BBCNormanS*  15m
Vince Cable shd become @*libDem* caretaker leader until general election says former MP @*lembitopik*

...the same Lembit Opik who was the *only* Lib Dem to back Oaten for leader?

aye, OK then.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2014)

Just normal blokes down the pub...










> Vince has been very, very clear - he had *absolutely no idea* what Matthew Oakeshott was getting up to with his polls.


----------



## youngian (Jun 3, 2014)

Clegg prepares his next move, a long extended holiday at the seaside.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2014)

Apparently folk have been having fun on twitter with libdem pub names....the "never getting back inn" etc...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 3, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Just normal blokes down the pub...



Good to see Adam Kenyon stage managing the whole thing at the back there


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2014)

Amusing Buzzfeed account here.


----------



## Santino (Jun 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Amusing Buzzfeed account here.


 


> Probably because London Pride is a pretty awful pint.


They lost me there.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Just normal blokes down the pub...


 
Good old 'politician in the pub' shots. Never fail to make you relate to their integrity and down-to-earthness do they?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 4, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Good old 'politician in the pub' shots. Never fail to make you relate to their integrity and down-to-earthness do they?



Where's Charlie's pint?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Good old 'politician in the pub' shots. Never fail to make you relate to their integrity and down-to-earthness do they?




cameron is the least convincing at holding a pint. Farage has it down, and the fag. I don't know if thats cos he actually drinks pints or just better acting.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cameron is the least convincing at holding a pint. Farage has it down, and the fag. I don't know if thats cos he actually drinks pints or just better acting.



Aside from the obvious point that,as with all politicians, the whole image is an act....I think Farage's ale consumption is the real deal. AFAICR he has publicly said that he has, at least in the past, liked it a bit too much. I believe his wife has expressed the same, and she's german FFS.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 4, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Where's Charlie's pint?



Does finding fault in someone's politics mean they should be mocked for their alcoholism?


----------



## peterkro (Jun 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Aside from the obvious point that,as with all politicians, the whole image is an act....I think Farage's ale consumption is the real deal. AFAICR he has publicly said that he has, at least in the past, liked it a bit too much. I believe his wife has expressed the same, and she's german FFS.


If Farange's beer consumption is in anyway related to the number of times I see him on the telly with a pint in his hand he definitely has a serious alcohol problem.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 4, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> Does finding fault in someone's politics mean they should be mocked for their alcoholism?



Hardly mocking. Just pointing out that Lib Dem leaders and alcohol don't always mix well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jun 5, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Hardly mocking. Just pointing out that Lib Dem leaders and alcohol don't always mix well.



So cos Charlie was a pisshead Clegg might be too? Give over, it was a dig and a bit of a naughty one, don't claim you're making a point.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 5, 2014)

If you don't have a problem with clicking Staine's blog, he's running an amusing little piece about Clegg and those TV debates with Farage.

Basically Staines thinks that Clegg has breached the Ministerial CoC by accepting civil service briefings for the debates in which he spoke as party leader. Staine's FoI request to the cabinet office for the briefings has been rejected.


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> If you don't have a problem with clicking Staine's blog, he's running an amusing little piece about Clegg and those TV debates with Farage.
> 
> Basically Staines thinks that Clegg has breached the Ministerial CoC by accepting civil service briefings for the debates in which he spoke as party leader. Staine's FoI request to the cabinet office for the briefings has been rejected.



That's a bit of a desperate attack on a teensy marginal issue by StaInes... 

he's just jealous he didn't get the cash-for-ermine story


----------



## free spirit (Jun 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> So cos Charlie was a pisshead Clegg might be too? Give over, it was a dig and a bit of a naughty one, don't claim you're making a point.


a pisshead who was the only lib dem MP to vote against the coalition agreement, to give him his due.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2014)

free spirit said:


> a pisshead who was the only lib dem MP to vote against the coalition agreement, to give him his due.


He didn't vote against it at all. He abstained, then loudly and publicly supported the coalition with his votes and voice whilst it launched its murderous attack on the poorest and most vulnerable. To give him his full due.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cameron is the least convincing at holding a pint. Farage has it down, and the fag. I don't know if thats cos he actually drinks pints or just better acting.



Farage was once on The Hairy Bikers (I watch it for the Moto Guzzi content, ok) and he was enthusiastically firing the drink into himself in a fairly authentic manner.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 6, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't vote against it at all. He abstained, then loudly and publicly supported the coalition with his votes and voice whilst it launched its murderous attack on the poorest and most vulnerable. To give him his full due.


You may be right, in which case both wiki and my memory are faulty, and google isn't giving me anything useful. OK, so to rephrase it, he was the only lib dem MP not to have voted in favour of the coalition agreement, and to have publicly argued that this wasn't the best option for them to have taken.

You're right that he's mostly towed the coalition line since, being one of those party loyalist types I think, but I still reckon things would have been significantly different if he'd been in charge rather than clegg in 2010 (and if he'd not had the alcohol problems / had sorted them out). I doubt he'd have gone into coalition with the tories if he'd been in charge, is what I'm getting at.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 6, 2014)

I've seen miliband with a pint, he's no doubt knocked a few down when associating with the people his party claim to represent. He's got the easy grip but you sense he wishes it was a half.


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2014)

Newark by-election.

6th place.

2.59%.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2014)

chilango said:


> Newark by-election.
> 
> 6th place.
> 
> 2.59%.


 "LD Voice's" take on the result...



> And then there’s the Lib Dems… It was *another dire night, to cap a dire fortnight. We didn’t just lose our deposit, we came sixth.* Our vote collapsed. Four years ago, 10,246 Newark voters marked a ‘X’ beside the Lib Dem box. Yesterday, just 1,004 did so. In contrast to the Tories, not a single Lib Dem MP turned up to campaign.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2014)

I kind of get the feeling farage is like one of those jaded businessmen you would meet at departure lounges at airports propping up the bar


----------



## brogdale (Jun 6, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I kind of get the feeling farage is like one of those jaded businessmen you would meet at departure lounges at airports propping up the bar




Revealing insight into your 'jet-set' life experiences.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Revealing insight into your 'jet-set' life experiences.


 
not really


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> not really



More a turbo-prop life flitting between provincial airfields?


----------



## chilango (Jun 6, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I kind of get the feeling farage is like one of those jaded businessmen you would meet at departure lounges at airports propping up the bar



Sadly in most airports these types will be in some sort of airline/members lounge rather than in a public bar. 

You have to go to airport hotel bars the night before their flight to meet jaded businessmen these days.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 7, 2014)

I


chilango said:


> Newark by-election.
> 
> 6th place.
> 
> 2.59%.


Only the liberal democrats can beat the monster raving loony party here...?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2014)

free spirit said:


> You may be right, in which case both wiki and my memory are faulty, and google isn't giving me anything useful. OK, so to rephrase it, he was the only lib dem MP not to have voted in favour of the coalition agreement, and to have publicly argued that this wasn't the best option for them to have taken.
> 
> You're right that he's mostly towed the coalition line since, being one of those party loyalist types I think, but I still reckon things would have been significantly different if he'd been in charge rather than clegg in 2010 (and if he'd not had the alcohol problems / had sorted them out). I doubt he'd have gone into coalition with the tories if he'd been in charge, is what I'm getting at.


I am right. 

I don't. He would have.

 You thought such was the left-wing weight within the party that even on the day of the coalition agreement being announced you didn't think it would happen - despite all good sense and evidence to the contrary. The idea being that there would be such a violent reaction on the part of members and MPs that it would make it impossible to happen. It didn't happen. They swallowed it all, supported it all. Kennedy plays the same role in lib-dem martyrology as smith does for labour - _he would have done things different._


----------



## free spirit (Jun 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I am right.
> 
> I don't. He would have.
> 
> You thought such was the left-wing weight within the party that even on the day of the coalition agreement being announced you didn't think it would happen - despite all good sense and evidence to the contrary. The idea being that there would be such a violent reaction on the part of members and MPs that it would make it impossible to happen. It didn't happen. They swallowed it all, supported it all. Kennedy plays the same role in lib-dem martyrology as smith does for labour - _he would have done things different._


I said they'd be fucking stupid to do that as they'd lose 2/3 of their support, because the majority of their support was left of centre, and I was really hoping they weren't going to throw it all away in the pursuit of the illusion of personal power.

As it turned out, those in charge were fucking stupid power hungry right wing pricks, and the rest of the MPs went along with them, so you were right about that, but they also did almost immediately lose in the region of 1/2 to 2/3 of their support, because the majority of their support had previously been left of centre, as I'd been saying.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 7, 2014)

The lib dems did however get more votes than the 'bus pass elvis' party this time.

the recovery in fortunes has started


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2014)

Support/membership - the argument was their members would not pass the the triple lock process (each block passed it almost dissentless) to allows the coalition agreement to happen and if it was  there would be crossing the lines into labour, mass revolt - it didn't happen. The leadership were the people the party had voted into party power - one and the same. Who these people were - leaders and members - had missed a lot of people by. The drop in _support_ wasn't immediate btw. It went long before the _membership_  though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 7, 2014)

chilango said:


> Newark by-election.
> 
> 6th place.
> 
> 2.59%.


“Lib Dems - whining here!”


----------



## free spirit (Jun 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Support/membership - the argument was their members would not pass the the triple lock process (each block passed it almost dissentless) to allows the coalition agreement to happen and if it was  there would be crossing the lines into labour, mass revolt - it didn't happen. The leadership were the people the party had voted into party power - one and the same. Who these people were - leaders and members - had missed a lot of people by.


tbf, that was while there was a potential labour offer on the table IIRC, but you're right that I'd not really appreciated how far to the right the leadership, and significant portion of the party had moved, as I'd been pretty peripheral to it all for a long time and really just had my direct recent experience of conversations with a few activists locally, and the MP on the night of the election where he was being pretty uncomplimentary about clegg's leadership and loss of seats at the election.



butchersapron said:


> The drop in _support_ wasn't immediate btw. It went long before the _membership_  though.


it had fallen by almost 50% within 3 months, and well over 50% by the end of the year, which is fairly well within my description of almost immediately, though I suppose it did take a bit longer to fall as far as 2/3 of support being lost.

Membership will always fall slower, as most people will simply not renew their membership at the end of the year rather than actually resigning, but membership had fallen by 25% by 2011, and another 13% the next year.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2014)

Don't think you'll have to worry about the last bit Clegg. I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to pinpoint and highlight your rule in the coalition.

"After disastrous results in local and European elections, and a confidence-sapping sixth place in last week's Newark byelection, the Lib Dem leader will concede that his party has failed to convey clearly enough why it wants to be in power, allowing critics to claim it has lost its soul in government. Clegg will also warn the Conservatives that he will not allow them to rewrite history or "airbrush out our role in this coalition"."

Note the guardian headline of Nick Clegg: we won't join a new coalition at any cost - suggesting that they will not join another coalition full stop when he actually meant they would not join another coalition that cost them. 


Nick Clegg: we won't join a new coalition at any cost

http://gu.com/p/3pqq4

Terrible embarrassing piece all round. I expect it to be substantially altered or pulled full stop.


----------



## gosub (Jun 9, 2014)




----------



## free spirit (Jun 9, 2014)

lol I thought that was a pisstake, in fact I thought the entire twitter account was a pisstake until I scrolled down to find that all the quotes were taken from a nick clegg speech.

He's now pretty much beyond parody.



> "People will vote for us next year not only because of our record of delivery, but also because of our promise of more"


erm sure they will, that's definitely what I'm hearing on the streets is that people are gagging for more of this shit.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2014)

I'm not actually sure that this is the right thread for this, but here goes....

It is some measure of where we're at when the LD scum can present basic educational entitlement as some sort of electoral aspiration. Not enough FFSs in the world.



> The Lib Dem manifesto at next year’s general election will include a “parental guarantee” that all children will be taught a core curriculum and by qualified teachers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 13, 2014)

brogdale said:
			
		

> It is some measure of where we're at when the LD scum can present basic educational entitlement as some sort of electoral aspiration. Not enough FFSs in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They'll be flocking to the polls because of that. Flocking*!

*Perhaps not quite in the way the LDs expect though


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2014)

Ashdown murderer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

Two local parties have now held the vote required to start the process of leadership election and voted against Clegg staying. That's Ribble Valley and Notts. They require 75. Looks like they're going to mess this up as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

This is proper lib-dem shit - Lynne Featherstone yesterday put out a press release with the heading:_ Still liberal – still radical – still the good guys._


----------



## ddraig (Jun 16, 2014)

radical??  fuckin what

asked someone i know in the LD's, stood as a cllr last time, how they could go from being a lefty TU rep giving a shit and helping people to being in coalition with tories helping them fuck so many people up
answers were, we had no choice and believing in PR


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

Hancock's son was found guilty of ABH and CD for that little kerfuffle last week. The express stuck their own boot in with these lines:



> The son of sex-case MP Mike Hancock was exposed as a thug and a liar yesterday



which, i guess gives us the green light to use _sex-case MP Mike Hancock_ as reported speech.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

Not new - but not really covered in the thread either - but mentioned as it again highlights lib-dems attitudes to sexual abuse - cover it up:



> Kingston Council's new Conservative administration will launch an independent inquiry into disgraced ex-Liberal Democrat leader Derek Osbourne’s years in power, it has been announced.
> 
> Osbourne, 60, is serving a two-year prison sentence for downloading and distributing indecent images of children, animals and women being violently and sexually abused.
> 
> ...





> The previous Lib Dem administration resisted Tory calls for an inquiry, citing a Met Police investigation which found Osbourne’s crimes were unconnected to his council role.
> 
> Coun Davis said: "The police were concerned about aspects of the charges brought against him.
> 
> ...



Now, i know damn well what game the tories are playing here - it's pretty transparent - but do we think the lib-dem refusal wasn't equally politically motivated? That they would have endorsed an inquiry if they felt it would help despite damaging themselves? I don't.

edit: Osbourne and the kingston lib-dems were responsible for the latest edition of the lib-dems 'it's a straight fight' nudge nudge wink wink election leaflet aimed at a gay opposition candidate btw


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jun 16, 2014)

Paul Scriven - once Lib Dem leader of Sheffield City Council. He missed out being MP for Sheffield Central in 2010 by about 100 votes, and since then he's lost the council leadership in 2011 (as Lib Dems dwindled), and ultimately his council seat (came third in his ward after Labour and The Greens) - Anyway, he pops up on twitter now and again and last week he's been touting the 'The lib dems are so fucking brave' line.

*Paul Scriven* @PaulscrivenThanks to the brave decision by @nick_clegg @LibDems to put country 1st Britain's GDP surpasses pre-recession peak - fb.me/6T84IEHz8

*Moses Humberstone @MoHumb:*
@Paulscriven @LibDems @nick_clegg So brave.

*Paul Scriven @Paulscriven:* @MoHumb @LibDems @nick_clegg Yes it was as we knew the road was rocky and a backlash would ensue. Country before party is brave.

*Moses Humberstone @MoHumb*: Enjoying @Paulscriven trying to paint @nick_clegg & @LibDems as Capt Oates figures. You made the supreme sacrifice, boys. #maybesometime.

*Paul Scriven@Paulscriven*: @MoHumb @nick_clegg @LibDems Not Certain death, but at least we did the right thing..


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2014)

Sickening. Genuinely sickening.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2014)

> Country before party is brave.



Isn't that "brave" as in backstage after the play's first night: "That was... _brave_, darling."


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2014)

The gift that keeps on....



> A spokesperson for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has confirmed that they have launched an investigation into whether Vince Cable broke Commons rules by failing to declare the Oakeshott poll in his constituency. The _BBC _reports that an inquiry has also begun looking at whether Tessa Munt, Cable’s PPS, should have declared a poll by Oakeshott in her own constituency as a gift in her register of interests.





Source = Staines.


----------



## DairyQueen (Jun 16, 2014)

Presumably shooting the messenger is brave.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2014)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Paul Scriven - once Lib Dem leader of Sheffield City Council. He missed out being MP for Sheffield Central in 2010 by about 100 votes, and since then he's lost the council leadership in 2011 (as Lib Dems dwindled), and ultimately his council seat (came third in his ward after Labour and The Greens) - Anyway, he pops up on twitter now and again and last week he's been touting the 'The lib dems are so fucking brave' line.
> 
> *Paul Scriven* @PaulscrivenThanks to the brave decision by @nick_clegg @LibDems to put country 1st Britain's GDP surpasses pre-recession peak - fb.me/6T84IEHz8
> 
> ...



I fucking hate that wanker


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 17, 2014)

Their self delusion knows no bounds. Is there any Lib Dem even half way prominent in public life prepared to admit that they're going to get fucking steamrollered next election?


----------



## elbows (Jun 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hancock's son was found guilty of ABH and CD for that little kerfuffle last week. The express stuck their own boot in with these lines:
> 
> which, i guess gives us the green light to use _sex-case MP Mike Hancock_ as reported speech.



Meanwhile Sex-case Hancock has been in the priory for 4 months now it seems? I only noticed he was in there because of todays apology and settlement stories in the press.



> MP Mike Hancock has made a public apology over "inappropriate and unprofessional friendship" with a constituent.
> 
> Civil action against Mr Hancock alleging he sexually assaulted a female constituent was dropped earlier this month.
> 
> ...



I see that the local party chose some of their words badly again, swine who are clueless about hiding their own interests and priorities.



> The chairman of Portsmouth Liberal Democrats, Simon Dodd, said Mr Hancock would now be subject to an internal disciplinary hearing.
> 
> He said: "After today's developments and the admissions he has made, we are incredibly disappointed that Mike Hancock has chosen not to proceed with the court case in order to clear his name.
> 
> "Mike Hancock has admitted behaving in an unprofessional way that caused harm and distress to a constituent and we are very disappointed that his apology was not made at a much earlier stage."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27909267


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2014)

"Calling", eh? Big man.

Ms Parker = political reporter BBC Solent.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

I thought hancock had become an independent... or maybe i totally misheard that yesterday...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> I thought hancock had become an independent... or maybe i totally misheard that yesterday...


That just means he isn't currently taking the lib-dem whip in parliament. He's still in the party - and votes as the lib-dems wish. Note Clegg isn't calling for him to resign from parliament the weasel.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That just means he isn't currently taking the lib-dem whip in parliament. He's still in the party - and votes as the lib-dems wish. Note Clegg isn't calling for him to resign from parliament the weasel.



Quite. I think technically his party membership had been suspended, so I suppose Clegg is hoping that he'll resign rather than have to be pushed leaving them with the potential for further legal appeal etc.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That just means he isn't currently taking the lib-dem whip in parliament. He's still in the party - and votes as the lib-dems wish. Note Clegg isn't calling for him to resign from parliament the weasel.


Thanks for clearing that up... Was wondering how the libdems could discipline an independent... now i know why they said that


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2014)

Back to Clegg's duplicitous cover-up...



> The deputy prime minister said he could not have reacted to things that he did not know about and acted swiftly when he was made aware of the allegations in early 2013. "The moment I got something put in front of me which was specific, which was related to the court proceedings, early in 2013, I acted immediately," Clegg said on LBC Radio. "*But you're quite right, and she's quite right to say back in 2011, something was sent to my office. It didn't reach me."* However the complainant, known as Annie, said: *"Can the Liberal Democrats be so inefficient that Nick Clegg's office failed to pass on the letter I sent to him?" She added: "It is difficult to see how Clegg failed to read so many stories about what Hancock did and said to me."*


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2014)

Jesus Christ. Look at this!

The Lib Dems are trying to act as if it would be terrible if Labour were to scrap their bullshit dodging paying the minimum wage apprenticeship scam.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-lib-dems-spin-control-apprenticeships/17905



> FactCheck has been keeping a close eye on the recent explosion in the number of apprenticeships -  on-the-job training schemes for over-16s, part-funded by government.
> 
> There’s no dispute that numbers have soared since the coalition came to power. So much for quantity, but what about quality?
> 
> ...



As someone who has seen both their current call centre job and previous jobs in fast food offered on apprenticeship wages I can but fucking despair at this whole narrative. Employers are using 'apprenticeships' to exploit desperate people who they would otherwise have to pay minimum wage, which itself isn't even enough to live on, I WISH that Labour would end the whole scam but as we all know they won't even pretend that they will.

Reason 92245 why red, yellow and blue Tories are all pure scum


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 7, 2014)

Guess who thinks its simply terrible to make rich people go to prison...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/andy-coulson-jail-term-prison-obsession


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2014)

yeah I noticed that, huhnes a cunt


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2014)

Just fuck off Nick.  Your support in this city has collapsed, you've lost more than half your councillors in the last four years, your candidates are going to bomb at the election next year, and nobody is listening now.


----------



## Sue (Jul 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah I noticed that, huhnes a cunt


 
Poor, poor Chris Huhne.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Just fuck off Nick.  Your support in this city has collapsed, you've lost more than half your councillors in the last four years, your candidates are going to bomb at the election next year, and nobody is listening now.



Look at the barely disguised contempt of the people around him lol


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2014)

> Nick Clegg will set the Lib Dems on a major collision course with the Tories over his plea to axe the hated Bedroom Tax.
> 
> _*The Deputy PM has finally agreed the crippling penalties are battering the poorest in society*_ and will push for change before next year’s general election.
> 
> ...



Fuckers.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2014)

LOL who the fuck is going to vote for Lib Dems cos they are anti-bedroom tax?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2014)

J Ed said:


> LOL who the fuck is going to vote for Lib Dems cos they are anti-bedroom tax?



Yeah, should look good in the manifesto..._"we're completely against a policy of crippling penalties...battering the poorest in society...
that we developed, implemented and imposed."
_
Utter wankers.


----------



## elbows (Jul 16, 2014)

Credit where it is due, if there is one thing Clegg is actually vaguely good at, its having a pop at the horrors of the Daily Mail.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tweet-mocks-daily-mail-coverage-women-cabinet



> What I wore to the office today. Fingers crossed the Mail approves. Hope I don't look too '80s cabin attendant'.


----------



## Looby (Jul 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Fuckers.



What a calculated, sniveling cunt.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 17, 2014)

Danny Alexander was trumpeting this volte face. The same Danny Alexander who described people affected by the tax as "Bedroom blockers"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2014)

elbows said:


> Credit where it is due, if there is one thing Clegg is actually vaguely good at, its having a pop at the horrors of the Daily Mail.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tweet-mocks-daily-mail-coverage-women-cabinet


Lib dems, five cabinet ministers, none women. Who is he to be giving out to anyone over sexism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2014)

And btw, they haven't even said that they want the bedroom tax gone, they said they want a reformed bedroom tax lite in order for the media to run around saying they now oppose it full stop.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 17, 2014)

Hopefully they will be completely obliterated at the general election.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Lib dems, five cabinet ministers, none women. Who is he to be giving out to anyone over sexism?


 
Not to mention Lord Rennard and Mike Handcock


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2014)

teqniq said:


> *Hopefully they will be completely obliterated* at the general election.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Hopefully they will be completely obliterated at the general election.


----------



## magneze (Jul 17, 2014)

elbows said:


> Credit where it is due, if there is one thing Clegg is actually vaguely good at, its having a pop at the horrors of the Daily Mail.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tweet-mocks-daily-mail-coverage-women-cabinet


Meaningless though. Ho ho very funny, what about what you've done to fuck people over Nick, what about that?


----------



## Celyn (Jul 17, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Danny Alexander was trumpeting this volte face. The same Danny Alexander who described people affected by the tax as "Bedroom blockers"




Holy shit.  Missed that.  Did he?  That is one evil nasty bastard.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 17, 2014)

Celyn said:


> Holy shit.  Missed that.  Did he?  That is one evil nasty bastard.


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2014)

From the Coalition Colouring Book


----------



## rekil (Jul 22, 2014)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2014)

copliker said:


> View attachment 58161



Who gives a shit what David Ward would do, not exactly helping the Palestinian people there is he?


----------



## laptop (Jul 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who gives a shit what David Ward would do, not exactly helping the Palestinian people there is he?



Yes, but he'll be an ex-Lib Dem in 9, 8, 7, 6...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 25, 2014)

> The Liberal Democrats want their share of the credit, declaring that they have "cleared up Labour’s economic mess".
> 
> Lib Dem Treasury Minister Danny Alexander says Britain has passed a major milestone today.
> 
> ...




http://www.theguardian.com/business...-growth-gdp-peak-george-osborne-business-live


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 25, 2014)

I think that 'fairer society' is still somewhere down the back of the sofa along with Clegg's vertebrae, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2014)

This sneaked by eh? Note who gets no apology.

Lord Rennard gets Lib Dem apology for botched disciplinary process



> Lib Dems drop investigation into whether his failure to apologise for sex harassment claims brought party into disrepute





> In a fresh concession, a senior Liberal Democrat official apologised to Rennard over the party telling the media an appeal against his suspension had been rejected before the peer himself was informed of the ruling. At a meeting this week of Lib Dem peers, among whom Rennard still has strong support, the party agreed that Lord Wallace of Tankerness would investigate how the leak had occurred. At the time, a friend of Rennard told the BBC the "shocking" and "mischievous" leak was "in total defiance of fair process" and had caused "great distress" to the lord.
> 
> The latest development was met with "astonishment" by Susan Gaszczak, one of the activists who made a complaint about Rennard's alleged advances but who left the party last month in protest at the Lib Dems' handling of the matter.
> 
> Gaszczak, who is setting up a charity called Surviving Sexual Harassment, said Rennard should not be trying to "paint himself as the victim" and criticised the Lib Dems for having such a "convoluted disciplinary process".



These are our principles:



> A Lib Demspokesman confirmed the party is no longer investigating the peer's failure to apologise. Some Lib Dem parliamentarians have privately expressed fears the party could suffer at the election because of the suspension of Rennard, a campaigning expert.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This sneaked by eh? Note who gets no apology.
> 
> Lord Rennard gets Lib Dem apology for botched disciplinary process
> 
> These are our principles:







> The Lib Dem Rock the Boat campaign group against sexual harassment, has said it remains concerned there are "still those in our party who refuse to understand how damaging these episodes have been".
> 
> In a letter to the Guardian, the group wrote: "*Fundamental to the electoral success of the party in recent years was the perception that we are decent people who generally do the right thing. Agree or disagree with us, people tended to like us.*


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2014)

...and that latter part is from the sane ones...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2014)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/491891/Nick-Clegg-s-flagship-work-scheme-is-dropped



> The £1billion Youth Contract Wage Incentive Scheme championed by the Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister was cut short amid accusations it has been a complete flop.
> 
> It was launched at the height of the recession in an attempt to help jobless youngsters into work.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 6, 2014)

Clegg attempting to extract some political/personal advantage out of Warsi's "principled" resignation calls for 'suspension' of arms export licences to the zionist state at the precise end point of their latest murderous, criminal onslaught against Gaza. Then, once the MSM attention has moved on, have a "review" to revoke licences more permanently; yeah, right.

Big man. 



> Warsi's departure exacerbated coalition tensions over Gaza, as Clegg urged an immediate suspension of arms export licences, saying that Israel had breached the conditions. He said the suspension should remain in force until agreement has been reached across the government on any permanent revocation in the coming days.
> 
> Ministers agreed a review of the licences last week, but Clegg has decided to ratchet up the pressure, saying: "I believe the actions of the Israeli military, overstepping the mark in Gaza, breach the conditions of those export licences and that's why we want to see them suspended pending a wider review of whether they should be revoked more permanently in the long run."
> 
> Revealing he has been putting pressure on his Conservative colleagues for a suspension of the licences rather than a review, he said: "I believe we will be able to make an announcement on this, finally, very shortly. It's very important that in response to clearly what appears to be disproportionate military action of Israel in Gaza, we should be suspending the arms export licences that presently exist."


----------



## brogdale (Aug 20, 2014)

Staines rather nails it...



> In case there's any misunderstanding, Rennard put his hands up skirts (and worse) victims complained. LibDems know, do nothing. Women exit.
> 
> 8:58 PM - 19 Aug 2014


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

Is Jesmond posh? Look at what the pricks just done:

*#BritainElects* @britainelects
North Jesmond (Newcastle upon Tyne) result: 

LDEM - 52.5% (+15.2) 
LAB - 23.6% (-9.4) 
CON - 8.6% (-9.3) 
UKIP - 8.3% (+8.3) 
GRN - 6.9% (-4.8)


----------



## elbows (Aug 28, 2014)

Affluent and increasingly populated by students from what I've read.

I suppose its possible the impact of the Lib Dem betrayal of students was overestimated in that a great swathe of fresh students may have a lack of regard for even recent history,  with the betrayal easily swept under the rug by appealing new slogans?


----------



## elbows (Aug 28, 2014)

Their candidate:



> Gerry Keating
> 
> I moved to the North East from Derbyshire when I was 10. Subsequently, I was educated at St. Cuthbert’s School, Newcastle, and Cambridge University. By the age of 23, I had also worked for two years on opencast and building sites.
> 
> ...



http://jesmondlocal.com/2014/08/north-jesmond-by-election-gerry-keating/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2014)

elbows said:


> Affluent and increasingly populated by students from what I've read.
> 
> I suppose its possible the impact of the Lib Dem betrayal of students was overestimated in that a great swathe of fresh students may have a lack of regard for even recent history,  with the betrayal easily swept under the rug by appealing new slogans?


Students who it wouldn't effect maybe. The ones who it would/does and did here - still raging.


----------



## elbows (Aug 28, 2014)

True, and I forgot to factor in the ones who didn't become higher education students at all as a result of unacceptable debt levels.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 28, 2014)

North Jesmond is probably the poshest bit of Newcastle (most expensive Tesco Metro in the country I believe), certainly centralish Newcastle and is rock solid Libdem, while the Labour council have of course failed to set the world on fire, so the result is no surprise at all.

South Jesmond was rock solid Libdem but went 2 Labour in the last two elections iirc.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 8, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/lib-dems-drug-policy-decriminalise-for-personal-use

Now it's funny, but I seem to remember the Liberal Democrats suggesting decriminalising personal use of cannabis around a year before the last election, and then doing absolutely nothing about it.  Good job there aren't a lot of other campaign promises they also broke, huh.


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

8115 said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/lib-dems-drug-policy-decriminalise-for-personal-use
> 
> Now it's funny, but I seem to remember the Liberal Democrats suggesting decriminalising personal use of cannabis around a year before the last election, and then doing absolutely nothing about it.  Good job there aren't a lot of other campaign promises they also broke, huh.



And as probably the most pro-EU party, and one that contained a number of members who were pro-devolution for England.... well they have done little to counter UKIP and sweet FA on devolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/17/lib-dems-home-rule-scotland

_"Campbell suggested England would get its own parliament and network of regional assemblies"_


----------



## 8115 (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> And as probably the most pro-EU party, and one that contained a number of members who were pro-devolution for England.... well they have done little to counter UKIP and sweet FA on devolution.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/17/lib-dems-home-rule-scotland
> 
> _"Campbell suggested England would get its own parliament and network of regional assemblies"_


Tuition fees?  Anyone?


----------



## futurereal (Sep 8, 2014)

8115 said:


> Tuition fees?  Anyone?



Still I suppose Clegg is now setup for life off the back of his salary and expenses. 
I'm sure he can slip off to Brussels for a good "retirement" job after the next GE (which will only give ammunition to UKIP).
I am pro-EU - but Brussels does need to stop awarding failure and not offering any of the Lib Dems (when they come sniffing around) a job would be a good start.


----------



## chilango (Sep 8, 2014)

Funnily enough in the past week "non-political" friends/colleagues have started a couple of explicitly political conversations with me, a rare event, both times to slag the Lib Dems.

The hate hasn't gone away yet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Brussels does need to stop awarding failure and not offering any of the Lib Dems (when they come sniffing around) a job would be a good start.



The problem is not Brussels rewarding failure but national governments using Brussels as a repository for unpopular people they want to quietly reward


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2014)

futurereal said:


> Still I suppose Clegg is now setup for life off the back of his salary and expenses.
> I'm sure he can slip off to Brussels for a good "retirement" job after the next GE (which will only give ammunition to UKIP).
> I am pro-EU - but Brussels does need to stop awarding failure and not offering any of the Lib Dems (when they come sniffing around) a job would be a good start.


You mean "slip off BACK to Brussels", surely?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liberal-democrat-peer-struggle-300-4370228?ICID=FB_mirror_main



> A senior Liberal Democrat has complained that peers cannot get by on the £300 a day they get for turning up at the House of Lords.
> 
> Baroness Olly Grender, who worked as an adviser to Nick Clegg, said that the tax-free payment left peers relying on their partners for financial support.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2014)

> She told the House political magazine: “What you don’t get is a hairdresser, what you don’t get is a bus driver. And why don’t you get those people?



How much do you think "those people" are on? Fucking die.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 4, 2014)

I am more than happy to take her place as a peer for £300 a day.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I am more than happy to take her place as a peer for £300 a day.



Sorry, position only available for sociopathic cunts


----------



## J Ed (Oct 4, 2014)

Soi distant trolls: please direct all complaints about the structure of society to the now closed comments sections of New Statesman articles


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 4, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I am more than happy to take her place as a peer for £300 a day.




Can they pay my travel expenses (first class) from Swansea as well?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 4, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2014)

New statesman fav as well that one.


----------



## Quartz (Oct 5, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Can they pay my travel expenses (first class) from Swansea as well?



IIRC peers don't get expenses. And since the house only sits ~150 days per year, your gross income is 'only' ~£45K if you attend every single one of those days. Or do you also get paid if you work on a committee and turn up on a non-sitting day? Even so, a typical 200 days per year results in £60K. Not bad.


----------



## Sue (Oct 5, 2014)

And it is, apparently, tax free so £45k is more like a wage of £60-65k.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 5, 2014)

FFS more than double the average national salary for 150 days a year? I'd bite your arm off if it was offered to me


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2014)

The Lib Dems this weekend have been more robust than Labour in criticising the Tories war on the poor, shame they connived in it for four years and that it isn't a high target to reach,

has there ever been such a supine opposition than todays Labour Party?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2014)

Quartz said:


> IIRC peers don't get expenses. And since the house only sits ~150 days per year, your gross income is 'only' ~£45K if you attend every single one of those days. Or do you also get paid if you work on a committee and turn up on a non-sitting day? Even so, a typical 200 days per year results in £60K. Not bad.


What on earth do you think the 300 quid for turning up is if not expenses?


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 6, 2014)

Vince Cable "we stood up to the Tories"

No you fucking didn't you senile hypocrite cunt


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> Vince Cable "we stood up to the Tories"
> 
> No you fucking didn't you senile hypocrite cunt


totally.{Though i don't think it's right to call him senile.}


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> Vince Cable "we stood up to the Tories"
> 
> No you fucking didn't you senile hypocrite cunt



"...and we applauded loudly"


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2014)

heard that piece of shit on my radio saying the tories are ideologically obsessed with cuts. What he doesn't mention is that his party enabled those cuts, voted for those cuts and trying to position themselves as some third way during conference season is not going to erase the memories of the electorate. Fucking lib dem twats.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

Smithson says there's £ going on Clegg's departure to the city...

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...is-clegg-set-to-announce-his-departure-today/


Wonder what those punters have heard?


----------



## rekil (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## rekil (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

copliker said:


> View attachment 62151


They must have missed


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Now they're making fun of Alan Henning and others. Sick sick fucks.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Now they're making fun of Alan Henning and others. Sick sick fucks.



Really wtf?


----------



## rekil (Oct 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> They must have missed


It was more like liberal Seppuku.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

copliker said:


> It was more like liberal Seppuku.


Done with a wooden spoon and salad bowl. And..._tongs_.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


>



Last few months - going out of business - everything must go


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

And on it goes....



> A senior Liberal Democrat has been accused of ordering a personal assistant to destroy a document containing allegations of abuse and mismanagement against the late paedophile MP Cyril Smith.
> 
> Liz Lynne, *who is standing to become the party’s president*, is alleged to have told her constituency aide to get rid of a document detailing a cover-up at the Knowl View children’s home in Rochdale, which closed in the mid-1990s.
> 
> A manager at the home has also accused her of avoiding a meeting to discuss claims that Smith knew about the child abuse taking place at the home and had taken control of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Sounds like they have digan waiting in the wings.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

And Farron's valedictory today included this...



> _“Of course there are some parts of the job I am happy to pass on. The next time any of you get caught with your pants around your ankles, the media can call someone else to make a comment.”_


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Wow. Really.

That's quite disgusting.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow. Really.
> 
> That's quite disgusting.


 Sounds even worse "in the flesh"...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2014)

Ugh. And he thought it was an applause winner. Maybe he knows his audience. They have voted him pres for previous years.

He both winked and raised an eyebrow whilst making fun of cyril smith and rennard's sex abuse.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

Oh, how we chortled....


----------



## killer b (Oct 8, 2014)

that's quite something. there hasn't been any other lib dem sex scandals recently has there? He is actually cracking a joke about a paedophile and a rapey lord. fucking hell.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

You'd almost think they'd realised they're fucked at the next election and for the foreseeable future after that, and have decided collectively they might as well say what they really think but having been keeping quiet about while they still had a chance to cling to power.

(if you were really cynical)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> that's quite something. there hasn't been any other lib dem sex scandals recently has there? He is actually cracking a joke about a paedophile and a rapey lord. fucking hell.


 ..and Handycock


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ..and Handycock



I really don't think it's a joking matter.


----------



## killer b (Oct 8, 2014)

of course, handycock. and the weird cat-robbing guy from birmingham.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I really don't think it's a joking matter.


not a joke


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> not a joke



That's alright then.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I really don't think it's a joking matter.



Maybe you should pop up to the LibDem conference and tell them that...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe you should pop up to the LibDem conference and tell them that...



I certainly hope you're not being flippant about this?

It's not a matter for flippancy.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I certainly hope you're not being flippant about this?
> 
> It's not a matter for flippancy.



So what do you think is more serious, the numerous sex scandals the LibDems have had and covered up as best they can over the years, and then made jokes about at their conference, or a few comments on an online message board?

How about you get some perspective phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 8, 2014)

andysays said:


> So what do you think is more serious. The various sex scandals the LibDems have had and covered up as best they can, and then made jokes about at their conference, or a few comments on an online message board?



The fact that you would even ask such a question indicates the reprehensible levity with which you apparently regard this matter.

I believe you actually smirked as you wrote that.  Do you think this is an issue over which to smirk?


----------



## killer b (Oct 8, 2014)

fucksake andy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2014)

so he basically said am I my brothers keeper. I get so wound up at conference season, theres no escape.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> of course, handycock. and the weird cat-robbing guy from birmingham.




and the councillor who beat 3 kittens to death. Theres a number of lib dem cat killers iirc. CBA to use search but we have had the details of these incidents discussed in the past.


----------



## andysays (Oct 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> fucksake andy.



 sometimes I wonder if I'll ever understand the "thought" processes of some of you weirdoes


----------



## BigTom (Oct 9, 2014)

killer b said:


> of course, handycock. and the weird cat-robbing guy from birmingham.



John Hemming MP. He's a gift that keeps on giving. It was, however, his wife who did the cat stealing, from his mistress, who is/was a lib dem councillor (can't remember if she still is, but their affair started when they both were).


----------



## killer b (Oct 9, 2014)

hemming was up to some other stuff recently as well wasn't he?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Sounds even worse "in the flesh"...



just realosed he looks and sounds like an ageing Owen Jones


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2014)

owen jones will never age surely


----------



## laptop (Oct 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> owen jones will never age surely


----------



## BigTom (Oct 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> hemming was up to some other stuff recently as well wasn't he?


He thinks that conspiraloon child stealing nonsense is true, he's banged on about that recently, think it was posted here.

Edit: you mean sexual stuff? I can't remember anything, he did nominate himself for some love rat of the year award some time ago though so probably has been having more affairs.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 22, 2014)

Polling in fifth place behind the Greens for the general election 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fifth-place-in-new-general-election-poll.html


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Polling in fifth place behind the Greens for the general election
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fifth-place-in-new-general-election-poll.html


But tbf they're 4th in the Rochester polling....on 3%


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2014)

Hey kidz...forget the £60k debt we've created for you...look at this...we might...possibly.... be in favour...of looking at...thinking about....



> *Punitive drug law enforcement failing, says Home Office study*
> Home Office study finds no evidence that harsh sentencing curbs illegal use and documents success of Portugal’s decriminalisation



Desperate.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2014)

Newsnight is reporting that Norman Baker has resigned as Minister in the Home Office. Perhaps he looked really hard for the document where Blair ordered Kelly's assassination....and failed to find it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2014)

Here we go...the dumb twunt actually thought he was in something other than a tory government. Lol



> A senior Liberal Democrat minister will launch a stinging attack on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, as he announces his resignation from the Government tomorrow.
> 
> Norman Baker, the crime prevention minister, is stepping down after a year of internal battles within the Home Office with his Conservative boss.
> 
> ...


----------



## youngian (Dec 11, 2014)

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/71-coalition-mps-who-voted-for-nhs-sell-off-linked-to-health-firms


> 71 coalition MPs who voted for NHS sell-off linked to health firms



65 are Tories. Here's the rest of the list in full:

Nick Clegg
MP for Sheffield, Hallam received a donation to his constituency office for £5,000 from Alpha Medical Consultancy has nationwide affiliations with premium providers of diagnostic and rehabilitation services. Alpha’s partners offer high quality medicolegal rehabilitation.

Menzies Campbell
North East Fife: Non-executive director of Scottish American Investment Company plc since 2007. The investment company took over one of the care homes when Southern Cross collapsed. His spokeswoman said: "It is Sir Menzies' understanding that negotiations for another care provider to take over the running of the care home in question are at an advanced stage. Sir Menzies has no further comment to make." The holdings are listed here including healthcare.

Vince Cable
MP for Twickenham and Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills. Received a donation of £2,000 from Chartwell Care Services, who are 100% owned by Chartwell Health & Care PLC who own Chartwell Private Hospitals plc that provide day case surgery to NHS patients. The ultimate owner is Normandy Group Ltd.

Simon Hughes
MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. Received £60,000 donation to his constituency party from the founder of Alpha Hospitals a private hospital firm.

Robert Smith
MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kilncardine
Has shares in pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. Shares in Legal and General, which offers medical insurance.

Jo Swinson
MP for East Dunbartonshire. Received a donation of £2,000 September 2013 from private optician company, Peter Ivins Eye Care.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2014)

Two grand donations are fuck all.  It's the directorships they get next summer that'll be their reward.


----------



## youngian (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm less concerned about second guessing whether they are on the make but what it says about their judgement and ideology.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2014)

youngian said:


> I'm less concerned about second guessing whether they are on the make but what it says about their judgement and ideology.



...and given that (going by the Register of Member Interests) about three quarters of them are on the make in some form or other, we can be fairly certain that their ideology is "fuck you, Jack. I'm alright!", and that their judgement is flexible.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 12, 2014)

Straight to the point from yesterday's Morning Star...







http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-94b0-Nick-Clegg-exposed-yet-again-as-a-hypocrite



			
				MorningStar said:
			
		

> *Deputy PM descends into union-bashing rant as Lib Dem donor proposes to axe 134 jobs at Nottingham factory*
> 
> Nick Clegg descended into a union-bashing diatribe yesterday after MPs confronted him about a swathe of job losses planned by one of the bosses bankrolling his re-election bid.
> 
> ...


----------



## Imagine (Dec 17, 2014)

This afternoon the Yellow Tories voted to keep the bedroom tax.

The vote to abolish the tax was defeated by 32 votes. 36 LibDems voted against abolition:



> *Baker, rh Norman*
> *Beith, rh Sir Alan*
> *Brake, rh Tom*
> *Browne, Mr Jeremy*
> ...


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 17, 2014)

Cunts.


----------



## laptop (Dec 17, 2014)

Imagine said:


> This afternoon the Yellow Tories voted to keep the bedroom tax.
> 
> The vote to abolish the tax was defeated by 32 votes. 36 LibDems voted against abolition:



I thought *Hancock, Mr Mike *wasn't technically a LibDem at the moment, due to serious allegations that he's even more of a cunt than that.


----------



## Imagine (Dec 17, 2014)

Makes his vote today even more disgusting.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 24, 2014)

Danny Alexander claims Tory plans will lead to ‘wilful destruction’ of services
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/23/danny-alexander-tory-tax-plans-wilful-destruction 




			
				grauniad said:
			
		

> Conservative party spending plans will lead to the “wilful destruction” of public services, Danny Alexander has claimed in the latest public coalition spat.



This is just as much your doing as the Tories, fucking muppet


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Danny Alexander claims Tory plans will lead to ‘wilful destruction’ of services
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/23/danny-alexander-tory-tax-plans-wilful-destruction
> 
> 
> ...


If only he could have not gone along with and in fact came up with some of the plans.

This is so insulting. Not only is he/they doing this but they're calling people thick fuckers whose eye wool can be pulled over. All those lost deposits shave told them nothing.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 24, 2014)

Much as I'd like a really messy coalition divorce I haven't really noticed the Tories having much of a dig in the other direction, presumably it's not that useful electorally to stick the boot into the lib dems, and maybe looks like they're rising above it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Much as I'd like a really messy coalition divorce I haven't really noticed the Tories having much of a dig in the other direction, presumably it's not that useful electorally to stick the boot into the lib dems, and maybe looks like they're rising above it.


It's best for them just to laugh really. Lib-dems have lowest av of polling this parliament since they started their public image of separation, and until last week, tories their best.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2014)

this 'we tried to reign them in' stuff is fooling nobody if by election results and polls are any indicator


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this 'we tried to reign them in' stuff is fooling nobody if by election results and polls are any indicator


They're pretty much sending everyone a christmas card calling people mugs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

> *A councillor has quit as leader of a Liberal Democrat group after suggesting an alleged rape victim was too ugly to have been assaulted.*
> East Hampshire District Council said it was ‘appalled’ by comments made on Facebook by Cllr Philip Drury, who remains an independent councillor after resigning from his role.


http://www.localgov.co.uk/Councillor-quits-role-after-vile-comment-about-alleged-rape-victim/37883


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2015)

Didn't have the guts to sack him - and the person they attracted, who they then felt best represented their values so was voted leader of their group didn't have enough human qualities to stand down as a councilor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this 'we tried to reign them in' stuff is fooling nobody if by election results and polls are any indicator


REIN  the queen reigns, the horse has reins


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.localgov.co.uk/Councillor-quits-role-after-vile-comment-about-alleged-rape-victim/37883


He was tired...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

‘I was excessively tired and was working nights. I had just come back from an excessive Chinese business trip. I was tired. I will remain on the council.’

great excuse


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2015)

I dunno doesn't everyone make rape jokes about real people when they're tired?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> REIN  the queen reigns, the horse has reins


I was tired


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was tired


it never rains but it pours


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 6, 2015)

> The Liberal Democrats have still to select their parliamentary candidates in more than half the seats up for grabs in the general election in four months’ time, leading Labour to claim that Nick Clegg’s party is in danger of forfeiting its right to present itself as a national party.
> 
> The Liberal Democrats have selected candidates in only 266 of the 631 seats British parties will contest – excluding Northern Ireland, where the party does not fight elections.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...select-candidates-half-seats-general-election

For a party that prides itself on it local operations, seem a bit short of grunts to be cannon fodder in the no hoper seats.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2015)

their local operations have been fucked for years. Since 2010, in fact...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2015)

Apologies if this has been posted before, and for potentially causing cross-thread messiness...but...



> However, I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of the phrase “Je suis Charlie”.
> 
> Charlie Hebdo was, and is, a racist, xenophobic and bigoted  publication. Sometimes it attacked powerful targets like the Catholic Church but it was largely white men attacking powerless, marginalised and oppressed groups in France, especially Muslims who face horrific levels of discrimination. That’s not “satire”, it’s bullying.
> 
> ...



Not enough


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2015)

Excellent lib-dem/swp milieu crossover. In common is overbearing liberal middle class guilt and cowardice.


----------



## youngian (Jan 9, 2015)

> Charlie Hebdo was, and is, a racist, xenophobic and bigoted publication.


Is this an unfair attack?
Anyone any ideas what this piece of 'radical secularist' satire is about?

http://www.islametinfo.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1418433_226701860837248_576295875_n.jpg

Or are they juvenile anarchists who 'have a go at everybody' because they are so naughty
These depictions of Arabs and Jews look very similar. And very familiar if you've seen Der Sturmer cartoons
http://www.medialibre.eu/cms/wp-con...0gk88s80skw.brydu4hw7fso0k00sowcc8ko4.th.jpeg

http://francais.islammessage.com/panel/media/flash/chaliehebdo.jpg


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2015)

I don't really get the "they were a racist publication" argument.  Yeah, well 12 people were shot dead.  I just don't really see why the need to start discussing the value or otherwise of what they said. If there is a big issue with it, maybe it should have been discussed a while ago.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 9, 2015)

Rape apologists


> “It does read badly – particularly the appeal. I’d query how many have looked at the details rather than symbolism of rapist-footballer,” he commented. “If guilty then never a footballer again – role model argument – but on the facts of the case, probably not guilty.”



Though what else would expect from the party of Rennard etc


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2015)

Nasty lib dem article compares Charlie Hebdo to EDL and KKK

http://www.libdemvoice.org/tesvous-charlie-44129.html



> Let me start by saying that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a despicable attack on freedom of expression.
> 
> However, I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of the phrase “Je suis Charlie”.
> 
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 11, 2015)

Why just use interns as free labour when you can actually charge them for references 



> A former aide to a Liberal Democrat peer has been condemned for charging former unpaid interns at his thinktank “£300 a go” for employment references.
> 
> Jan Mortier, who describes himself as a former consultant to Lord Garden, a one-time defence spokesman for Nick Clegg’s party, has admitted that he charges former unpaid trainees at his Civitatis International organisation for references, but denied that they had been interns, on the basis that they had been “trained directly” by him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)

Scum, sub-human scum:







I'm sure Mark Steel is very happy about this.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

wow. Surely even the most idiotic of left liberals can't think that the Lib Dems are left of labour, and less tory-like than labour now, can they? Why on earth would the party think that message was a good idea? crazy. Stuff like this makes me think that we are best off out of electoral politics entirely. How can you deal with people like the ones who wrote this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2015)

Note - that's Clegg's seat as well. Note further the shit punk fanzine style like it's 1981.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 16, 2015)

Are Lib Dem references considered trustworthy?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 16, 2015)

I reckon there's a good chance that Clegg could fall victim to a Portillo-style decapitation. Lots of 'third party' voters switching from the Lib Dems to UKIP and Labour are going to pour money into the seat. Can't wait to see his face, although I'm sure the EU Commission awaits regardless..


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2015)

Sadly I think he'll just squeeze through. One of the few seats in the country where I would vote Labour though.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 17, 2015)

Anyone else had a letter through the door recently asking themselves/their partner/their wife to stand for the libdems in their local council elections in may? Since we have never had anything to do with them, I was wondering if they are getting so desperate that they are asking randoms to have a go or if it was some sort of administrative fuckup?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2015)

Nylock said:


> Anyone else had a letter through the door recently asking themselves/their partner/their wife to stand for the libdems in their local council elections in may? Since we have never had anything to do with them, I was wondering if they are getting so desperate that they are asking randoms to have a go or if it was some sort of administrative fuckup?


They've always done this - and I've seen the Tories do it as well. It's a good idea IMO.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2015)

I think nick clegg urging someone else to have a backbone was quite funny this week


----------



## Nylock (Jan 17, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They've always done this - and I've seen the Tories do it as well. It's a good idea IMO.


fair enough, first time I've ever come across one tbh...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 17, 2015)

Nylock said:


> Anyone else had a letter through the door recently asking themselves/their partner/their wife to stand for the libdems in their local council elections in may? Since we have never had anything to do with them, I was wondering if they are getting so desperate that they are asking randoms to have a go or if it was some sort of administrative fuckup?



This could be quite fun...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

the lib dems are shit because if you put one in with your wash it doesn't end up clean but covered in all manner of foul excretions. and with a drowned body.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the lib dems are shit because if you put one in with your wash it doesn't end up clean but covered in all manner of foul excretions. and with a drowned body.


hmm,  interesting.  would they drown?  or otherwise asphyxiate?   internal injuries possibly. 

we should run a few experiments.  one or two might even survive


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> hmm,  interesting.  would they drown?  or otherwise asphyxiate?   internal injuries possibly.
> 
> we should run a few experiments.  one or two might even survive


that's ok, we can put them in for another spin if they do.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 18, 2015)

I just noticed the lib dems are now polling at 3% across the north, according to YouGov


----------



## weepiper (Jan 23, 2015)

Are we all aware that the Lib Dems got just _40_ votes in the Kirkcaldy council by-election last weekend?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 23, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Sadly I think he'll just squeeze through.


Preferably through a mangel. Bollocks first.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 23, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Are we all aware that the Lib Dems got just _40_ votes in the Kirkcaldy council by-election last weekend?


_*"STILL WHINING HERE"*_


----------



## Celyn (Jan 24, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Are we all aware that the Lib Dems got just _40_ votes in the Kirkcaldy council by-election last weekend?



Wow!  No, I wasn't - saw results but failed to notice that.  Ta for extra laugh.    Still 40 too many, but risible anyway.


----------



## Celyn (Jan 24, 2015)

belboid said:


> hmm,  interesting.  would they drown?  or otherwise asphyxiate?   internal injuries possibly.
> 
> we should run a few experiments.  one or two might even survive



I could help - my washing machine eats big holes in clothes, so it might be able to macerate a LibDem or two.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2015)

Celyn said:


> I could help - my washing machine eats big holes in clothes, so it might be able to macerate a LibDem or two.


This could be a YouTube sensation


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2015)

Can you feel it - the_ i just want PR what won't someone give me PR _-  slime creeping over and making the exact same arguments today about the greens as they made 5 years ago about the greens? I can.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2015)

This is brilliant stuff - last week the lib-dems revealed to a hand picked group of Guardian, Independent and New Statesman journos that they had employed survation to carry private constituency polling for them and the results were brilliant and they were on course to do far far better than anyone suspected ( example). The journos were allowed to see 10 or so out of the 100 polls. Survation have no basically called them liars in this statement and insisting that:



> In reference to polls conducted for the Liberal Democrats, which have been described in the Guardian, New Statesman and others as “private polling conducted by Survation”, we would like to clarify that the role of Survation in these polls was that of “field and tab” only.
> 
> Survation were not responsible for drafting the questionnaires used, sampling design discussions or analysis of the results. These polls should therefore not properly be described as “Survation polls.



In brief, the Lib Dems wrote survey, designed sample and analysed the data...

So they've turned a bunch of comfort polls into their pollsters calling them liars - and the journos who dutifully trotted out their stories are not going to be too happy either. Cannot touch anything without turning it to shit.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 25, 2015)




----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 25, 2015)

From the party of the dubious 'only lib dems can win here' bar charts on election leaflets it's not really a fucking surprise they've been caught being a bit loose with the numbers to make their chances look better again.


----------



## rekil (Mar 5, 2015)

This is a lie isn't it?


----------



## The Boy (Mar 5, 2015)

copliker said:


> This is a lie isn't it?




3 debates vs 1 Football match.  Plausible.


----------



## rekil (Mar 5, 2015)

The Boy said:


> 3 debates vs 1 Football match.  Plausible.


Combined ITV BBC viewing figures were 15 million for the world cup I think. Dunno bout the "debates" but I'd be amazed if they came anywhere near that.


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2015)

The Boy said:


> 3 debates vs 1 Football match.  Plausible.


its about 22mill v 20.  But that's just adding the individual debate totals up.  Odds on the majority of people watched more4 than one debate, so it isn't really true that 'More people..' watched them than the WCF


----------



## The Boy (Mar 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> its about 22mill v 20.  But that's just adding the individual debate totals up.  Odds on the majority of people watched more4 than one debate, so it isn't really true that 'More people..' watched them than the WCF



Yeah, I know.   Same people watching the three debates.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2015)

Wee bit more on that private polling:



> The Liberal Democrats made a splash with their private polling. But the published results indicate that they may be grasping at straws.





> Put bluntly: even if this "secret poll" is taken at face value, if the Liberal Democrats are a point behind Labour in Hornsey & Wood Green, what kind of a bloodbath are they facing elsewhere?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2015)

Thieves



> A key member of Nick Clegg’s inner circle accepted a potentially illegal donation for the Liberal Democrats — and arranged a private meeting for the would-be donor with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, an investigation by The Telegraph discloses today.
> 
> An undercover reporter posing as a wealthy Indian businessman was told he could donate money to the party via a “cousin”. He was also advised to spread gifts among other family members and even backdate a cheque to the party. This would allow the true source of the donation to remain hidden on the official register of political donations.
> 
> ...



You'd think that with two months to go they're just reporting the sprats. See if anyone MPs report their sudden retirement.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2015)

1) lib-dems on the latest leading member to be caught up in corruption:



> He said the party wanted the Electoral Commission to investigate. It would not be right for the Lib Dems to investigate this themselves, he said. It would be quite improper for us, and you would rightly criticise us if we investigated this ourselves – it must be done by an independent third party. The organisation charged with doing that is the Electoral Commission. We will now present with them all the information we have to hand.



2) Lib-dems on the powerful lib-dem lord in sexual harassment accusations:

_an internal inquiry is fine fit and proper. _


----------



## JTG (Mar 15, 2015)

Blatantly licking their lips at another coalition with the Tories

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...se-half-seats-still-hold-power-tory-coalition


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 16, 2015)

JTG said:


> Blatantly licking their lips at another coalition with the Tories
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...se-half-seats-still-hold-power-tory-coalition




The sheer self-delusion of Lib Dems in that article is laughable.

Just for example :




			
				Observer article said:
			
		

> Other potential candidates to succeed Clegg include the health minister, Norman Lamb, *and the MP for Cardiff Central, Jenny Willott, who has picked up a loyal following in recent weeks.*



A following of people who imagine that she has a hope in hell of keeping her seat?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> The sheer self-delusion of Lib Dems in that article is laughable.
> 
> Just for example :
> 
> ...



Misprint. It should read "has picked up a loyal follower" which puts her way in front of most Lib Dems.


----------



## rekil (Mar 20, 2015)

> Nick Clegg has declared he feels more anti-establishment now than he did when he entered government five years ago as deputy prime minister.
> 
> The Liberal Democrat leader made the unexpected claim in an interview with the Guardian, in which he said the way politics works is “bust” and described Westminster as a “joke”.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/leader-interviews-nick-clegg-anti-establishment


----------



## BigTom (Mar 20, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Mar 20, 2015)

copliker said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/leader-interviews-nick-clegg-anti-establishment



He's trying to channel right-wing US libertarian rhetoric with his legalise it all/fix the broken politics wot i broke nonsense


----------



## cat107 (Mar 20, 2015)

Lynne Featherstone, who got elected in Hornsey & Wood Green by attacking Labour from the left, has just produced a leaflet asking local Tories to endorse her tactically, as they can vote for her with "good conscience". 

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.u...ncouraging_people_to_back_Lynne_Featherstone/


----------



## weepiper (Mar 20, 2015)

This is Nick Clegg's 'rally' at the Scottish Lib Dem conference today







one or two seats left.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 20, 2015)

lol pushed back to the Celtic fringes only to find they've receeded as well


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2015)

weepiper said:


> This is Nick Clegg's 'rally' at the Scottish Lib Dem conference today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sub 10% polling is one thing, but when activist rally gatherings fall below that figure...things ain't looking too good!


----------



## weepiper (Mar 20, 2015)

Meanwhile (lol):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31970118


----------



## free spirit (Mar 20, 2015)

weepiper said:


> This is Nick Clegg's 'rally' at the Scottish Lib Dem conference today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fuck that's bad / good.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sub 10% polling is one thing, but when activist rally gatherings fall below that figure...things ain't looking too good!



go back to your constituencies and prepare for oblivion...


----------



## Flavour (Mar 20, 2015)

lot of grey hair at that rally too, must be said


----------



## weepiper (Mar 20, 2015)

Compare the Radical Independence Conference in November last year





or the Women For Independence conference in October






Or the Scottish Greens conference just a few weeks ago






and then there's Nicola Sturgeon at the Hydro in November...


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 20, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Meanwhile (lol):
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31970118


Mr Clegg insisted his party "will do so much better than anyone, including me, thinks. I mean we won't do as badly as we think. I mean ... Alex Salmond. Boo!"


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Meanwhile (lol):
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31970118


Oh my.


----------



## Celyn (Mar 21, 2015)

Wow, sometimes I think I've forgotten how to understand the English language.  From Sue's link above:



> He [Nick Clegg] told an election rally at the party's Scottish conference in Aberdeen that the Liberal Democrats had shown "incredible resilience in the last five years", adding this had helped them to achieve "incredible things".



The Lib Dems have been up to *something* for the last 5 years but I don't think I'd call it "incredible resilience".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2015)

it's certainly incredible


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


> This is Nick Clegg's 'rally' at the Scottish Lib Dem conference today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


local shops reported a surge in mannikin theft


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2015)

weepiper said:


> This is Nick Clegg's 'rally' at the Scottish Lib Dem conference today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a good audience for an empty stage


----------



## free spirit (Mar 21, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a good audience for an empty stage


ah, that's a fair point, would be fairer to see the numbers outside of the tea / toilet break


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ah, that's a fair point, would be fairer to see the numbers outside of the tea / toilet break


lower most likely


----------



## J Ed (Mar 21, 2015)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nick-clegg-running-scared-students-5365421



> Nick Clegg's only pre-election debate in his Sheffield constituency will be closed to the public and media.
> 
> Voters in Sheffield Hallam will be denied the chance to see the "exclusive" event in person or watch it live online.
> 
> ...



lol


----------



## free spirit (Mar 21, 2015)

so he's not taking part in any local hustings?

he's so going to lose.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nick-clegg-running-scared-students-5365421
> 
> 
> 
> lol


How illiberal.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2015)

This is real, the lib-dems actually did this.



Spoiler: You fucking clowns.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 25, 2015)

wow, that's awful. Someone in the lib dems likes Cassette Boy but that is a shit attempt to do something like what he does by someone in the lib dems who knows how to use a video editor. 

I think in the party songs stakes, UKIP's racist calypso number isn't looking so bad now eh?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2015)

It's fucking amazing


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 25, 2015)

should have been our eurovision entry


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm surprised the lib dems haven't disabled the ratings and comments on the youtube channel. 

This one is better...


----------



## belboid (Mar 26, 2015)

Candidate arrested on suspicion of child sexual abuse. Deader n deader by the day


----------



## brogdale (Mar 26, 2015)

Not only their (alleged) noncery that's interesting the OB today...



> *15.05 BREAKING Police investigate Liberal Democrat donations*
> 
> The Metropolitan Police is investigating allgeations regarding donations to the Liberal Democrats raised in the Daily Telegraph's undercover investigation.
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> Candidate arrested on suspicion of child sexual abuse. Deader n deader by the day




Yet again 

See that candidate's exact words in that quote/statement. 

He does not 'refute' those allegations, he (attempts to) rebut them ....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2015)

> A Nottinghamshire police statement said: “The 34-year-old was arrested yesterday and questioned about an allegation of buggery and gross indecency with a male under 16 between September 2003 and April 2004, sexual activity with a child between May 2004 and December 2007 and an allegation of meeting a child under 16 following sexual grooming from May 2004 and December 2007.





> “The offences are alleged to have been committed against one victim.”



Making the alleged victim 12 at the oldest at the time of the first alleged offence.


----------



## elbows (Mar 27, 2015)

Celyn said:


> The Lib Dems have been up to *something* for the last 5 years but I don't think I'd call it "incredible resilience".



You must be forgetting the way they skilfully achieved their electoral reform agenda, setting the scene for better party performance in general elections. Oh, wait.


----------



## Celyn (Mar 27, 2015)

elbows said:


> You must be forgetting the way they skilfully achieved their electoral reform agenda, setting the scene for better party performance in general elections. Oh, wait.



Well, that was definitely heading towards "incredible", I suppose.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2015)

...and getting back to one of their key strengths...covering up noncery...Danczuk launches another broadside against the integrity of the former leadership (not members in this case).



> *Liberal party officials tried to bribe two local activists who witnessed the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith grope a teenage boy,* in a bid to cover up the abuse, Labour MP Simon Danczuk has claimed.
> 
> The boy, who was 14 at the time, was groped by Smith at a Liberal activist’s Manchester flat in 1979, when it was being used as the campaign headquarters for the local byelection, according to Danczuk’s account of the incident.


 


> Writing in Saturday’s Daily Mail, the Labour MP for Rochdale said *the two activists, a teacher and a retired policeman, contacted both the regional party office and also spoke to the office of David Steel, the then Liberal leader, about the alleged abuse.*
> 
> *A few days later, a party organiser offered to give the activists, who were husband and wife, £200 in “expenses” to cover any “inconvenience” they had suffered over the incident.* The couple, who reported the matter to the police, rejected the money and stopped their involvement with the party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2015)

dark as fuck


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2015)

Steele up to his neck, if that's true.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Steele up to his neck, if that's true.


Does he like hill-walking?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Does he like hill-walking?


He has a castle, I believe.  If that helps?

(I'm not getting the reference).


----------



## brogdale (Apr 7, 2015)

My LD MP....


Voted strongly for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

Voted very strongly against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

Voted very strongly against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

Voted very strongly for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

Voted very strongly against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed

Voted very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT

Voted strongly against increasing the tax rate applied to income over £150,000

Voted strongly against a banker’s bonus tax

Voted very strongly against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

Voted strongly for reducing the rate of corporation tax

Voted very strongly for reforming the NHS so GPs buy services on behalf of their patients

Voted very strongly for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year

Voted strongly for academy schools

Voted very strongly against slowing the rise in rail fares

Voted moderately for the privatisation of Royal Mail

Voted moderately for restricting the scope of legal aid

Voted moderately for culling badgers to tackle bovine tuberculosis

Voted very strongly for allowing national security sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions

Voted very strongly against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents

What's not to like? Can't wait to congratulate him when he knocks on my door in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 10, 2015)

Let's not let this thread slip just 'cause there's an election on.



> Announcing this (_"help to rent"_), *Nick Clegg*, the Lib Dem leader, said:
> 
> You’ve got this generation that is sometimes called “_*the clipped wing generation*_”, or “the boomerang generation”, of an increasingly large numbers of youngsters – I think the estimates are now about two million people in their 20s and 30s – *who simply can’t find the money needed for a deposit to rent a flat or home of their own.*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2015)

Whatever happened to "alarm clock Britain"? Clock's ticking cunt.


----------



## Sue (Apr 10, 2015)

Clipped wing generation indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Whatever happened to "alarm clock Britain"? Clock's ticking cunt.


bloody thing stopped


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Whatever happened to "alarm clock Britain"? Clock's ticking cunt.



The only time you'll take is mine, ten years in Dartmoor dock.

And you'll count them by the ticking of your "auld alarm clock".


----------



## brogdale (Apr 12, 2015)

Following Clegg's 'concern' for the 'clipped-wing generation' that he has helped to create...this in the latest Guardian puff-piece for the collaborator...



> He [Clegg] is most animated by the Tory plan to find £12bn from unspecified cuts to the welfare budget. He calls the chancellor, George Osborne, “very dangerous” and accuses him and Cameron of peddling “a dangerous deceit” – the most lacerating description of the prime minister and chancellor that has ever come out of the mouth of the Lib Dem leader in the past five years.
> 
> “*It is impossible to do that without hitting children, without hitting the poor, without hitting the disabled. It’s wilfully regressive*.”



Like the electorate are supposed to somehow forget that those exact consequences have resulted from the government that he has led as deputy.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2015)

'Alarm clock Britain' -- had forgotten that, But it was right up there with the very worst of them


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Following Clegg's 'concern' for the 'clipped-wing generation' that he has helped to create...this in the latest Guardian puff-piece for the collaborator...



Bizarre that the above article appears online as if it was a Guardian one. Was in yesterday's Observer in fact. Nauseating puff piece whichever it was though, true.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 13, 2015)

Just watching Newsnight, Clegg really does look like shit nowadays. A broken man :thumbs :


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Bizarre that the above article appears online as if it was a Guardian one. Was in yesterday's Observer in fact. Nauseating puff piece whichever it was though, true.


Not very bizarre William. Both titles have had a common owner for 22 years, have always shared their online presence, and the latter has long been regarded as 'the Guardian on Sunday'.


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2015)

Oldie but good one.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 14, 2015)

Proud of my borough; yesterday Clegg was hounded out of a photo-op outside the St. Helier hospital by protestors against the (LD council approved) incinerator and the threatened closure of the hospital by Clegg's government.



Good account on 'Inside Croydon' (which also covers LB Sutton politics).



> Nick Clegg, soon to be the ex-Deputy Prime Minister and possibly also soon-to-be an ex-MP and ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats, was forced to abandon a carefully stage-managed photo-op outside St Helier Hospital in Sutton this afternoon, when protestors from the Keep Our St Helier campaign and the Stop the Incinerator Campaign hijacked the event.
> 
> Clegg’s visit lasted barely five minutes, before he was whisked away in his official BMW, clutching, according to the protesters, one of the anti-incinerator leaflets.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 14, 2015)

I like this one, even if it does make me a geek:



- it's an electric car, so what's that sound it makes?
- drives around with daytime running lights on, no headlights
- no actual steering
- changes the radio with the temperature dial
- no seatbelt
- drives through a red light (then blames Labour/the Tories)


----------



## hipipol (Apr 14, 2015)

LIb Dems
Well good
You KNOW that makes sense


----------



## Idaho (Apr 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Just watching Newsnight, Clegg really does look like shit nowadays. A broken man :thumbs :


It's hard to imagine how he could have fucked up any worse. Achieved the only liberal presence in government in 70 odd years, was completely out maneuvered by the Tories on the electoral reform referendum - not just losing the vote badly, but killing off all talk of change for a few elections. Has done nothing to prevent the excesses of the Tories and had guaranteed the party gets shat on this time round.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 15, 2015)

Nick Clegg's non-campaign in Sheffield Hallam continues

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...stand-in-for-him-at-sheffield-hallam-hustings



> The deputy prime minister Nick Clegg failed to attend an election debate in his Sheffield constituency on Sunday night, sending a student as his replacement.
> 
> Clegg, who is defending a 15, 284 majority, said he was too busy to take part in the hustings at Crookes Social Club, in the part of Sheffield Hallam where most students live.
> 
> ...



So who is this wonderkid Harry Matthews? Surely the average Sheffield student wouldn't be put in that sort of position?

Well, here he is in action (starting at 3:17)



I get the impression he might be of a different background to the average Sheffield student, not sharing all of their interests...









> Harry is paying only £3,000 a year for his degree, because he started it before fees soared. *He joined the party just before the last election, when he was still at school. Where? “Eton College. So, I’ve got the background for it,”* he says, presumably meaning politics. I’m not sure if that’s a joke.
> 
> When his finals are over, he plans to abandon physics for a career as an accountant with KPMG, although he will still campaign for the Lib Dems. “Nick has said sorry about fees. What other party leader does that?”



Seems like a realistic observation to me, not a joke.


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 15, 2015)

> “Nick has said sorry about fees. What other party leader does that?”



Brilliant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2015)

his haggard visage is a joy to us all.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 15, 2015)

Nick Clegg said:
			
		

> We will add ‘heart to a Tory coalition and brain to a Labour one



Best find some organ donors then Nicky boy.

and

Party leader says Liberal Democrats would offer conscience and stability in coalition after 7 May, in contrast to SNP or Ukip

Ahahahaha.


----------



## belboid (Apr 15, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Best find some organ donors then Nicky boy.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


who's bringing the spine?


----------



## belboid (Apr 15, 2015)

10:44 - power cut during their manifesto launch

14:28 - battle bus breaks down in Hornsey, for the second time in two days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> 10:44 - power cut during their manifesto launch
> 
> 14:28 - battle bus breaks down in Hornsey, for the second time in two days.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Apr 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> 10:44 - power cut during their manifesto launch
> 
> 14:28 - battle bus breaks down in Hornsey, for the second time in two days.



So there is a god.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2015)




----------



## Belushi (Apr 15, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Proud of my borough; yesterday Clegg was hounded out of a photo-op outside the St. Helier hospital by protestors against the (LD council approved) incinerator and the threatened closure of the hospital by Clegg's government.
> 
> 
> 
> Good account on 'Inside Croydon' (which also covers LB Sutton politics).



 ...and how it was 'reported' by the Telegraph...






Brake does really have 'something of the night about him', doesn't he?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and how it was 'reported' by the Telegraph...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He looks like something from Gerry Anderson's Supermarionation days.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> He looks like something from Gerry Anderson's Supermarionation days.


Yeah, there is a bit of the "_Yus M'Lady" _going on there!


----------



## J Ed (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm pretty disappointed by the lack of Lib Dems in Sheffield - I haven't seen a single sign up or any campaigners to verbally abuse.


----------



## belboid (Apr 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm pretty disappointed by the lack of Lib Dems in Sheffield - I haven't seen a single sign up or any campaigners to verbally abuse.


I saw a few on the edges of Whirlow, you know, the _really _posh bit.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> I saw a few on the edges of Whirlow, you know, the _really _posh bit.


This is good.


> A former Conservative party candidate for Sheffield Hallam has written to people in the area telling them to vote for the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, in order to prevent a Labour win.
> 
> In a letter sent out by the Lib Dems as part of their election literature, John Harthman – who stood against the rival party’s last MP in the constituency, Richard Allan in 2001 – says that Clegg was “incredibly brave” to put “the country’s interests before his own party interests” when he went into coalition with the Conservative party at the last election.








Lol


----------



## J Ed (Apr 15, 2015)

Fuck it, putting a bet on Labour taking the seat. The vermin are getting hilariously desperate


----------



## belboid (Apr 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Fuck it, putting a bet on Labour taking the seat. The vermin are getting hilariously desperate


still available at 19/10 at Betfair


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

"Local" thought this may be, I think it deserves an airing (no pun intended). I'm well aware that the vermin-supporting local press will be hoping to dent Brake's chances in C&W, but what it exposes proves that something is rotten in the state of Sutton...



> A church listed on the declaration of interest for the chairman of the Sutton Liberal Democrats – used as a venue to hold party action days and where one of itscouncillors holds surgeries – has received £275,000 in funding from the company hoping to build the Beddington incinerator.
> 
> The Holy Trinity Church, in Wallington, has been awarded the fifth most money overall across the country out of the 250 donations waste giant Viridor has issued.
> 
> The two religious sites to receive more money than the Maldon Road church are Canterbury Cathedral and Glastonbury Abbey.





> The incinerator was approved amid much controversy in 2013 by Sutton Council and work has still to begin as campaigners Stop the Incinerator have battled the authority through the courts.





> Following the approval, Sutton councillors at the time Margaret Court, John Drage and Paddy Kane, as well as MP Tom Brake, felt compelled to publish a special edition Hackbridge Focus in praise of the incinerator, and highlighting nine benefits it would bring to Beddington.
> 
> Mr Drage is now the chairman of the Sutton Liberal Democrats.
> 
> During his time as a councillor Mr Drage listed the chief executive of Viridor, Colin Drummond, and his wife as “longstanding personal friends”. It is in this same document that he lists Holy Trinity Church, Wallington as an interest.



Smelly indeed....and so good to see that the LD manifesto makes all those commitments to clean air etc.

The ever excellent 'Inside Croydon' also has a good piece on this LD corruption..
http://insidecroydon.com/2015/04/17/dear-libdems-i-remain-a-liberal-a-democrat-and-a-councillor/#more-24963


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

We need to update the lib-dem celebs  list. Any spottings please post them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

This one is lab even though he looks lib-dem/ISIS/putin


----------



## rekil (Apr 23, 2015)

IS = Islington State


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This one is lab even though he looks lib-dem/ISIS/putin



it's a Kronstadt reference, he's another anarchist for Labour


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's a Kronstadt reference, he's another anarchist for Labour


How come the swine has sent not one but two kids to private school then?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> How come the swine has sent not one but two kids to private school then?


are you seriously saying you've not come across "anarchos" who have sent their kids to private school?

(not that I'm really claiming him for anarchism obviously)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> are you seriously saying you've not come across "anarchos" who have sent their kids to private school?
> 
> (not that I'm really claiming him for anarchism obviously)


Yes.


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2015)

reckon there's plenty of soi-disants with kids at steiner schools to start with...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> reckon there's plenty of soi-disants with kids at steiner schools to start with...


Ah but they're racists with anarchist pretendings. Rather than anarchists who send their kids to racist school.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 23, 2015)

Seriously - Nick Clegg must be shitting it now. I'm getting one or two letters a day from the Sheffield Lib Dems. Three in one day last week. He's fucked.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Seriously - Nick Clegg must be shitting it now. I'm getting one or two letters a day from the Sheffield Lib Dems. Three in one day last week. He's fucked.


Is there no limit on the central expenditure, or something?


----------



## binka (Apr 23, 2015)

nick clegg on the last leg on channel four now, as an added bonus - piers morgan!!


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Seriously - Nick Clegg must be shitting it now. I'm getting one or two letters a day from the Sheffield Lib Dems. Three in one day last week. He's fucked.



Funny that, I'm in Sheffield Central and have received leaflets from everyone BUT the Lib Dems. A few more Lib Scum signs popping up your way but way, way more Labour


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 24, 2015)

Greystones is very noticeably Labour. You have to get on past Banner Cross before you see any yellow. As for blue, I think I've seen two in Fulwood. Oh, and one for Carlton Reeve but I think that was his own house.
How do you think the greens will do in central? Back when I lived there they had all 3 cllrs I think. I couldn't even tell you the name of the Lib Dems candidate for central- a stark contrast from last year's Scriv-mania.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 24, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Greystones is very noticeably Labour. You have to get on past Banner Cross before you see any yellow. As for blue, I think I've seen two in Fulwood. Oh, and one for Carlton Reeve but I think that was his own house.
> How do you think the greens will do in central? Back when I lived there they had all 3 cllrs I think.



Have you seen any yellow canvassers yet? If you do can you proxy shout scum at them for me please?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Have you seen any yellow canvassers yet? If you do can you proxy shout scum at them for me please?


It would be my pleasure.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 24, 2015)

Despite the previous piss-taking, they're still churning out election material with those dodgy bar charts in. Feeble shit treating the electorate like idiots.



(Though as the linked article highlights, they're all at it)


----------



## rekil (Apr 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> We need to update the lib-dem celebs  list. Any spottings please post them.


Floella Benjamin. Lots of LibDem RTs. 

https://twitter.com/FloellaBenjamin


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2015)

she's a lib dem peer, think she just counts as a lib dem politician now.


----------



## rekil (Apr 25, 2015)

What's Liz Kershaw's excuse?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> proxy shout


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> What's Liz Kershaw's excuse?



 oh no I like her


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2015)

_In 1984 she formed a band, Dawn Chorus and the Bluetits, with her friend and neighbour Countdown presenter Carol Vorderman_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 25, 2015)

gone of her now. Still I bet her brother supports Labour or TUSC or summat


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> gone of her now. Still I bet her brother supports Labour or TUSC or summat


_Hello we're from the north_. Both of us. That's _the north._


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2015)

Liz Kershaw, that is not a voice for radio. Yet she has reasonable taste in music. Suprised at her libdemmery though, had her down as northern tory


----------



## Cid (Apr 25, 2015)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Greystones is very noticeably Labour. You have to get on past Banner Cross before you see any yellow. As for blue, I think I've seen two in Fulwood. Oh, and one for Carlton Reeve but I think that was his own house.
> How do you think the greens will do in central? Back when I lived there they had all 3 cllrs I think. I couldn't even tell you the name of the Lib Dems candidate for central- a stark contrast from last year's Scriv-mania.



Wards of Sheffield central:

Broomhill: 1 green, 2 labour.
Central: Still 3 green.
Nether Edge: 3 Labour.
Manor castle: 3 labour.
Walkley: 3 Labour.

Judging by that Baron Scriven of Hunters Bar has made a sensible move, but no hope for them here now. Haven't had any lib dem stuff; green, labour and an amusingly alarmist 'coalition of chaos' Tory one.

On a purely anecdotal level I've not seen many posters out at all, just the odd anti Farage thing, I don't venture far beyond Kelham Island though. Mostly modern flats and student halls/post hall flats. I've noticed friends who are green swing voters are erring on the side of labour, justified with reference to 'individual policies which make them better than the tories' (House of Lords reform and abolishing bedroom tax are popular).


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 25, 2015)

Everybody thinks there shit.

Nick Clegg’s rules on coalition-building are ‘absurd’, says constitutional expert


> One of the country’s leading constitutionalists has described claims by Nick Cleggthat a government would lack legitimacy if formed by the party that finished second as absurd.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 26, 2015)

Just saw Clegg on the telly referring to labour/Tories as 'the establishment parties'.  Fuck off with that faux-outsider shit. The 'big boys did it' excuse doesn't work when you voted for everything the Tories wanted.

Denizens of Sheffield, please sort this shit out next month. Finish him, please finish him. If the ballot box method isn't successful, standing on the throat will probably do the trick.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 26, 2015)

clegg has the look of a celebrity nonce that has been found guilty and will be returning for sentencing in a weeks time


----------



## BigTom (Apr 27, 2015)

> *John Hemming* @johnhemming4mp · 9h9 hours ago
> Following an incident in which a magpie treated my laptop with inadequate respect my laptop has ceased to work. I will be slow responding.



No John, I think the magpie, which blatantly shat all over your laptop, showed it just about the right amount of respect.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _Hello we're from the north_. Both of us. That's _the north._


 (Andy backed Scargill's SLP to begin with, then was one of those saying vote Lib Dem around the same time that  Tariq Ali did, on the war)


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2015)

'andy'. Like you're mates.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> (Andy backed Scargill's SLP to begin with, then was one of those saying vote Lib Dem around the same time that  Tariq Ali did, on the war)


What confused you about me suggesting that they're a pair of professional northerners?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> 'andy'. Like you're mates.


He's going to tell you that he met him in Sheffield in 2003 in a minute.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

_Andy _helped lib-dem scummer MP tessa munt defraud the taxpayer btw


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

Eugh:



> . In 2000, when Radio 1 chief decided to axe Kershaw’s eclectic late-night show after 14 years, then Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament to bring it back.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What confused you about me suggesting that they're a pair of professional northerners?


i like hearing northern accents on the radio - there should be more of them


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> i like hearing northern accents on the radio - there should be more of them



Did you like the northern way he brought paedo ted hawkins into the UK?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

I could do this kershaw lib-dem stuff all day btw but have a bus to catch in a bit.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did you like the northern way he brought paedo ted hawkins into the UK?


who is Ted Hawkins?  Never heard of him


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 27, 2015)

Hardest man on the island


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

Hanging around with lib-dem scummer and expenses cheat (clear pattern here) Lynne Featherstone. Serial offender this one.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did you like the northern way he brought paedo ted hawkins into the UK?


tbf, everyone liked him bringing ted hawkins over, till we found out his past


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

Kershaw also used to roadie for famous lib-dem supporter and millionaire lord billy bragg. This monster needs stopping. And soon.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 70791



My supervisor the ex-Hoxhaist hated Greer.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2015)

Sis up to no good....



> BBC Radio 6 Music DJ Liz Kershaw told Labour’s Emma Reynolds that she was fed up of landlords like herself being “stigmatised” and predicted the policy to impose fixed-priced rents with increases limited to inflation would lead to homes being left empty.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 27, 2015)

Has anyone done "Andy Kershaw is an anagram of Shady Wanker" yet?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 27, 2015)

Scum


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Scum


Bit harsh - he's made mistakes, certainly, but not sure he warrants this level of abuse


----------



## Belushi (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Bit harsh - he's made mistakes, certainly, but not sure he warrants this level of abuse



stalky mistakes


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Bit harsh - he's made mistakes, certainly, but not sure he warrants this level of abuse


Did you not read my extensive list of his crimes?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2015)

Belushi said:


> stalky mistakes


He was drinking heavily and going through a relationship crisis, as well as having lost his job.  He breached a restraining order, but only because he was desperate not to lose access to his kid.   It's something he regrets, clearly, but it's hardly in the worst category of offenders.

His other "crimes" seem to amount to supporting Lib Dems - clearly a mistake, but it was pre-2010 - and inviting over a musician who it turned out had served time as a paedo.  Did he know that at the time?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> He was drinking heavily and going through a relationship crisis, as well as having lost his job.  He breached a restraining order, but only because he was desperate not to lose access to his kid.   It's something he regrets, clearly, but it's hardly in the worst category of offenders.
> 
> His other "crimes" seem to amount to supporting Lib Dems - clearly a mistake, but it was pre-2010 - and inviting over a musician who it turned out had served time as a paedo.  Did he know that at the time?


Of course he did.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 27, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Bit harsh - he's made mistakes, certainly, but not sure he warrants this level of abuse


I meant his sister for her landlord comment


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sis up to no good....


she might be rich and thick enough to leave properties empty out of spite, but she'd be an exception


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2015)

lol


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


> lol



If he puts that on his posters and leaflets there will be one lib dem whose integrity I will gladly vouch for.


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2015)

Nick Clegg on BBC news at 10 We commit to billions on education,  reporter you made commitments before, how can we trust you this time,   nick Clegg ah this one is on the front page of our manifesto.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2015)

...and this bloke comes up to me and says I'm the biggest cunt in politics.....


----------



## stethoscope (May 1, 2015)

From this thread…


----------



## Streathamite (May 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Funny that, I'm in Sheffield Central and have received leaflets from everyone BUT the Lib Dems.


I'm guessing here, but if they've a single working braincell left they're focussing everything and everyone on Hallam.
edit; but they'll still lose it. Albeit to someone who looks and sounds like he was turned out on a mass-production line for "I've got real roots, me" New Labour MPs


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _In 1984 she formed a band, Dawn Chorus and the Bluetits, with her friend and neighbour Countdown presenter Carol Vorderman_



Possibly, the greediest woman on earth...


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

Such fine words Nick...but I'd really like to see you say that to my son (£45k debt & rising) and his mates.



> 3m ago14:24
> 
> Nick Clegg has said the Lib Dems don’t want a Labour party who haven’t learned the lessons of past. “There’s nothing remotely progressive about shrugging our shoulders and *letting our kids pick up the tab* for our mistakes,” he said during his speech in Sheffield.



I don't have the energy to find a font big enough for the words utter fucking cunt.


----------



## brogdale (May 2, 2015)

...and this doesn't help.

Arsewipe lickspittle.


----------



## rekil (May 2, 2015)

I don't know what this means really, but I suppose it can go in here.


----------



## JTG (May 2, 2015)

copliker said:


> I don't know what this means really, but I suppose it can go in here.
> 
> View attachment 71014


 Sheffield terraced houses are entered via the back door - there is usually a passageway (gennel) that leads from the road to the back yard. They have front doors but they are almost never used and rarely have letterboxes etc


----------



## Dogsauce (May 2, 2015)

My house is the same, but to confuse things more my neighbour replaced her door at the front and does have a letterbox there. The dickheads that deliver takeaway leaflets can't figure it out and throw them on the front path where they either blow down the road or block the drain by the front door.


----------



## brogdale (May 3, 2015)

I'm not watching Marr, but this Guardian report of the interview sounds fun...



> 5m ago09:53
> 
> _Q: It has been said that you have not told the truth about tuition fees, and that you were happy to drop your policy, because you agreed with the Tory plan. James O’Shaughnessy said this:
> 
> ...




Lol


----------



## weepiper (May 3, 2015)

For those who might not recognise him, that's Alastair Carmichael.


----------



## rekil (May 5, 2015)

Dawkins throws off his cowl.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

copliker said:


> Dawkins throws off his cowl.
> 
> View attachment 71112


Jesus!


----------



## cesare (May 5, 2015)

Nah, he supported them in 2010 too: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/28/lib-dems-party-of-progress


----------



## youngian (May 5, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Everybody thinks there shit.
> 
> Nick Clegg’s rules on coalition-building are ‘absurd’, says constitutional expert


We now have the surreal spectacle of the leader of the SNP correctly explaining how the constitutional procedures of the UK parliament works against a Lib-Dem leader who also suddenly doesn't understand how multi-party politics work. And a Unionist Tory PM who has conducted a UK GE campaign based on crude English nationalism. You could almost excuse Cameron as he's an inept lightwieght but constitutional issues are a Lib Dem raison d'etre and Clegg is simply a lying weasel.

Here's Clegg doing his being a sport schtick and reading insulting Tweets. But if you type Clegg and cunt into Twitter you will see 100s Tweets he's neglected to mention


----------



## youngian (May 5, 2015)

I don't see how Clegg's pro-Tory preference announcements would help most Lib Dems hanging on to their seats. But it seems to be working for the odd Lib Dem candidate though


----------



## DotCommunist (May 5, 2015)

Richard Dawkins is a proper mug


----------



## cesare (May 5, 2015)

Anyone mentioned Vince Cable getting cold feet about the Employment Tribunal fees system that he introduced? Well, he is - and rightly so. Part time workers (ie mostly women) disproportionately affected of course but in addition ET claims are down by about 70% indicating that the fees system is a barrier to justice (who'd'a thought it etc etc). Anyway, he's trying to shift the blame to Chris Grayling who didn't carry out a review after the first year as promised. Fucking weasels.


----------



## youngian (May 5, 2015)

cesare said:


> Anyone mentioned Vince Cable getting cold feet about the Employment Tribunal fees system that he introduced? Well, he is - and rightly so. Part time workers (ie mostly women) disproportionately affected of course but in addition ET claims are down by about 70% indicating that the fees system is a barrier to justice (who'd'a thought it etc etc). Anyway, he's trying to shift the blame to Chris Grayling who didn't carry out a review after the first year as promised. Fucking weasels.


Luckily down in Richmond they have a nationally respected anti-Tory candidate who has been speaking out against ET fees that he introduced


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 5, 2015)

In the light of the possibility of another LibDem/Tory coalition, perhaps it is time that the LibDem Party be made illegal. They are nothing but a nuisance in election terms both at local level and nationally. The LibDems are of no use whatsoever. All they do is to confuse people about the political situation. Voters need clear choices not muddy messages without any political values. The LibDems just play games especially where there is a tight contest. They have no values, just a mechanistic ruthless ambition to steal votes from other parties without having anything substantial to offer voters.

It might seem a bit drastic to ban a party, but there are limits to the games that a party can be allowed to play.Their helping to rescue the Tories at the last election should have been the last straw. If they are allowed to do it again they will be insulting the electorate. I would not normally want to ban any party but the LibDems have just made a mockery out of the whole electoral process at both local and national levels. There should be rules that prevent the games LibDems play. They need not be banned if they play by those yet to be created rules.

Yes outlaw the LibDems, everyone knows about their graphs distorting and depicted poll information. We have all seen their histograms "proving" that x or y party "cannot win here". It is just ordure and it stinks. Their worst offence of course is their supporting of the Tories who did not win the last election but carried on as if they had.


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In the light of the possibility of another LibDem/Tory coalition, perhaps it is time that the LibDem Party be made illegal. They are nothing but a nuisance in election terms both at local level and nationally. The LibDems are of no use whatsoever. All they do is to confuse people about the political situation. Voters need clear choices not muddy messages without any political values. The LibDems just play games especially where there is a tight contest. They have no values, just a mechanistic ruthless ambition to steal votes from other parties without having anything substantial to offer voters.
> 
> It might seem a bit drastic to ban a party, but there are limits to the games that a party can be allowed to play.Their helping to rescue the Tories at the last election should have been the last straw. If they are allowed to do it again they will be insulting the electorate. I would not normally want to ban any party but the LibDems have just made a mockery out of the whole electoral process at both local and national levels. There should be rules that prevent the games LibDems play. They need not be banned if they play by those yet to be created rules.
> ,
> Yes outlaw the LibDems, everyone knows about their graphs distorting and depicted poll information. We have all seen their histograms "proving" that x or y party "cannot win here". It is just ordure and it stinks. Their worst offence of course is their supporting of the Tories who did not win the last election but carried on as if they had.



The have very firmly held ideological views.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The have very firmly held ideological views.


And pray what be those then?


----------



## brogdale (May 5, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> And pray what be those then?


Most easily summed up as support for the neo-liberal, market fundamentalism demanded of consolidator states by financial capital.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Most easily summed up as support for the neo-liberal, market fundamentalism demanded of consolidator states by financial capital.


Oh yes of course, how silly of me to forget that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The have very firmly held ideological views.


they like power


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> Luckily down in Richmond they have a nationally respected anti-Tory candidate who has been speaking out against ET fees that he introduced


not either or but and


----------



## Idris2002 (May 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> Luckily down in Richmond they have a nationally respected anti-Tory candidate who has been speaking out against ET fees that he introduced



I thought Clive James was dying.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 5, 2015)

Vince Cable: a former high ranking figure in international criminal cartel that murdered Ken Saro-Wiwa and other environmental activists in Nigeria. Just another blood drenched little eichmann piece of shit in other words. A typical lib dem.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Richard Dawkins is a proper mug


They're called brights now you blood soaked racist.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 5, 2015)

Vince Cable is surely heading for defeat in Twickenham?


----------



## William of Walworth (May 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> I don't see how Clegg's pro-Tory preference announcements would help most Lib Dems hanging on to their seats. But it seems to be working for the odd Lib Dem candidate though




Clegg could possibly hang on true, but check some recent posts on the Political polling thread -- that particular poll (in today's Guardian, and given far too much headline publicity there  ) has some serious methodological flaws.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Richard Dawkins is a proper mug




My friend, also lives in Oxford West,  last time voted 'tactically' for the Lib Dems to keep the Tories out (he was never particularly leftie at all!) -- and he failed -- Evan Harris, former LD MP, was defeated by a (blue) Tory by a  small margin.

But now, even though the margin is really tight, my friend will be voting Labour simply out of pissed- off-ness at the LD's record with the Tories since 2010. He'll not alone in the area either.

Dawkins could well be a lot out of line with most in that area.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> My friend, also lives in Oxford West,  last time voted 'tactically' for the Lib Dems to keep the Tories out (he was never particularly leftie at all!) -- and he failed -- Evan Harris, former LD MP, was defeated by a (blue) Tory by a  small margin.
> 
> But now, even though the margin is really tight, my friend will be voting Labour simply out of pissed- off-ness at the LD's record with the Tories since 2010. He'll not alone in the area either.
> 
> Dawkins could well be a lot out of line with most in that area.



I had some time for Evan Harris back then, he was one of the quite sciency ones, wound up some of the fundie Christian nutters.


----------



## bemused (May 5, 2015)

copliker said:


> Dawkins throws off his cowl.
> 
> View attachment 71112



So Dawkins does believe in mystical powers.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2015)

bemused said:


> So Dawkins does believe in mystical powers.


Or _cunts_, as they're known on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They're called brights now you blood soaked racist.



They are? Self-regarding coprophile bastards!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Vince Cable is surely heading for defeat in Twickenham?


nope


----------



## William of Walworth (May 6, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nope


----------



## William of Walworth (May 6, 2015)

I'll have to put up with Simon Hughes losing his then ... after 33 years 

(A bit more likely then Clegg going, given London polling suggesting a stronger pro-Labour swing in parts of the capital than elsewhere)


----------



## CNT36 (May 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They're called brights now you blood soaked racist.


In the week since I've deactivated my facebook the only thing I've missed is trolling the Church of Dick.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 6, 2015)

Vince Cable is personally responsible for the fuckwitted selling off of our mail service to carpetbagging spivs.

This is a loss of £1bn.

As a cabinet minister he's been on £134.5k a year.

Even on that handsome whack it would 743 years to pay us back, yet he still twats around like some kind of "statesman". Many people would never leave the house again for shame.


----------



## youngian (May 7, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (May 7, 2015)

Not voting Clegg will probably be one of the few decent things that a lot of Sheffield Hallam residents have done.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2015)

Layla Moran (our LD candidate) said that she was the 'left wing choice' during a hustings i went to last friday. i hope you're right William of Walworth, sadly i think a lot of labour voters may end up voting for her


----------



## co-op (May 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I'll have to put up with Simon Hughes losing his then ... after 33 years
> 
> (A bit more likely then Clegg going, given London polling suggesting a stronger pro-Labour swing in parts of the capital than elsewhere)



There's been a really massive swing to Labour in London over the last 4-5 years, I think it's caught everyone by surprise a bit. Lots of pollsters still give Hughes his seat but if you check the 2014 local election results of wards in his constituency the Lib Dems were beaten quite easily by Labour for the first time since the 1970s. I think he might be a gonner although he has a massive incumbency effect on his side.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Too early to change the title to _why the lib-dems were shit? _and abandon it to the gnawing criticism of the mice - or is there some fun left yet?


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Too early to change the title to _why the lib-dems were shit? _and abandon it to the gnawing criticism of the mice - or is there some fun left yet?



There'll be the leadership contest starring survivors no one has heard of


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> There'll be the leadership contest starring survivors no one has heard of


Note clegg hasn't ruled out standing again - same as farage. Little hol to recharge the batteries, let someone else deal with the immediate mess,then back in the saddle when the formal process starts.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Vince Cable is personally responsible for the fuckwitted selling off of our mail service to carpetbagging spivs.
> 
> This is a loss of £1bn.
> 
> ...


maybe he'll do something to ensure he only leaves the house once more.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2015)

Why the Lib Dems are shit: there's only 8 of the cunts. 

Ha ha ha ha ha!


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

_Yeah! Fuck off 8-cunts._

Beware what grows from little 8-cunts though.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Why the Lib Dems are shit: there's only 8 of the cunts.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha!


They could have a dedicated thread each and it wouldn't be too irksome!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _Yeah! Fuck off 8-cunts._
> 
> Beware what grows from little 8-cunts though.


Mighty Oatens?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Mighty Oatens?


Horrible thought.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Did they get stuffed in the locals too?  Haven't looked at the local results or seen any discussions, eclipsed by the nationals (I know some only start counting at midday today).


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Answering my own question: Eastleigh hold 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/councils

(some will, like my council, only have some of the seats up for election, so change of control less likely in these circumstancesj


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Did they get stuffed in the locals too?  Haven't looked at the local results or seen any discussions, eclipsed by the nationals (I know some only start counting at midday today).


Yes, they're off to a terrible start already - 39 seats crossed almost direct to tory with only 1/5 votes counted


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _Yeah! Fuck off 8-cunts._
> 
> Beware what grows from little 8-cunts though.


the 8-specials


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Can't even have a decent 5-aside game amongst themselves.  They'll have to play with drop-back keepers or just stick to three-and-in.


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2015)

My favourite electoral map.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

So shit, it turns out they want to change their brand name...



> The frontrunner in the battle to lead the Liberal Democrats is looking at changing the party’s name back to *the Liberals*.
> 
> Tim Farron, a former party president and foreign affairs spokesman, is tipped to throw his hat into the ring on Wednesday when nominations close.
> 
> Mr Farron, one of the party’s only eight MPs, is considering running his leadership campaign on a ticket of making a clean break from the recent past.



But...


> However Mr Farron might be frustrated if he tries to take over the name “*the Liberal Party*” as a party of that name already exists.



Lol


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> But...
> 
> 
> Lol



and what the liberal party have to say about the lib dems isn't all that complimentary



> We believe that the ‘LibDems’ as a party have traded any last vestige of liberal principle or belief for a few seats at the cabinet table. In so doing they have made themselves party to a cruel and uncaring government which is now seeking to make the poorest and most vulnerable in society pay for the mistakes of bankers and financiers who appear to have come out of the financial crisis relatively unscathed.



from here


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2015)

Note that the Telegraph has insidiousy picked a nice selection of unsightly shots of Farron to illustrate their article. I guess they're not on his side.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Note that the Telegraph has insidiousy picked a nice selection of unsightly shots of Farron to illustrate their article. I guess they're not on his side.


It's funny as fuck really...they've only got 8 MPs, and yet the parliamentary party is riven 4/4 between Farron's Beveridge faction and Lamb's Orange bookers.

Lol


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2015)

I suppose they'll have to wait until their next by-election victory for the casting vote. Could be a while...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2015)

And having thought of that, I suppose the next few years of by elections are only going one way, purple vermin. Not really going to make much difference to the working majority as they'll back all the reactionary shit the Tories come up with.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I suppose they'll have to wait until their next by-election victory for the casting vote. Could be a while...



More likely a by-election defeat when Clegg fucks off sharpish. It'll be Farron...although he'll have to hide all his terribly illiberal loonpopery.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2015)

It's worth looking at how absolutely massive the collapse in the LD vote was in some seats, if you feel like trying to cheer yourself up a little bit.

Best one I could find was Brent Central, Sarah Teather's old seat, it had a 1,345 LD majority and she had 20,036 votes  (44.18%) last time, now they're down to third place with 3,937 (8.37%) which is minus 35.8%. Dawn Butler (Lab) now has 29,216 votes (plus 20%) and a majority of 19,647. The actual Lib Dem to Labour swing was over 28%.

Loads of other examples,  including big swings from LD to Tory.
And to SNP obviously, but I'm leaving Scotland to the experts


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Vince Cable is surely heading for defeat in Twickenham?






			
				Spanky Longhorn said:
			
		

> nope






			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

>



 

His vote went down by by over 11,000 -- minus 16.38% -- goodbye to your 12,000 majority Vince!


----------



## Voley (May 12, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> minus 35.8%.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 12, 2015)

My personal favourite was Simon Hughes going after 33 years. I predicted that one, and thought he was more likely to go than Clegg. A fair few I knew were not buying it though, they thought his personal vote in Bermondsey, once very strong, would save him. Happily not.

13% swing LD to Lab.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

For once a LibDem talks profound good sense and truth...



I think we can all agree with Norman that they'll never again be in any position to break a promise from a position of government.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Even their old muckers at the Guardian are having a laugh at them...


> 7m ago12:54
> 
> The Lib Dem MP *Greg Mulholland* has hinted that he might also stand for the Lib Dem leadership. Normal Lamb has already announced he is standing, and Tim Farron is almost certain to stand too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 12, 2015)

His Christmas card list is now a lot smaller.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2015)

maybe go old skool and rebrand as whigs


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> maybe go old skool and rebrand as whigs



Nope, that one's already gone as well...


> The Whig Party is a registered political party under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000. Registered on the Great Britain register 15/09/14. Electoral Commission Reference Number PP 2380.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

. double post


----------



## Santino (May 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> maybe go old skool and rebrand as whigs


Didn't go down well when they tried it in Kabul.


----------



## Belushi (May 12, 2015)

There's a remnant SDP still knocking around as well


----------



## Belushi (May 12, 2015)

Here we go, they have a crap website & three councillors http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk/councillors.php


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Nope, that one's already gone as well...


odd bunch, tho they do like Linton Kwesi Johnson


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Here we go, they have a crap website & three councillors http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk/councillors.php


Best bit "Our view is, that if the food put on your table is purchased with money earned from doing a job of work, no matter if you push a bass broom round a factory floor, sell sun beds to Africans, or you are a hospital administrator."


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2015)

Is it time to clarify the thread title: 

*"Why the lib-dems were shit"*

*?*


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

laptop said:


> Is it time to clarify the thread title:
> 
> *"Why the lib-dems were shit"*
> 
> *?*


My MP is still shite....and there's 7 others. Not forgetting all those councillors with the capacity to yield creepy/gropey stories.


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2015)

Had a LibDem canvasser at my door today. No canvassers at all prior to the GE, from any party. This one today was trying to garner votes for the new mayor of Tower Hamlets. I said I wasn't interested in voting, so he asked if I'd voted in the GE "no, none of the above" and he looked quite shocked. Tried to give me a leaflet which I refused. He didn't ask me why though, waste of space.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

This is real:

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING MASTERCLASS



> Want to know how to win election campaigns? Learn from the very best of international experience with our FREE 10-week course based on 101 Ways To Win An Election.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is real:
> 
> POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING MASTERCLASS


I wonder how many people will sign up Nick Clegg?

(email - nick.clegg.mp@parliament.uk - in case you were wondering)


----------



## JimW (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is real:
> 
> POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING MASTERCLASS


You're just not elite enough to understand their high-level political aikido, what seems empty is full,Grasshopper


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> I wonder how many people will sign up Nick Clegg?
> 
> (email - nick.clegg.mp@parliament.uk - in case you were wondering)


our records say you've already signed up


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> our records say you've already signed up


he must have a few addresses - loser@libdem.org.uk, for example


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2015)

So as everyone guessed it was Carmichael that was behind the "Sturgeon prefers Cameron" leak. Daft prick probably imagining he's some Francis Urquhart.



> Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem former Scottish secretary, has come under pressure to resign as an MP after admitting being responsible for an election leak intended to damage Nicola Sturgeon.



Sadly it doesn't look like he'll resign so we'll still have eight of the roaches left.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2015)

He's got to resign. Just a matter of when.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2015)

You think so, I reckon the cunt will just brazen it out.


----------



## stethoscope (May 22, 2015)

grauniad said:
			
		

> If I were still a cabinet minister at this point, I would tender my resignation; obviously the Liberal Democrats are no longer in government, so I’ve not. But I have said to the cabinet secretary that I will not accept the ministerial severance payment that is normally offered to ministers when they leave office.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


>


Why are you rolling those eyes?

Can't you see what an honourable man he is, he's refused a ~£20,000 severance payment - but still keeping his £50,000 job.

He went into government for the good of the country steth - does his patriotism count for nothing?


----------



## stethoscope (May 22, 2015)

Just reading that the inquiry cost 1.4 mill too. The deceitful shit.


----------



## brogdale (May 22, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Just reading that the inquiry cost 1.4 mill too. The deceitful shit.


£1.4m for them to discover that they already knew it was him.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> You think so, I reckon the cunt will just brazen it out.


I promised myself not to make any definitive statements about politics after being so wrong in almost every way over the general election, but he'll be gone next week.


----------



## killer b (May 22, 2015)

what did they spend the 1.4 mil on?


----------



## Libertad (May 22, 2015)

killer b said:


> what did they spend the 1.4 mil on?



Cristal and canapés.


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2015)

R4 report that LDs confirm that Carmichael will face no internal party disciplinary procedure as a result of his deception. They went to say that he had taken responsibility for the behaviour himself and forgone £17k severance pay.

How principled. Sounds like the party are not too keen to see anyone question whether or not anyone else in the party knew what Carmichael was up to. Hmmm


----------



## Belushi (May 23, 2015)

They've learnt fuck all, they're heading the way of the dodo.


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2015)

Not one of the English papers has this story on their front page. Unlike the original 'leak' lie. Also a lot of Labour politicians were very quick to jump on the story when it broke yet are curiously silent about it now  And David Mundell (our only Tory) as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland must surely have known about it too.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2015)

They don't have any staff left to do the investigation too, perhaps?


----------



## brogdale (May 23, 2015)

I'd like to see Crick doorstep Clegg to ask him how much he knew about the lie/leak. It would be great to see him lie through his teeth..just one more time.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 23, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Not one of the English papers has this story on their front page. Unlike the original 'leak' lie. Also a lot of Labour politicians were very quick to jump on the story when it broke yet are curiously silent about it now  And David Mundell (our only Tory) as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland must surely have known about it too.


And it took a long time for the BBC to add in the phrase from the "apology" letter that Carmichael now admits that "the details of that account are not correct". They have now added it to their web story, but neither the 6 o'clock nor the 10 o'clock news used the phrase or referred to it, and Reporting Scotland even managed to imply that the story might still be true, despite showing the letter on screen. Snidey bastards.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 23, 2015)

Crick and Alex Thomson were both quick to notice that phrase and to report that the memo was therefore, ah, inaccurate. But neither, to my knowledge, has asked Carmichael *when* he knew that "the details of the account [were] not correct". Did he know the details were not correct when he leaked the account? 

His circumlocution in the letter and his interviews suggests he did.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 23, 2015)

Simon Johnson of the Telegraph has also been quiet. Did he know the details were not correct when he ran the story? I suggest he did, because he did not ask either Sturgeon or Sylvie Berman for comment before running the story. 

But he did find time to ask Willie Rennie for comment. *Willie Rennie*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> And it took a long time for the BBC to add in the phrase from the "apology" letter that Carmichael now admits that "the details of that account are not correct". They have now added it to their web story, but neither the 6 o'clock nor the 10 o'clock news used the phrase or referred to it, and Reporting Scotland even managed to imply that the story might still be true, despite showing the letter on screen. Snidey bastards.



"Dear Alistair,
get away tae fuck, ya nasty wee bastard!

Yours cordially
etc"


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (May 23, 2015)

Nothing like a bit of old-fashioned 'in denial'

Nick Clegg's strategist evaluates Lib Dem defeat: 'We got routed by the Fear'


----------



## nino_savatte (May 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> R4 report that LDs confirm that Carmichael will face no internal party disciplinary procedure as a result of his deception. They went to say that he had taken responsibility for the behaviour himself and forgone £17k severance pay.
> 
> How principled. Sounds like the party are not too keen to see anyone question whether or not anyone else in the party knew what Carmichael was up to. Hmmm


Par for the course with the Lib Dems. Mike Hancock? Lord Rennard?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2015)

ah wandering hands rennard. How quickly I forgot him.


----------



## billy_bob (May 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is real:
> 
> POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING MASTERCLASS



Nice use of one of stand-up comedian Nick Helm's catchphrases, intentional or otherwise. His comedic persona is that of a man on the edge of personal collapse, living in denial and trying to paper over his inadequacy in his chosen medium with increasingly desperate-sounding feigned confidence. He should be leading this course.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ah wandering hands rennard. How quickly I forgot him.


Easily done. They're such non-entities.


----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2015)

It says 'truth'


----------



## Belushi (May 23, 2015)




----------



## weepiper (May 23, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2015)

More on that


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2015)

I didn't realise he can be recalled..



> If MPs were to vote to suspend Carmichael for 10 days or more, this would then automatically trigger a new process under the Recall of MPs Act (championed by Nick Clegg): if at least 10% of Carmichael’s constituents sign a petition calling for a byelection, then one must be held.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...democrats-byelection-threat-leak-snp-sturgeon


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I didn't realise he can be recalled..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...democrats-byelection-threat-leak-snp-sturgeon


That'll be a 9 day ban, then?


----------



## Belushi (May 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That'll be a 9 day ban, then?



It depends on whether the tories want to kick their ex-partners while they're down. Given that these are tories were talking about..


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

Belushi said:


> It depends on whether the tories want to kick their ex-partners while they're down. Given that these are tories were talking about..


Given the proximity of Mundell to this steaming pile of excrement...I'd guess they rather the story be closed down. And anyway, none of them want another nationalist in place.


----------



## Libertad (May 24, 2015)

Could the SNP not take this to the Electoral Commission?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (May 24, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Could the SNP not take this to the Electoral Commission?



This. I can't see them letting this one die down, there's a lot of political capital to be made from it.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> This. I can't see them letting this one die down, there's a lot of political capital to be made from it.


without a doubt. especially if they can drag Mundell into it. Clean sweep possible.


----------



## weepiper (May 24, 2015)

If Carmichael doesn't stand down now it's curtains for Tavish Scott next year.


----------



## brogdale (May 24, 2015)

weepiper said:


> If Carmichael doesn't stand down now it's curtains for Tavish Scott next year.


Prospects can't have been good, regardless of Carmichael, surely?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 24, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> This. I can't see them letting this one die down, there's a lot of political capital to be made from it.


Be interesting to see what Labour do, as with the Mundell link you might think that they have a opportunity to gain something too, but I bet you they line up with the Cons/LDs.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2015)

Malcolm Bruce on R4 'Today' programme defends Carmichael by saying that all politicians lie, so it's OK...


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Malcolm Bruce on R4 'Today' programme defends Carmichael by saying that all politicians lie, so it's OK...




_Asked on BBC Radio 4 whether he was alleging that lying was widespread in public life, Bruce, who stood down at the election, replied: _



> No, well, yes



I think that just about sums it up.


----------



## Belushi (May 26, 2015)

I see that guardian cunt Michael White is defending Carmichael from an 'SNP lynch mob'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...carmichael-nicola-sturgeon-memo-leak-scotland


----------



## Sue (May 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I see that guardian cunt Michael White is defending Carmichael from an 'SNP lynch mob'
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...carmichael-nicola-sturgeon-memo-leak-scotland


What an absolutely appalling article. Even worse than his usual attempts. A matter of principle my arse.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

Here's Carmichael's contrition: 

 "I have said already that I very much regret the position I am in."

That translates as: "This shit again? I *told* you: I'm sorry I was caught".


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2015)

No need for translation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 26, 2015)

Nothing beats Hari's_ i was horrified to discover what i had done._


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> No need for translation.


I didn't think so either, but it seems, from this distance, that that's contrition in Michael White's book.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

Maybe it's the old ex Catholic in me, but I'm pretty sure Father Foley wouldn't have said Carmichael was ready for a decade of Hail Marys, an Our Father and a Glory Be.


----------



## steeplejack (May 26, 2015)

I think that the best Carmichael can hope for is winning a bye-election. This won't be allowed to die down and there seems to eb growing dissent in his own constituency about him remaining. 

If he's the popular and hard working constituency MP he claims to be, then surely his electorate will overlook this awkward matter of him being ,er, caught red-handed?

The White article is a total joke...basically saying he should be forgiven as the form that the leak took was incompetent.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

What's the plural of Mary?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2015)

maihries?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> I think that the best Carmichael can hope for is winning a bye-election. This won't be allowed to die down and there seems to eb growing dissent in his own constituency about him remaining.
> 
> If he's the popular and hard working constituency MP he claims to be, then surely his electorate will overlook this awkward matter of him being ,er, caught red-handed?
> 
> The White article is a total joke...basically saying he should be forgiven as the form that the leak took was incompetent.


I commend unto you my rant in the Shit Guardian thread.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

I sent an email to the Lib Dems. It was headed "Carmichael" and said just: "You're going to be smaller than the DUP. 

Regards, 

Danny O'Rouge"


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)




----------



## steeplejack (May 26, 2015)

immoral yes, deceitful yes, shitebaggery of the highest order yes, but..criminal?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 26, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> immoral yes, deceitful yes, shitebaggery of the highest order yes, but..criminal?


there must be something on the books about lying to rig an election?


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> immoral yes, deceitful yes, shitebaggery of the highest order yes, but..criminal?


let's hope so


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What's the plural of Mary?


The plural of Hail Mary is surely Hails Mary.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

Santino said:


> The plural of Hail Mary is surely Hails Mary.


Of course. 

*Raises first of several gin and tonics to Santino*


----------



## William of Walworth (May 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> there must be something on the books about lying to rig an election?




Least successful rig I ever saw!

Glad Carmichael's suitably up shit creek though.


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2015)

A crowdfunder's been set up by islanders to raise legal action to overturn Carmichael's election. It's been up less than 24 hours and already has nearly £20,000


----------



## teqniq (May 26, 2015)

Heh, fuck him.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

weepiper said:


> A crowdfunder's been set up by islanders to raise legal action to overturn Carmichael's election. It's been up less than 24 hours and already has nearly £20,000


How's it doing? I'm just getting an error page.


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> How's it doing? I'm just getting an error page.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

I understand they need to raise the action before Friday. Hope they get the cash they need. 

It's worth it for the precedent alone.


----------



## weepiper (May 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I understand they need to raise the action before Friday. Hope they get the cash they need.
> 
> It's worth it for the precedent alone.


I _think_ if I'm reading it right they only need about £10k to lodge the petition, the rest (around £60k total) is to cover them if costs are found against them later on. It says if the action fails before that point and they have to close the crowdfunder then any unused money will be split between foodbank charities


----------



## danny la rouge (May 26, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I _think_ if I'm reading it right they only need about £10k to lodge the petition, the rest (around £60k total) is to cover them if costs are found against them later on.


Excellent. Well, I chipped in a bit. 

:looks around sternly:


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 27, 2015)

Chipped summat in lets get the libs down to 7


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

Removed. Unwittingly broke my own embargo.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I didn't realise he can be recalled..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...democrats-byelection-threat-leak-snp-sturgeon


He can't, as it has been passed but hasn't yet come into force. 

However, given that the Lib Dems campaigned for the measure, it'd be hypocritical in the extreme for them to insist it doesn't yet apply.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2015)

That wings over scotland prick put all that money he fleeced at the service of the nation yet?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That wings over scotland prick put all that money he fleeced at the service of the nation yet?


Only just worked out why you raised that. I'm on my phone, so I didn't know the provenance of the video.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

Though it is appropriate to discuss him on this thread: he was a self confessed Lib Dem for many years.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2015)

Whose this bloke who can barely find a seat? The one being ignored:


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Whose this bloke who can barely find a seat? The one being ignored:


Blue suit in the aisle, next to Salmond. That's Pete Wishart. Former rock star, keyboard player with Big Country and Runrig.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Blue suit in the aisle, next to Salmond. That's Pete Wishart. Former rock star, keyboard player with Big Country and Runrig.



He's been there yonks. Institutionalised.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's been there yonks. Institutionalised.


Yup. Not one of the new intake.


----------



## weepiper (May 29, 2015)

The crowdfunder is currently sitting at about £43k.


----------



## youngian (May 29, 2015)

Labour has only itself to blame for losing the election but they can thank Kamikaze Clegg for the Tory majority. They're finding a lot high swings to Labour in constituencies where the Tories won seats to Lib Dems. Quite an achievement. 

Spotted Lib Dem quips 


> Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 18h18 hours ago
> Putin's backing Sepp Blatter but the Liberal Democrats have called for him to go so it's in the balance


Alex Massie on Question Time: "The Scottish Liberal Democrats, much less Machiavelli than being mauled by Bagpuss"


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2015)

A former Radio 1 DJ [and lib-dem parliamentary candidate] who worked alongside Jimmy Savile sobbed today as he admitted hoarding sickening child porn.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 31, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I see that guardian cunt Michael White is defending Carmichael from an 'SNP lynch mob'
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...carmichael-nicola-sturgeon-memo-leak-scotland


Someone needs to take a hammer to White's face, even by the standards of hacks he's loathsome.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2015)

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5571/three-women-name-former-liberal-democrat-mp-as-paedophile






Also posted in paedo thread.

(former) LD MP denial here.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (May 31, 2015)

Thanks a lot for the donations guys. It means a lot,the campaigners are going to go through a lot of shit in Orkney nevermind elsewhere, so any support is so much appreciated. X 
Sarah- lurking for the commentariat lols mostly.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 1, 2015)

Shirley joins Dappy in backing Lamby.

I see he also has the support of my MP, Brake.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 10, 2015)

Alastair Carmichael didn't lie, he "misstated his awareness" of the leak. 

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-people-versus-alistair-carmichael.html?m=1


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 10, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


>



Rounded up?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 10, 2015)

a brave attempt to state the obvious

http://www.socialliberal.net/lib_dem_runners_up_just_how_bad_things_are


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 11, 2015)

I'm wondering whether 0% has ever been achieved by the LD's  in *any* opinion poll, ever? 

Congratulations, losers!


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 11, 2015)

0%.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> a brave attempt to state the obvious
> 
> http://www.socialliberal.net/lib_dem_runners_up_just_how_bad_things_are




Pretty interesting, especially for poll geeks, LD loathers, or both 

Some brutal facts in there. They deserve every one of those facts though.


----------



## JTG (Jun 11, 2015)

David Bellotti has died. Won the 1990 Eastbourne by-election after Ian Gow was blown up. Went on to help rob Brighton & Hove Albion of the Goldstone Ground, landing them miles away in Gillingham while he and Bill Archer pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Lately he'd been councillor for Lyncombe ward on Bath & NE Somerset council.

An historic reminder of why the Lib Dems have always been shit


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 11, 2015)

As I suspect you know, JTG, Attila the S. has plenty of opinions about that whole story -- *all *of them negative.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2015)

New Leader announced Thursday, oh, the suspense!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2015)

will it be Vince 'I always look like I need to lay a' Cable?


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2015)

Only a binary choice, Farron or Lamb?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> will it be Vince 'I always look like I need to lay a' Cable?


He'd have to be standing first.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)




----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 74119


Some bloke nobody's heard of explains what animals there are more of in Scotland than MPs of his tiny party facing extinction.


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2015)

Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.


don't hold your breath, treelover


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 16, 2015)

One day, you, too, could become your hero, if only you *believe*.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.


After all, they were the ones that ensured they were made vulnerable.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.



The Vulnerable Party.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.



 And against a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> One day, you, too, could become your hero, if only you *believe*.


they've elected a hobbit


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> One day, you, too, could become your hero, if only you *believe*.


Tweet funnier.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 16, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> One day, you, too, could become your hero, if only you *believe*.



has he just come?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Tweet funnier.


:shifty:


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

In the _Voyeurs...






..._Rennard's a big fan.... apparently


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 16, 2015)

Belushi said:


> And against a woman's right to choose.


and the gays


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its Tim Farron, whatever people think of the L/D's, Farron will campaign for the vulnerable.



and then shit on them from a great height again in the unlikely circumstance that their MP in 2020 manages to get in to a coalition...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Ah, you scoff...but the Farronforce is already growing in strength....


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 17, 2015)

I was looking through my friends list and discovered that a lib dem councillor i knew from PSC many years ago had gilad atzmon, moazzam begg and various 'jihadi' seeming types on his fb friends list. I sent him a message asking him to delete atzmon and got no reply. I've deleted him now anyway


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 17, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and then shit on them from a great height again in the unlikely circumstance that their MP in 2020 manages to get in to a coalition...


I think you've got him confused with Mark Oaten...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Brilliant opening gambit; back a lying cheat. How very Liberal.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2015)

> Mr Farron told BBC Scotland: "Most decent people, and most people are decent, think people deserve a second chance.
> 
> "Alistair has made a very fulsome apology and I think most decent people in Scotland, in Orkney and Shetland in particular, think 'fair enough, give the guy a break'.
> 
> "If a handful of people want to pursue it, that is their right but I think it speaks more about them than they would want it to be said."



Cunt.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Cunt.


(s)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2015)

so everyone who wants the liar fucked off out of his seat are the real nazis? gotchya


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> so everyone who wants the liar fucked off out of his seat are the real nazis? gotchya


god told him to forgive


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2015)

I hate the sanctimonious runt already


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I hate the sanctimonious runt already


but he loves you as a brother


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2015)

_it speaks more about them than they would want it to be said._

his critics are motivated only by attempting to gain political advantage. Unlike Farron, who is definitely not motivated by wanting to keep keep the lib dem group in parliament as 8 rather than 7...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

So which of his MPs actuallty voted for him, then?


----------



## weepiper (Jul 17, 2015)

He also thinks the women involved 'should' forgive Rennard



> On Lord Rennard , Mr Farron blamed a "lack of professionalism and a naivety in dealing" with the allegations.
> 
> That, he said, "let everyone down, that includes Chris Rennard and that includes certainly the women".
> 
> ...



and pretty much flat out called the SNP Nazis



> "They are doing the worst and darkest things that people suspect nationalists to be in favour of anywhere in the world," he said.



Double cunt.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 17, 2015)

It's a great time to take over as leader of the Lib Dems tbf - they couldn't be in a worse position, likely to start picking up council seats in by elections as they are basically like the old lib dems now - before the coalition/kennedy when no one was that bothered about them


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Cunt.


How many second chances should Carmichael get, though.  When do we start counting from?  

The leak itself we'll let slide.  OK, so what are we counting as the second chance?  

- Knowing the memo was a false account?  He now admits it was.

- Lying about knowing about the leak?



- Letting an inquiry go ahead into the leak, despite knowing he was behind the leak?

- Implying that a junior SPAD was to blame, not him?

- Going into an election making false claims about his innocence in the matter?

Which of those is the second chance?


----------



## weepiper (Jul 17, 2015)

Speaking of Carmichael...







http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...d-to-donate-big-pay-rise-to-charity-1-3833140


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 17, 2015)

Party grandees don't like Farron:

one senior Lib Dem figure told the Telegraph: "Which bit of the sanctimonious, God-bothering, treacherous little s*** is there not to like?"

https://commonspace.scot/articles/1...gs-worth-knowing-about-the-new-lib-dem-leader


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 17, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Speaking of Carmichael...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"I don't deserve the money, so I'll find a way of using it".

Twat.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 17, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> "I don't deserve the money, so I'll find a way of using it".
> 
> Twat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Party grandees don't like Farron:
> 
> one senior Lib Dem figure told the Telegraph: "Which bit of the sanctimonious, God-bothering, treacherous little s*** is there not to like?"
> 
> https://commonspace.scot/articles/1...gs-worth-knowing-about-the-new-lib-dem-leader


a liberal speaks of treachery after his political tradition YET AGAIN let the tories in and enabled them to establish a narrative. Then the party was near destroyed. Again. They never learn, you make a bed with a viper and then act glakit* with shock when it bites you on the arse


*I would never use this word irl except maybe in corby cos otherwise people would look at me like I'm mental.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> a liberal speaks of treachery after his political tradition YET AGAIN let the tories in and enabled them to establish a narrative. Then the party was near destroyed. Again. They never learn, you make a bed with a viper and then act glakit* with shock when it bites you on the arse
> 
> 
> *I would never use this word irl except maybe in corby cos otherwise people would look at me like I'm mental.


Glaiket is a great word. I'm used to it being paired with gommeril. "Glaiket gommeril".  It's a satisfying thing to say.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 74135


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2015)

I forgot to mention Carmichael is a mate of mines cousin... How would that be for embarrassing FB updates....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

could a passing mod pls amend the title to reflect the new reality: why the lib-dem is shit


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So which of his MPs actuallty voted for him, then?


Anyone? I'm drawing a bit of a blank on this one....wonder why?

Obviously 12.5% = 1 of the 8 MPs. Does that mean he voted for himself...and no-one else in the PP actually wanted him as leader?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2015)

I think 2 did - as i was sure i saw it as 30-something yesterday and using it as a way to ask him if his shitty little party will support the anti-union stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I think 2 did - as i was sure i saw it as 30-something yesterday and using it as a way to ask him if his shitty little party will support the anti-union stuff.


The only place I've seen anything is Staines' fairly uninformative post with 12.5% in the title. Seems quite well hidden this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The only place I've seen anything is Staines' fairly uninformative post with 12.5% in the title. Seems quite well hidden this.


Yep - please don't anyone go quoting that from me as fact.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yep - please don't anyone got quoting that from me as fact.


I've twatted the LDs to see if they'll say who actually voted for Farron.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I've twatted the LDs to see if they'll say who actually voted for Farron.


the answer's very simple: farron.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 17, 2015)

56% of members it claims on their website:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim-farron-elected-leader-liberal-democrats

nothing about mp's votes. 

i notice results are just given as percentages not numbers of members


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

moochedit said:


> 56% of members it claims on their website:
> 
> http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim-farron-elected-leader-liberal-democrats
> 
> ...


it looks better as percentages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

the 2015 lib dem conference beach party: an artist's impression


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 74165
> the 2015 lib dem conference beach party: an artist's impression


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


>


some people will undoubtedly crash the party.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Lordy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Lordy



this WILL end well


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2015)

http://www.channel4.com/news/tim-farron-asked-three-times-if-gay-sex-is-a-sin


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/tim-farron-asked-three-times-if-gay-sex-is-a-sin


Usual mealy-mouthed shite about Xians thinking everyone is a sinner...so that he didn't answer the question but simultaneously managed to appear to say that homosexual sex is a sin.

Even by the standards of LDs, he really is a loathsome piece of work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Usual mealy-mouthed shite about Xians thinking everyone is a sinner...so that he didn't answer the question but simultaneously managed to appear to say that homosexual sex is a sin.
> 
> Even by the standards of LDs, he really is a loathsome piece of work.


and this was when he was making an effort to be nice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

i'll say one thing for tim farron: at least he didn't go to oxbridge


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

rumours that farron is part of the all-party beverage group are apparently unfounded.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll say one thing for tim farron: at least he didn't go to oxbridge



Quite


----------



## Santino (Jul 17, 2015)

moon23, fucking hell


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 18, 2015)

this is a car crash already 

Whatever you thought about Clegg he had a mastery of interviews.  Farron was going on about "we're all sinners" WTF is the electorate supposed to think?

Cathy Newman really dug into him. well done.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> Quite


Are you still a Lib Dem councillor?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

Santino said:


> Are you still a Lib Dem councillor?


Failed would be councillor.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> Quite


Didn't _quite? _What, like he applied, but his grades determined entry only into a 'red-brick' provincial seat of learning?


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 18, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and then shit on them from a great height again in the unlikely circumstance that their MP in 2020 manages to get in to a coalition...


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 74165
> the 2015 lib dem conference beach party: an artist's impression


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 18, 2015)

...Tim Farron


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 18, 2015)

...I mean, Tim Farron 

his prescription seems to be a return to the dogshit politics of the 1980s. Someone somewhere is probably planting a forest now part of which you will be recycling as an unread FOCUS leaflet in ten years time. Expect an assembly line of "bumptious uppity little turd" by election candidates to be whirring into action, too.

Two problems though:

1. what worked in the 1980s won't work 35 years later. It's like England suffering a really bad World Cup campaign and responding by appointing either Graham Taylor or Howard Wilkinson as manager. The Lib Dems don't have the people on the ground to deliver 1980s by election-style camapigns, and it's not clear they will work anyway. In an era where mass membership parties seem to be dying, how will a campaigning method based on mass membership work?

2. Public religious affiliation goes down atrociously in UK politics, and Farron is an out-and-proud evangelical oddball. 

Moreover, Farron looks like a cartoon character from a supermarket own-brand cereal-box, grown up. He's just so _weird._ The papers will chew him up within 18 months.

with 8 MPs, way down the list of questioners at PMQs, Farron will need to announce something radical or take a shit in the aisle for anyone to take any notice. Maybe he should get Oaten back after all.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 18, 2015)

steeplejack said:


> ...I mean, Tim Farron
> 
> his prescription seems to be a return to the dogshit politics of the 1980s. Someone somewhere is probably planting a forest now part of which you will be recycling as an unread FOCUS leaflet in ten years time. Expect an assembly line of "bumptious uppity little turd" by election candidates to be whirring into action, too.
> 
> ...


All probably true, but the membership had a choice between the 2 main factions within their party, and they rejected the 'Orange' candidate of economic liberalism and the coalition. That leaves them with the Beveridge group, Xian nutjob in charge of a small group of market fundie MPs (who all probably hate him).

I don't think the public will warm to Farron's particularly irritating, sanctimonious mealy-mouthed clap-trap about liberalism. As of now I'd say he's got the potential to oversee a significant reduction in their representation at the next GE...if he's still there.


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> As of now I'd say he's got the potential to oversee a significant reduction in their representation at the next GE...if he's still there.



Here's hoping! If he drives the Lib Dems to a final grave, then at least he has the religious faith in a political afterlife to cling on to.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Failed would be councillor.



Not failed Butcheraspron.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> Not failed Butcheraspron.


Oh you finally became a Councillor then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

Did you vote for tim btw?


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

I think Tim Farron is an excellent public speaker who is capable of motivating and moving people who listen to him. The problem will rather be how much media coverage can he or the party attract since the nationalist SNP are now the third largest party in Westminster. I'm not a Christian but I don't have an issue with a Christian leading the party so long as they are a Liberal, and Tim clearly is. Religious tolerance is part of liberalism after all. He also is a shift back towards a more social liberal interpretation of liberalism rather than the orange book economic liberal. One of his priorities is going to be social housing for example.

The key will be fighting back in local Council elections, since May the Lib Dems have had 3 holds and 4 gains in by-elections. There have also been thousands and thousands of new members. Since May my own local party has gone from something like 130 members to 190 members. If the party is able to reach out to those people and engage them in a model of community politics then there is a chance to re-build the local government base of the party. 

I think it will be easier to win in local elections when the part is not in government. Since 2010 I heard ton's of people say we like what you all do locally but not Nick Clegg in government. After a period of being out of government, and with Clegg gone people will be a lot more willing to vote for the party locally.

Much as it may pain some posters on this board I don't think the Lib Dems are dead in the water.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did you vote for tim btw?



Yea I did. Some of Lamb's campaigning for instance on legalising of cannabis appealed to me but I just don't think Lamb was as good a communicator. Also as a government minister I felt he was too tainted by some of the mistakes the party made in coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> I think Tim Farron is an excellent public speaker who is capable of motivating and moving people who listen to him. The problem will rather be how much media coverage can he or the party attract since the nationalist SNP are now the third largest party in Westminster. I'm not a Christian but I don't have an issue with a Christian leading the party so long as they are a Liberal, and Tim clearly is. Religious tolerance is part of liberalism after all. He also is a shift back towards a more social liberal interpretation of liberalism rather than the orange book economic liberal. One of his priorities is going to be social housing for example.
> 
> The key will be fighting back in local Council elections, since May the Lib Dems have had 3 holds and 4 gains in by-elections. There have also been thousands and thousands of new members. Since May my own local party has gone from something like 130 members to 190 members. If the party is able to reach out to those people and engage them in a model of community politics then there is a chance to re-build the local government base of the party.
> 
> ...


It pains us not.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Oh you finally became a Councillor then?



I was a parish Councillor for a few years. Then got elected to a borough council and re-elected this year. It wasn't very easy getting elected as a Lib Dem in May 2015 I can tell you that, but I had a decent enough local record to hold on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

Are you a Councillor or not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> I was a parish Councillor for a few years. Then got elected to a borough council and re-elected this year. It wasn't very easy getting elected as a Lib Dem in May 2015 I can tell you that, but I had a decent enough local record to hold on.


No you didn't.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

Anyway I hope you have all been keeping well. I used to enjoy our political debates and knock about on here


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2015)

Farron refuses to say whether he thinks gay sex is a sin or not. 

What a cunt. Anyone who voted for him is a happy with homophobia cunt as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2015)

He's not a liberal, he is opposed to gay marriage and when asked if gay sex was a sin refused to answer!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

He's a gurning fundamentalist. It's game over.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> Farron refuses to say whether he thinks gay sex is a sin or not.
> 
> What a cunt. Anyone who voted for him is a happy with homophobia cunt as well.



No he said as a Christian he believes everyone lives in sin and that you shouldn't judge others.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> No he said as a Christian he believes everyone lives in sin and that you shouldn't judge others.


As he judges everyone. I wonder why he didn't abstain on all those votes on liberalisation of various social issues then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

I'm going to restrict your rights and ghetto-ise you, make sure you have less civil rights than other people, but rest assured, _i'm not judging you._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> No he said as a Christian he believes everyone lives in sin and that you shouldn't judge others.


He's wrong. And a smug cunt for arguing such self-serving nonsense. And a liar for not saying what he really thinks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

_q) Do you think murder is wrong?
a) Everyone does wrong things._

Lib-dems.


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> No he said as a Christian he believes everyone lives in sin and that you shouldn't judge others.


So he avoided a direct answer, and tried to mealy mouth his way out of it. Scum. 

"the Bible is clear about sexuality of all sorts”

Bigot.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> He's not a liberal, he is opposed to gay marriage and when asked if gay sex was a sin refused to answer!



He voted for gay marriage in the second reading and supports it.  He's also campaigned for LGBT+ issues within the party, and I know a number of LGBT+ Lib Dems who have been part of Tim's campaign and are very supportive of him.

As he has said 

“It is important to be very, very clear that I voted for the legalisation of equal marriage and support it, and will fight very hard against any attempts to water it down – which there might be.”

He added: “Put simply, there were a couple of amendments that were about the protection of essentially religious minorities, conscience protections, and I kind of voted for those. Me doing something like that, which is about protecting people’s right to conscience, I definitely regret it, if people have misread that and think that means I’m lukewarm on equal marriage.” Asked if he would take the same decision again, he said: “No, I would vote for equal marriage.”


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2015)

Why did he vote against it then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> He voted for gay marriage in the second reading and supports it.  He's also campaigned for LGBT+ issues within the party, and I know a number of LGBT+ Lib Dems who have been part of Tim's campaign and are very supportive of him.
> 
> As he has said
> 
> ...


He hasn't campaigned for any such thing. Why don't you fuck off again or stop lying?

'kind of voted'


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> So he avoided a direct answer, and tried to mealy mouth his way out of it. Scum.
> 
> "the Bible is clear about sexuality of all sorts”
> 
> Bigot.



It's possible to personally believe one thing, but as a Liberal also believe that everyone has a right to live their life as the choose so long as they don't hurt others. A comparison would be someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but that it's up to the individual to choose, and you shouldn't judge others for their choices. 

The hallmark of a true Liberal is someone who is able to defend someone else's right to do something they don't condone themselves (so long as it isn't hurting anyone else)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> It's possible to personally believe one thing, but as a Liberal also believe that everyone has a right to live their life as the choose so long as they don't hurt others. A comparison would be someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but that it's up to the individual to choose, and you shouldn't judge others for their choices.
> 
> The hallmark of a true Liberal is someone who is able to defend someone else's right to do something they don't condone themselves (so long as it isn't hurting anyone else)


You don't _condone _homosexuality? You _tolerate _it?

Disgusting gurning simpleton.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2015)

hate the sin love the sinner


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why did he vote against it then?



He voted for the main passage of the bill in parliament, for instance he voted for it at the second reading. Hence why on the 'They work for you' website it says he voted strongly in favour of it. The idea he opposes gay marriage is really a smear a put out by the Lamb campaign during the leadership contest. 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=6686


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> He voted for the main passage of the bill in parliament, for instance he voted for it at the second reading. Hence why on the 'They work for you' website it says he voted strongly in favour of it. The idea he opposes gay marriage is really a smear a put out by the Lamb campaign during the leadership contest.
> 
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/divisions?policy=6686


He kind of voted against it and did the same on other questions of social equality.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You don't _condone _homosexuality? You _tolerate _it?
> 
> Disgusting gurning simpleton.



Personally I don't condone or condemn it as I don't even see it as a moral issue. As far as I'm personally concerned people should do whatever they enjoy and that's their own business. 

The point I'm making is there are many many religious people who don't personally condone it but  also don't judge others about it. That's because they are liberally minded and want to protect the right for others to live their lives how they see fit.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He kind of voted against it and did the same on other questions of social equality.



Then perhaps you can explain why 'They work or you' says he voted strongly for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> Then perhaps you can explain why 'They work or you' says he voted strongly for it.


Are you kind of calling him a liar?


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Are you kind of calling him a liar?



No because he's said himself he supports and he voted for it. He voted  for it on the first and second reading on 5th Feb 2013 and for allowing armed forces personal outside of the UK to marry on 5th March. That's why the independent 'they work for you' website states he voted strongly in favour of same sex marriage.

The only bit he didn't vote for was in relation to an amendment that would have protected some religious people who didn't want to carry out ceremonies themselves. He abstained on that vote. He subsequently says he regrets doing that because of the way it's been used to try and make it to people he opposes same sex marriage.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2015)

He didnt vote for it!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 18, 2015)

Ah, I see you're back moon23. And little has changed


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> He didnt vote for it!



Bollocks, he did and it says as much on the 'they work for you site'.

Here is a video where he explains his views. He rightly thinks the law didn't go far enough for transgendered people too.


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> It's possible to personally believe one thing, but as a Liberal also believe that everyone has a right to live their life as the choose so long as they don't hurt others. A comparison would be someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but that it's up to the individual to choose, and you shouldn't judge others for their choices.
> 
> The hallmark of a true Liberal is someone who is able to defend someone else's right to do something they don't condone themselves (so long as it isn't hurting anyone else)


He's a bigot. And you're defending his bigotry. The true mark of a Liberal, will say and believe anything for a scrap of power.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> He's a bigot. And you're defending his bigotry. The true mark of a Liberal, will say and believe anything for a scrap of power.


_To understand liberalism is to understand that we are all bigots._


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> He's a bigot. And you're defending his bigotry. The true mark of a Liberal, will say and believe anything for a scrap of power.



If a Liberal does anything for power why aren't they all members of one of the two main political parties.

Would be a lot easier to obtain a position of public office as a Labour or Tory careerist.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2015)

this tool with his bible bashing and weak chin must surely finish the octocunts off for good


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> He's a bigot. And you're defending his bigotry. The true mark of a Liberal, will say and believe anything for a scrap of power.



SPOT ON. I have liberal friends trying to defend him who only weeks ago changed their FB profile pics to a rainbow when the States federalize same sex marriage. It's bollox, the LibDems have elected a bigot, fuck them.


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2015)

moon23 said:


> If a Liberal does anything for power why aren't they all members of one of the two main political parties.
> 
> Would be a lot easier to obtain a position of public office as a Labour or Tory careerist.


Because you're all fucking stupid as well. As proven by your abysmal record in office. Talentless berks like Farron could only get chosen by your bunch of no hopers


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/17/surge-english-snp-members-scottish-nationalist-party



> An SNP London branch that meets each month has been gaining Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish members, according to Chevis, a 49-year-old who runs a business providing proof-of-age and identity cards. Some of the branch’s 600 members take part in telephone canvassing and polling of Scottish voters, and a number were on the ground in Scotland helping out with the SNP’s election campaign this year.
> 
> Sturgeon’s strong performances in election debates broadcast across the UK was regarded as a factor in raising the party’s profile outside of Scotland. Polls indicated that she was Britain’s most popular leader and that *the SNP would get more votes than the Liberal Democrats if it fielded candidates across Britain.* *Voters were asked by Survation to imagine that the SNP and Plaid Cymru were standing in all constituencies in Great Britain including their own, and the results gave the SNP 9% of the vote, one point above the Lib Dems.*



lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Ah, I see you're back moon23. And little has changed



Apparently moon's a councillor, even though I recall moon barely polling double figures, the first time they stood for a local authority ward.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> Because you're all fucking stupid as well. As proven by your abysmal record in office. Talentless berks like Farron could only get chosen by your bunch of no hopers



You seem to have got more sweary and judgemental since I last posted here. It doesn't suite you. You're a nice guy
At heart.


----------



## moon23 (Jul 19, 2015)

I've back on the board 5 min and already sworn at, called a liar and basically bullied. So I'm off again.

Next time you complain Urban75 is a boring place without diverse commentators reflect on your own behaviour.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 19, 2015)

Oh boo fucking hoo

Tell us _councillor_, what did you do to try and oppose the bedroom tax your fucking party brought in?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2015)

Off you fuck


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2015)

moon23 said:


> I've back on the board 5 min and already sworn at, called a liar and basically bullied. So I'm off again.
> 
> Next time you complain Urban75 is a boring place without diverse commentators reflect on your own behaviour.


Go.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2015)

moon23 said:


> I've back on the board 5 min and already sworn at, called a liar and basically bullied. So I'm off again.
> 
> Next time you complain Urban75 is a boring place without diverse commentators reflect on your own behaviour.


I don't recall anybody actually complaining about that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't recall anybody actually complaining about that.


treelover, twice a week.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> treelover, twice a week.


There's a poster called treelover?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 20, 2015)

According to Staines...when His Holiness the leader of the LDs rose to address the house as leader for the first time this pm...there were 0 (zero) other LD MPs present to hear his holy words.
Can this really be true?


----------



## JimW (Jul 20, 2015)

Well, it only takes a couple of people to be caught short and someone else to fancy a cuppa, to be fair.


----------



## rekil (Jul 20, 2015)

Not now Tim.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 21, 2015)

copliker said:


> Not now Tim.




My god that takes the fucking piss!


----------



## free spirit (Jul 21, 2015)

copliker said:


> Not now Tim.



That's not gone quite to plan on that there twitter, looking at the comments.


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 21, 2015)

what a _ghastly_ little man. he's just so _odd_.

about as telegenic as a private-contractor wheel clamper. with boils.


----------



## The Pale King (Jul 21, 2015)

He looks like a David Shrigley drawing - could fill in for the mascot at Partick Thistle.


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 21, 2015)

not even Westmoreland's best William Hague tribute band


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2015)

It's good that we're all so beautiful and perfect looking.

Come on, there's more to get at than his 'looks'.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

No fan of the LD's, but they all(eight of them) voted against this obscene Bill


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's good that we're all so beautiful and perfect looking.
> 
> Come on, there's more to get at than his 'looks'.




he was pretty cool when he was in The Voyeurs.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> No fan of the LD's, but they all(eight of them) voted against this obscene Bill


This is how it started before.

I don't know where their sudden appetite for social justice and a strong welfare state have come from because it was noticeably absent during their too-long spell in power.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2015)

They are really taking the piss with this now:


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> They are really taking the piss with this now:
> 
> View attachment 74400


The response has to be that, no we haven't forgotten at all that, until the electorate slung you out, you were the fucking tories.
Scum.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2015)

Bit parochial but I have posted about councillor Nick Mattey before. It appears that the LDs are seeking to expel the councillor for telling the truth, questioning dodgy deals with big business and standing up for his constituents and the environment.

Telling.

Liked Mattey's response...


> *"I'm not really bothered if my membership is revoked - it's like being thrown out by Fifa."*


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

That's gonna be quite a few jobs each for the remaining 5!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's gonna be quite a few jobs each for the remaining 5!



no place for a lazy lib dem now


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no place for a lazy lib dem now


Dunno; what about the other place?
**sniffs**


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

Here's Farron's shit "shadcab" (45% unelected...how illiberal)



No post for Clegg or Williams...apparently.


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here's Farron's shit "shadcab" (45% unelected...how illiberal)
> 
> 
> 
> No post for Clegg or Williams...apparently.




6 elected out of a total of 22 is 27% by my reckoning.

At least one of the names on that list (Featherstone) is an ex-MP who was voted out in May.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here's Farron's shit "shadcab" (45% unelected...how illiberal)
> 
> 
> 
> No post for Clegg or Williams...apparently.



Shirley?  She is cracking no a bit.  And a fucking arse, tho, aren't they all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> 6 elected out of a total of 22 is 27% by my reckoning.
> 
> At least one of the names on that list (Featherstone) is an ex-MP who was voted out in May.


that's why it doesn't say 'mp' after her name


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> 6 elected out of a total of 22 is 27% by my reckoning.
> 
> At least one of the names on that list (Featherstone) is an ex-MP who was voted out in May.



Not wishing to defend Farron's scum, but it is a matter of fact that councillors, AMs and MSPs are _elected._


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

well with such a dream team and the trust of all their former voters surely they will rise phoenix-like from the ashes and polly toynbee can die a happy woman.


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not wishing to defend Farron's scum, but it is a matter of fact that councillors, AMs and MSPs are _elected._



You're quite right - in my haste to have a pop, I didn't read it all properly before.

Looks like a final score of 12 out of 22 non-elected, assuming the Mayor of Watford is an elected position (and in fact two of them are former MPs who failed to get re-elected in May).

I make that 55% unelected, but clearly Farron has had to cast his net wider than is usual.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 29, 2015)

I can't be bothered to look, is John Alderdice the NI person even a Libdem? He is a former leader of the Alliance Party after all.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 29, 2015)

andysays said:


> 6 elected out of a total of 22 is 27% by my reckoning.
> 
> At least one of the names on that list (Featherstone) is an ex-MP who was voted out in May.



Lorely Burt too.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 7, 2015)

Eighteen (18) votes in the Glasgow Calton council by-election yesterday.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Eighteen (18) votes in the Glasgow Calton council by-election yesterday.



tbf that probably represents a few voters beyond the candidate's immediate family.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tbf that probably represents a few voters beyond the candidate's immediate family.


i call electoral fraud. weepiper, i hope you'll back me up, there is no way the lib dem candidate could legitimately expect that many votes.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

Sir Danny Alexander/Sir Vince Cable.
Just try saying it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 8, 2015)

Carmichael's election court case hearing was yesterday and today. The Guardian's summary of today's events: 

Carmichael acted 'dishonourably' in denying Sturgeon memo leak, court told


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 9, 2015)

Tory minister expelled by Labour was also a member of Lib Dems

You could not make this shit up.,


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

george osborne gets a dig in in the Statesman. 



> That potpourri of centre-right liberals, Iraq war rebels, Celtic fringe Methodists [and] local populists turned out not to be very coherent,” he said.



(the rest is some garbage about corbyn-the-disaster)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> george osborne gets a dig in in the Statesman.
> 
> 
> 
> (the rest is some garbage about corbyn-the-disaster)



The union-busting rag has it right front and centre on its website too.  The Fabians were not my cup of tea at all but this shames even their not so impressive legacy.

No doubt any complaints about a supposedly left-wing publication giving such a red baiting rant by the chancellor of the fucking Tory government will be met with accusations of 'virtue-signalling' by the likes of Helen Lewis but even from a business point of view it makes no sense. Why now would even the wooliest of Labour 'left' people buy their very expensive magazine? Why not just cut out the middle man and buy the Spectator or the frankly much better Economist? At least when buying The Economist you know that you are supporting unionised workers since it recognises the NUJ, unlike the New $tatesman


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 11, 2015)

Funny: Labour’s mission is played out – the door is open for the Lib Dems


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Funny: Labour’s mission is played out – the door is open for the Lib Dems



Delusional.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

Yes, because the SDP's splitting of the counter-vermin vote worked so well at eroding the vermin's monopoly on power, didn't it Vince?

Desperate fucktards.


> The progressive centre-left politicians from Labour and the Liberal Democratsneed to “come together” to stop the Conservatives monopolising power in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s victory, Sir Vince Cable has said.
> 
> The former Lib Dem business secretary who lost his seat to the Conservatives in May said his party was facing fundamental questions about how it relates to moderate Labour MPs unhappy with Corbyn’s leftwing leadership.


----------



## elbows (Sep 18, 2015)

Comical levels of delusion there indeed.

The article ends with a more realistic opinion:



> Lord Oakeshott, the former Lib Dem peer who correctly foresaw his party’s near wipeout and made an unsuccessful attempt to oust the former leader Nick Clegg, took a slightly more sceptical view about the party’s chances of being the main occupants of the centre-left space.
> 
> “A yawning chasm needs to be filled in British politics between Corbyn and Cameron,” he said. “If the general election had been a retreat and not a rout for the Liberal Democrats, they would have been in pole position to do this but now it all depends on Labour.”


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, because the SDP's splitting of the counter-vermin vote worked so well at eroding the vermin's monopoly on power, didn't it Vince?
> 
> Desperate fucktards.
> ​



Similar levels of deludedness here

(from their glorious leader ...  )


----------



## treelover (Sep 19, 2015)

What a puff piece that article in the Guardian is, you can see what many Guardian staffers are looking for, they really have been exposed.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 19, 2015)

A few dozen disillusioned Labour MPs plus 8 Lib Dems. Osbourne must be quaking in his boots.


----------



## greenfield (Sep 19, 2015)

And the SDP was far, far to the left of the current Lib Dem MPs and today's PLP


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> What a puff piece that article in the Guardian is, you can see what many Guardian staffers are looking for, they really have been exposed.


no surprise


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2015)

If only the plebs were smart enough to give Clegg a chance, don't they know how much he enabl--- err moderated the government that couldn't govern without him


----------



## rekil (Sep 19, 2015)

This guy...


----------



## rekil (Sep 19, 2015)

Dunno if this was featured earlier in the thread. From Mr.White's 2009 Lib Dem conference diary.



> ▶ Freudian slip of the day "We have had the doctrine of 'Kill Osama', then 'Root them out', 'Bolster the Kabul government' and 'Isolate the Taliban'" – delegate Paul Reynolds in the Afghan debate. Except that he said "Kill Obama". Whoops. Don't give those healthcare knuckleheads ideas, they've already got them.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2015)

copliker said:


> This guy...
> 
> View attachment 76857



DAE think that any party or individual that the liberal media derides is basically exactly the same??? Trump and Corbyn both LOVE RUSSIA! *smugly collects pay cheque for analysis only made possible by towering intellect*


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 19, 2015)

copliker said:


> This guy...
> 
> View attachment 76857



You there! What are doing being optimistic? Optimism isn't for the likes of you!


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 19, 2015)

copliker said:


> This guy...
> 
> View attachment 76857


God, I'll break out the champagne when that cunt pegs it. Two bottles if it's a early and/or painful death.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2015)

You are just too STUPID to know when you are being lied to and manipulated for your own good.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

Fucking hell.



> _“I’ll be calling upon the Liberal Democrats here to steel themselves. Having had the result in May, against all the odds we matter more than we have done for perhaps a generation.”_



Tim Farron jumps the shark in the brave new Lib Dem world


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Sep 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> ​
> Tim Farron jumps the shark in the brave new Lib Dem world



That is beyond deluded, fair play.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

Threshers_Flail said:


> That is beyond deluded, fair play.


----------



## andysays (Sep 19, 2015)

copliker said:


> This guy...
> 
> View attachment 76857



As a Guardianista, White clearly prefers glib pancetta politics


----------



## brogdale (Sep 22, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2015)

First Lib Dem to Labour defection since Corbyn afaik


----------



## brogdale (Sep 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> First Lib Dem to Labour defection since Corbyn afaik




> Teddington Councillor Jennifer Churchill, partner of the borough's former Lib Dem leader and fellow Councillor Stephen Knight, s*aid new party leader Tim Farron "doesn't seem to stand for anything".*


Where the fuck has she been for the last decade?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2015)

She's a Lib Dem so she's obv an idiot but who cares it's funny, we were supposed to be seeing tranches of Labour MPs go over to the Lib Dems instead none will defect and we'll probably see a couple of Lib Dems go the other way


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She's a Lib Dem so she's obv an idiot but who cares it's funny, we were supposed to be seeing tranches of Labour MPs go over to the Lib Dems instead none will defect and we'll probably see a couple of Lib Dems go the other way


rats fleeing a sinking ship


----------



## brogdale (Sep 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> rats fleeing a sinking ship


sunk


----------



## Santino (Sep 23, 2015)

Tim Farron is in the bilges merrily drilling holes into the hull.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 23, 2015)

Speech was 41 minutes, apparently.

How long does it take to say "we're sorry for propping up the vermin for 5 years"?


----------



## belboid (Sep 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Speech was 41 minutes, apparently.
> 
> How long does it take to say "we're sorry for propping up the vermin for 5 years"?


38 minutes of laughter after he'd said he would get them back into power again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2015)

belboid said:


> 38 minutes of laughter after he'd said he would get them back into power again.


the only way they'll get into power is if they jam their fingers into plug sockets.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 29, 2015)

Legal challenge over MP Alistair Carmichael's election to proceed - BBC News

LOL


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Legal challenge over MP Alistair Carmichael's election to proceed - BBC News
> 
> LOL


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 12, 2015)

"*Date set for next stage of Alistair Carmichael legal challenge*"

Date set for next stage of Alistair Carmichael legal challenge - BBC News

"A date has been set for the next stage in a legal challenge to Alistair Carmichael's election as MP for Orkney and Shetland.

Four constituents raised the action under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

They claim the Lib Dem MP misled voters over a memo claiming SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon would rather have seen David Cameron become prime minister.

Judges have set aside four days from 9 November."


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 12, 2015)

BBC still apparently not understanding the exact nature of the challenge.  If you have a few moments to wrap your head around some Scots Law, this blog may help you:

Lallands Peat Worrier: "We wish to hear evidence..."


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2015)




----------



## rekil (Nov 7, 2015)

Blocking a Spanish civil war memorial in Oxford.



> Lib Dem councillor Elizabeth Wade complains that “granite is not a local stone” and claims the design of the memorial is “aggressive and triumphalist.”


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2015)

“aggressive and triumphalist.”

Disgusting, bet she doesn't say that about Remembrance Day


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


> “aggressive and triumphalist.”
> 
> Disgusting, bet she doesn't say that about Remembrance Day


She actually has written a book praising/about another local WW1 memorial. That one was OK as it was made of local limestone. I'm serious.







“aggressive and triumphalist.” victory of the christ over death there. Lovely.  Not at all freaky.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2015)

Great find, what a weird and obviously unpleasant piece of work (by which I mean both the memorial and the Lib Dem)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2015)

oxford&bucks light infantry memorial totally fine and dandy of course


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oxford&bucks light infantry memorial totally fine and dandy of course



Working class people blowing each other up on behalf of their respective betters is alright but working-class people going to Spain in solidarity to take up arms alongside the Spanish working-class in order to stop their betters from massacring them is going too far.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> She actually has written a book praising/about another local WW1 memorial. That one was OK as it was made of local limestone. I'm serious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know about that - motherfucker still looks dead to me!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> She actually has written a book praising/about another local WW1 memorial. That one was OK as it was made of local limestone. I'm serious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She can't have enjoyed that bit in Pat Barker's 'Regeneration' where the 'Tommies' used undamaged roadside crucifixes for target practice...


> “ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, Bastard on the cross, FIRE!”


----------



## laptop (Nov 8, 2015)

copliker said:


> Blocking a Spanish civil war memorial in Oxford.





> A MEMORIAL for men and women from Oxford who fought fascism in the Spanish civil war is being blocked by nimbys.



Oddly, I have failed to find an image of the proposed memorial. So I can't tell whether I would like it in my back garden.

(Memo to _Morning Star_: look up "NIMBY".)

ETA: contd in "Why the Morning Star has gone down the pan" with a discussion of its apparent lumping-together of all who oppose any construction, road, fracking...


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2015)

Carmichael in court, (report is a thin on any substance).


> Carmichael admitted to the court that he did not tell the inquiry set up by the Cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, that he authorised the leak by his aide Euan Roddin when he was sent a short questionnaire in mid-April. It was an “act of untruthfulness”, Carmichael said.


Sadly I can't see the fuck losing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Carmichael in court, (report is a thin on any substance).
> 
> Sadly I can't see the fuck losing.


Not much more in the BBC report.

Although Tavish Scott calls it a "show trial", which suggests he thinks a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. Unless he just doesn't understand the concept. 

"Shetland MSP Tavish Scott, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, told the election court it was a "political show trial"."

Alistair Carmichael memo leak 'politically beneficial' - BBC News


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2015)

You can watch the Carmichael hearing live from 10am here: 

Watch the Alistair Carmichael election court hearing live on STV


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2015)

Nothing doing yet. Bloody judges and their part time hours.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2015)

Been looking in. It's a bit dry.  But it is the first case of its kind for 50 years. So historical at least.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 11, 2015)

Shetland News (@Shetnews) live tweeting the hearing it that's more your thing.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2015)

Rennard elected to LD's federal executive body.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Rennard elected to LD's federal executive body.


   To be fair though, most party ruling bodies do have designated positions - Ordinary Members Reps; MP's Reps; Diversity Officer etc. He's just taking up the Sex Pest role as an Ex-Officio thing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 25, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


>




They don't seem to understand that self-praise is no recommendation.


----------



## binka (Nov 30, 2015)

the lib dems are going to vote in favour of bombing syria apparently???


----------



## Santino (Dec 1, 2015)

binka said:


> the lib dems are going to vote in favour of bombing syria apparently???


Tough decisions, Conservatives with a heart, Labour with a brain, gay sex is wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

Tim Farron  propping up the tories again.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Tim Farron  propping up the tories again.



The octagonal scum


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 1, 2015)

Anybody got a Times subs as I'm strangely curious about what other deluded shit might be in this piece by Farron called "Labour are without doubt the worst opposition in modern times" with seemingly not a bit of self-awareness of just how bad the Lib Dems find themselves in having propped up the Tories...

Labour are without doubt the worst opposition in modern times | Red Box



			
				TimNiceButDim said:
			
		

> Over the last few weeks they have made a litany of errors that show that they are not only unfit for opposition, but wholly unfit for government.
> 
> From dithering over shoot to kill, the mess over Syria, and voting three ways over Trident, to posing with a set of pledges that include wanting to scrap armed police and MI5, Labour are becoming a national joke.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

farron gong is proper deluded. This simpering, nice, christian lib dem is going to vote for bombs on weds.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2015)

His conscience won't let him support gay marriage but war? No problem


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Tim Farron  propping up the tories again.


doesn't have the character, wit or charm to prop up the bar instead.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 1, 2015)

binka said:


> the lib dems are going to vote in favour of bombing syria apparently???


Fucking vermin. I'm not surprised by the about face, typical spineless yellow scum behaviour, but I am surprised that they don't think voting against would be the better political move.


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2015)

I thought the entire Lib Dem party were members of the House of Lords these days


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 1, 2015)

Fitting really that it was Clegg wheeled out tonight to lend support to the Tories again.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 2, 2015)

LibDems proving yet again how utterly useless they are...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2015)

Their much vaunted opposition to the invasion of iraq was pretty much the same position they are taking today.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2015)

Cunts


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2015)

they didn't even have the decency to die properly, left this annoying rump so they can summon mighty statesman clegg to make the case for bombs.


----------



## hipipol (Dec 2, 2015)

Corbyn reminds me of old celery
Flaccid and slightly bitter
Pref the tossbag Tim
He may be an idiot but at least he's not a rigidly polemical, mentally atrophied stuck in the 70s Spartist twat


----------



## hipipol (Dec 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they didn't even have the decency to die properly, left this annoying rump so they can summon mighty statesman clegg to make the case for bombs.


You already have a rather reactionary Imperialist template to follow, as described in numerous Rider Haggard "novels" by those who fail the high standards of honour you expect from others - for an honourable death
Why so slow at levelling the Webley  at yourself?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2015)

liquid lunch was it?


----------



## Santino (Dec 2, 2015)

Perhaps he's feeling a bit webley himself.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 2, 2015)

hipipol said:


> Corbyn reminds me of old celery
> Flaccid and slightly bitter
> Pref the tossbag Tim
> He may be an idiot but at least he's not a rigidly polemical, mentally atrophied stuck in the 70s Spartist twat



hipipol thanks for sharing your preference for an unprincipled idiot...most informative.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Zabo (Dec 2, 2015)

Tim - Talk - Like - A - Dalek


----------



## sihhi (Dec 4, 2015)

Lib Dem leaflet






That's councillors for Oldham Council which covers more than the boundary of the parliament seat 

NB parliament seat results in May this year, they came a distant *fourth* with under 4% of the vote, losing their deposit


----------



## JimW (Dec 4, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Lib Dem leaflet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just saying on the by-election coverage that none of the councillors are in the constituency contested.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2015)

The Orkney campaigners seeking to hold Alistair Carmichael accountable for his behaviour before, during and after the election campaign need more funding to meet legal costs.



https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-people-versus-carmichael#/


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 8, 2015)

The judges' decision on the Carmichael case is due tomorrow: 



Morrison and others v Alistair Carmichael MP and another - Media and Publications - Judiciary of Scotland

"The Election Court’s determination in the petition of Timothy Morrison and others against Alistair Carmichael MP will be published at 12 noon on Wednesday 9 December. A summary will be issued at 10.30am."


----------



## belboid (Dec 8, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The judges' decision on the Carmichael case is due tomorrow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guilty, *guilty, guilty*

We hope


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 8, 2015)

Fingers crossed (not optimistic though).


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

Not long until the summary is issued. Meanwhile, either way the campaign needs funds. If you can spare a few quid the link's up there. ^


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

Unconfirmed reports that he's about to be let off.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 9, 2015)

ffs


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

"Timothy Morrison and others v Alistair Carmichael MP and Alistair Buchan

Wednesday, 9 December, 2015
Court Opinions

A petition challenging the election of Alistair Carmichael as Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland has been refused after judges ruled it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed an “illegal practice”."


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2015)

cunts


----------



## J Ed (Dec 9, 2015)

Better Together


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2015)

Yet another example of an MP being bullied by his constituents. Thank god good sense has prevailed.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 9, 2015)

Fucks sake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yet another example of an MP being bullied by his constituents. Thank god good sense has prevailed.


as the tories would say, it makes a change from being bullied by their own party


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2015)

*The court said Alistair Carmichael had told “a blatant lie” about his knowledge of the leak.*

But that's okay, apparently, cos it wasn't referring to his own character????

The fucker wants to sue the petitioners for 150k now, too


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Better Together


shurely 'bitter together'


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> *The court said Alistair Carmichael had told “a blatant lie” about his knowledge of the leak.*
> 
> But that's okay, apparently, cos it wasn't referring to his own character????
> 
> The fucker wants to sue the petitioners for 150k now, too


He has been far from exonerated by the judgement.

"In evidence, the first respondent* gave the impression that the timing of his admission was purely as a result of the rate of progress of the Cabinet Office inquiry. In our opinion however, the first respondent’s approach to the inquiry was at best disingenuous, at worst evasive and self-serving.  We consider that he could and should have been straightforward and candid in his response to the inquiry.  That would have been likely to reveal his involvement in the leak at some time prior to the election, so that his constituents, when voting, would have been “in full possession of the facts during the election” (in the third petitioner’s words, transcript 9 November 2015 page 20).  It is our opinion that his failure to be straightforward and candid with the inquiry resulted from his hope that he would not be identified as being involved in the leak – preferably not identified at all, but at least not identified until after the election on 7 May 2015, as otherwise his chances of electoral success might be prejudicially affected.

[70]  On the evidence, the subsequent revelation of what could be seen as a deliberate “cover-up” by the first respondent very much enhanced the shock, outrage and upset felt by his constituents when the inquiry published its results on 22 May 2015, a fortnight after the election.  We refer to the comments of the third petitioner and the Independent Highlands and Islands MSP, quoted in paragraphs [37] and [38] above.  Ultimately however the first respondent’s unimpressive response to the inquiry, although showing him in a bad light, and resulting in his constituents being initially misled and then justifiably shocked and dismayed on discovering that they had been so misled, cannot alter our conclusion that section 106 does not, on a proper application of the law to the facts proved, apply in this case."

Judgment



* *Respondent* 

(1) A person who enters the process of a petition to oppose it.

(2) The person against whom an appeal to a higher court from a lower court is made.

Glossary - Help - Judiciary of Scotland


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

"Credibility and reliability
[8]		We had no concerns about the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, with one exception:  that related to the first respondent’s evidence that, in the context of questions about the source of the leak, he was not concerned about his reputation or his standing in the constituency.  In our opinion the evidence generally, and in particular the evidence about the furious reaction to the leak, the immediate investigation into its source, and the first respondent’s disingenuous approach when responding to the Cabinet Office inquiry, taken with the first respondent’s own evidence in court, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent hoped not to be identified as being involved with the leak, all as further discussed in paragraphs [65] and [68] to [70] below.  We accordingly did not accept the first respondent’s evidence on that matter."


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2015)

arses


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2015)

I wonder if any Orcadians still follow their ancestral tradition of the "blood eagle"?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 9, 2015)

Lallands Peat Worrier: No vindication here. Only survival.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 18, 2015)

The piece of homophobic filth that is Shirley Williams is retiring from the Lords, hopefully someone will poison the drinks at her retirement do. 





> Williams continued to play an active part in the second chamber under the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition. Initially, she opposed the government’s health reforms, describing them as stealth privatisation.
> 
> She was then criticised after deciding to support the government’s modified proposals, backing the decision of the then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg at the 2012 Lib Dem conference.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 18, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> The piece of homophobic filth that is Shirley Williams is retiring from the Lords, hopefully someone will poison the drinks at her retirement do.


Well, no, I don't agree with poisoning but am very happy to see the back of her - not a day too soon.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Well, no, I don't agree with poisoning but am very happy to see the back of her - not a day too soon.


So your more of bullet in the back of the head type of person. Never mind it's all good.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2015)

All grist to the lime pits.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 19, 2015)

emanymton said:


> So your more of bullet in the back of the head type of person. Never mind it's all good.


LOL. I'm not stabby either.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 19, 2015)

But good riddance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> All grist to the lime pits.



I knew you'd come round, sooner or later.


----------



## sihhi (Dec 24, 2015)

_She will say: “The fact is that *conservatism regards business as supporting the status quo, but for Liberals, business is about change*. It’s about allowing new ideas to challenge old ones, allowing the small to challenge the big.”

Making a pitch for the support of Wales entrepreneurs, she will say: “Entrepreneurism and liberalism are at one on so many issues: Believing that no-one owes us a living and that Government shouldn’t get in the way of us making a living; believing that, given the opportunity, we can make a difference through our own individual talents and vision; believing everyone deserves that same chance to succeed regardless of where they come from.

“It’s about wanting to be creative and innovative, supporting people to be their own boss, and letting them thrive in creating opportunities for others.”_


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Dec 25, 2015)

Didn't know you could actually retire from the house of lords, I always thought of it as something you did _when _you retired.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 3, 2016)

Vince Cable has dropped a strong hint about a 'Lib-Lab pact'




			
				Indy said:
			
		

> *Lib Dems should work with Labour MPs opposed to Jeremy Corbyn to create 'effective opposition', says Vince Cable*
> 
> The Liberal Democrats and Labour MPs opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership will have to “work together” to create an “effective opposition” to the Government, Sir Vince Cable has said.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Jan 3, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Vince Cable has dropped a strong hint about a 'Lib-Lab pact'



Not so much Lib-Lab as Lib-SDP-Labour-finks-Mark-2

LibDemDems?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 3, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Vince Cable has dropped a strong hint about a 'Lib-Lab pact'



With any amount of luck his serial ineptness will scare away anyone who might have have been even remotely interested.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2016)

Wonder why the ex-mp has been forced to independent it?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Vince Cable has dropped a strong hint about a 'Lib-Lab pact'


 
In practical terms what does this even mean, that they are all going to vote with the government together?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 3, 2016)

I do particularly like the 'one-party state under the Conservatives with no convincing opposition.' bit - like the Lib Dems actually did anything in coalition to oppose them?


----------



## laptop (Jan 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In practical terms what does this even mean, that they are all going to vote with the government together?



Clearly, a call for right-wingers to leave Labour and form a "social democrat party" mark 2... Starting with working with Clegg now. [/for younger readers]


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

My MP's twitter output...read from bottom, obviously...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

Meanwhile... cunt gets cunt's job for being a cunt.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Meanwhile... cunt gets cunt's job for being a cunt.


Can you paraphrase the article for those of us non subscribers?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 5, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Can you paraphrase the article for those of us non subscribers?


I think he's done a sterling job already.
but....



Spoiler: Danny boy makes good



Danny Alexander, the former Treasury minister appointed vice-president of a Chinese-led Asian investment bank, has dismissed criticisms that he is not qualified to do the job.

Sir Danny, who has been taking Mandarin lessons ahead of his posting to Beijing, said that similar criticisms were made of him before he became Treasury chief secretary in the coalition government.

*More*
*ON THIS TOPIC*

Alexander confirmed in senior AIIB role
Robert Shrimsley Selling Alexander to China
Alexander fails to impress Beijing
Alexander set for top Beijing AIIB role
*IN UK POLITICS & POLICY*

Age UK to ‘keep focusing on commerce’
Cameron wins Poland over to welfare curbs
Call for charities to show results
Immigration key issue for Portsmouth voters
“I think I proved people wrong,” the former Liberal Democrat minister said in an interview with the Financial Times. Sir Danny was George Osborne’s deputy at the Treasury, responsible for implementing cuts and bringing down Britain’s record deficit.

“Over five years we put the economy back on track and provided solid foundations for this Conservative government,” he said with heavy irony. “I’m very proud of what we achieved but sorry I lost my seat.”

Mr Osborne also felt sorry for his deputy and rewarded him by nominating him as one of five vice-presidents of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, even though the job description required lengthy experience in international finance.

Officials in Beijing close to the nomination process also criticised Mr Osborne’s nomination, saying they would have preferred a leading financier to a professional politician.

But Sir Danny said his role would involve ensuring strong communications between the Beijing-based bank and its 57 founding members — including Britain, France and Germany — over its plans and operations.

“We have to make sure they are fully engaged and that we proceed together,” he said, in a tacit acknowledgment there could be teething problems as the Chinese-led equivalent of the World Bank takes the stage.

I’m looking forward to getting to know China and getting to know people in Beijing. I want to understand more about how the system works
- Sir Danny Alexander

He said it was “the right initiative at the right time” and the AIIB would help to fund infrastructure in Asia that would help to sustain growth and help to reduce carbon emissions.

He said that as a Liberal he was a big supporter of multilateral organisations, but he did not seem to recognise the apparent problem of working in Beijing for a bank backed by a Chinese government with an illiberal view of human rights.

“I’m looking forward to getting to know China and getting to know people in Beijing,” he said. “I want to understand more about how the system works.

“The job I’m doing is with the AIIB and I very much applaud the Chinese government initiative in setting it up. It’s a great opportunity for more co-operation across Asia.”

Sir Danny said he and Mr Osborne agreed in 2015 that it would be right for Britain to be a founding member of the bank, in spite of the opprobrium of the White House. One US official bemoaned Britain’s “constant accommodation” of China.

Asked whether the AIIB job was payback time after being Mr Osborne’s sidekick during the coalition government, Sir Danny said: “We worked very closely and effectively over five years. He knows me and what I can do. But my skills and experience are what’s important.”

Although the 43-year-old said he was making “slow but steady progress” in learning Mandarin, the working language of the bank will be English.

He is on a three-year contract but says he has no immediate plans to return to British politics to help his ailing party ahead of the 2020 general election. “My life has taken a different turn now,” he said.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Can you paraphrase the article for those of us non subscribers?


Apologies.


> Danny Alexander, the former Treasury minister *appointed vice-president of a Chinese-led Asian investment bank,* has dismissed criticisms that he is not qualified to do the job.
> 
> Sir Danny, who has been taking Mandarin lessons ahead of his posting to Beijing, said that similar criticisms were made of him before he became Treasury chief secretary in the coalition government.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> My MP's twitter output...read from bottom, obviously...



I hope he dies.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I hope he dies.


No reply to my reply...



Venal cunt takes his constituents for fools.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> No reply to my reply...
> 
> 
> 
> Venal cunt takes his constituents for fools.




Lib Dem activists online like to bang on about how much they care about mental health and how that makes them different from the Tories, of course they don't like it when you bring up how people were actually treated during assessments by ATOS. They really do think that it doesn't matter what they do as long as they say the right things.

Like an abusive partner who beats their partner and tells them 'I'm doing this for your own good'


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They really do think that it doesn't matter what they do as long as they say the right things.


Useful definition of..


----------



## J Ed (Feb 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Useful definition of..



I can think of a lot of diff words


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 19, 2016)

This seems like a good place to put this: http://www.libdemvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-Election-Review-Final-Report.pdf
It seems the Liberal Democrats are being honest about their reasons for their wipe out. They are openly talking of the 'fightback' round here after some decent results last night.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 19, 2016)

Surely we're now fast approaching the stage where the 'are' in the thread title can be swicthed for a 'were'?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2016)

SpineyNorman said:


> Surely we're now fast approaching the stage where the 'are' in the thread title can be swicthed for a 'were'?


They're shit, and they know they are.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2016)

Remember the Lib Dems? They were shit, weren't they?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 19, 2016)

Still claiming this bullshit they did the right thing by coalition - fucking scum.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Still claiming this bullshit they did the right thing by coalition - fucking scum.


Keep it up, I say.


----------



## gosub (Feb 21, 2016)

Tim Fallon doing his Sunday Politics interview from a rainy park in Kendall....  Only explanation I could come up with: he has been reduced to sleeping on a park bench


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> Tim Fallon doing his Sunday Politics interview from a rainy park in Kendall....  Only explanation I could come up with: he has been reduced to sleeping on a park bench


Next to a church?


----------



## gosub (Feb 21, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Next to a church?



couldn't see one, looked like the middle of a park, with him standing there getting rained on, without an umbrella,hood or hat


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> couldn't see one, looked like the middle of a park, with him standing there getting rained on, without an umbrella,hood or hat


His Lord will provide all the weather protection he needs.


----------



## gosub (Feb 21, 2016)

He had a coat on.  Might have got that from a church jumble sale


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> He had a coat on.  Might have got that from a church jumble sale


Might have nicked it from a church jumble sale.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Might have nicked it from a church jumble sale.


or the poor fucker who really does live on the park bench.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2016)

What a bastard he is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 22, 2016)

I think the fact he's Tim Farron is evidence enough that this definitely happened.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 24, 2016)

Greens drawing level with Lib Dems:


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Greens drawing level with Lib Dems:




Liked because I hate the Lib Dems not cos I like the Greens cos I don't

Some fucking Green moron on my friend's FB was slagging off the doctors strike, the party is full of Tories that smoke a bit of weed and like animals or whatever just like the Lib Dems.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 24, 2016)

Great to see the Lib Dems sinking without trace.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2016)

Clegg voting with Tories (again) on Sunday trading.


----------



## LeslieB (Mar 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Clegg voting with Tories (again) on Sunday trading.



Good. Shame it wasn't enough to get it passed though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Liked because I hate the Lib Dems not cos I like the Greens cos I don't
> 
> Some fucking Green moron on my friend's FB was slagging off the doctors strike, the party is full of Tories that smoke a bit of weed and like animals or whatever just like the Lib Dems.


cuicad...no I can't spell it. But the spaniard libs


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 25, 2016)

The National View: Orkney Four are more deserving of trust’s cash than shamed MP

"YOU really couldn’t make it up. Alistair Carmichael, the shamed MP for Orkney and Shetland and self-confessed liar – a sobriquet confirmed by two senior judges – has managed to squeeze £34,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) to help him with his £150,000 legal bill from the Frenchgate case."


----------



## brogdale (Mar 25, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The National View: Orkney Four are more deserving of trust’s cash than shamed MP
> 
> "YOU really couldn’t make it up. Alistair Carmichael, the shamed MP for Orkney and Shetland and self-confessed liar – a sobriquet confirmed by two senior judges – has managed to squeeze £34,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) to help him with his £150,000 legal bill from the Frenchgate case."





> It (JRRT) operates by a set of guidelines – according to a spokesperson they are not rules – and gave Carmichael the cash despite its website listing *legal fees as among “What we don’t fund”.*


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 25, 2016)

Anyone wishing to tell the JRTT what they think will find these details useful.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 25, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> The National View: Orkney Four are more deserving of trust’s cash than shamed MP
> 
> "YOU really couldn’t make it up. Alistair Carmichael, the shamed MP for Orkney and Shetland and self-confessed liar – a sobriquet confirmed by two senior judges – has managed to squeeze £34,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) to help him with his £150,000 legal bill from the Frenchgate case."


Fucking hell, what absolute scum - both Carmichael and the JRRT.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2016)

And what the fuck did you do in coalition to help that situation, Lamb?

Government is 'failing to honour' flagship mental health policy


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And what the fuck did you do in coalition to help that situation, Lamb?
> 
> Government is 'failing to honour' flagship mental health policy



A regime of assessments and constant harassment is basically the same thing as treatment...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And what the fuck did you do in coalition to help that situation, Lamb?
> 
> Government is 'failing to honour' flagship mental health policy



TBF, Lamb's constituency (and the other constituencies in Norfolk) have pretty shite in-patient and out-patient provision for mental health issues across the board (according to members of my family), so he was probably hoping that greater funding would have ramped up local provision.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 29, 2016)

Quaker trust has granted Lib Dems millions

"THE QUAKER trust under fire for donating tens of thousands of pounds to disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael has also funded Willie Rennie and Tim Farron, as well as giving nearly £5m to the party since 2004."


----------



## weepiper (Apr 8, 2016)

Wille Rennie, leader of the Scottish Lib Dems, breaking the cardinal rule of TV appearances in _spectacular_ fashion here


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2016)

Perfect


----------



## Celyn (Apr 8, 2016)

Ha, I saw there had been another post here and guessed it would be that one.   

Aw, it's nice that Willie Rennie is getting all the publicity he could want now, isn't it?  I bet he's dead chuffed.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 8, 2016)

Is it just me being dim, or is his wee speech there a load of meaningless burble?


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2016)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 17, 2016)

Their pathetic result in the Tooting bye-election gives an excellent reason to bump this thread. 



> *Full result:*
> 
> Rosena Chantelle Allin-Khan (Labour Party) - 17,894 (55.9% +8.7%)
> Dan Watkins (Conservative Party) - 11,537 (36.1% -5.8%)
> ...


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

Liberal Democrats pledge to ignore referendum result and keep Britain in the EU

'democrats'


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Liberal Democrats pledge to ignore referendum result and keep Britain in the EU
> 
> 'democrats'


 
dunno really

if they stand for election on that basis, and get elected to form a majority government on that basis...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2016)

Typical of their political opportunism, it's actually not a bad strategy for the yellow wankers, hoovering up the sulking liberal vote.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 26, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno really
> 
> if they stand for election on that basis, and get elected to form a majority government on that basis...


11m people voted Tory in the last election. 17m voted Thursday to leave the EU.

What sort of numbers would you think the Lib Dems would need to be justified in ignoring the democratic result of the EU ref?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> 11m people voted Tory in the last election. 17m voted Thursday to leave the EU.
> 
> What sort of numbers would you think the Lib Dems would need to be justified in ignoring the democratic result of the EU ref?


 
my thoughts on the prospects of the lib dems forming a majority government -


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 26, 2016)

....not sure exactly were Tim & the Gang are on this continuum...


----------



## mk12 (Jun 26, 2016)

Twitter says 4000 people have joined the libdems since Friday.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Twitter says 4000 people have joined the libdems since Friday.


How many have left?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Twitter says 4000 people have joined the libdems since Friday.


But what % of that is former ShadCab members?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Twitter says 4000 people have joined the libdems since Friday.


It is good to have something to laugh about in these difficult times.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 27, 2016)

#yellowtorysurge


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2016)

Irony spins in its grave.

Alistair Carmichael proposes an "Office of Electoral Integrity":


Carmichael provokes scorn as liar MP says: 'let’s punish liars'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 6, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> Irony spins in its grave.
> 
> Alistair Carmichael proposes an "Office of Electoral Integrity":
> 
> ...



The level of stupidity and/or delusion that shows is gob smacking!

Thanks for making me chuckle - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 11, 2016)

> Labour, *the Lib Dems* and the Greens *are calling for a snap general election*, rather than waiting for the contest scheduled for 2020 under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.


That'll be the Lib Dems that argued for, and secured Fixed Term Parliaments under the coalition agreement, then?


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> That'll be the Lib Dems that argued for, and secured Fixed Term Parliaments under the coalition agreement, then?


shh, dont mention the war coalition


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno really
> 
> if they stand for election on that basis, and get elected to form a majority government on that basis...


It's a good strategy for them in Scotland, apart from that Scotland may well stick with SNP. Hilariously though, they've run the numbers to find 20 remain seats and 26 leave seats; if they think it's re-running the referendum then they're losing 3 seats. Which they then spin into this strategy not even deserving criticism (spin includes taking 11 seats in Scotland for granted for no reason I can fathom): How did our constituencies vote in the EU Referendum?.

Looking at the numbers, and I've no reason to doubt them, their position is frankly mental unless they merge with some PLP / Greens and really take on London.


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 11, 2016)

As a newcomer, I'd like to comment that there are 281 pages here, so sorry if that link was posted before, I just can't bear to start in at the beginning and work through it to check.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jul 15, 2016)

"The only way is up....baby"

Lib Dems win best local election results 'in a decade' in wake of EU referendum


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2016)

wheelie_bin said:


> As a newcomer, I'd like to comment that there are 281 pages here, so sorry if that link was posted before, I just can't bear to start in at the beginning and work through it to check.


a newcomer who has been here for 9 years i see


----------



## wheelie_bin (Jul 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a newcomer who has been here for 9 years i see


Haha, yeah but I've been living on another forum for ages! Came back for humour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2016)

no comment required:

Nick Clegg spent £8,000 remaking Carly Rae Jepsen video in an attempt to go viral



> Nick Clegg spent almost £8,000 filming a remake of a Carly Rae Jepsen video in a desperate attempt to stay relevant in the run up to the 2015 general election.
> 
> The former Lib Dem leader hammed it up, playing Tom Hanks ' role in the viral sensation, "I Really Like You".
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2016)

Lib Dems are so toxic now that they have created a front group



It even has an awful slew of liberal celeb endorsements


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2016)

> *When I went into my yoga class at 9.15*, _@MoreUnitedUK had 300 followers. Now 1.6k & climbing!_


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2016)

tbf, this could have gone in the Guardian/pan thread with it's laughable headline...but hey ho....



> Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said: “Lib Dems will work to block any Tory attempt to create grammar schools.”


Whereas...on the ground here in the suburbs of the former 'golden crescent' of SW London LibDem seats...my local MP seems pretty pleased with the impacts of super-selective, Grammar schools....


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2016)

Another arm-twisted entryist.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

Old i know (2013), but just shows what twats beyond twats they are:

So, about that Lib Dem wipeout in 2015 then…



> Here, now, is my best guess on the basis of current polling (which I think will differ significantly from the actual 2015 poll): Labour would win most of their targets while the Lib Dems would defend about half their seats from Tory attack. So let me guesstimate that at Labour winning 12/16; and the Tories 4/9. That totals 16 losses, taking the party down to c.40 seats. Again, that’s bad, verging on disastrous. But it’s still not wipeout, still not annihilation.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, none of this is to suggest the Lib Dems should be in any way remotely complacent: wipeout remains a possibility. Nor am I suggesting for a moment we should be sanguine about losing even a third of our MPs: turning the clock back to 1997 is a depressing thought. But the words ‘wipeout’ and ‘annihilation’ are glibly thrown about by the media without considering what that means in terms of the actual seats Lib Dems must lose for such a calamity to happen.



Stephen's later posts all seem to be about the lib-dem fantasy football league. Not enough members for  H2H.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

Clegg moaning about Osborne's attacks on the poor:
Clegg: Osborne casually cut welfare for poorest to boost Tory popularity
Lucky he didn't end up in a coalition with him or owt. Phew!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2016)

Clegg can take his weird forehead and go fuck himself. Sour grapes over having found out that 'wow, the tories really are shits' after they fucked you over. Well thanks for that.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2016)

Book to flog.
As cynical as he is hypocritical.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Clegg moaning about Osborne's attacks on the poor:
> Clegg: Osborne casually cut welfare for poorest to boost Tory popularity
> Lucky he didn't end up in a coalition with him or owt. Phew!




> _Said he could now see that his decision to back a policy that would triple tuition fees to £9,000, breaking a Lib Dem pledge, was like delivering a *punch in the face* to parents who dreamed of watching their children graduate_.


Punch in the face...hmmm.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2016)

All them new houses.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 2, 2016)

Bit like Rose West producing an autobiog for the Christmas market: 'Well, our Fred, who'd have thought it'.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 11, 2016)

LibDem wanker (re)joins Tories  


> “Her education speech last week showed she leads a party with a real commitment to delivering for the next generation and building a country that works for everyone.
> 
> “We in the Conservative party have a great history of diversity, optimism in our people’s creativity and success.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> ​Punch in the face...hmmm.


TBF it's more unisex than a kick in the bollocks....


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2016)

> _*I admire Tony Blair for beating Tories, says Tim Farron*_
> 
> _*Liberal Democrat leader says his party is now only one that can throw out Conservative government*_



Obviously, this could also go in the Guardian/shit thread.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Sep 16, 2016)

Farron reckons he can be Britain's Justin Trudeau. 

The 11 sexiest pictures of Tim Farron as he compares himself to Justin Trudeau


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2016)

Wolveryeti said:


> Farron reckons he can be Britain's Justin Trudeau.
> 
> The 11 sexiest pictures of Tim Farron as he compares himself to Justin Trudeau


Tim 'Fallon' is such a rich seam.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2016)

As I was saying....

Jesus


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As I was saying....
> 
> Jesus





> He said he did not understand why people were critical of his refusal to say whether he thought gay sex was sinful.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

The same Farron who claimed a tweet from his account about a _cure _for homosexuality was the result of him being hacked? The same clown who says "“I’m passionate about LGBT plus rights, for example.  As leader of a liberal party that will be something that will be on the top of my agenda.”?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Look at this cunt:


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)

Top value.


----------



## mather (Sep 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Top value.




Thats bloody rich coming from him and his fellow liberal remainers. 

There is nothing more sad and pathetic than the sight of a liberal non-entity like Farron desperately trying to be relevant, fuck him and all who support him!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

mather said:


> Thats bloody rich coming from him and his fellow liberal remainers.
> 
> There is nothing more sad and pathetic than the sight of a liberal non-entity like Farron desperately trying to be relevant, fuck him and all who support him!


Fuk da police etc


----------



## mather (Sep 19, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Fuk da police etc



WTF are you on about?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)

mather said:


> WTF are you on about?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2016)

Nothing


----------



## mather (Sep 19, 2016)

I still don't get it.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)

mather said:


> I still don't get it.


Keep up at the back.


----------



## mather (Sep 19, 2016)

Ok, I missed that story. It just backs up what I said before, a sad and pathetic man trying to be relevant and judging by 'musical tastes' desperately trying to be down with the youth.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2016)

> *Lib Dem split emerges over policy of seeking second EU referendum*


4:4?
5:3?
6:2?
or 7:1?

Have I missed any permutation?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 21, 2016)

LibDems bravely defending the rights of multi-millionaires


> The Southwark Lib Dem councillor, Adele Morris, has tried to help broker a solution.
> 
> .......
> “Would he be saying the same thing if it was a council flat? Is it to do with the presumption that these people are rich and they get what they deserve buying a flat like that? I don’t agree with that, I think everybody is entitled to a certain amount of privacy.”





> A flat in the block currently costs in the region of £4.5m. The final available penthouses are being marketed at £5.95m.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2016)

brogdale said:


> 4:4?
> 5:3?
> 6:2?
> or 7:1?
> ...


Perhaps both members are involved in this impasse


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2016)

why do they look like they are at a happy clappy baptist church meeting and really getting into the songs
Lib Dems bid to be voice of Remain voters after surprise surge in Witney byelection


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 23, 2016)

A good result for the Lib Dems that does provide them with some reason for encouragement going forward. I wonder how many more seats they can win by pitching themselves as the "party of Remain voters".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> A good result for the Lib Dems that does provide them with some reason for encouragement going forward. I wonder how many more seats they can win by pitching themselves as the "party of Remain voters".


None - they will not win back any seats by doing that - places where remain won the the referendum vote are the places that already convincingly rejected the lib-dems - and where the other parties will be selecting remain-friendly candidates. This was yet another lib-dem potemkin by-election (see every single one in the last parliament) result produced by a series of unrepeatable factors or ones that will no longer be live come the 2020 election. The twats.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> A good result for the Lib Dems that does provide them with some reason for encouragement going forward. I wonder how many more seats they can win by pitching themselves as the "party of Remain voters".


Yes, but their by-election performance can really only be seen as "good" in the sense that it drew them back from the brink and restored most of their base...

Lib Dem votes in Witney:

By election: 11,611

2015: 3,953

2010: 11,233

2005: 12,415

2001: 10,000

1997: 11,202

1992: 13,393

1987: 14,994


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> None - they will not win back any seats by doing that - places where remain won the the referendum vote are the places that already convincingly rejected the lib-dems - and where the other parties will be selecting remain-friendly candidates. This was yet another lib-dem potemkin by-election (see every single one in the last parliament) result produced by a series of unrepeatable factors or ones that will no longer be live come the 2020 election. The twats.


True, and neither was this a remarkably bad tory result, (in historical context)....


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Oct 23, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> None - they will not win back any seats by doing that - places where remain won the the referendum vote are the places that already convincingly rejected the lib-dems - and where the other parties will be selecting remain-friendly candidates. This was yet another lib-dem potemkin by-election (see every single one in the last parliament) result produced by a series of unrepeatable factors or ones that will no longer be live come the 2020 election. The twats.


 We'll have to wait and see. I do think they have an opportunity to win over a lot of remain voters and also disaffected and moderate labour party voters fed up with the direction the party is heading under Jeremy Corbyn. There was also a recent poll which showed more voters identify themselves as being 'centrist' than any other position, so there is some reason for encouragement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2016)

I don't see centrism as it defined now as anything hopeful.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 23, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2016)

The living embodiment of middle class angst....



This is the pic used by NI (Times) to go with bylines for his output in their organs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The living embodiment of middle class angst....
> 
> View attachment 94327
> 
> This is the pic used by NI (Times) to go with bylines for his output in their organs.


The face you expect to see when you tell someone their p45's in the post


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2016)

He looks like he's curling one out for Oaten.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2016)

The new Lib Dem shadow cabinet is revealed.

Can anyone spot the obvious problem?


----------



## Santino (Nov 1, 2016)

Look at that shit photograph on the wall.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The new Lib Dem shadow cabinet is revealed.
> 
> Can anyone spot the obvious problem?
> 
> View attachment 94721


does the answer begin with H?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2016)

Santino said:


> Look at that shit photograph on the wall.


Could it be a photographic record of some unveiling of a pledge?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2016)

Lib Dems fined £20,000 for undeclared election spending



> The Liberal Democrats have been hit with a maximum £20,000 fine by the Electoral Commission for failing to declare hundreds of items of campaign spending at the general election.
> 
> The watchdog has notified the police of a possible electoral offence after 307 payments totalling £184,676 were found to be missing from the Liberal Democrats’ spending return “without a reasonable excuse”.





> In addition, invoices supporting 122 out of the 307 payments were
> missing from the return. It found the declaration to the Electoral Commission may have been signed recklessly, as there was evidence indicating some people in the party knew it was incorrect


----------



## treelover (Dec 7, 2016)

> *Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to rule out going into coalition with Tories again*
> *Farron spoke to IBTimes UK about Brexit and his party's Richmond Park by-election victory.*
> 
> Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to rule out going into coalition with Tories again



btw, lots of momentum fb page supporters defending them.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 7, 2016)

This should not come as any kind of surprise.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 7, 2016)

treelover said:


> btw, lots of momentum fb page supporters defending them.



Do you mean people on the Momentum Facebook page, who do not have to be supporters to post? Or do you mean people who support Momentums Facebook page?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The new Lib Dem shadow cabinet is revealed.
> 
> Can anyone spot the obvious problem?
> 
> View attachment 94721


it's not a basement in ekaterinburg


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2016)

Didn't think Osborne would  sink this low.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't think Osborne would  sink this low.


That bit in the shitty 'Apprentice' when the losers gather in the caff for a blamefest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2017)

Clegg gives advice on how to win referendums: Nick Clegg: Cameron ignored my advice to rethink Brexit campaign

Nick Clegg: Cameron ignored my advice to rethink  Brexit campaign


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2017)

22% of LD MPs defied their party whip in the A50 vote (against Labour's 21%)!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 1, 2017)

I think he might have an even more punchable face than Clegg


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> I think he might have an even more punchable face than Clegg


9 fucking MPs, one policy and they can't even whip the parliamentary party through the same lobby...FFS.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2017)

Could be shit stirring from the LibDems mouthpiece, but it's certainly what some people want.

Labour looks at collaborating with Lib Dems and Greens in Stoke


> Jeremy Corbyn’s team have informally explored the idea of collaborating with the Greens and Liberal Democrats in Stoke-on-Trent Central to keep Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, out of parliament.
> 
> A senior figure in the Labour leader’s office has asked a go-between what it would take to persuade the Lib Dems and Greens to dial down their campaigns, or even withdraw candidates, in the byelection later this month, the Guardian understands.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 23, 2017)

This near you DotCommunist ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This near you DotCommunist ?



yeah thats barton seagrave. Village-ish little place. Very nimby. You can get through it on a bike very quickly if you go the main route. Just another of those half-extant villages nudging up next to towny sprawls you get in this borough. It's not a bad place in honesty, looks nice enough (not chocolate box village nice but quietly shabby-genteel).

take that to kettering proper wards and you'll be seeing w/c tory, ukip and english democrat votes. Labour lost here ages ago.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 24, 2017)

The lib dems seem to have taken the opportunity while the other parties were focused on these parliamentary byelections to be targeting council byelections to rebuild their Councillor base, winning 8 of the 13 council seats that have changed hands since the start of the year.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2017)

This is "real"


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> This is "real"



Christ. They are just utter twats aren't they. Kill the lot of them.


----------



## elbows (Mar 14, 2017)

Quality 



> A Lib Dem mayoral candidate was mistakenly billed in campaign material as standing for Labour.
> 
> Households were sent a leaflet giving "three reasons to back Beverley Nielsen for West Midlands Labour mayor".
> 
> ...



Lib Dem mayoral candidate mistakenly billed as Labour hopeful - BBC News


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> Quality
> 
> 
> 
> Lib Dem mayoral candidate mistakenly billed as Labour hopeful - BBC News


----------



## emanymton (Mar 14, 2017)

Clearly a devious ploy to split the Labour vote and let the Tories win.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 3, 2017)

This pile of shite...

Nick Clegg urges liberals and centrists to unite against hard Brexiters


----------



## moochedit (Apr 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> Quality
> 
> 
> 
> Lib Dem mayoral candidate mistakenly billed as Labour hopeful - BBC News




"mistakenly"


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 3, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> This pile of shite...
> 
> Nick Clegg urges liberals and centrists to unite against hard Brexiters




That was painfully shite (OK, beyond shite) that article .....


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 18, 2017)

Just making sure it's captured here too...


----------



## PursuedByBears (Apr 18, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Just making sure it's captured here too...


Shared.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2017)

WE'RE BACK!!!


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2017)

Bunch of completely worthless chancers.

/stating the obvious


----------



## chilango (Apr 18, 2017)

Too many fucking lozenges in South Lakeland right now. This worries me.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 18, 2017)

He's a dribbly fart of a man, that farron. A yellow, dribbly, watery fart of a man.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

Farron was back dodging the homosex=sin question live on C4 News...again.


----------



## gosub (Apr 18, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> WE'RE BACK!!!




  As in :


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

The utter prick stood live on C4 News and said how voting for May's tories would = disaster of hard Brexit (etc etc) and then actually refused to rule out another coalition govt with the vermin.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 18, 2017)

He really does deserve a punch in the face.


----------



## chilango (Apr 19, 2017)

Feeling more reassured now. 

Even if their vote rises as a result of corralling the h/c remainer vote. Hopefully it'll be spread around the country and not in any winning concentrations anywhere.

Caroline Lucas making a massive fucking mistake promoting the idea of standing aside for Lib Dems too.


----------



## mather (Apr 19, 2017)

chilango said:


> Caroline Lucas making a massive fucking mistake promoting the idea of standing aside for Lib Dems too.



Regardless of whether this is a mistake or not, it is perfectly in line with her politics and that of the Green Party. They are just liberals with a rather superficial radical gloss, nothing more.


----------



## chilango (Apr 19, 2017)

mather said:


> Regardless of whether this is a mistake or not, it is perfectly in line with her politics and that of the Green Party. They are just liberals with a rather superficial radical gloss, nothing more.



True enough.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 19, 2017)

Fucking Lib Dem scum.

Jesus.

Better not see anyone on Facebook bigging them up, there's always one...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2017)

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in graunid thread

Tim Farron says he doesn't believe being gay is a sin

Of course, Farron is able to answer this question in a weaselly way because he can answer in the negative while still believing that _gay sex _is a sin which means that his position on there is roughly the same as that of say ISIS who also do not believe that _being gay _is a sin.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Apr 20, 2017)

I see former Medway MP for Labour Bob Marshall Andrews has defected to the Yellows, I don't think that will be much of a blow to Labour or boost to his new party despite his former friendship with JC, he is no man of the people.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 20, 2017)

I had a chat with a former LibDem MP who claimed that his party never once voted for the Bedroom Tax, despite 'sir' Steve Webb co creating it in Coalition. Good times.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 20, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in graunid thread
> 
> Tim Farron says he doesn't believe being gay is a sin
> 
> Of course, Farron is able to answer this question in a weaselly way because he can answer in the negative while still believing that _gay sex _is a sin which means that his position on there is roughly the same as that of say ISIS who also do not believe that _being gay _is a sin.


Is he wearing mixed fabrics there?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in graunid thread
> 
> Tim Farron says he doesn't believe being gay is a sin
> 
> Of course, Farron is able to answer this question in a weaselly way because he can answer in the negative while still believing that _gay sex _is a sin which means that his position on there is roughly the same as that of say ISIS who also do not believe that _being gay _is a sin.


I'd forgotten about this...until it was put up on twitter...


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 21, 2017)

I don't think this has been posted yet, but it should have been - and deserves another outing even if it has:


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 21, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> I don't think this has been posted yet, but it should have been - and deserves another outing even if it has:



That sounds like Julia Heartless-Brewer as the interviewer, so no surprise there. She couldn't interview Buddha without being a snide shitrag about it


----------



## Libertad (Apr 21, 2017)

Who PhD said:


> That sounds like Julia Heartless-Brewer as the interviewer, so no surprise there. She couldn't interview Buddha without being a snide shitrag about it



I thought it was Shelagh Fogarty at LBC.


----------



## Who PhD (Apr 21, 2017)

Libertad said:


> I thought it was Shelagh Fogarty at LBC.


EDIT: it is JLB, it's noted in the link. It has her audible stench as well. Broadcasting from the newly reformed 'talk radio' which, if it was anything like the 90's output, consists of propagating the 'white working man is the most oppressed group' bullshit it did before Kelvin Macenzie brought it out, and made it even worse.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 22, 2017)

I don't know if this has been posted yet.

An Open Letter On The Subject Of Tim Farron's 'Homophobia' | The Huffington Post

"I don't mind if Tim Farron thinks homosexuality is a sin because he's one of those lovely, hate the sin, love the sinner bigots".  

Nah, it still bothers me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 22, 2017)

8115 said:


> I don't know if this has been posted yet.
> 
> An Open Letter On The Subject Of Tim Farron's 'Homophobia' | The Huffington Post
> 
> ...



That article just needs this adding to its list of why it's cool to love Timmy:

"Is prepared to prop up another Tory government as they take away the rights of pretty much every minority in the country especially if they're poor and disabled - GO TIM!"


----------



## Dom Traynor (Apr 22, 2017)

I do wonder if Tim is a bit conflicted when it comes to sexuality?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

Lib dem membership tops 100,000

There are more lib dem members in the UK than soldiers in the british army 

Lib Dem membership tops 100,000 after snap election call - BBC News


----------



## bemused (Apr 24, 2017)

How are they out performing the Greens?


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2017)

I see they declared war on Kate Hoey today.


----------



## belboid (Apr 24, 2017)

agricola said:


> I see they declared war on Kate Hoey today.


hard to blame them, really


----------



## bemused (Apr 24, 2017)

agricola said:


> I see they declared war on Kate Hoey today.



Two years ago she got 54% of the vote and the LibDems got 7% - I'm sure she's worried.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> hard to blame them, really



Perhaps, though it will probably be quite easy to vote for her again if it ends up in a Hoey vs Lib Dem / Open Britain contest.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> hard to blame them, really


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2017)

Odd how these people of principle, these beacons of decency failed to sack David Ward whilst he was a sitting MP.

After today's sacking as PPC for Bradford East:



> I" would defy anybody to find one single derogatory comment I've made against a Jew which was not related to something being done in Israel."



i.e it's ok to be anti-semitic if the Israeli state is bad. Read that defence a few times. It says, i have said derogatory things about jews but they were provoked by the jews. Or, more charitably, i have said derogatory things about jews but they were provoked by the israeli state, so justifiable.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 28, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 28, 2017)

Lest we forget


----------



## stethoscope (May 1, 2017)

Tim Farron says 'I'm a bit of a Eurosceptic' - BBC News



			
				Beeb said:
			
		

> "I don't want to go off on a little bit of a rabbit hole here, but you will remember that I resigned from the Liberal Democrat front bench about 10 years ago because I am a bit of a Eurosceptic," he said.
> 
> "I'm somebody who challenges people in power - the EU, in government, in councils - but I am somebody who believes Britain is better off in the European Union."



Lol.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Tim Farron says 'I'm a bit of a Eurosceptic' - BBC News
> 
> 
> Lol.


Fucking hell, cunts will say anything. This is the twat that insisted that Corbyn should resign for not being pro-EU enough.


----------



## tim (May 1, 2017)

bemused said:


> How are they out performing the Greens?



Because the Greens are even worse than the Liberals


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> *Fucking hell, cunts will say anything*. This is the twat that insisted that Corbyn should resign for not being pro-EU enough.


you can't shame a shameless man eh


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Lib dem membership tops 100,000
> 
> There are more lib dem members in the UK than soldiers in the british army
> 
> Lib Dem membership tops 100,000 after snap election call - BBC News



Gokng to have to revise my calculations for shallow graves needed now


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Gokng to have to revise my calculations for shallow graves needed now


I am in contact with the British antarctic survey who desire volunteers to place trig points across British possessions across the southern ocean.


----------



## tim (May 1, 2017)

There was a time when the Liberal Party was truly evil yet managed to keep the nation amused. Now, they're just bland, corrupt and inadequate so, little different from their opponents


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2017)

belboid said:


> hard to blame them, really


Still you'd have to be a cunt to vote for them. Surely you could a better alternative.


----------



## billy_bob (May 1, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> I do wonder if Tim is a bit conflicted when it comes to sexuality?



Don't you have to tick a box confirming that you are before they let you join?


----------



## moochedit (May 1, 2017)

Lib Dems shouldn't count on Remain votes - the data looks bleak



> Conventional wisdom suggests the Tories could bleed Remain votes to the Lib Dems. Our detailed data analysis suggests this idea could be very wrong indeed.





> Our results depend on the accuracy of ICM’s polling of course, and they’re a description of the state of play now rather than a prediction of the final election result. Those caveats aside, it’s fair to say that they aren’t what we expected.





> Our model sees the Tories on 422 seats, with Labour reduced to just 150, *and the Lib Dems declining from 9 to 6.*



Let's hope they are right about the lib dems. Be nice to have some good news on an (likely) otherwise shit night.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2017)

Not sure where else to put this photo of Willie Rennie of the Scottish Lib Dems out campaigning today. Sure you'll agree it needed to go somewhere though.


----------



## billy_bob (May 2, 2017)

In the absence of a 'best things about the lib dems' thread (which might consist of that post alone) I think here will do just fine.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2017)

I'm sure some wet twat did make a 'why the lib dems are great!' thread back in the day. Needless to say, it didn't get much action...


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2017)

actually, 12 pages. very few posts about how great the lib dems are though.

Why the Lib Dems are great


----------



## billy_bob (May 2, 2017)

Not enough photos of them making twats of themselves either.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> actually, 12 pages. very few posts about how great the lib dems are though.
> 
> Why the Lib Dems are great


Wouldn't call moon23 a wet, he was a proper trump believer. 

Now Shevek was wet, Why the Lib Dems are good and effective, wetter than the fucking ocean. Probably the only LD that I miss.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2017)

a trump believer??


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2017)

D'oh! should have been "true believer", fully signed up to cuts are a good thing.


----------



## killer b (May 2, 2017)

moon23 was wet anyway. he had a ponytail I believe.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2017)

Did he stand again after that time he lost his deposit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm sure some wet twat did make a 'why the lib dems are great!' thread back in the day. Needless to say, it didn't get much action...



Not compared to this one, anyway.

Didn't that thread-starter end up standing for the Lib-Dems, failing magnificently to win a council ward, then fucking off to the Tories?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not compared to this one, anyway.
> 
> Didn't that thread-starter end up standing for the Lib-Dems, failing magnificently to win a council ward, then fucking off to the Tories?


He definitely stood and lost, pretty sure he lost his deposit. Don't remember the joining the Tories though.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not compared to this one, anyway.
> 
> Didn't that thread-starter end up standing for the Lib-Dems, failing magnificently to win a council ward, then fucking off to the Tories?


Still a LibDem in Jul 2015 apparently.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 5, 2017)

From Guardian live feed


> The Lib Dem fightback in Somerset is not going to plan - they've just lost 4 seats to the Conservatives. Highlights huge challenge they face


Still shit.


----------



## stethoscope (May 5, 2017)

From the BBC election feed...


----------



## bemused (May 5, 2017)

You can understand why no one knows what the LDs stand for, it took them two weeks to answer the question about if they cared what people did in bed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> From the BBC election feed...


He's gone beyond the bounds of decency with that tie


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

moon23 said:


> If a Liberal does anything for power why aren't they all members of one of the two main political parties.
> 
> Would be a lot easier to obtain a position of public office as a Labour or Tory careerist.


You're so stupid you didn't even make the calculation Tony Blair did


----------



## inva (May 5, 2017)

bemused said:


> You can understand why no one knows what the LDs stand for, it took them two weeks to answer the question about if they cared what people did in bed.


we know what the slimy rats stand for alright


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

inva said:


> we know what the slimy rats stand for alright


Yeh from fucking 25 years ago in tower hamlets. Not like beackon was the first racist in the council.


----------



## stethoscope (May 8, 2017)

Tim Farron admits he had Thatcher poster in his childhood bedroom




			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, has said he had a poster of Margaret Thatcher above his bed as a schoolboy but denied he had been a young Tory.
> 
> Farron said he had “all sorts of weird icons” as a schoolboy during an ITV programme in which one of his schoolfriends claimed the MP had an “I Love Maggie” sticker on his textbook.



Of course Tim.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2017)

Laminated, no doubt.


----------



## stethoscope (May 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Laminated, no doubt.



Too fucking much


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2017)

Tears, too.


----------



## rekil (May 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Tears, too.





Even Hitler.

HITLER


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2017)

Varoufakis described Brian Eno (lib-dem youth advisor when he was 60 - might still be now he's 69) as 'a comrade' and 'a great defender of the working class' on Doug Henwood the other week.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Varoufakis described Brian Eno (lib-dem youth advisor when he was 60 - might still be now he's 69) as 'a comrade' and 'a great defender of the working class' on Doug Henwood the other week.


Isn't Eno on the 'central committee' of Yanis' DiEM25?


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Isn't Eno on the 'central committee' of Yanis' DiEM25?


He's involved - as are freaks like Assange. Eno is not on the central advisory ctte thing though. Not atm anyway. Unless i missed him a minute ago.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> He's involved - as are freaks like Assange. Eno is not on the central advisory ctte thing though. Not atm anyway. Unless i missed him a minute ago.


Hmm...when I heard YF and his wife, Danae Stratou, speak at Goldsmith's last week Stratou made a number of references to their "friend" Julian.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2017)

Now he _is _on the central advisory thing. And by alphabetical luck the very first name and face interested people will see.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 15, 2017)

Marvellous stuff:


----------



## DotCommunist (May 15, 2017)

they got tiny arsed burton latimer, not the whole of already tiny kettering. And it went tory in the recent locals anyway. Lib Dems and their fake news


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2017)

Lib Dems - the opposition to the Opposition...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Marvellous stuff:




Piss-coloured scum.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 16, 2017)

Even marvellous-er:


----------



## teqniq (May 16, 2017)

What? Might as well have gone the whole hog and had 'Cunt' instead.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What? Might as well have gone the whole hog and had 'Cunt' instead.


he asked for FEB but got arsy with the barber


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Even marvellous-er:



it's a complaint, not a celebration


----------



## redsquirrel (May 16, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Even marvellous-er:



Makes it easier to find and kill the fucks


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 16, 2017)

Does anybody know the source of that Lib Dem leaflet?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What? Might as well have gone the whole hog and had 'Cunt' instead.


He's saving that one for his visit to the tattoo parlour.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 16, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Even marvellous-er:



Goddammit you beat me


----------



## billy_bob (May 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What? Might as well have gone the whole hog and had 'Cunt' instead.



Really his partner ought to have that on his/her head, so he can see it more clearly.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Really his partner ought to have that on his/her head, so he can see it more clearly.


yeah but you have to shave sometime 'I'm talking to the man in the mirror, I'm askin him to change his ways etc'


----------



## billy_bob (May 17, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah but you have to shave sometime 'I'm talking to the man in the mirror, I'm askin him to change his ways etc'



In the mirror it would say Bil Med


----------



## nuffsaid (May 17, 2017)

They want to legalise cannabis and tax it now - anyone here suddenly fancy a u-turn?

"The Lib Dems say in their manifesto they would raise £1bn by legalising and taxing cannabis.

The jokes are rolling in already..."


----------



## YouSir (May 18, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Even marvellous-er:




He appears to have had it done in a corner shop, typical Lib Dem incompetence.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Hmm...when I heard YF and his wife, Danae Stratou, speak at Goldsmith's last week Stratou made a number of references to their "friend" Julian.


... and now:


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


>


lib dems
whining here


----------



## JTG (May 24, 2017)

I am enjoying seeing the "Stephen Williams: Winning Here" signs in Bristol West atm. Largely because he is going to be beaten for the third time in as many years so they are patently untrue


----------



## mikey mikey (May 26, 2017)




----------



## DaveCinzano (May 29, 2017)

FTFY 



JTG said:


> Stephen Williams: Whining Here


----------



## JTG (May 29, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> FTFY


He will be when his 2015 vote is crushed even more by the Corbz steamroller


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 2, 2017)

Had a mailout from the local candidate. Look at this arse. Nailed-on private school I reckon. With a crowd really representing the diversity of the borough.

 

First sentence in his biog is 'I have a proven track record of building successful businesses'.  That familiar eulogising of the entrepreneur shit that we're all supposed to be sold on these days. Fuck off.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2017)

Winning Here and the EU flag, LD bingo.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

whats with the weird salute, niether fist nor roman?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> whats with the weird salute, niether fist nor roman?


That's how they hold their placards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2017)

jesus my eyesight is going


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> whats with the weird salute, niether fist nor roman?


it's the famous lib dem 'wanker' gesture


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 2, 2017)

photo shop out the placards and it would look like they are all doing wanker signs. Which would actually make them more appealing .


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 2, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Had a mailout from the local candidate. Look at this arse. Nailed-on private school I reckon. With a crowd really representing the diversity of the borough.
> 
> View attachment 108232
> 
> First sentence in his biog is 'I have a proven track record of building successful businesses'.  That familiar eulogising of the entrepreneur shit that we're all supposed to be sold on these days. Fuck off.



Is it just me or are the crowd behind him a big poster or something? It doesn't look like they're in the same place anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Is it just me or are the crowd behind him a big poster or something? It doesn't look like they're in the same place anyway.


They're not, they're taken from something else somewhere else.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 2, 2017)

Which makes it even worse


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 2, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Is it just me or are the crowd behind him a big poster or something? It doesn't look like they're in the same place anyway.



If it wasn't for the EU flag I would have guessed he's just been shopped onto a photo from the heady days of Cleggmania. The days when they could pull a crowd of 30+.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 2, 2017)

A little late to be posting about Wednesday night's debate maybe but I've just got around to it. The moments we enjoyed the most in the _bob household were the rounds of determined silence that greeted even the more reasonable points made by Farron. He did actually make one or two, although as usual if you look at them cumulatively it's incoherent. But every time, you could almost hear the audience collectively willing each other to send him to Coventry. Made his chirpy "I'm one of you guys" schtick even more excruciating.


----------



## bemused (Jun 2, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Made his chirpy "I'm one of you guys" schtick even more excruciating.



He has the most bizzare communications style. Whenever he talks about any topic he he prefixes his answer with a three minute pointless anecdote; ulitmatly meaning he runs out of time to make an actual point.

I can see Clegg making a come back, at least Clegg has some degree of personal charm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

Not sure this is the right thread for you.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 2, 2017)

I'm not sure this thread's even necessary any more. You could knock the first word off the title, close it, and just leave it there for posterity.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2017)

or you could replace the last two words with a question mark.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers, yes - that's far more like it.
> 
> Odd fish that Smithson chap btw.


Look what he sent on behalf of Brake to my eldest...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Look what he sent on behalf of Brake to my eldest...
> 
> View attachment 108274


I remember a full on racist-woman-on-tube-style rant from him on the UK polling report comments section years ago. 

Note he's advertising as well. I wonder...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 2, 2017)

Jesus 

That really needs to do the rounds on twitter


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Jesus
> 
> That really needs to do the rounds on twitter


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 2, 2017)

the brown party


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

the incredible thing about this election is that third-party vote has completely collapsed. my mum usually votes lib-dem but she's voting labour this time. greens are on about 1%.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 2, 2017)

farron= richard hammond


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

I mean the lib-dems are basically being kept alive by tactical voting at this point.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> the incredible thing about this election is that third-party vote has completely collapsed. my mum usually votes lib-dem but she's voting labour this time. greens are on about 1%.


I suppose the smaller parties probably thrive best when people feel there isn't much difference between the two major parties. For the first time in my lifetime there's an English channel worth of clear water between the two main manifestos - I'm pretty happy about that and it looks like a lot of other people are too.

The talk has been of all the UKIP votes going to the Tories, but this phenomenon of lib dem and greens going to Labour seems to have sneaked up on the pollsters. Though tbf everything seems to come as a surprise to pollsters...


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> I mean the lib-dems are basically being kept alive by tactical voting at this point.



Farron is kept alive in much the same way as goblins and leprechauns (which he quite resembles) are: he only exists because a handful of credulous, delusional weirdos continue to believe he's real.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

no its because of past election results where lib dems came second and because people read leaflets saying 'labour cant possibly win here'.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 2, 2017)

Their slogan: "Even a fictional character like Tim is more electable than Corbyn"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> no its because of past election results where lib dems came second and because people read leaflets saying 'labour cant possibly win here'.


_Possibly _would be a nice effete touch.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> the incredible thing about this election is that third-party vote has completely collapsed. my mum usually votes lib-dem but she's voting labour this time. greens are on about 1%.



I reckon a lot of those third party votes will also be in constituencies where it won't matter, but in more marginal seats even more may have gone over to Labour which will help. It must be tricky to model this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 2, 2017)

camera zooms in when talk of jews


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> camera zooms in when talk of jews



Is that a reference to David Ward?


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

'Your water is changing your sexuality,' says UK General Election candidate

A Lib Dem candidate believes that there are things in the water that are turning us gay, such as fluoride and hormones (which ones she doesn't say).


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

mather said:


> 'Your water is changing your sexuality,' says UK General Election candidate
> 
> A Lib Dem candidate believes that there are things in the water that are turning us gay, such as fluoride and hormones (which ones she doesn't say).



The straight choice.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

Are the lib dems going for the homophobic vote now?


----------



## JimW (Jun 2, 2017)

At last, someone is raising the real issues.


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Are the lib dems going for the homophobic vote now?



I have no idea, all I can say with any degree of certainty is that the Lib Dems will literally say _anything_ in their pathetic and desperate attempt to get more votes. A serial fraudster like Bernie Madoff is probably more honest and principled than a Lib Dem.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

The lib dem candidate last night was bloody awful.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

My favourite was the green guy though


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> The lib dem candidate last night was bloody awful.



Which one? Was this on the telly?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 2, 2017)

mather said:


> Which one? Was this on the telly?



No, at a hustings I went to in Barnet.


----------



## mather (Jun 2, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> No, at a hustings I went to in Barnet.



I went to numerous hustings in my constituency during the 2015 election, I was campaigning for the TUSC candidate and during the hustings I got see how awful the Lib Dem was, I almost felt sorry for him. In the end he got less votes than the Greens and my constituency isn't even much of a Green stronghold.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 3, 2017)

My first ex's dad who is the lib dem candidate in my home town got in trouble for putting a vote lib dem sign up on someone's drainpipe without permission.


----------



## JimW (Jun 3, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> My first ex's dad who is the lib dem candidate in my home town got in trouble for putting a vote lib dem sign up on someone's drainpipe without permission.


Ah, the famous "like a rat up a drainpipe".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2017)

bill stickers will be prosecuted


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 3, 2017)

bill stickers is innocent


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 5, 2017)

The 14 year old standing for them here is 'the only candidate who can stop Theresa May's brexit plans' apparently. I reckon he might be overstating his potential impact a tad...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 5, 2017)

Only excessive beer can help you tear down a Lib Dem poster on a stick in the garden of a house somewhere in a certain constituency  , very late on Saturday. 

Obviously, I disclaim any responsibility at all for my damaged side in consequence


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 6, 2017)

They've got the support of grade A twat Bob "Corbyn should resign" Geldof


> For the first time in my life I’m going to vote for those guys, the Lib Dems.
> 
> This election is about nothing else except Brexit.
> 
> The Liberal Democrats are the only party with the balls to do their job of opposing the government. They happen to be my voice in parliament.


----------



## JimW (Jun 6, 2017)

Watched News at Ten on ITV, big election round-up, finally turn to Farron's battle bus, two seconds in realise can't hear the journo so they move on to the skateboarding dog or whatever. Seemed fitting.


----------



## Sue (Jun 13, 2017)

Just going to leave this here...

Tactical voting boosted Labour’s dominance in Hackney ‘to the detriment of democracy’, complain Lib Dems


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2017)

Sue said:


> Just going to leave this here...
> 
> Tactical voting boosted Labour’s dominance in Hackney ‘to the detriment of democracy’, complain Lib Dems



Christ that's some fucking brass neck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> farron= richard hammond


Not fair to link richard hammond with farron


----------



## mather (Jun 13, 2017)

Sue said:


> Just going to leave this here...
> 
> Tactical voting boosted Labour’s dominance in Hackney ‘to the detriment of democracy’, complain Lib Dems



From the party that more or less only exists thanks to tactical voting, you couldn't make it up!


----------



## Sue (Jun 13, 2017)

mather said:


> From the party that more or less only exists thanks to tactical voting, you couldn't make it up!


Well if it hadn't been for tactical voting, the Lib Dems would've surely overturned Diane Abbott's 24000 majority (2015). Oh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 13, 2017)

Sue said:


> Well if it hadn't been for tactical voting, the Lib Dems would've surely overturned Diane Abbott's 24000 majority (2015). Oh.


They were going to kick Hoey as well,


Reiabuzz said:


> It's 12k votes, and the lib dems are well on course to overturn it. Sadly the only 'data' I have for that is by looking at the bookmakers sites which have LD and Hoey pretty much neck and neck



End result
Labour Kate Hoey 31,522 57.3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 3.5
Liberal Democrat George Turner 11,326 20.6 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 13.7

Oh dear


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 13, 2017)

there was a thumping big 'limp democrats - winning here*' sign outside one of the houses on the main road here last week.

the dustmen didn't take it this week

* - presumably on the basis that even though they came 3rd in the constituency vote at the 2015 election, but do have two of the three councillors in this ward.  they still put out a 'labour can't win here' leaflet this time round.  and came a more distant 3rd...


----------



## JTG (Jun 13, 2017)

The long decline of Stephen Williams:

Bristol West 2005:
21,987 (38.3%, maj 5,128)

Bristol West 2010:
26,593 (48%, maj 11,368)

Bristol West 2015:
12,103 (18.8%, 10,797 behind Labour, third place)

West of England mayor 2017:
39,794 first prefs (20.2%, third place)

Bristol West 2017:
5,201 (7.3%, 42,012 behind Labour, fourth place)

Can't wait for his next campaign


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2017)

One 'sinner' leaves...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> One 'sinner' leaves...




Well that's a surprising turn of events. 

I mean, who knew he was 'Shadow Home Secretary'? I had no idea.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 14, 2017)

I discovered a few days before the election when I caught part of some interminable BBC Newsbeat/News 24 debate (much less crass and reductive than any of the non-yoof debates, incidentally). Took me a minute to figure out where I recognised him from.

Its always a bit sad when people high-mindedly resign from public positions most people didn't know they held.

But perhaps it's unfair to call any LD front bench job 'public'...


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Farron gone


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Coal-ising with the DUP.


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2017)

He reason is incredible. How is being a Christian incompatible with being leader of the lib dems?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

He just blamed people criticising his faith saying that means we don't live in a tolerant liberal society. A bit of a flounce.


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2017)

This: fucking hell.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jun 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> How is being a Christian incompatible with being leader of the lib dems?



Jesus never wore socks with his sandals


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 14, 2017)

All clear for Sir Vince of Cable to swagger in and take over.  Someone with gravity to split the anti-Tory vote.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 14, 2017)

Twats statement in full


> _“This last two years have seen the Liberal Democrats recover since the devastation of the 2015 election.
> 
> That recovery was never inevitable but we have seen the doubling of our party membership, growth in council elections, our first parliamentary by-election win for more than a decade, and most recently our growth at the 2017 general election._
> 
> ...


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> He reason is incredible. How is being a Christian incompatible with being leader of the lib dems?


Did you not see what the press did to him over the GE campaign?


----------



## belboid (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Did you not see what the press did to him over the GE campaign?


They asked him questions about his personal beliefs, and how they tallied with what was presented in the LibScum manifesto - exactly as they asked Jeremy Corbyn. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Combustible (Jun 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> He reason is incredible. How is being a Christian incompatible with being leader of the lib dems?



Maybe he's quitting to join the DUP.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

Why are his personal beliefs relevant?


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

He wasn't just asked how he felt about homosexuality, he was specifically pressed, repeatedly, about how he felt about the act of gay sex.

I mean wtf. Stfu. I'm surprised no one actually said, and rimming Tim? What are your personal views on that?


----------



## JTG (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Why are his personal beliefs relevant?


He's an MP and leader of his party, seeking to legislate on matters that affect us all


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

JTG said:


> He's an MP and leader of his party, seeking to legislate on matters that affect us all


So?


----------



## moochedit (Jun 14, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> All clear for Sir Vince of Cable to swagger in and take over.



I wonder if thats the real reason? 

edit - here are their new mp's. what do we know about this lot?  (apart from them all being cunts that is obviously!)

Tom Brake, Carshalton
Vince Cable, Twickenham
Alistair Carmichael, Orkney and Shetland
Edward Davey, Kingston and Surbiton
Tim Farron, Westmorland and Lonsdale
Wera Hobhouse, Bath
Christine Jardine, Edinburgh West
Norman Lamb, North Norfolk
Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne
Layla Moran, Oxford West and Abingdon
Jamie Stone, Caithness
Jo Swinson, Dunbartonshire East


----------



## Santino (Jun 14, 2017)

Another scalp for Corbyn.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 14, 2017)

What a time to make such an announcement, that's appalling.
His views have no place in modern society. Many have ended up in court for using those beliefs to discriminate against others.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> So?



So if he feels that some people are morally wrong sinners that might just shade his actions towards them and support for legislation that effects them.

That said, he's a Lib Dem, so whatever he claims to believe doesn't really count for much anyway, gayness may be the Devil's work to him but if he got to feel important he'd probably stand at the front of gay pride in rainbow patterned boxers.


----------



## JTG (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> So?


Well, if somebody is voting on laws that affect me, I'm kind of concerned if their views are such that they categorise perfectly normal folk as "sinners"


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> He wasn't just asked how he felt about homosexuality, he was specifically pressed, repeatedly, about how he felt about the act of gay sex.
> 
> I mean wtf. Stfu. I'm surprised no one actually said, and rimming Tim? What are your personal views on that?



Neither homosexuality nor rimming are mentioned in the bible, but gay sex supposedly is. Entirely appropriate to question him on this, especially as he was being so evasive.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

Just fail to see what relevance his personal views are. His voting record is what counts.

Hark at you all, desperate to insist that everyone *thinks* the same as you. Bunch of fuckin authoritarians.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Neither homosexuality nor rimming are mentioned in the bible, but gay sex supposedly is. Entirely appropriate to question him on this, especially as he was being so evasive.


He's being evasive because it's literally NONE your business you creepy nosey parker


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Just fail to see what relevance his personal views are. His voting record is what counts.
> 
> Hark at you all, desperate to insist that everyone *thinks* the same as you. Bunch of fuckin authoritarians.



Aye, terrible thing to expect politicians not to be politically motivated bigots. What a shower of cunts we are.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> He's being evasive because it's literally NONE your business you creepy nosey parker



Asking a politician what their views are. How outrageous.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Aye, terrible thing to expect politicians not to be politically motivated bigots. What a shower of cunts we are.


What evidence do you have of his bigotry? Post it.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Asking a politician what their views are. How outrageous.


Completely missed the point


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Just fail to see what relevance his personal views are. His voting record is what counts.
> 
> Hark at you all, desperate to insist that everyone *thinks* the same as you. Bunch of fuckin authoritarians.



Because he was leading the Liberal party and such views would barely seem to be in keeping with the values that party claims to espouse. As has been said in the DUP, his attitudes would ruffle fewer feathers.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> What evidence do you have of his bigotry? Post it.



The fact that he was evasive on the issue and has now resigned because of the incompatibility of his position and his faith


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

His views, what he personally thinks, is irrelevant. 

Do you want all of your civil rights to be dependent on authority figures _agreeing_ they like approve?

I don't.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

tim said:


> The fact that he was evasive on the issue and has now resigned because of the incompatibility of his position and his faith


That is not evidence. Try again. Real hard, voting or policy evidence of bigotry.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Completely missed the point



To be fair to him, he doesn't seem to have taken out contracts on any ex-lovers or had any of their pooches stiffed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2017)

tim said:


> The fact that he was evasive on the issue and has now resigned because of the incompatibility of his position and his faith


And good riddance


----------



## JTG (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Just fail to see what relevance his personal views are. His voting record is what counts.
> 
> Hark at you all, desperate to insist that everyone *thinks* the same as you. Bunch of fuckin authoritarians.


So his personal views may not motivate the way he votes? Of course it's a concern to me. I don't want racists in Parliament either.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jun 14, 2017)

This has literally 100% fuck all to do with Tim's religious views, and everything to do with the fact that Vince Cable and Ed Davey are now back in the HoC, and Nick Clegg's out the way. Ed Davey, of course, was an Orange Booker. Tim Farron was on the left of the party.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> What evidence do you have of his bigotry? Post it.



Asked about whether homosexuality was a sin, initially, his only reply was 'we're all sinners' and now a resignation which specifically cites his Christian beliefs and the problems with reconciling them to his position politically as reasons for quitting.

_The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. _

--

_There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society, but I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it - it’s not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.

--

To be a political leader - especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 - and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me. 
_
---

It's not hard to see the over arching narrative there and if he considers homosexuality a sin then I'd say that's bigotry, to judge people as morally faulted or failed for their sexual orientation.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> His views, what he personally thinks, is irrelevant.
> 
> Do you want all of your civil rights to be dependent on authority figures _agreeing_ they like approve?
> 
> I don't.



Well I wouldn't be too impressed if  I discovered that Corbyn paraded round his bathroom in white robes and a hood.

And I don't think the Tories would have much truck with Theresa if sit was discovered that she had secretly posted on here under the name of Ernestolynch, although she might have got away with being Drjazzz


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Gerry1time said:


> This has literally 100% fuck all to do with Tim's religious views, and everything to do with the fact that Vince Cable and Ed Davey are now back in the HoC, and Nick Clegg's out the way. Ed Davey, of course, was an Orange Booker. Tim Farron was on the left of the party.



Jo Swinson must be up for it too...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Once again:


Edie said:


> Why are his personal beliefs relevant?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2017)

as someone really really raised in the faith I know they actually mean th 'love the sinner hate the sin' line. Which makes them homophobes really. In the end. By word and deed. Say, Edie, how would you feel if it was a muslim man leading a party and saying that his views on homosexuality would not conflict with his party policy?


----------



## Gerry1time (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Jo Swinson must be up for it too...



I wasn't necessarily saying they'd be running for leader, but the 'delegation' sent to Tim Farron today must have included those two.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> as someone really really raised in the faith I know they actually mean th 'love the sinner hate the sin' line. Which makes them homophobes really. In the end. By word and deed. Say, Edie, how would you feel if it was a muslim man leading a party and saying that his views on homosexuality would not conflict with his party policy?


How would YOU feel?


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Asked about whether homosexuality was a sin, initially, his only reply was 'we're all sinners' and now a resignation which specifically cites his Christian beliefs and the problems with reconciling them to his position politically as reasons for quitting.
> 
> _The consequences of the focus on my faith is that I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader. _
> 
> ...


We are all morally faulted. Unless you are perfect? Jesus perhaps?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> We are all morally faulted. Unless you are perfect? Jesus perhaps?



That's all you read from everything he's said then?

And yes, I'm often a terrible person, never yet assumed that gay people deserve to burn in Hell's fiery pits for their sinful ways though, so got that going for me.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 14, 2017)

If a homophobic tree falls in the woods...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> How would YOU feel?


I'd call them a liar because real faith and belief has inevitable ideological bleed-through into what is supposed to be secular decision making


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Thread's doing the job title after all these years...


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Thread's doing the job title after all these years...



?


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Possibly missing from this thread so far (unless I missed it, if so apologies) is the fact Brain Paddick quit his role as Lib Dem home affairs spokesman earlier today and said Farrons views on homosexuality were the reason.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> That is not evidence. Try again. Real hard, voting or policy evidence of bigotry.



This poor guy didn't exhibit any real hard evidence of bigotry 'Sexist' Polish MEP suspended and fined for saying women should be paid less 'because they are smaller, weaker and less intelligent'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> ?


Making edie/lib-dems look like shit.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Making edie/lib-dems look like shit.



Ah right.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> Possibly missing from this thread so far (unless I missed it, if so apologies) is the fact Brain Paddick quit his role as Lib Dem home affairs spokesman earlier today and said Farrons views on homosexuality were the reason.



It's up the thread a bit. Remarkably coincidental timing. They must have had an interesting party meeting earlier (for once...)


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

The fact is, Tim has voted consistently for LGBT+ rights. Despite any personal views (which are no one else's business).

That shows great moral principle. To defend the rights of people who think, and live, and love differently _despite_ your own personal opinion.

And the separation of religion and state.

But that is not enough is it. You lefties have to insist that everyone, of all religions and none, must THINK the same as you.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> If a homophobic tree falls in the woods...



It was probably trying to take out some deviants. "Save the 100 acre wood from sodomy".


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> It's up the thread a bit. Remarkably coincidental timing. They must have had an interesting party meeting earlier (for once...)



Cheers, found it now.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

I'd rather my rights not be dependent on the whims and approval of politicians.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> The fact is, Tim has voted consistently for LGBT+ rights. Despite any personal views (which are no one else's business).
> 
> That shows great moral principle. To defend the rights of people who think, and live, and love differently _despite_ your own personal opinion.
> 
> ...



I'm a Quaker And I think my beliefs would preclude me from a leadership position in any of the mainstream parties


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> This poor guy didn't exhibit any real hard evidence of bigotry 'Sexist' Polish MEP suspended and fined for saying women should be paid less 'because they are smaller, weaker and less intelligent'


Relevance to Farron?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Relevance to Farron?



Personal beliefs.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Personal beliefs.


You haven't grasped the point you muppet


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Relevance to Farron?



Anyway it was his lack of charisma and general crapness, rather than his beliefs that did for him. When he was elected there was no credible alternative leader and they needed someone to keep the seat warm. Now the big beasts are back he can return to pious obscurity


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

tim said:


> Anyway it was his lack of charisma and general crapness, rather than his beliefs that did for him. When he was elected there was no credible alternative leader and they needed someone to keep the seat warm. Now the big beasts are back he can return to pious obscurity


Be as it may.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> And the separation of religion and state.


but we don't have that. Even if we did its nonsense. Either you believe or you don't, farron stepped down. If anything I'd say (if his reasons stated are true to himself and not just convenience) that he did the right thing in line with his faith.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> The fact is, Tim has voted consistently for LGBT+ rights. Despite any personal views (which are no one else's business).
> 
> That shows great moral principle. To defend the rights of people who think, and live, and love differently _despite_ your own personal opinion.
> 
> ...



_To be a political leader - especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 - and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me._

Even your Tim seems to think his personal views matter though. Unless he's talking shit in his resignation statement of course and it was just a political resignation because other Lib Dems drove him out. In which case he's a liar, which is also a sin oddly enough.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> but we don't have that. Even if we did its nonsense. Either you believe or you don't, farron stepped down. If anything I'd say (if his reasons stated are true to himself and not just convenience) that he did the right thing in line with his faith.


I would agree. He did the right thing for the party. But it makes me angry that he had to.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> The fact is, Tim has voted consistently for LGBT+ rights. Despite any personal views (which are no one else's business).
> 
> That shows great moral principle. To defend the rights of people who think, and live, and love differently _despite_ your own personal opinion.
> 
> ...



The idea that a politicians personal views are nobody elses business is a complete joke. A great chunk of their profession involves professing to believe in certain things for a start.

It's no good simply applauding the idea of authority figures making decisions in a manner completely isolated from their personal beliefs - There are ways in which people can somewhat isolate these spheres and try to counter their own personal bias but it's imperfect and leaky and there will be areas of weakness in the wall, issues that expose the contradiction and cause a moral dilemma. He has demonstrated where his loyalty ultimately lays, and the dilemma is bound to be more acute with a party counts social liberalism as one of its core values. 

I wouldnt cry for fallen lib dems at the best of times anyway but when I hear him bemoaning that the mainstream socially liberal standards of the present era are incompatible with his faith it just becomes bad comedy.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> _To be a political leader - especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 - and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me._
> 
> Even your Tim seems to think his personal views matter though. Unless he's talking shit in his resignation statement of course and it was just a political resignation because other Lib Dems drove him out. In which case he's a liar, which is also a sin oddly enough.



Here's basically saying there that the only good Christian is an illiberal one.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> _To be a political leader - especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 - and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me._
> 
> Even your Tim seems to think his personal views matter though. Unless he's talking shit in his resignation statement of course and it was just a political resignation because other Lib Dems drove him out. In which case he's a liar, which is also a sin oddly enough.


You are misreading what he said. He's said it has felt impossible, not that he feels it's incompatible. Your own bias has caused you to put words in his mouth.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> The idea that a politicians personal views are nobody elses business is a complete joke. A great chunk of their profession involves professing to believe in certain things for a start.
> 
> It's no good simply applauding the idea of authority figures making decisions in a manner completely isolated from their personal beliefs - There are ways in which people can somewhat isolate these spheres and try to counter their own personal bias but it's imperfect and leaky and there will be areas of weakness in the wall, issues that expose the contradiction and cause a moral dilemma. He has demonstrated where his loyalty ultimately lays, and the dilemma is bound to be more acute with a party counts social liberalism as one of its core values.
> 
> I wouldnt cry for fallen lib dems at the best of times anyway but when I hear him bemoaning that the mainstream socially liberal standards of the present era are incompatible with his faith it just becomes bad comedy.


It is the very essence of liberalism.

I don't believe or approve in a lot of things. But I will protect the rights of others to believe and approve of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> It is the very essence of liberalism.
> 
> I don't believe or approve in a lot of things. But I will protect the rights of others to believe and approve of them.


And to pretend not to believe in them.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are misreading what he said. He's said it has felt impossible, not that he feels it's incompatible. Your own bias has caused you to put words in his mouth.



Uhuh. I'm sure May calls herself a Christian, though you can question the truth of that, but it's not a bar to being politically involved, nor is it for any number of religious MPs. If he feels it's incompatible it's because he knows his own beliefs aren't acceptable to the public or his party and he's chosen his faith over his job. As DotCommunist said, it's right in its way (if true), but still shows that even by his own estimation his personal beliefs were fatally conflicting with his political position.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Could posters refer to the Bible Bashing Liberal as Farron, or at least Tim Farron. Calling him "Tim" leaves me feeling confused and vulnerable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Just fucking come out as a freak like him edie.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> It is the very essence of liberalism.



Bad comedy, weak refereeing and dodgy hand-wringing? I quite agree.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Uhuh. I'm sure May calls herself a Christian, though you can question the truth of that, but it's not a bar to being politically involved, nor is it for any number of religious MPs. If he feels it's incompatible it's because he knows his own beliefs aren't acceptable to the public or his party and he's chosen his faith over his job. As DotCommunist said, it's right in its way (if true), but still shows that even by his own estimation his personal beliefs were fatally conflicting with his political position.



A pity he didn't go all the way and instigate a by-election. Perhaps he thinks he can hold to his illiberal interpretation of the bible while just being an MP.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 14, 2017)

Tim Farron voted no on _Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations_ 
A majority of MPs voted yes on _Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations

Tim Farron was absent for a vote on Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — Third Reading 
A majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. 

Tim Farron was absent for a vote on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill — Fertility treatment requires father and mother — rejected 
A majority of MPs voted no on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill — Fertility treatment requires father and mother — rejected 
_
He has a mixed history of voting on LGB issues. He has voted for same sex marriage, he has been absent. He voted against legislation against discrimination of LGB people when it comes to services and goods. 

To suggest he always voted against his beliefs is factually inaccurate. As it is, we don't know why he voted the way he did, or chose not to vote in other instances. But what we can categorically say is that he has not always voted in favour of LGB legislation. We can make inferences from that, considering what we know of his personal beliefs. 

All politicians have personal beliefs. It as absolutely right and absolutely _essential_ that we interrogate them since these are the people with ultimate power to create the laws that govern our lives. 

That Farron has decided his faith and being leader of the LibDems are no longer compatible, again we can draw inferences. To suggest his personal beliefs have no bearing on his position as a politician is either wilful ignorance or incredible naivety.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> It is the very essence of liberalism.
> 
> I don't believe or approve in a lot of things. But I will protect the rights of others to believe and approve of them.



Back to the bigotry point. Believing that a group of people deserve to burn in Hell isn't the sort of belief that's just a difference of opinion, it's a red line for a lot of people. Rightly so. I disagree with almost every politician I know of, even the ones I support, that's one thing. Bigoted condemnation of whole groups though, be it through religion, racial beliefs or anything else, is something else. Homophobia isn't the same as not believing in nationalisation.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are misreading what he said. He's said it has felt impossible, not that he feels it's incompatible. Your own bias has caused you to put words in his mouth.


But he didn't resign because he's a good christian, he resigned because he's a shit politician. If he'd done better he wouldn't have resigned which makes him a cunting hypocrite as well.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Uhuh. I'm sure May calls herself a Christian, though you can question the truth of that, but it's not a bar to being politically involved, nor is it for any number of religious MPs. If he feels it's incompatible it's because he knows his own beliefs aren't acceptable to the public or his party and he's chosen his faith over his job. As DotCommunist said, it's right in its way (if true), but still shows that even by his own estimation his personal beliefs were fatally conflicting with his political position.


It is an acknowledgment that his beliefs conflict with his political position, yes. Where we differ is that you think that's a good thing, but I disagree.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

tim said:


> Could posters refer to the Bible Bashing Liberal as Farron, or at least Tim Farron. Calling him "Tim" leaves me feeling confused and vulnerable.



Is homosexuality a sin?

Just checking...


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I would agree. He did the right thing for the party. But it makes me angry that he had to.



Anyway, he's probably seen a niche for a British Christian Democratic party and is planning to join up with a few like-minded and disillusioned Tory and Labour MP's and end up leading a rather larger parliamentary party than he currently does.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Back to the bigotry point. Believing that a group of people deserve to burn in Hell isn't the sort of belief that's just a difference of opinion, it's a red line for a lot of people. Rightly so. I disagree with almost every politician I know of, even the ones I support, that's one thing. Bigoted condemnation of whole groups though, be it through religion, racial beliefs or anything else, is something else. Homophobia isn't the same as not believing in nationalisation.


You are literally making up the hell bit so I cba to read further


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> It is an acknowledgment that his beliefs conflict with his political position, yes. Where we differ is that you think that's a good thing, but I disagree.



I think any Lib Dem fucking up is a good thing, brings a shine to my day, imperfect as I am.

And it's not a blanket issue of 'personal beliefs', everyone has those, it's the specific ones he's implied and I believe he has which are the problem. If he said he hated Twiglets that'd be a personal belief too, just one I wouldn't care about, wrong though it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are literally making up the hell bit so I cba to read further


Every-time i turn on u75 now i just see you belching-grandad-sunday-moustache-stuff.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> But he didn't resign because he's a good christian, he resigned because he's a shit politician. If he'd done better he wouldn't have resigned which makes him a cunting hypocrite as well.


He hasn't resigned because he's a 'good Christian'. Are you hard of thinking?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are literally making up the hell bit so I cba to read further



If something is a sin then the person is a sinner - where do sinners go? And if you can't be arsed to read then why bother to reply? Declaring your laziness is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Every-time i turn on u75 now i just see you belching-grandad-sunday-moustache-stuff.


You are on a discussion thread about the Lib Dems. If you don't wanna read it, go and read something else?


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are literally making up the hell bit so I cba to read further



What a shit cop out. No wonder you find it possible to defend the beliefs of others if you sanitise them first to remove the ugly aspects.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> If something is a sin then the person is a sinner - where do sinners go? And if you can't be arsed to read then why bother to reply? Declaring your laziness is nothing to be proud of.


You have no fundamental understanding of Christian belief. Go and educate yourself before commenting.

Edit: same with you elbows


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You are on a discussion thread about the Lib Dems. If you don't wanna read it, go and read something else?


No, you're on a thread about why the lib-dems are shit. And you're doing effing great.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2017)

His situation is almost a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, which is knowingly holding two contradictory beliefs in ones head at the same time the conflict of which are difficult to resolve.

And his dissonance reducing behaviour is to stand down as a political leader so he can continue to hold his religious beliefs without continuing conflict from his opposing political values.


----------



## moochedit (Jun 14, 2017)

Gerry1time said:


> everything to do with the fact that Vince Cable and Ed Davey are now back in the HoC, and Nick Clegg's out the way. Ed Davey, of course, was an Orange Booker. Tim Farron was on the left of the party.



hoping to get back in with the Tories again if the DUP deal falls through?

oh..i forgot they have taken a principled stand on brexit so couldn't possibly do that...oh hang on...


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're on a thread about why the lib-dems are shit. And you're doing effing great.


Stop _whining_ ffs.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no fundamental understanding of Christian belief. Go and educate yourself before commenting.
> 
> Edit: same with you elbows



Have you just retired into insulting people now? What would your Tim say? Not very Christian of you.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Stop _whining_ ffs.



Hah.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no fundamental understanding of Christian belief. Go and educate yourself before commenting.
> 
> Edit: same with you elbows


You arrogant shit, You weren't a christian what two year ago ago and now you are actually telling people that they're not real Christians?  Go shout in a centre you saved.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no fundamental understanding of Christian belief. Go and educate yourself before commenting.
> 
> Edit: same with you elbows



I know plenty - I know its abroad tapestry and ignoring the ugly end of it does you no favours at all. I know Christians who think their own family members will go to hell because of homosexuality and no amount of liberal handwringing is going to hide that side of the christian spectrum.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> He hasn't resigned because he's a 'good Christian'. Are you hard of thinking?



He's the one making it about his religious beliefs rather than being fucking useless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Stop _whining_ ffs.


Goes mad on Christianity -  five years later feels it's failed her. Whines on here. Next...?

This is pretty embarrassing.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> You arrogant shit, You weren't a christian what two year ago ago and now you are actually telling people that they're not real Christians?  Go shout in a centre you saved.


I haven't said I'm Christian


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

I want my politicians to not act on their beliefs. Like edie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I haven't said I'm Christian


Are you? 

edit: and yeah, you did.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

YouSir said:


> Is homosexuality a sin?
> 
> Just checking...



Not for Quakers. It's Trident and opposition to military stuff in general that puts us beyond the pale.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> I know plenty - I know its abroad tapestry and ignoring the ugly end of it does you no favours at all. I know Christians who think their own family members will go to hell because of homosexuality and no amount of liberal handwringing is going to hide that side of the christian spectrum.


You have no idea what Farron thinks on that point though, so stop being hysterical


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2017)

The political equivalent of the old 'if a tree falls in the wood...' question.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no idea what Farron thinks on that point though, so stop being hysterical



And do you think it's wrong that people tried to find out? Considering he was one of 650 people responsible for legislating the rights of gay people?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no idea what Farron thinks on that point though, so stop being hysterical



'You're wrong'

'Stop being hysterical'

You're positively dripping with dignity in this one.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I want my politicians to not act on their beliefs. Like edie.


I want my politicians to personally give  their approbation of my sexuality or beliefs. Like butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I want my politicians to personally give  their approbation of my sexuality or beliefs. Like butchers.


What?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 14, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> And do you think it's wrong that people tried to find out? Considering he was one of 650 people responsible for legislating the rights of gay people?



Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book talking about how the NHS should be dismantled and sold off. 

I think it's right that he should be questioned about his beliefs on whether there should be a national health service or a private health service.

I'm assuming, Edie, you don't think it's relevant?


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> You have no fundamental understanding of Christian belief. Go and educate yourself before commenting.
> 
> Edit: same with you elbows



The problem with this is there is really no such thing as Christian belief, just lots of disparate groups with very different beliefs and plenty of dissidents/heritics within most of those groups. The same goes for Islam and Judaism.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2017)

Farewell sweet prince


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie, do you remember when you first came here, before the heroisation, when you were called clair, and you had an aggressive racist anti-immigrant position? You remember that? Well you're doing that level of stuff here right now.


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

tim said:


> The problem with this is there is really no such thing as Christian belief, just lots of disparate groups with very different beliefs and plenty of dissidents/heritics within most of those groups. The same goes for Islam and Judaism.


Hence your tag team above concluding that Farron believes they should go to hell being absolutely fabricated bollocks


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 14, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Jo Swinson must be up for it too...


She does have one of those smiles


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Hence your tag team above concluding that Farron believes they should go to hell being absolutely fabricated bollocks


Is this it? The first christian you met in your crisis telling you that they don't believe in hell? Most do. Real hell. Not lib-dem hell.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

Libdem hell sounds like the worst sort of hell.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> Hence your tag team above concluding that Farron believes they should go to hell being absolutely fabricated bollocks



My tag team? I don't know what Farron's belief on Hell are. The only point I've made is that Farron both in his utterances and his voting record has shown that he has ambiguous views about homosexuality something that is hardly compatible with the values of the party he led.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

lib-dem best-hell


----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Libdem hell sounds like the worst sort of hell.



Rivers of milk, gay frogs, 'Winning here', cardboard cut outs of Nick Clegg....


----------



## gosub (Jun 14, 2017)

even the DUP decided the fire meant today was not a day for politiking.  the Lib Dems however...less classy than DUP
 (that takes some doing)


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I want my politicians to personally give  their approbation of my sexuality or beliefs. Like butchers.



christ


----------



## Gerry1time (Jun 14, 2017)

moochedit said:


> hoping to get back in with the Tories again if the DUP deal falls through?
> 
> oh..i forgot they have taken a principled stand on brexit so couldn't possibly do that...oh hang on...



I honestly doubt they would, even they can see what suicide that would be. However, thinking they're better at negotiating on Brexit, orjust better generally, is far from the realm of the possible. Jo Swinson as their front woman, them as the coaches behind the scenes to secure their legacy. Vince Cable's just a bit of a stirrer generally tbf.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

I will introduce a label that really ought to blow away the notion of this case being made safe via the image of the hand-wringing, faith is private, soft christian who wobbles over the existence of hell. 

Evangelical.



> Farron is also clear that his Christian faith is not simply private and personal, since he believes that the Christian gospel is true, he wants others to believe it too. He closed the same meeting by challenging the assembled MPs and Peers, saying: "What I want to encourage you to take away today is that the Bible might be massively confusing, hugely challenging, [with] bits of it you might find hard to believe – but there are four or five days in Jerusalem, 2000 years ago, the evidence for which is staggeringly compelling, and if it's true: everything – everything – changes."





> But if the popular narrative is to be believed, Christianity and Liberalism are enemies, not bedfellows. So how does Farron identify as both, without leaving his faith at the door of the House of Commons? As ever, Farron's answer is honest and eloquent: "the danger is sometimes that as a Christian in politics you think your job is to impose your morality on other people. It absolutely isn't."
> 
> He quotes the Welsh preacher Martin Lloyd-Jones, who said that a Christian's job "is not to reform society but to preach the gospel". Farron added: "What he meant by that is that you don't create Christian institutions and impose them on people who are not Christian. That is illiberal and it's counter-productive. But if you can convince people of the gospel, people will change their lives... Edmund Burke once said, 'all the laws against the godless have not saved one single soul' – and so we are wrong if we think our responsibility is legislate to make this a more Christian place."



He doesnt want to impose his views, but he wants to convince people of their validity. This clearly extends well beyond the private sphere.

The above quotes are from an article that suggests that Farron might be able to quash the notion that Christianity and Liberalism dont mix. Not that easy in practice is it? For bloody good reason!

Could Tim Farron finally quash the myth that Christianity and Liberalism don't mix? | Christian News on Christian Today


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

ugh

who knew?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> ugh
> 
> who knew?



You?


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> I will introduce a label that really ought to blow away the notion of this case being made safe via the image of the hand-wringing, faith is private, soft christian who wobbles over the existence of hell.
> 
> Evangelical.
> 
> ...


What is the problem with that?


----------



## Mungy (Jun 14, 2017)

just realised tim farron looks a bit like ken livingstone. or my head is borked.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

He looks like a thunderbird to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

He looks like a crying puppet whose voice has finally caught up with it's owner.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

A haunted ventriloquist's doll.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> What is the problem with that?



Are you taking the piss? It's not exactly compatible with several chunks of your stance is it? You bleating on about how his personal beliefs are none of our business when he is into the form of Christianity that is especially keen on taking the bible literally and then preaching it to others!


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Just replace 'Jack' with 'Tim' and a lot of them work surprisingly well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

elbows said:


> Are you taking the piss? It's not exactly compatible with several chunks of your stance is it? You bleating on about how his personal beliefs are none of our business when he is into the form of Christianity that is especially keen on taking the bible literally and then preaching it to others!


But the key thing is that he doesn't act on this. Or doe anything in line with what he publicly says he believes in.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> But the key thing is that he doesn't act on this.


Not even in today's sermon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> Not even in today's sermon.


Or believe it. 

Beyond weird interlude this.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jun 14, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> He looks like a crying puppet whose voice has finally caught up with it's owner.



like something out of a Thomas Ligotti story


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 14, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Farewell sweet prince



Tell me that's not an Alt right Milk(skimmed) thing. He pours it on his head doesn't he?


----------



## Edie (Jun 14, 2017)

I give up. Carry on wanking in self righteous glee over the Lib Dems.
If your unable to distinguish personal beliefs from civil liberties it's no concern of mine.


----------



## gosub (Jun 14, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Tell me that's not an Alt right Milk(skimmed) thing. He pours it on his head doesn't he?


Mop up to aisle four please


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

sunnysidedown said:


> like something out of a Thomas Ligotti story


I only know this boy via titles - and they are well...


----------



## YouSir (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I give up. Carry on wanking in self righteous glee over the Lib Dems.
> If your unable to distinguish personal beliefs from civil liberties it's no concern of mine.



Will do.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Tell me that's not an Alt right Milk(skimmed) thing. He pours it on his head doesn't he?



Alt-right milk?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I give up. Carry on wanking in self righteous glee over the Lib Dems.
> If your unable to distinguish personal beliefs from civil liberties it's no concern of mine.


I will. I'll combine the two


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Alt-right milk?



Yeah it's a thing, milk is a white supremacist, nationalist fluid, if you shower in it you get some Nordic super powers so you can fight immigrants and homosexuals.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> I give up. Carry on wanking in self righteous glee over the Lib Dems.
> If your unable to distinguish personal beliefs from civil liberties it's no concern of mine.


Reread his woe is me spiel from today and pretend that his personal beliefs including the one that compels him to spread those beliefs play no part. Any similarities between that and the rhetoric of evangelists seeking to sway peoples personal beliefs? 
 "The current environment."
  I'm not saying it was his  intention to evangelise but as someone said it leaks.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> Yeah it's a thing, milk is a white supremacist, nationalist fluid, if you shower in it you get some Nordic super powers so you can fight immigrants and homosexuals.



Well you learn something new every day on the interwebs.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 14, 2017)

Edie said:


> The fact is, Tim has voted consistently for LGBT+ rights. Despite any personal views (which are no one else's business).
> 
> That shows great moral principle. To defend the rights of people who think, and live, and love differently _despite_ your own personal opinion.


Your mate Tim, eh. Pass the sick bucket


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 14, 2017)




----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2017)

Farron has left his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats to join ISIS


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 14, 2017)

Remarkable bit of doublethink from Farron there; the UK is not liberal enough to accommodate his right to oppress gay people


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 14, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Farron has left his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats to join ISIS


----------



## RD2003 (Jun 15, 2017)

'


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> Reread his woe is me spiel from today and pretend that his personal beliefs including the one that compels him to spread those beliefs play no part. Any similarities between that and the rhetoric of evangelists seeking to sway peoples personal beliefs?
> "The current environment."
> I'm not saying it was his  intention to evangelise but as someone said it leaks.



This really gets to the key point, doesn't it? It would be lovely to imagine, as Edie seems to, that a person can separate the actions they take from the beliefs they hold, on a conscious and ongoing basis. It would be so much easier to trust people in general - never mind politicians - if that were possible. And it wouldn't be necessary to interrogate politicians on anything, because the racists would still support people of all backgrounds, the homophobes would support people regardless of sexual orientation, the anti-working class would do everything to reduce income inequality and the concentration of power in the hands of the rich, etc.

But one glance at reality shows that's blatantly bollocks. And there's no evidence from science or psychology that would allow us to claim that it's the case despite appearances: on the contrary, the opposite is true: apart from isolated cases of cognitive dissonance or dissociative reaction, people's behaviour reflects their beliefs.

So there are only two explanations for Farron's ambivalent voting record on equality as regards sexual orientation: (i) he hasn't wholeheartedly voted in support of LBGT equality because he's not committed to it, or (ii) he's made some electoral/popularity-based calculation that it wouldn't 'play' well with some constituency or other that he wants to curry favour with. The latter seems unlikely given that this is Lib Dem voters we're talking about. So the record *is* the evidence of his beliefs - either he's a spineless, lying hypocrite, or more likely he's a homophobe.

And on the evangelical thing, I know anecdote doesn't equal data, but I have one that summarises the mindset to me, and makes me agree that regardless of intentions people of that persuasion just can't _not _evangelise. Years ago I knew someone who was 'saved' from suicide by an evangelical Christian. I mean that literally - happened to be passing, succeeded in talking her down. Then he called her or dropped in on her every day, sometimes several times a day, at first to see that she was OK. So far so Christian. After a week the content of his concern started becoming more and more leading. She wasn't interested in seeing the light. It became more manipulative: she was already damned for considering suicide; she could only save herself by listening to him and turning to the faith. She started having panic attacks whenever he rang or called round. Her next suicide attempt was pretty much precipitated by the experience of dealing with him.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2017)

So Tim Farron resigns, former condem coalition ministers Vince Cable and Ed Davey return as MPs....

Do I smell another condem coalition coming?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

there is some inconsistency here though isn't there - if muslims think drinking alcohol is sinful and abstain from it, are they automatically "alcophobes" in the sense of oppressing or discriminating against drinkers?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> there is some inconsistency here though isn't there - if muslims think drinking alcohol is sinful and abstain from it, are they automatically "alcophobes" in the sense of oppressing or discriminating against drinkers?


are you really equating drinking alcohol, a lifestyle choice with being homosexual?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> there is some inconsistency here though isn't there - if muslims think drinking alcohol is sinful and abstain from it, are they automatically "alcophobes" in the sense of oppressing or discriminating against drinkers?


wtf?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> are you really equating drinking alcohol, a lifestyle choice with being homosexual?


well, this is thing.  For most of christian history homosexuality was seen precisely as a practice rather than an identity, which is a much later development.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> wtf?


wtf?  I'm saying Farron should be judged on his voting record, not on his theological standpoints


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> wft?  I'm saying Farron should be judged on his voting record, not on his theological standpoints


His belief in something that he's  happy to go against. Belief isn't a democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

Nice to see you back btw. Prick.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Nice to see you back btw. Prick.


lovely to hear from you too

His voting record is a public act.  How he squares "private" views with it is irrelevant?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> there is some inconsistency here though isn't there - if muslims think drinking alcohol is sinful and abstain from it, are they automatically "alcophobes" in the sense of oppressing or discriminating against drinkers?



That's quite a big hole you seem to be digging yourself into.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

free spirit said:


> That's quite a big hole you seem to be digging yourself into.


what?   That a politician should be judged by how they vote on stuff?  Whatever next!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> lovely to hear from you too
> 
> His voting record is a public act.  How he squares "private" views with it is irrelevant?


Just vote for bodies. You're a cathloc struggling woth the same non problem

_Must represent  people i want to burn in hell_


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> lovely to hear from you too
> 
> His voting record is a public act.  How he squares "private" views with it is irrelevant?


people don't like voting for hypocrites


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Just vote for bodies. You're a cathloc struggling woth the same non problem
> _Must represent  people i want to burn in hell_



The law should treat people equally.   But you can't legislate on peoples' conception of the Good.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> well, this is thing.  For most of christian history homosexuality was seen precisely as a practice rather than an identity, which is a much later development.



This group of bigots are arguably not bigots because they themselves don't define the group they're bigoted against as a group you can be bigoted against.

Great argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> The law should treat people equally.   But you can't legislate on peoples' conception of the Good.


What's that got to do with the thread/convo?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> This group of bigots are arguably not bigots because they themselves don't define the group they're bigoted against as a group you can be bigoted against.
> 
> Great argument.


any "Christian" who hates gay people for their identity is no kind of christian at all.  Only that bunch of US loons actually argue that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> any "Christian" who hates gay people for their identity is no kind of christian at all.  Only that bunch of US loons actually argue that.


Weird post  - *identity*. Did you mean to say that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

I love the continual ex-communications as well./


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Just vote for bodies. You're a cathloc struggling woth the same non problem
> 
> _Must represent  people i want to burn in hell_



To be fair to Farron, he probably doesn't _want_ gay people to burn in hell, he's just mistaken enough to think this cartoon hell exists and God wants them to go there.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> well, this is thing.  For most of christian history homosexuality was seen precisely as a practice rather than an identity, which is a much later development.





articul8 said:


> any "Christian" who hates gay people for their identity is no kind of christian at all.  Only that bunch of US loons actually argue that.



Eh? What exactly are you trying to say. Because it's hard to square the first thing you say is 'the thing' here with the second comment.

In any case, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is just prevaricating bullshit. It's still homophobia.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with the thread/convo?


I'm saying that people might legitimately criticise Farron for his voting record, or his inconsistency, but his theology should be left to those better qualified than I


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> To be fair to Farron, he probably doesn't _want_ gay people to burn in hell, he's just mistaken enough to think this cartoon hell exists and God wants them to go there.



That would be a very Lib Dem position.

Yes, we got in bed with the Tory scum but we feel bad about having to do it /sadface/

Sorry you're going to hell, we really wish we could help /sadface/


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> That would be a very Lib Dem position.
> 
> Yes, we got in bed with the Tory scum but we feel bad about having to do it /sadface/
> 
> Sorry you're going to hell, we really wish we could help /sadface/



When you put it like that, it does make sense he's a libdem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying that people might legitimately criticise Farron for his voting record, or his inconsistency, but his theology should be left to those better qualified than I


It's all, about managing hypocrisy.

Fuck that.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Eh? What exactly are you trying to say. Because it's hard to square the first thing you say is 'the thing' here with the second comment.
> 
> In any case, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is just prevaricating bullshit. It's still homophobia.



standing in judgement of sinners is not a very authentically Christian attitude.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

fuck off again you two faced no-friend cunt


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> To be fair to Farron, he probably doesn't _want_ gay people to burn in hell, he's just mistaken enough to think this cartoon hell exists and God wants them to go there.


Only if they actually practice gay sex. Being gay is fine, as long as you keep your pecker in your pants. He's one of _them_


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> standing in judgement of sinners is not a very authentically Christian attitude.


blessed  are the annotated


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> standing in judgement of sinners is not a very authentically Christian attitude.



Right, so they claim that they don't have a problem with homosexuality, only with the terrible things those otherwise lovely folk get up to in bed. How does this support your ridiculous, offensive analogy with Muslims disapproving of alcohol?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Right, so they claim that they don't have a problem with homosexuality, only with the terrible things those otherwise lovely folk get up to in bed. How does this support your ridiculous, offensive analogy with Muslims disapproving of alcohol?


People who don't drink on religious grounds aren't (normally!) expressing hatred of those who do.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> People who don't drink on religious grounds aren't (normally!) expressing hatred of those who do.



So, again, why did you compare that stance to that of Christians who are homophobic?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> So, again, why did you compare that stance to that of Christians who are homophobic?


I'm not.  We were talking about Farron.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> standing in judgement of sinners is not a very authentically Christian attitude.


yeh. so now you're the arbiter of authentic christianity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying that people might legitimately criticise Farron for his voting record, or his inconsistency, but his theology should be left to those better qualified than I





articul8 said:


> standing in judgement of sinners is not a very authentically Christian attitude.


but how keen you seem to suggest you're familiar with theology


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

articul8 said:


> I'm not.  We were talking about Farron.



This is like pulling teeth. OK then, why did you compare the stance of people (you did specify Muslims) who don't drink on religious grounds to what appears to be the stance of Farron on homosexuality? Given that, as DotCommunist pointed out, one is a lifestyle choice and the other is not.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> This is like pulling teeth. OK then, why did you compare the stance of people (you did specify Muslims) who don't drink on religious grounds to what appears to be the stance of Farron on homosexuality? Given that, as DotCommunist pointed out, one is a lifestyle choice and the other is not.


This was the hole I was referring to Articul8


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2017)

Surely fucking not


----------



## mather (Jun 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Surely fucking not



Jesus fucking Christ! Not again!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 15, 2017)

I fucking _knew _it!


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 15, 2017)

I can't imagine that the LibDems are dumb enough to go into a coalition with the Tories again after how badly they got burned the last time, their seats dropped from 57 to 8 as their voters deserted them en-masse(including my still angry Dad) and all the evidence suggests that they are still far from forgiven.  
Having talks is one thing makes sense from the Tories POV since the LibDems have 12 seats rather than the DUP's 10 plus the LibDems don't have any wild eyed crazies in the background but I can't see what May could offer them (abandon Brexit? Guarantee of PR?) that would make it worthwhile them pretty much facing oblivion at the the next election which is not going to be in 2022


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I can't imagine that the LibDems are dumb


a lib dem politician somewhere has just said 'challenge accepted' lol

but I don't think it can be true shirley, not again


----------



## mather (Jun 15, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I can't imagine that the LibDems are dumb enough



I bloody well can!

The Lib Dems are so out of touch that nothing surprises me about them. I'm not shocked at this news, angry yes but not shocked.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 15, 2017)

Oh my life.  I know it was predicted on here by several people but I just couldn't believe it.  I bet this is Cable's doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2017)

getting a sense of deja vu


----------



## inva (Jun 15, 2017)

i for one am all for it. hit that self destruct button again.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 15, 2017)

It'll send a fair few remainers back Corbyn's way. That can't hurt.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 15, 2017)

_It is our civic duty to stop this hard brexit and heartless tory cuts. The only effective way we can do this is by voting with them at every opportunity...._


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 15, 2017)

Fucking lib dems


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 15, 2017)

Surely even the idiots that are 2017 Lib Dem voters would get the message if they did it again. I don't think there are words for how hated they'd be, especially in the context of Grenfell. 

Then again they are 2017 Lib Dem voters.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jun 15, 2017)

Lower than a snakes belly that lot.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 15, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Surely even the idiots that are 2017 Lib Dem voters would get the message if they did it again. I don't think there are words for how hated they'd be, especially in the context of Grenfell.
> 
> Then again they are 2017 Lib Dem voters.



Well you only have to look at that one complaining about tactical voting to realise the calibre of them. Tactical voting being pretty much their only sales pitch for the entire campaign.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 15, 2017)

Just a thought but is there a chance this is just a bit of brinksmanship from the tories to put the wind up the DUP?


----------



## elbows (Jun 15, 2017)

belboid said:


> Only if they actually practice gay sex. Being gay is fine, as long as you keep your pecker in your pants. He's one of _them_



Yes. And in terms of the hell stuff, if you fall short by actually daring to use your genitals, you will be forgiven as long as you accept Jesus.

To quote from Farron himself, in his section of the book titled 'Liberal Democrats Do God' (I kid you not):



> This means that anyone who puts their trust in this Jesus, will stand before God ‘clothed’ in Jesus’ goodness and purity, just as Jesus clothed himself in our rottenness and sin. This is the ultimate act of real love – Jesus was punished for our sin, and he did it willingly, not grudgingly. He did it because he loves us. Now, all we need to do to know that we can face judgement with confidence is to accept that we are a ‘sinner’, say sorry to God and ask for his forgiveness and accept Jesus as the perfect payment for every wrong thing we ever did.



This sort of belief is another reason why I dont like religious beliefs in politics - fuck up all you want and the only personal responsibility you have to take at the end of the day is to embrace Jesus, sorted.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 15, 2017)

If they could get a major concession on Brexit, then it'd be worth it to them. 

It'd fuck the Tories though, and UKIP would respawn like a bad late Dracula movie without Christopher Lee in it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 15, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If they could get a major concession on Brexit, then it'd be worth it to them.
> 
> It'd fuck the Tories though, and UKIP would respawn like a bad late Dracula movie without Christopher Lee in it.



And it would fuck the LibDems again.

What are they going to do? Keep fluctuating between 8 MPs and 12 every other GE as they fuck up royally and then ask to be forgiven again?

Fucking cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2017)

Vintage Paw said:


> And it would fuck the LibDems again.
> 
> What are they going to do? Keep fluctuating between 8 MPs and 12 every other GE as they fuck up royally and then ask to be forgiven again?
> 
> Fucking cunts.


They must have done something really bad in a past life to end up not just as your run of the mill lib dem but lib dem MPs. One of them likely the reincarnation of Edward Carson


----------



## moochedit (Jun 15, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> Having talks is one thing makes sense from the Tories POV since the LibDems have 12 seats rather than the DUP's 10 plus the LibDems



or maybe they want to get both the lib dems and the dup on board?   They would have a very small majority with only 1 of them.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Well you only have to look at that one complaining about tactical voting to realise the calibre of them. Tactical voting being pretty much their only sales pitch for the entire campaign.



Labour asking its supporters to vote LD to keep May or Conservative asking its supporters to vote LibDem to keep Corbyn out is one thing but running a campaign based on "Vote for us because we're not the ones you really hate" doesn't strike me as a winner long term. No matter who they go into coalition with, they're going to piss off some of the people who voted for them. I don't know but I suspect more people voted for them to keep May out rather than vice versa. 
Going back into Coalition with Tories is industrial grade stupid but if they really are that big a bunch of dumbasses they deserve everything they will get next GE


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Surely fucking not


Lib dem press office say no coalition, no deal, but as they've got no leader presumably that decision is largely going to be down to the new leader.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 15, 2017)

surely not. surely even they wouldn't be this stupid as to throw their lot in with the tories again


----------



## chilango (Jun 15, 2017)

Maybe some (such as Cable) will simply cross the floor and defect properly this time?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> surely not. surely even they wouldn't be this stupid as to throw their lot in with the tories again


as I've posted on the post election thread, I doubt they will with May as leader, but suspect Cable will negotiate for a tory leader that they can work with.

I'm assuming that Cable will end up as leader.


----------



## moochedit (Jun 15, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Surely fucking not




Who is will patterson anyway?	is he just some random off the internet or a journalist or someone high up in the lib dems or tories? 

I wouldn't put it past the lib dems to do it again but i can't find any other sources for this.


----------



## moochedit (Jun 15, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> surely even they wouldn't be this stupid as to throw their lot in with the tories again



it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 15, 2017)

Well, at least this time they could say that their voters knew what they were voting for.

I mean, sure, they would have lied and broken their promises about not forming a coalition or making deals.

But on the other hand, at least this time they could say that their voters knew what they were voting for.


----------



## moochedit (Jun 15, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Lib dem press office say no coalition, no deal



they would never go back on their word would they?


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 15, 2017)

moochedit said:


> they would never go back on their word would they?


What politicians lie ?never wash your mouth out!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 15, 2017)

moochedit said:


> they would never go back on their word would they?


It's not a promise! It's a pledge.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 15, 2017)

on tweeter today


----------



## moochedit (Jun 15, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> It's a pledge.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 16, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> This is like pulling teeth. OK then, why did you compare the stance of people (you did specify Muslims) who don't drink on religious grounds to what appears to be the stance of Farron on homosexuality? Given that, as DotCommunist pointed out, one is a lifestyle choice and the other is not.



homosexuality is considered an identity by Western European cultures - it isn't seen in this light by many other cultures or indeed many previous generations.  It's a cultural construction.   Now, you might want to say that viewing sexuality as an identity category has advantages (from a rights based perspective for eg.)  But this then entails an encounter and dialogue between different (and ostensibly incommensurate) traditions.

As father Jack would say, "that would be an ecumenical matter".


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 16, 2017)

chilango said:


> Maybe some (such as Cable) will simply cross the floor and defect properly this time?



My mind legit filled in the blank and made that defecate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2017)

*oaten winning here*


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 16, 2017)

Mark Oaten is the subject of possibly the best sentence on Wikipedia:




			
				Mark Oaten's Wikipedia entry said:
			
		

> On arrival on the council estate, he attempted to blend in by exchanging his business suit for a tracksuit, but on the first day he found himself being goaded by youths about having hired a rent boy.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2017)

oh god i remember that


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 17, 2017)

I had forgotten


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 17, 2017)

In 2001 a load of people from Winchester joined the Socialist Alliance after a conference and then left to campaign for Oaten to take the seat from the then Tory MP.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 20, 2017)

Vince Cable running for the leadership, that's an improvement.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 20, 2017)

Sir Vince Cable to run for Lib Dem leadership - BBC News



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Announcing his candidacy on the Lib Dem Voice website, Sir Vince said the "political winds" were moving in the party's direction and it could become a "credible contender" for power, with the Conservatives "in disarray" and Labour still lacking economic credibility.
> 
> "There is a big space in British politics which I am determined that we should occupy," he wrote.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2017)

oh dear


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Jun 20, 2017)

There's only 12 of them so the pool of candidates is shallow to say the least, more of a puddle really. I don't think it's a case of the LibDems are shit rather than just not relevant anymore,  I am convinced that a large proportion of their voters pre 2015 were people voting for them to keep someone else out and given that the Tories gained far more from the LibDem collapse in 2015 than Labour did,  I would hazard a guess that the bulk of those were Labour supporters voting to keep out the Tories that Tory supporters voting to keep out Labour. Those people are never coming back, what's the point in voting LibDem to keep out the Tories only to help put them in power?
Then there are people liky my Dad, folks that are well off professionals but with a social conscience, wary of voting Labour but too decent to vote Tory. 
My Dad voted Labour in 2015 and earlier this month. OK he held his nose while voting Labour but he still did it, his conscience won out over the fact that the Labour manifesto will cost him money if it ever gets implemented.
There are a lot of people like him who feel betrayed who aren't likely to vote for them again any time soon if ever. It will be a generation before the LibDems recover not just another election or two. The SNP have a far more valid claim to be the third force in UK politics.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2017)

I can imagine that if the Tories dropped their veneer of social liberalism in order to shore up their core anti-EU support, then plenty of their voters who imagine themselves to be moderate centrists might turn Lib Dem. Not in any significant numbers, but enough to prop them up and give them a few more seats.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 20, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Sir Vince Cable to run for Lib Dem leadership - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"A big space"? Is it a cavernous, empty, soulless void, with winds blowing unpredictably in every direction, where you can shout as much as you like but no one can hear a word?

It'll suit them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2017)

Vince 'face like he's laying a' Cable. Truly the big beasts are stirring within the lib dem ranks


----------



## killer b (Jun 20, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Vince Cable running for the leadership, that's an improvement.


How is it an improvement? This clown's biggest legacy is the cut price Royal Mail sell-off (which will be hammered come election time). He's soiled goods.


----------



## killer b (Jun 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> He's soiled goods.


(although I guess that's one high profile backer he can rely on)


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 20, 2017)

Must you post the word 'soiled' and that picture in such quick succession?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Sir Vince Cable to run for Lib Dem leadership - BBC News


I'd imagine the wily old fox will have promised Swinson that he'll just 'caretake' for 2 years, then bale in time for her to "appeal to the younger demographic".
Maybe he's even pledged to do that!


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jun 20, 2017)

Hope they get someone decent!


----------



## killer b (Jun 20, 2017)

billy_bob said:


> Must you post the word 'soiled' and that picture in such quick succession?


If I hadn't have done, someone else would have.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2017)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Hope they get someone decent!


I'm sure with such a vast pool of talent that they will, how can they not?


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 20, 2017)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Hope they get someone decent!



You realise only Lib Dems are eligible for the position, right?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 20, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Sir Vince Cable to run for Lib Dem leadership - BBC News




Wanna fuck him up? Take to twitter and ask him if he's paid back his golden handshake for losing his seat just 2 years ago.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 20, 2017)

Clearly he thinks another election isn't far away otherwise he's just too old. Either that or its all about positioning the lib dems for the future.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 20, 2017)

killer b said:


> How is it an improvement? This clown's biggest legacy is the cut price Royal Mail sell-off (which will be hammered come election time). He's soiled goods.



I've got his book 'The Storm' and I liked it. Everytime I see him on Question Time he talks sense I tend to agree with. I tended to disagree a lot of what Tim Farron said - so....subjectively...a definite improvement.


----------



## billy_bob (Jun 20, 2017)

'Vote Cable - not quite as weird and pointless as that last bloke'


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 20, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Clearly he thinks another election isn't far away otherwise he's just too old. Either that or its all about positioning the lib dems for the future.



So long as he avoids direct sunlight and gets hold of a vile of virgin's blood before the polls open, he will be safe for the time being.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2017)

killer b said:


>


Like an owl emitting a pellet


----------



## bemused (Jun 20, 2017)

Nothing says vibrant go-getting political party more than a Vince Cable.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 20, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Lib dem press office say no coalition, no deal, but as they've got no leader presumably that decision is largely going to be down to the new leader.




The Lib Dem's have really fucked themselves: first by going into coalition with the Tories and again now by refusing to do so again. This is where centrist third party politics and policies like proportional representation lead. Obviously, if they propped the Tories up again they'd be fucked too. But, what is the point of their party if they won't even form a coalition when the opportunity arises? This is exactly the sort of horse-trading scenario that they want to make more likely, and now on one of the rare occasions when the opportunity has come up under FPTP they can't participate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Like an owl emitting a pellet



Still, enough about what gets you sexually aroused, eh?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 21, 2017)

eoin_k said:


> The Lib Dem's have really fucked themselves: first by going into coalition with the Tories and again now by refusing to do so again. This is where centrist third party politics and policies like proportional representation lead. Obviously, if they propped the Tories up again they'd be fucked too. But, what is the point of their party if they won't even form a coalition when the opportunity arises? This is exactly the sort of horse-trading scenario that they want to make more likely, and now on one of the rare occasions when the opportunity has come up under FPTP they can't participate.


yep


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 21, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So long as he avoids direct sunlight and gets hold of a vile of virgin's blood before the polls open, he will be safe for the time being.


I think you meant a vial. There is nothing vile about a Virgin.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2017)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think you meant a vial. There is nothing vile about a Virgin.



No?  I say to you: "Tim Farron aged 24".


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 21, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No?  I say to you: "Tim Farron aged *44*".



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jun 22, 2017)

What do people think about their prospects in the long-term; was 2015 a fatal blow to them from which they can never truly recover? Will the party go extinct in the next 10-20 years. Obviously they have survived similar periods of low representation in the past, but honestly, what is the point of the party now?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 22, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> What do people think about their prospects in the long-term; was 2015 a fatal blow to them from which they can never truly recover? Will the party go extinct in the next 10-20 years. Obviously they have survived similar periods of low representation in the past, but honestly, what is the point of the party now?



Well they've fucked it with the young vote and bear in mind those they shafted in 2010 are all still in their 20's, so they're going to be voting for a long time.  Plus those people they did over are exactly the sort of demographic which the lib dems would typically aim for.

I think there will always be a soft tory vote for them in places like South West London, Oxford etc.  People who are really tories at heart but can't stomach the whole nasty party thing as they see themselves as good people who have standing orders for charities and volunteer locally etc.  I think the real test will be whether the lib dems can recover in their former stronghold in the South West.  Any South West based urbs got a view on that?

As the tories lurch even further to the right under May (and I don't see anybody less rabid likely to succeed her) and Labour seemingly moving back towards something leftish the lib dems have been left isolated standing in the cold and not standing for anything. Its little wonder they kept asking Farron about sin because there really wasn't much else to talk about and few people gave a shit about anything he had to say anyway.

Personally I think they're fucked for at least a decade and I reckon so do they.  Why else would Cable be sticking his hat in when he's previously admitted he's too old?  I think it's a long term plan he will be working on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2017)

Check their perfs in the SW this time following 2010's wipeout - the labour have picked up 2nds all over the place.When i was in the weston labour party we dreamt of breaking through the 10 000 votes barrier. That would have left us still way behind the tories and lib-dems  fighting for first place but have been a morale booster. This election they got 18 000 and lib-dems 5000. That is happening in a lot of seats. They have lost the southwest.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Check their perfs in the SW this time following 2010's wipeout - the labour have picked up 2nds all over the place.When i was in the weston labour party we dreamt of breaking through the 10 000 votes barrier. That would have left us still way behind the tories fighting for first place but have been a morale booster. This election they got 18 000 and lib-dems 5000. That is happening in a lot of seats. They have lost the southwest.




Does anyone know what the number of lib dem votes was overall compared to 2015?


----------



## killer b (Jun 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Check their perfs in the SW this time following 2010's wipeout - the labour have picked up 2nds all over the place.When i was in the weston labour party we dreamt of breaking through the 10 000 votes barrier. That would have left us still way behind the tories fighting for first place but have been a morale booster. This election they got 18 000 and lib-dems 5000. That is happening in a lot of seats. They have lost the southwest.


It's going to be worse for them next time - there was still a lot of tactical votes by people who thought a Labour surge wasn't happening.


----------



## JimW (Jun 22, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's going to be worse for them next time - there was still a lot of tactical votes by people who thought a Labour surge wasn't happening.


Yep, and then places like here where it was.a tight Tory Labour race they were squeezed even harder than the Greens


----------



## mather (Jun 22, 2017)

frogwoman said:


> Does anyone know what the number of lib dem votes was overall compared to 2015?



2015 Election: 2,415,862 (7.9%)

2017 Election: 2,371,772 (7.4%)


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 22, 2017)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2017)

Davey not standing either so Cable pretty much a shoe in.


Loving the usual LD expression of pained sincerity on his face


----------



## J Ed (Jun 28, 2017)

killer b said:


> How is it an improvement? This clown's biggest legacy is the cut price Royal Mail sell-off (which will be hammered come election time). He's soiled goods.



From Labour's perspective it is an improvement lol


----------



## Nylock (Jun 28, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Davey not standing either so Cable pretty much a shoe in.
> 
> 
> Loving the usual LD expression of pained sincerity on his face


He looks like he's either:
(a) Forgot where he left his keys
(b) In the process of shitting his pants (and is very much aware of it)


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 28, 2017)

Nylock said:


> (b) In the process of shitting his pants (and is very much aware of it)


LD form


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2017)

Nylock said:


> He looks like he's either:
> (a) Forgot where he left his keys
> (b) In the process of shitting his pants (and is very much aware of it)



(b), blatantly.


----------



## JTG (Jun 28, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Check their perfs in the SW this time following 2010's wipeout - the labour have picked up 2nds all over the place.When i was in the weston labour party we dreamt of breaking through the 10 000 votes barrier. That would have left us still way behind the tories and lib-dems  fighting for first place but have been a morale booster. This election they got 18 000 and lib-dems 5000. That is happening in a lot of seats. They have lost the southwest.


Fucking hell, really? That's dreadful, they used to hold W-s-M. Will go look if I can, never found time

ETA: highest Labour vote in W-s-M since 1945. Lib Dems have fallen away rapidly. Not quite so bad in Wells or Somerton & Frome but looks like the Labour supporters who lent the Liberals their votes to keep out Tories have fucked off. Over 10,000 Labour votes in S&F this time. Anecdotally, various Frome based friends just couldn't bring themselves to go tactical and just voted Labour


----------



## JTG (Jun 28, 2017)

Note that the term "stronghold" when used in reference to the Lib Dems in the West Country was only ever valid while Labour supporters were prepared to prop them up. The Labour vote was back up to 1997 levels even in bloody Yeovil


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 4, 2017)

Apparently Paddy Ashdown emailed this round members the other day. I can't find a link though. 


*



			TheLibDems.org
		
Click to expand...

*


> Here is Ashdown’s second rule for the internet age: “If you see a business model that takes no account of the new technologies, you see a business model which is failing”.
> 
> This applies to most newspapers, some old fashioned businesses and nearly all political parties.
> 
> ...


----------



## mather (Jul 5, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Apparently Paddy Ashdown emailed this round members the other day. I can't find a link though.



Another liberal who seems to fancy using meaningless corporate/tech jargon and cliches as a cheap substitute for real politics and policies, neither of which the Lib Dems have. Yes, Labour were the only party to successfully harness new technologies and social media during the last election and they used it to great effect but that was only part of their appeal. They also combined this new approach with policies that turned out to be very popular with a large number of people and they also were the only party to have a proper physical presence (rallies and canvassing) in real life as well as online during the election. 

Trying to harness the benefits of new technology and social media whilst ignoring all the other important stuff will leave you with defeat, just as it did with Jon Ossoff in the US. He ran a slick, well funded campaign, using all the buzzwords that Paddy Ashdown used like "_networked_" and "_connected_" yet his campaign flopped and he lost the election.



At the end of the day if all you have to offer is more of the status quo, more neo-liberalism, more of the same shit that has been peddled by mainstream politicians for the last four decades, no one is going to be interested in it nor will they be enthused by it, not in this day and age. Social media and tech can be very useful tools but you have to have the politics to go with it.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jul 6, 2017)

Does this sort of stuff still go hear? They did kick him out for some racist tweet in 2011, but he was quite prominent for a while, and had an utterly shit "satirical site" called muckspreading.  

EXPOSED: Former councillor downloaded hundreds of indecent images of children AND animals


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2017)

Tim Farron: I decided to quit before general election - BBC News



> Outgoing Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has revealed he decided to quit several weeks before the general election but did not announce his decision publicly.



Yeah, 'course you did mate.

Fucking massive bellend.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2017)

I imagine he did tbh - the knew he was close to losing his seat to the tories: the party threw everything they had at it and still only just scraped in. Imagine that might have focused his mind away from leading the party somewhat...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> I imagine he did tbh - the knew he was close to losing his seat to the tories: the party threw everything they had at it and still only just scraped in. Imagine that might have focused his mind away from leading the party somewhat...



And had they come in with 25-30 MPs he'd still be doing the Frank?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> I imagine he did tbh - the knew he was close to losing his seat to the tories: the party threw everything they had at it and still only just scraped in. Imagine that might have focused his mind away from leading the party somewhat...


he couldn't lead a question


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And had they come in with 25-30 MPs he'd still be doing the Frank?


No, of course. But it was obvious weeks before the election they were going to do shit. Had they pulled of an unexpected result I'm sure he'd have changed his mind. But they did pretty much exactly as expected.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2017)

killer b said:


> No, of course. But it was obvious weeks before the election they were going to do shit. Had they pulled of an unexpected result I'm sure he'd have changed his mind. But they did pretty much exactly as expected.


they did pull off an unexpected result by retaining any mps


----------



## teqniq (Jul 14, 2017)




----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 17, 2017)

Is 6% or so in the polls becoming the new norm for the Libdems?


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 17, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Is 6% or so in the polls becoming the new norm for the Libdems?




Not low enough, imo.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 18, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Not low enough, imo.


It's another rung on the ladder


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 18, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Not low enough, imo.



i'm not sure it's possible to get a minus number in an opinion poll...


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2017)

This article from Tim Farron is quite something. 

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/tim-farron-youre-meant-feel-marginalised-christian/

_people don’t mind people of faith in politics – so long as their faith is only of the cultural variety.   So, if you wear funky garb, have nice colourful festivals, have interesting buildings and ceremonies, then we are absolutely fine about your faith – in fact your religious culture makes us more diverse and allows me to define myself as very liberal and tolerant by demonstrating how cool I am with your religion.
_
'funky garb'
'colourful festivals'
.... 'natural sense of rhythm'?


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> This article from Tim Farron is quite something.
> 
> https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/tim-farron-youre-meant-feel-marginalised-christian/
> 
> ...



I thought this was something like the Daily Mash until I opened it up and saw, yes, his name and picture in the author section.

Bloody hell.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2017)

I dunno if it's so much sub-textually borderline racist or 'other' so much as 'poor me' or rather 'poor us'.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2017)

A little from column A, a little from column B. It's got everything.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 19, 2017)

Look at that puppy face.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 19, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I dunno if it's so much sub-textually borderline racist or 'other' so much as 'poor me' or rather 'poor us'.



Regardless of intent, it feels a little bit Alan Partridge. He tries to do this "cool teacher down with the kids" way of talking that just comes across as a bit naff and rubs you up the wrong way.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2017)

Yup it's a load of old toss either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2017)

> Christianity is counter cultural and it always has been.




Oh wow, on top of the passive-aggressive stuff and accusing everyone else of not actually really believing in god it seems like his understanding of christian history stopped sometime before Constantine. Even articul8 hasn't offered that nonsense.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 19, 2017)

Farron in misunderstanding everything about Brexit/Labour shocker.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> Regardless of intent, it feels a little bit Alan Partridge.



Needless to say, everyone else had the last laugh


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2017)

killer b said:


> This article from Tim Farron is quite something.
> 
> https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/tim-farron-youre-meant-feel-marginalised-christian/
> 
> ...


dissing every cathedral and church building in britain somehow as well lol


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2017)

If there's one thing Jeebus totally loves and respects, it's a well-off white dude with a persecution complex


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2017)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

> The last night on the bus included a late-night drive from rural Welshpool to Solihull, where Lib Dem aides switched on the luxury coach’s disco lights and Farron led the busload of activists and journalists in raucous karaoke, singing The Whole of the Moon, by the Water Boys.





He's making it too easy now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 20, 2017)

Vince Cable named Lib Dem leader as no other candidate emerges

"Wisest man in British politics"

Amazing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

They like old white blokes now then? Poor old ming, not old enough now.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 20, 2017)

> Though Cable said he would do no pacts or deals with either Labour or the Conservatives, he had some praise for Philip Hammond in his battles with hardline Brexiters in the cabinet, calling the chancellor a “political adult”.
> 
> “You’ve got Boris Johnson in short trousers, and Dr Fox in nappies,” said Cable. “In that company he deserves some qualified support.”



Says it all really - yellow Tory. There should be no co-operation with anyone on the Conservative front benches.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 20, 2017)

Rob Ray said:


> Vince Cable named Lib Dem leader as no other candidate emerges



Just the right man for the post. Oh wait, he already sold that off...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

He was the only one to both predict and vote for the electoral destruction of the little shit-rump he now proudly leads.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> He was the only one to both predict and vote for the electoral destruction of the little shit-rump he now proudly leads.



But, but he is the wisest man in British politics.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 21, 2017)

The thing I've found it hard to get over is just how much he reminds me of San the Eagle from the Muppets...


----------



## mather (Jul 21, 2017)

Ptolemy said:


> The thing I've found it hard to get over is just how much he reminds me of San the Eagle from the Muppets...
> 
> View attachment 111773



That's uncanny.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> That's uncanny.



Yes, except for the eyes, which seem like they have been taken from somewhere else and glued on.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 21, 2017)

Deluded pricks 


> I am optimistic about the party’s future. We reached our nadir in 2015, but under Farron we had a huge upsurge in party members, bringing a lot of enthusiasm and fresh ideas for the new leader to build on. There’s a huge opportunity for change in British politics at the moment, with the marked division between left and right politics leaving a space for a party with solid centre ground ideals to offer an alternative.





> All that the Lib Dems need to do is keep on with their current line.





> I think that the party is at a critical point in its history. We are operating in a political environment where there is a huge void in the centre ground. Labour have lurched left and the Conservatives are so far right that Liam Fox made it into the cabinet. The opportunity to be the only party taking a sensible stance on both economic and social issues is there for the taking - whether the reserved politeness of Mr Cable is the right profile to take that remains to be seen.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 21, 2017)

The sequel to Resovoir Dogs looks shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2017)

But  there's a ghost.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2017)

Thats a bit mean to ming


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 21, 2017)

Banquos?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> View attachment 111793
> 
> The sequel to Resovoir Dogs looks shit



Look at Farron in the back there, he has to be the least photogenic person in British political history.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 21, 2017)

Eying his future


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Eying his future



He looks like he wants to kill them!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2017)

Just about the only time he's got popular support.


----------



## captainmission (Jul 21, 2017)

#letvinceoccupyyourgapinghole

I doubt Farron would approve


----------



## mather (Jul 21, 2017)

captainmission said:


> #letvinceoccupyyourgapinghole
> 
> I doubt Farron would approve




I'm sure a fair few Lib Dem MP's know all about "gaping holes".


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2017)

_Let me know when you want to empty it. _


----------



## mather (Jul 21, 2017)

killer b said:


> _Let me know when you want to empty it. _



LOL and ewww!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Deluded pricks


That is so delusional, so out of touch with reality, that it's almost scary. 
Have they REALLY not noticed that the key political phenomenon of the past few years has been the collapse of the centre?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Look at Farron in the back there, he has to be the least photogenic person in British political history.


In a way, it's a lot like the story of our Saviour


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 26, 2017)

Just been reminded in update to the Employment Tribunal fees thread (see last page of thread) that Cable was a complete shitcunt about introducing the fees during the Tory 'coalition'




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Cable backed the fees when they were introduced in 2013, saying they would make Britain more “enterprise-friendly”, and said changes would “help ensure that people who work hard and do the right thing are rewarded”.



Guardian source for rest of what's actually a good news story today ... Cabkle's subsequrnt wittering and handr#wringing about his/Lib Dem requests for a 'review' if the new Employment Tribunal system actually makes things far worse. Lib Dems are Tories, always have been


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 26, 2017)

Don't know how to get rid of that mistaken attachment btw  ...  

I don't even know how I added it ...  ) .


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 26, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Don't know how to get rid of that mistaken attachment btw  ...
> 
> I don't even know how I added it ...  ) .



I see there you're a volunteer at Swansea Britain First. Busted!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 26, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:
			
		

> Swansea Britain First?



That's a misprint for the Swansea Beer Festival you plank


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 26, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> That's a misprint for the Swansea Beer Festival you plank



Yeah yeah. That's what Hitler said.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 27, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> Banquos?


Birnham, laddie. _Birnham all. _


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 27, 2017)

Fuck off Lib Dems. Fuck off Guardian.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 28, 2017)

Glad to see them repeating their successful tactics from the election.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2017)

Vince Cable words: 



> The old have comprehensively shafted the young



Vince Cable deeds:

 

Indeed was the lib-dems chief defender of the policy. So i suppose he was right on the first bit.


----------



## JimW (Sep 4, 2017)

Another day another Lib Dem oddball
Lib Dem council candidate sent Labour rival explicit photo of him dressed as mouse


----------



## greenfield (Sep 4, 2017)




----------



## Sue (Sep 4, 2017)

JimW said:


> Another day another Lib Dem oddball
> Lib Dem council candidate sent Labour rival explicit photo of him dressed as mouse


Presumably meant to sexually intimidate/harass his opponent.  What a fucking sleaze.


----------



## mather (Sep 4, 2017)

Sue said:


> Presumably meant to sexually intimidate/harass his opponent.  What a fucking sleaze.



Why would anyone be intimidated by him? More likely they will take the piss and have a good laugh, look at the state of him.


----------



## Sue (Sep 4, 2017)

mather said:


> Why would anyone be intimidated by him? More likely they will take the piss and have a good laugh, look at the state of him.


I said 'presumably meant to.' Why do you think he sent it to her? Do you think he sent it to any of his male opponents?


----------



## mather (Sep 4, 2017)

Sue said:


> I said 'presumably meant to.' Why do you think he sent it to her? Do you think he sent it to any of his male opponents?



Probably not, I didn't actually read the article. Either way, taking the piss and sharing that image with as many people as possible is the way to go. Show everyone what a repulsive freak this creature is. I mean, who in the right mind would vote for that creature after seeing that picture?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 4, 2017)

Sue said:


> Presumably meant to sexually intimidate/harass his opponent.


Quite possibly so but if that was the intention it has backfired spectacularly.


> What a fucking sleaze.


Definitely.


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

mather said:


> Probably not, I didn't actually read the article. Either way, taking the piss and sharing that image with as many people as possible is the way to go. Show everyone what a repulsive freak this creature is. I mean, who in the right mind would vote for that creature after seeing that picture?



What I can't wrap my head around is how he didn't think she'd just share it?


----------



## mather (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> What I can't wrap my head around is how he didn't think she'd just share it?



I know. That is why sharing it with as many people as possible is the best response to this creep.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 4, 2017)

if he was an mp, i guess this would be a matter for mr squeaker...


----------



## mather (Sep 4, 2017)

BTW, who is the woman in the photo? His girlfriend/wife or (as I suspect) a prostitute?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 12, 2017)

Need to be more radical Paddy Ashdown says Lib Dems must become radical to regain voters


----------



## Nylock (Sep 13, 2017)

How about they try not being duplicitous, venal and spineless. How about giving that a go?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2017)

Nylock said:


> How about they try not being duplicitous, venal and spineless. How about giving that a go?


that's too radical


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2017)

Nylock said:


> How about they try not being duplicitous, venal and spineless. How about giving that a go?



What are you, some kind of peacenik hippy pinko communist?


----------



## Nylock (Sep 14, 2017)

If by 'peacenik hippy pinko communist' you mean 'sarky cynical cunt' then yeah, colour me pinko


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2017)

Nylock said:


> If by 'peacenik hippy pinko communist' you mean 'sarky cynical cunt' then yeah, colour me pinko


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

"we are pro-business and we are also pro-worker"
lol


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> "we are pro-business and we are also pro-worker"
> lol




Can't help but notice which comes first


----------



## Nylock (Sep 20, 2017)

"We are pro whatever gets us in power"

The cunts.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 20, 2017)

Nick Clegg Accuses Labour Of 'Demonising Austerity' | HuffPost UK


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 20, 2017)

Nylock said:


> "We are pro whatever gets us in power"
> 
> The cunts.


So they're pro nothing then?


----------



## bemused (Sep 20, 2017)

BigTom said:


> "we are pro-business and we are also pro-worker"
> lol




Pro isn't a term I link with the LibDems


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 20, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Nick Clegg Accuses Labour Of 'Demonising Austerity' | HuffPost UK


 
Shut up and fuck off Clegg, yesterdays man, outsmarted and devalued.


----------



## bemused (Sep 20, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Shut up and fuck off Clegg, yesterdays man, outsmarted and devalued.



The problem Nick Clegg has with Corbyn is that he's pinched the trick of promising everything to everyone; expect the rich. Which has left the LibDems not sure what to do with themselves.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2017)

bemused : The major difference is that Corbyn's ambitions with his promises are largely genuine 

The even John Major-er differences are that unlike Clegg,  Corbyn would *never* get into bed with the Tories.

Stop applying false equivalence


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 22, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Nick Clegg Accuses Labour Of 'Demonising Austerity' | HuffPost UK


Cunt


----------



## elbows (Jan 10, 2018)

If anyone remembers the bit of this thread where I had a rant about Farron being evangelical, you'll know the following doesnt surprise me one bit, nor what he said in the first place, nor that its taken him this long to, erm, clarify. Such is the amazing potential of the liberal evangelical - attempting to spin plates with nothing more than hand-wringing gestures is not an easy act to pull off after all, especially when wearing an orange nappy.



> Tim Farron has said he regrets stating he did not believe gay sex was a sin during last year's general election.
> 
> The ex-Lib Dem leader told Christian Radio he had been "foolish and wrong" and had spoken partly to try and get the issue of his faith "off the table".



Farron regrets saying gay sex not a sin


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 10, 2018)

elbows said:


> If anyone remembers the bit of this thread where I had a rant about Farron being evangelical, you'll know the following doesnt surprise me one bit, nor what he said in the first place, nor that its taken him this long to, erm, clarify. Such is the amazing potential of the liberal evangelical - attempting to spin plates with nothing more than hand-wringing gestures is not an easy act to pull off after all, especially when wearing an orange nappy.
> 
> 
> 
> Farron regrets saying gay sex not a sin



Amazing. Does he really believe that his homophobia is the reason for his career failure? Surely he must be aware he would have been fine in the Tory party.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 10, 2018)

Britain first even.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2018)

Or the lib-dems. Being elected leader by the members and MPs even.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2018)

elbows said:


> Farron regrets saying gay sex not a sin



All those people who started fucking each other because Tim Farron told them it was OK are gonna be all at sea now


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 10, 2018)

It's like something the Now Show would've rejected as too obvious and heavy-handed to make good satire.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Or the lib-dems. Being elected leader by the members and MPs even.



Fair, although I'm not sure if that counts as a successful political career.


----------



## vanya (Jan 14, 2018)

Orange Book liberal = yellow Tory


----------



## elbows (Jan 15, 2018)

Another excuse for a musical interlude, Faith in the City


----------



## nuffsaid (Jan 16, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> All those people who started fucking each other because Tim Farron told them it was OK are gonna be all at sea now



You talking about sailors...?


----------



## elbows (Jan 16, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> All those people who started fucking each other because Tim Farron told them it was OK are gonna be all at sea now



It's similar to the time Thatcher & Co didnt want to mention anal sex in the AIDS public health campaign because large sections of the rascal multitude may never have considered sticking it in there if the government didnt tip them off that the possibility existed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2018)

elbows said:


> It's similar to the time Thatcher & Co didnt want to mention anal sex in the AIDS public health campaign because large sections of the rascal multitude may never have considered sticking it in there if the government didnt tip them off that the possibility existed.



Yep. Obviously, mentioning anal sex would have caused men to want to anally penetrate their fellow men; women, cats, dogs and hamsters, in a frenzy of bumhole lust unseen since Caligula (the person, not the crap film).


----------



## elbows (Jan 17, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Obviously, mentioning anal sex would have caused men to want to anally penetrate their fellow men; women, cats, dogs and hamsters, in a frenzy of bumhole lust unseen since Caligula (the person, not the crap film).



To be fair I probably shouldnt have said Thatcher & Co, I think this was mostly Thatcher  herself, and most of her cohorts had a more rounded approach to the arse.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 23, 2018)

*Nick Clegg: 'How to Stop Brexit'*
Public · Hosted by UCL Department of Political Science

There really is something deeply unhealthy about them.


----------



## Voley (Feb 7, 2018)

Tim Farron on NWA:


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2018)

At least he didn't forget about Dre.


----------



## steveo87 (Feb 7, 2018)

Voley said:


> Tim Farron on NWA:



So for dodgy eye/dyslexia/Dyspraxia reasons I missed the ''and" bit a breifly thought, in the most bizarre piece historical revisionism imaginable, Tim Farron was claiming that the Lib Dems were in NWA!


----------



## rekil (Feb 23, 2018)

Spoiler: this goes here


----------



## BigTom (Feb 23, 2018)




----------



## Beermoth (Mar 4, 2018)

https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/we-must-have-a-margaret-thatcher-statue-writes-jo-swinson

Up on the Mail site, but I don't feel good linking to that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 19, 2018)

I thought she was kidding. Apparently not.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 19, 2018)

After being torn apart for an hour she then posts this. Just... nothing!


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2018)

I love this bit in the guardian.



> Former Liberal Democrat ministers in the coalition and some special advisers have been speaking out about their fight to try to soften the policy.
> 
> Sarah Teather, who was minister for children and families, revealed in 2013that an internal working group on immigration was initially named the “hostile environment working group, with its name only changed following Lib Dem objections.



May's immigration policy seen as 'almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany'


----------



## Mordi (Apr 19, 2018)

Well that's alright then. There was someone on the radio today saying the Home Office doesn't use 'hostile environment' anymore but 'compliant environment'. 

Bureaucrats, always happy to halfheartedly sanitise evil.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 19, 2018)

emanymton said:


> I love this bit in the guardian.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Almost entirely unintended by the Guardian, that article should have had the headline "Why the lib-dems are shit"


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 22, 2018)




----------



## teqniq (Apr 22, 2018)

Pass the sick bag. Have you looked at the replies?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 22, 2018)

frogwoman said:


>



I thought he meant the Scottish rapper being not schooled in Norse mythology.  WTF


----------



## elbows (Apr 23, 2018)

From the archives...



> In it, Mr Thorpe also said of San Francisco: "If I'm driven out of public life in Britain for a gay scandal I shall settle in SF!"
> 
> He asked Bruno to write to him at the House of Commons "marked Personal!", and discussed how they could meet again, adding: "I must get on to SF on some mission, which the British or American taxpayers will pay for!!"



Revealed: Letter that silenced Thorpe


----------



## chilango (Jun 1, 2018)

Drove past this the other day


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 5, 2018)

Lord Steel: Cyril Smith allegations 'tittle-tattle'

"The former Liberal leader Lord Steel has described child sex abuse allegations against former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith as “tittle-tattle” and “scurrilous hear-say”."


----------



## mather (Jun 5, 2018)

danny la rouge said:


> Lord Steel: Cyril Smith allegations 'tittle-tattle'
> 
> "The former Liberal leader Lord Steel has described child sex abuse allegations against former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith as “tittle-tattle” and “scurrilous hear-say”."



Can the cunts sink any lower?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2018)

Forgot to put this up to laugh at the other day:


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 10, 2018)

It’s going to be years before the Libdems recover isn’t it? Another 30 years of potholes and Janus Face before they climb back towards the heady heights of the Ashdown and Kennedy years.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 10, 2018)

What a pity


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2018)

Dom Traynor said:


> It’s going to be years before the Libdems recover isn’t it? Another 30 years of potholes and Janus Face before they climb back towards the heady heights of the Ashdown and Kennedy years.


in the meantime they'll just be there, solidly nicking 5-8 % of the left of tory vote, an option for pious middle class duffers with their bags for life.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 11, 2018)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2018)




----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2018)

> The Liberal Democrat leader – who would have preferred to have joined forces with Labour under Gordon Brown rather than David Cameron’s Tories in 2010, had the parliamentary arithmetic allowed



'Forced' to be a member of a government that instituted austerity, pathetic prick. Drown these rats.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> 'Forced' to be a member of a government that instituted austerity, pathetic prick. Drown these rats.



oh the poor dear

forced to accept a ministerial salary and government car and all that stuff

boo fucking hoo


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2018)

Puddy_Tat said:


> oh the poor dear
> 
> forced to accept a ministerial salary and government car and all that stuff
> 
> boo fucking hoo


It must have been truly terrible.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 17, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


>




that remoinds me of somethung but i cannot place it....


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2018)

Clegg said:
			
		

> “There is this narrative hung round the Lib Dem party’s neck, which is just false, that we sold our soul, merrily went along with a savage, ideological approach to austerity which deliberately penalised the poor. It is simply not true.”


Yellow Tory fucks trying to creep back. And some morons preparing to ignore their activities in the name of the EU.


----------



## rekil (Sep 17, 2018)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 17, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> Yellow Tory fucks trying to creep back. And some morons preparing to ignore their activities in the name of the EU.



They could only have sold their souls if they had any in the first place...


----------



## Ptolemy (Sep 17, 2018)

copliker said:


>




Ms Miller is an investment banker, right? No wonder she's so comfortable with the status quo and equates the left with fascism.


----------



## rekil (Sep 17, 2018)

They're going to get us all killed.


----------



## sealion (Sep 17, 2018)

Ptolemy said:


> Ms Miller is an investment banker, right?


Yes and ethical hedge fund manager


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 18, 2018)

Miller quoting Shirley Williams. That's what all centrist/liberal/whatever types believe. At least she's more honest than most, I guess.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 18, 2018)

I think it’s brilliant how they are doubling down on Remoanism, it’s really going to chip away at their support even more.


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 18, 2018)

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Lib Dems, tells you all you need to know:

Someone asked Vince Cable if the LibDems were ‘too nice’. Well stop laughing and let's look at their record. | The Canary

For me they are worse than the Tories. The tories are atleast relatively honest about where they stand. Whenever I see the Lib Dems having the nerve to do a street stall I give them shit, I tell them that they've got a nerve showing their face in public and that they've got blood on their hands and are responsible for people dying. One time I really went to town on them and they had to move their stall further up the street away from where I was sitting. They have the nerve to do a street stall in a 'student city' in the part of the country where I live, one day I swear I'm going to see their shitty stall and kick it over.


----------



## andysays (Sep 18, 2018)

#erotic spasm


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2018)

I do view them as the worst distillation of contemporary UK parliamentary politics- opportunistic fleas, looking for a new host. If they were a spirit, they would be methanol not ethanol


----------



## rekil (Sep 18, 2018)

The Canary is even worse than the Libdems.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 18, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> I do view them as the worst distillation of contemporary UK parliamentary politics- opportunistic fleas, looking for a new host. If they were a spirit, they would be methanol not ethanol



Still a useful substance, methanol.


----------



## Beermoth (Sep 18, 2018)




----------



## The Pale King (Sep 18, 2018)

It was a shit line anyway and he fluffed it. Lib Dems only think in soundbites, and then try to reverse-engineer policies to fit them.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2018)

Farrons trying for the ed Miliband post leadership Twitter likeability thing isn't he? I look forward to his shit podcast.


----------



## chilango (Sep 18, 2018)

killer b said:


> Farrons trying for the ed Miliband post leadership Twitter likeability thing isn't he? I look forward to his shit podcast.



Lib Dems really good at this kinda thing, no?


----------



## gosub (Sep 18, 2018)

Beermoth said:


>




that moment when whats left of their MP's literally tell you that they are running away from conference.


----------



## campanula (Sep 18, 2018)

Oh christ chilango...was vaguely browsing before heading out to greenhouse...and now my afternoon has been blighted by the leering goon's grotesque smirk.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 18, 2018)

campanula said:


> Oh christ chilango...was vaguely browsing before heading out to greenhouse...and now my afternoon has been blighted by the leering goon's grotesque smirk.


Maybe this will make you feel better .


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 18, 2018)

redsquirrel said:


> 'Forced' to be a member of a government that instituted austerity, pathetic prick. Drown these rats.



"I talk to people in the charity world who tell me they’re being buried in CVs from Labour MPs."

No doubt the replacement careers they're eyeballing are in striking distance of their existing MP salaries. Fucking parasites.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 18, 2018)

Lembit Opik would be much more convincing as a former New York state senator having a bid to be elected mayor of Pughkeepsie derailed at the primary stage by a sex scandal.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2018)

it does seem that politicians with funny names are invariably far far from being fun guys. cunts would be more apt


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 18, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> in the meantime they'll just be there, solidly nicking 5-8 % of the left of tory vote, an option for pious middle class duffers with their bags for life.


Actually, half of that is probably dripping wet centre right vote. They have always consistently won more seats of the Tories than Labour


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 18, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> I do view them as the worst distillation of contemporary UK parliamentary politics- opportunistic fleas, looking for a new host. If they were a spirit, they would be methanol not ethanol


I'm intrigued - could you please explain that analogy?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2018)

methanol is the bad shit that has to be topped off when distilling before you get to the goodness of ethanol below- its the stuff that kills people who drink home brewed gear


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 18, 2018)

i can't face finding a source, as it might have the twat's picture, but i see charlie mullins (pimlico plumbers) has gone over to the lib dems

i think they deserve each other


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

copliker said:


> The Canary is even worse than the Libdems.


It's not perfect, no publication is and I do have my criticisms but the Lib Dems are much much worse. Atleast The Canary tells you things that the mainstream media dare not.

The Lib Dems are responsible for people's deaths, they approved of austerity policies that actually killed people and also made the lives of disabled people much worse, I don't think you can say the same about the Canary. Or are you accusing people who work at the Canary of murder and bullying the disabled? It would be a most bizarre accusation.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> ...tells you things that the mainstream media dare not.



Uh oh.


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Uh oh.


I'll read whatever the fuck I like thanks


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> I'll read whatever the fuck I like thanks



I don't give a shit what you read, but if the internet has taught us one thing its that when people use phrases such as you did then we're off down the rabbit hole again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> The Canary tells you things that the mainstream media dare not.


here I recalled this from a thread here on the subject, its what had my alarm bells ringing, occupy and zietgeist...nah

and here is the opinion of check shirted fresh faced Owen Jones if the thread up there doesn't raise an eyebrow with you
 "One example is The Canary - its pay-per-click model seems to have been working well for it, but it also really promotes conspiracy theories and a lot of things that just aren’t right."


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> I'll read whatever the fuck I like thanks


You forgot to add “sheeple”.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> here I recalled this from a thread here on the subject, its what had my alarm bells ringing, occupy and zietgeist...nah
> 
> and here is the opinion of check shirted fresh faced Owen Jones if the thread up there doesn't raise an eyebrow with you
> "One example is The Canary - its pay-per-click model seems to have been working well for it, but it also really promotes conspiracy theories and a lot of things that just aren’t right."


Not often I’m on Owen’s side, but I am on that one. The Canary is dangerous shit: steer clear.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 19, 2018)

Had to clear up after the lib dem conference in the Brighton boxes of unopened conference brochures guess someone was overly optomistic over attendees


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> here I recalled this from a thread here on the subject, its what had my alarm bells ringing, occupy and zietgeist...nah
> 
> and here is the opinion of check shirted fresh faced Owen Jones if the thread up there doesn't raise an eyebrow with you
> "One example is The Canary - its pay-per-click model seems to have been working well for it, but it also really promotes conspiracy theories and a lot of things that just aren’t right."


I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of one of their conspiracy theories, I've been reading it for a while and haven't seen evidence of any.


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I don't give a shit what you read, but if the internet has taught us one thing its that when people use phrases such as you did then we're off down the rabbit hole again.


That sounds like bollocks to me.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2018)

I can see this guy is going to be an asset to the boards. Welcome.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> I would appreciate it if you could provide an example of one of their conspiracy theories, I've been reading it for a while and haven't seen evidence of any.


so boosting loon craig murray and his skripal ideas? that was a recent one iirc. 

max kieser a fan because obviously in the RT/Press TV truth zone anything goes. The thread I linked to outlines a lot of the concerns surrounding the editor, the model and the content it produces.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2018)

GreatGutsby said:


> That sounds like bollocks to me.



I'm sure it does my rabbit hole dwelling friend.  Let us know when you do your big reveal about how the world really works.  I can't wait.


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> so boosting loon craig murray and his skripal ideas? that was a recent one iirc.
> 
> max kieser a fan because obviously in the RT/Press TV truth zone anything goes. The thread I linked to outlines a lot of the concerns surrounding the editor, the model and the content it produces.


You need to provide details man, details!


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

killer b said:


> I can see this guy is going to be an asset to the boards. Welcome.


Saying that anyone who uses the term mainstream media is talking shite is absolute bollocks.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 19, 2018)

Funnily enough the latest Wells incarnation was talking about the Canary just before his last ban.


----------



## GreatGutsby (Sep 19, 2018)

I'm not someone who falls for conspiracy theories, I'm just not aware of the Canary promoting or spreading them which doesn't mean they haven't been doing that. I've just not seen any evidence of it.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Funnily enough the latest Wells incarnation was talking about the Canary just before his last ban.


my thoughts.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 20, 2018)

Although msm is often followed by compete bollocks


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 23, 2018)

Did anyone else know last weekend was the LibDem conference? This article which I spotted today was the first I knew about it.
Six things from the Lib Dem conference 
I thought they had hit rock bottom a few months back when my team won the pub quiz cos I was the  only one who knew the name of their party leader but it would seem they still haven't finished falling


----------



## Edie (Sep 24, 2018)

I’m in an argument elsewhere with a poster who is claiming that, unlike the tories or corbyn, the LDs have never received any dodgy funding from individuals in oppressive regimes. Like Corbyn from an Iranian tv station (apparently). Any notable examples of dodgy LD funding/donations or is that true?


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 24, 2018)

Edie said:


> I’m in an argument elsewhere with a poster who is claiming that, unlike the tories or corbyn, the LDs have never received any dodgy funding from individuals in oppressive regimes. Like Corbyn from an Iranian tv station (apparently). Any notable examples of dodgy LD funding/donations or is that true?


Well there is this arsehole if it helps

Michael Brown: From £1.6m villa to prison yard, downfall of the Lib Dem fraudster


----------



## Edie (Sep 24, 2018)

MickiQ said:


> Well there is this arsehole if it helps
> 
> Michael Brown: From £1.6m villa to prison yard, downfall of the Lib Dem fraudster


Thanks. That smacks of pure incompetence on their part rather than moral shadiness mind.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 24, 2018)

You don't get to be an evil rich bastard by wasting money on shit like the lib dems tbf.


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2018)

Maybe this from 2007 counts.



> The Liberal Democrats are being indirectly funded by the profits of arms contractors, despite their policy to "tackle the arms trade".
> 
> Money that was originally the proceeds from developing "direct energy weapons" and urban warfare arms for Iraq, has flooded into the party's coffers.
> 
> ...



Lib Dems cash in on arms trade link

I'm sure plenty of Lib Dem stuff on this front involves wiggle room but then again I tend to associate that party with expert wriggling at the best of times.



> Last night, a Lib Dem spokesman said: "Marcus Evans Ltd runs a wide range of conferences on a variety of issues - including healthcare, energy, the environment and information technology. It is not involved in the buying or selling of arms."


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 24, 2018)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You don't get to be an evil rich bastard by wasting money on shit like the lib dems tbf.


This is probably the truest statement in politics, the LibDems have probably not received much if any cash from shady regimes but not because they're particularly honest rather because no-one thinks it likely that they will ever be in a position to pay it back.
Even Evil Overlords must want the best possible return on their investment


----------



## elbows (Sep 24, 2018)

Found one more, that will do from me.



> Billionaire Sudhir Choudhrie has been welcomed by the British establishment.
> 
> His family's Stellar International Art Foundation owns more than 600 rare works of art by artists including Picasso, Renoir and Andy Warhol.
> 
> ...





> But an investigation by BBC Panorama and The Guardian suggests he is also one of the world's biggest arms dealers.
> 
> Leaked documents from the Choudhries' Swiss bank show that the family's companies were paid almost 100m euros by Russian arms firms in one 12-month period alone.



The arms dealer welcomed by the establishment


----------



## Edie (Sep 24, 2018)

MickiQ said:


> This is probably the truest statement in politics, the LibDems have probably not received much if any cash from shady regimes but not because they're particularly honest rather because no-one thinks it likely that they will ever be in a position to pay it back.
> Even Evil Overlords must want the best possible return on their investment


 well maybe that’s the truth and I’m not gonna win the ‘theyre All morally bankrupt when it comes to donations’ argument


----------



## Edie (Sep 24, 2018)

elbows said:


> Found one more, that will do from me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s more like it elbows


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 25, 2018)

MickiQ said:


> Well there is this arsehole if it helps
> 
> Michael Brown: From £1.6m villa to prison yard, downfall of the Lib Dem fraudster



He’s a cunt but I look forward to the Nick Moran film about his life.


----------



## andysays (Sep 25, 2018)

Edie said:


> Thanks. That smacks of pure incompetence on their part rather than moral shadiness mind.


That sounds like a winning slogan 'vote LibDem for pure incompetence rather than moral shadiness'...


----------



## Libertad (Sep 25, 2018)

Moral shodiness?


----------



## elbows (Sep 25, 2018)

With all the 'dilemmas over money, funding, investments' and other common ground, maybe they could merge with the church of england and become the church of handwringerland.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Sep 25, 2018)

elbows said:


> With all the 'dilemmas over money, funding, investments' and other common ground, maybe they could merge with the church of england and become the church of handwringerland.


If it’s true the CoE have bought Wongas debt then they’re a million times better than the Libdems


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 25, 2018)

they decided not to


----------



## elbows (Sep 25, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> they decided not to



Probably because if they had, there would be 'moral pressure' on them to write it off or treat those in debt differently to how investors and capitalists normally treat debtors.

Because you know, heaven forbid that the church might use its financial muscle to actually practice what it preaches. Better to stick to the old ideas that peoples actual lives will remain shit but never mind, it will all be ok for them once they are dead, so long as they believe in the supreme entity.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 25, 2018)

not-bono-ever said:


> methanol is the bad shit that has to be topped off when distilling before you get to the goodness of ethanol below- its the stuff that kills people who drink home brewed gear


ahhh....you have certainly filled a gap in my (extremely minimal) knowledge of brewing methods!


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 25, 2018)

copliker said:


> The Canary is even worse than the Libdems.


given that one purports to be a radical left news site, and the other is a centrist political party - what makes you say that?
e2a:don't think much of the Canary, just wanted to hear your views


----------



## rekil (Sep 27, 2018)

Streathamite said:


> given that one purports to be a radical left news site, and the other is a centrist political party - what makes you say that?
> e2a:don't think much of the Canary, just wanted to hear your views


The thread on the Canary outlines why it's shit fairly adequately. It's a vehicle for breathless Icke adjacent crankery and ultimately a nuisance. 

 

"Watch man, who happens to be Fox's biggest racist, _ANNIHILATE_ the msm" etc.


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

copliker said:


> The thread on the Canary outlines why it's shit fairly adequately. It's a vehicle for breathless Icke adjacent crankery and ultimately a nuisance.
> 
> View attachment 148099
> 
> ...



What rubbish. In that instant they were spot on, the rest of the media were pushing for war and Tucker Carlson was pretty much the only msm person who was questioning the so-called logic behind it. Rather than making yourself look like a fool for calling them out for doing that, why don't you ask why the rest of the media failed so miserably in doing it's job?


----------



## rekil (Sep 27, 2018)

lol


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

No surprise to see you have no point.


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2018)

that darned MSM


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

Pushing for war? Life really stopped for some lefties in 2003 didn't it?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> that darned MSM



They stick it in the news so you never feel full up


----------



## rekil (Sep 27, 2018)

Big big liker of casually brown's drivel that one iirc so no surprises here.


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> that darned MSM



Yes, sod the MSM. Are you actually trying to defend their record?


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2018)

Just laughing at you mostly. I don't have a great deal of time for the press, but tbh I've got less for Mendoza's cynically targeted conspiracy site.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Sep 27, 2018)

Beermoth said:


>



I dread to think how many badgers you need to arse rape to get that sweaty


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> Pushing for war? Life really stopped for some lefties in 2003 didn't it?



Well given that the last time the media lied to get us into war and hundreds of thousands dies as a direct result, can you blame me for being more pissed off with them and their actions which carry far more weight and cause far more damage than anything the Canary or other new media outlet do?

And yes, they were pushing for it. With the exception of Tucker Carlson, all of the MSM, including the rest of Fox News, were pushing for war or some type of military intervention in Syria.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

No they weren't. What happened was load of people claimed that they were because of 2003 - because _they must be_ doing that right - and _look all the non-msm are saying they are_. If your political vision is just replaying that 2003 situation over and over then you're not going to have much to say about today. Beyond maybe _don't rebel against dictators_. That actually explains a lot of the madness going on right now - communists saying don't rebel, labour-anarchists and red-brownism.


----------



## rekil (Sep 27, 2018)

I can't remember which Douma conspiracy theory the Canary settled on. I think they pushed all of them but I'm on loonwatch furlough so won't check. This stuff belongs elsewhere. Sorry for the derail fellow libdem h8rs.


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> Just laughing at you mostly. I don't have a great deal of time for the press, but tbh I've got less for Mendoza's cynically targeted conspiracy site.



Yet it is the msm that lies more/twists the narrative, has a far bigger audience, has far more power and the ability to influence public debates. Why not make an even bigger deal about that?


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2018)

We're on a left-wing messageboard. It's taken as read that The Sun etc are lying scum - but The Canary and it's ilk are seen by many as some kind of voice of the left: so it's necessary to challenge that. As it isn't.


----------



## andysays (Sep 27, 2018)

'Why the MSM is shit' thread --------------------->


----------



## rekil (Sep 27, 2018)

Where would we be without hip young gunslingers like Fisk, waste management E&R woman, and former ambassador to blah out there _destroying_ the msm.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

Plenty canary-seed here.


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

killer b said:


> We're on a left-wing messageboard. It's taken as read that The Sun etc are lying scum - but The Canary and it's ilk are seen by many as some kind of voice of the left: so it's necessary to challenge that. As it isn't.



Then why not apply that logic to other parts of the media that are considered on the left but get more respect/more of a pass such as the Guardian, New Statesman etc... These concerns seem a bit selective.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

mather said:


> Then why not apply that logic to other parts of the media that are considered on the left but get more respect/more of a pass such as the Guardian, New Statesman etc... These concerns seem a bit selective.


8000 posts.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 27, 2018)

You think the Guardian and the union-denying New Statesman get a pass on here? lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

13000 posts


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2018)

mather said:


> Then why not apply that logic to other parts of the media that are considered on the left but get more respect/more of a pass such as the Guardian, New Statesman etc... These concerns seem a bit selective.





butchersapron said:


> 8000 posts.


of which I've personally posted 262. I don't think you can call me a staunch defender of the guardian tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2018)

25 000 posts


----------



## mather (Sep 27, 2018)

BigTom said:


> You think the Guardian and the union-denying New Statesman get a pass on here? lol.



They get sniggers and people rightfully joke and take the piss out of them, but they don't get the blanket dismissal that some on here do.


----------



## killer b (Sep 27, 2018)

dude, you just got it totally wrong. it's ok, we all do it sometimes. it's actually liberating to admit it occasionally.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2018)

A corker!



...but seriously...MC bantz from the Remainian 'high priest' representing a Leave constituency (57% L) without a single 'Majestic' outlet.

'kinnel


----------



## strung out (Nov 25, 2018)

Mr President? Ex-MP eyes Estonia role

Lembit Opik has decided he fancies a go at being president of Estonia


----------



## moochedit (Nov 25, 2018)

strung out said:


> Mr President? Ex-MP eyes Estonia role
> 
> Lembit Opik has decided he fancies a go at being president of Estonia



Is "chairman of the Space Kingdom of Asgardia" not enough for him then?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2018)

You did nothing while it happened.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 27, 2019)

Ugh 

Mirror Online: Inside Nick Clegg's £7m mansion in America's most expensive postcode.

Inside Nick Clegg's £7million mansion with pool, huge gardens and five bedrooms


----------



## brogdale (Jan 27, 2019)

Series of these...


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Series of these...
> 
> View attachment 160114



They’ve spread-eagled Cable?


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 31, 2019)

David Ward apparently back in 

Former MP David Ward is back in the Liberal Democrat party


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 31, 2019)

All round charmer


----------



## NoXion (Jan 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> A corker!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Spinning here"?


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 16, 2019)

Farron regrets saying gay sex not a sin


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> Farron regrets saying gay sex not a sin



That was over a year ago, so much as I enjoy ranting about evangelical shits, I bet I already did that earlier in the thread.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 16, 2019)




----------



## two sheds (Feb 16, 2019)

I bet he still regrets it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2019)

David Steel suspended from Lib Dems over Cyril Smith revelation



> David Steel has been suspended from the Liberal Democrats after admitting he was aware that Cyril Smith was a child abuser but failed to assess whether he was a risk to children.





> He later went on to pass a recommendation that Smith should receive a knighthood in 1988, which was successful.


----------



## tim (Mar 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> David Steel suspended from Lib Dems over Cyril Smith revelation


----------



## inva (Mar 15, 2019)

Seem to remember Steel popping up to defend other abusers within the party too


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 15, 2019)

_Well, yeah.  He probably nonces kids but what can you do?_


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> _Well, yeah.  He probably nonces kids but what can you do?_


Knight him.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)

I know we're not meant to just post things without comment...but really this does speak for itself in so many ways...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 17, 2019)




----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 164818



Tempted to read this as them spotting a gap in the market provided by the DUP and switching from anti Brexit to supporting May's deal.


----------



## Sue (Mar 24, 2019)

Oxford MP admits 'slapping' ex-boyfriend and being 'detained' by police


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 24, 2019)

Supposed future leader too.


----------



## binka (Mar 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Supposed future leader too.


Tbf there's so few of them they'll probably all end up leader at some point before being turfed out for being weird/shit


----------



## Sue (Mar 24, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Supposed future leader too.


So they keep saying. Maybe she's just about shit enough to be too. Can't see this helping her much though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2019)

Liberal Democrat Layla Moran, who holds the parliamentary seat for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the extraordinary confession on Twitter last night.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 25, 2019)

> The Lib Dems have entered a race they want to scrap as they reveal their candidate for the Bristol mayoral elections in 2020.
> 
> Mary Page was most recently the PR & communications officer at the National Composites Centre in Emersons Green. She has also been a political research assistant at South Gloucestershire Council and a broadcast journalist at the BBC.
> 
> Living in Stoke Bishop, Page describes herself as *“an innovative and creative problem solver with the sagacity and courage to generate and exploit serendipitous opportunities”.*



You describe yourself as a what now?

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and...gYRO9mjplPY5g7EBKulkySe5jWHYItqgWwulOIJ3TDuL8


----------



## elbows (Mar 25, 2019)

Doctor Carrot said:


> You describe yourself as a what now?
> 
> https://www.bristol247.com/news-and...gYRO9mjplPY5g7EBKulkySe5jWHYItqgWwulOIJ3TDuL8



Ha, the worst kind of PR speak. Although to be excessively fair, they lifted all that shit from her linkedin page.

Speaking of shit, stay tuned as she rebrands the dog turds people put through Nick Cleggs letterbox as 'stakeholder-driven, targeted expressive micro-parcels'.


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2019)

Is it serendipity if you've generated it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2019)

It's DISRUPTION


----------



## brogdale (Apr 19, 2019)

I know....but quite amusing...in a seasonal sort of way, nonetheless.
Lewes.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 19, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I know....but quite amusing...in a seasonal sort of way, nonetheless.
> Lewes.
> 
> View attachment 168320


Janet and John visit the farm: volume 1


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2019)

Rather read about Janet and Join visiting the slaughterhouse


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2019)

We're back in!


----------



## killer b (Apr 23, 2019)

incredible.


----------



## JimW (Apr 23, 2019)

I had a dream, where merchant bankers walked hand-in-hand with full-time carers into the sunlight uplands


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2019)

They literally thought NOT FOR THE MANY would be a good lead in and a great way to undermine corbyn. Going nowhere fast.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 23, 2019)

I've always dreamed of being the Duke of Westminster, maybe they can help me out.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2019)

rioted said:


> I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of  labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?


 



ernestolynch said:


> You're just a typical ponce-anarchist who will end up in the Lib-dems, like Shevek.



He ended up in labour as it goes. The anti-semite faction at that.

(Yes, i have a free hour and am re-reading thread)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 23, 2019)

Libdem economics, #1 in a short series:

_Hello *Many*, we've split everything up equally, here's your share. Oh, hang on, we forget to give some to the *FEW*! Better take a bit back off you for them. Oh, shite, there's the *1%* as well, then there's the* GLOBAL HEDGEFUND MANAGERS*, better save a bit for them. Erm, actually, let's start again and give the *FEW* their share first._


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Libdem economics, #1 in a short series:
> 
> _Hello *Many*, we've split everything up equally, here's your share. Oh, hang on, we forget to give some to the *FEW*! Better take a bit back off you for them. Oh, shite, there's the *1%* as well, then there's the* GLOBAL HEDGEFUND MANAGERS*, better save a bit for them. Erm, actually, let's start again and give the *FEW* their share first._


they'd sit everyone down and offer them a slice of cake and some tea and then explain nicely that they've cocked everything up and against expectations the many won't be getting the money promised during the election campaign, when yes, you're right, they said that they were trying to regain trust after the whole nick clegg fees fiasco thing, that the needs of the few are awfully important and hopefully this can be made up to the many at some point in the future, precisely when is a bit of a problem


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2019)

In that world the many aren't supposed to get what the few have. It's the disgusting point of meritocracy. So, it' s saying yes, there will be many and the few and we're here to ensure that stays the same. Mad thing to do/say at this point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2019)




----------



## Poi E (Apr 23, 2019)

With that sort of honesty they'd poll well.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 168759



Black marker pen will easily amend those signs to pretty much what you’ve done there.  With slight creativity you can get:

Not for the many
For the few
Fuk everybody


----------



## redsquirrel (May 30, 2019)

'We have to stop no-deal': Ed Davey kicks off Lib Dem leadership bid

One for all the mugs that have voted LibDem in the last month, still defending the coalition.


> ... Davey said he will “never say the coalition was a bad thing” and that the Lib Dems’ difficult reputation in coalition had only been down to their PR.
> 
> “We played the politics wrong, but we did look after the people who needed looking after and we stopped the Tories cutting far deeper and more dramatically,” he said. “We got the blame for the bad things and no credit for the good things.”


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> 'We have to stop no-deal': Ed Davey kicks off Lib Dem leadership bid
> 
> One for all the mugs that have voted LibDem in the last month, still defending the coalition.


Grade A; that one.


----------



## Poi E (May 30, 2019)

The journo should have ripped into the wanker for such a risible contention. "Without your votes no coalition". Jesus.


----------



## binka (Jun 26, 2019)

As noted on the Brexit thread Ed 'who?' Davey has decided a government of national unity led by cooper or benn is the way forward.

However he also said that he wouldn't want Corbyn as PM under any circumstances - presumably then even if it meant stoping Brexit. And also of course no regrets on austerity





So ruddy brave making all those tough decisions


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 26, 2019)

Of course this is the party that more than a few urbanites insist is centre-left.


----------



## vanya (Jun 26, 2019)

Centre left my arse. They're not a centre left party but a liberal party. 

Going back a bit here's SplinteredSunrise's response to the Tory liberal coalition. 

Shit on toast



> Like I suppose most of you reading this, I’m feeling a bit depressed tonight. Awful as New Labour has been in many ways, the return of Tory government will do that to you. I’ll reflect on the Tories when I’m feeling a bit less dyspeptic. What I will say tonight is, I hope all those lefties who fell for Cleggmania and have spent the last three or four weeks boosting the Fib Dims are feeling a bit silly now. Because anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming.
> 
> Yes, you know who you are. You let your enthusiasm run away with you. You wanted to believe we were still in 2005, with that nice antiwar Charlie Kennedy taking a stance to the left of Labour. You didn’t think the Orange Book was of any importance. You assumed they were a left-liberal party, even as they said they were a liberal party. You dismissed out of hand the suggestion that Nick Clegg was basically a dispositional Tory who couldn’t exist in the Tory Party purely because of its stance on Europe. You found that nice Vince Cable so reassuring, at least if you just listened to his soothing voice and didn’t pay too much attention to what he was saying. You were impressed by Evan Harris, with his groovy ideas about euthanasia and libel reform. And didn’t they look fresh and shiny and new?
> 
> It was so easy, wasn’t it, to see the Lib Dems as you wanted them. All you needed to know was that they weren’t the other two. If you were of a left-liberal disposition, it was so tempting to envision the Lib Dems as being like Labour only better – without the war and authoritarianism, without the dreadful Gordon Brown and all his grey placemen, without those boring trade unions – but new and hip and young, like Labour only without the disadvantages. And even as Cleggy signalled for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that he was going to go with the Tories, you could allow yourself – just for a few days – to dream of the progressive majority. Well, we all make errors of judgement. When you’re finished shouting at the TV, you should take a deep breath, put the kettle on and think things over.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 26, 2019)

“Tough decisions” is one of those phrases that fills me with rage. Tough for who, exactly?  Not the people making the decisions or anyone they associate with. Never had it so good.


----------



## binka (Jun 26, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> “Tough decisions” is one of those phrases that fills me with rage. Tough for who, exactly?  Not the people making the decisions or anyone they associate with. Never had it so good.


Poor old Nick was driven out of politics for his bravery and is now slumming it in California 

Nick Clegg swaps Putney townhouse for £7million California mansion ahead of new Facebook role


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 26, 2019)

Ed Davey seems to be doing a Chuka and massively deluding himself over how much influence he has. If there is a GE soon, the LibDems will probably get a fair number of extra seats but so what. A majority of either side wouldn't need them. I can't imagine another Tory-LibDem coalition, the last one was disastrous for the LibDems and they are totally opposed on the most important issue in current politics.
Unfortunately for the LibDems there is a new major force in UK politics that there wasn't when they last held the balance of power, to wit the SNP, currently with 3 times as many seats as the LibDems and almost certainly will still hold more even after a GE.
It makes far more sense for a Labour minority to approach the SNP first and only approach the LibDems if they need the support of both. In which case the LibDems are going to be the smallest group in an alliance of three hardly a position to lay down rules about an acceptable PM


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 26, 2019)

Would actually really enjoy the LibDems getting a huge vote share at a GE and still only getting 25 seats or something, orange cunts


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 26, 2019)

We should do the same thing as in 2010 and get all the LibDems on here to out themselves so we can call them dickheads


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 26, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Would actually really enjoy the LibDems getting a huge vote share at a GE and still only getting 25 seats or something, orange cunts



That would be highly enjoyable. Smuggest most self-righteous proponents of neo-conservative economics and double liberalism on the market


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 26, 2019)

I had a conversation with a lib dem before the 2015 (?) GE.  to put it in context the LDs are the only party round here who could unseat the tory.

LD "Can we rely on your vote?"
Me "No, your party lied about student fees"
LD "that was 5 years ago, and we have apologised"
Me "no fucking use - my daughter is at uni now"

was I wrong?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 26, 2019)

mx wcfc said:


> I had a conversation with a lib dem before the 2015 (?) GE.  to put it in context the LDs are the only party round here who could unseat the tory.
> 
> LD "Can we rely on your vote?"
> Me "No, your party lied about student fees"
> ...


No


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2019)

mx wcfc said:


> I had a conversation with a lib dem before the 2015 (?) GE.  to put it in context the LDs are the only party round here who could unseat the tory.
> 
> LD "Can we rely on your vote?"
> Me "No, your party lied about student fees"
> ...


Well the 2017 election Labour's pledge to students was uncosted and undeliverable.. So you should cross them off the list too


----------



## mx wcfc (Jun 26, 2019)

gosub said:


> Well the 2017 election Labour's pledge to students was uncosted and undeliverable.. So you should cross them off the list too


So is it better to plunge our young people into debt?  Shouldn't the country invest in educating people?  ffs,  tax the rich.  

The biggest problem is actually that the country pushes plenty of scientists through Uni, but they get paid far better by going on to be lawyers and accountants and bankers/financiers.  research scientists, who do something useful, get paid fuck all.  

Rant over, I can't be arsed to have a row about this.


----------



## agricola (Jun 26, 2019)

gosub said:


> Well the 2017 election Labour's pledge to students was uncosted and undeliverable.. So you should cross them off the list too



I am not sure that "uncosted and undeliverable" point really is a valid criticism, given that the amount of debt built up by the current (presumably costed and affordable) system passed £100bn in March of 2017 and will probably get past £200bn in the next decade if something is not done.


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2019)

agricola said:


> I am not sure that "uncosted and undeliverable" point really is a valid criticism, given that the amount of debt built up by the current (presumably costed and affordable) system passed £100bn in March of 2017 and will probably get past £200bn in the next decade if something is not done.


Numbers aren't actually the issue due to the way money works. It's staying in the zone where safe money can lend to you is what it's all about. And ten years ago we were about to slip out of that zone... Austerity an deficit reduction were in city terms purely about being seen to make an effort to stop debt spiraling. Getting rid of the deficit  means just that the books balance.  Though Im not sure but I think if a country like the UK actually did pay off all its creditors it would break the system


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 26, 2019)

gosub said:


> Well the 2017 election Labour's pledge to students was uncosted and undeliverable.. So you should cross them off the list too



Most Northern European countries have free higher education. Why is it so impossible for us to do the same?


----------



## gosub (Jun 27, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Most Northern European countries have free higher education. Why is it so impossible for us to do the same?



Its not impossible and is very palatable to my political outlook, but sstop diluting education and pushing as many as possible through university.


----------



## gosub (Jun 27, 2019)

We have very different debt laws to the US but student debt is in the closest bracket to UK outlook, and this video shows how fucked up their parallel path has become.


It is a long way from the historic maintaining a skilled workforce is in the national interest


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2019)

gosub said:


> Numbers aren't actually the issue due to the way money works. It's staying in the zone where safe money can lend to you is what it's all about. And ten years ago we were about to slip out of that zone... Austerity an deficit reduction were in city terms purely about being seen to make an effort to stop debt spiraling. Getting rid of the deficit  means just that the books balance.  Though Im not sure but I think if a country like the UK actually did pay off all its creditors it would break the system


Oh dear.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 27, 2019)

gosub said:


> . Austerity an deficit reduction were in city terms purely about being seen to make an effort to stop debt spiraling.


What SpineyNorman said. "Austerity" was/is about increasing worker exploitation


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 27, 2019)

gosub said:


> Numbers aren't actually the issue due to the way money works. It's staying in the zone where safe money can lend to you is what it's all about. And ten years ago we were about to slip out of that zone... Austerity an deficit reduction were in city terms purely about being seen to make an effort to stop debt spiraling. Getting rid of the deficit  means just that the books balance.  Though Im not sure but I think if a country like the UK actually did pay off all its creditors it would break the system


Human lives reduced to a balance sheet


----------



## gosub (Jun 27, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Human lives reduced to a balance sheet


No thats Actuary tables


----------



## mauvais (Jun 30, 2019)

Take _that_, 106 year old Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 30, 2019)

7.5% for the chuks LOL. As if.

Suspect some dodgy extrapolation going on here, not going to happen.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2019)

YouGov if you want to


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 22, 2019)

Shitness of Lib Dems in a nutshell: I had to hunt as far as Page 5 of this forum to dig up this thread, despite the fact the result of their leadership contest should be out this afternoon. Not exactly grabbing the headlines.

Looks to be Swinson, who will forever be autocorrected to Swindon. Among her other skills are ‘not being Ed Davey’, which is kind of thankful given this kind of bollocks:



> Meanwhile, setting out his pitch, Sir Ed previously said the UK needs "a new economic model" and "making capitalism turn green so Britain is a world green finance capital".



Anyway, will this improve their fortunes? Swinson seems quite likeable, but an influx of Tory defectors might toxify the brand a bit and remind people of the fuckover of 2010-2015 that they were part of.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 22, 2019)

Swinson isn't helped in that she's an Orange Booker who called for a statue of Margaret Thatcher to be put up as she was "a strong woman" or words to that effect. Perhaps, but what of the women who suffered due to her policies?


----------



## Libertad (Jul 22, 2019)

Ptolemy said:


> Swinson isn't helped in that she's an Orange Booker who called for a statue of Margaret Thatcher to be put up as she was "a strong woman" or words to that effect. Perhaps, but what of the women who suffered due to her policies?



Ed Davey is also an Orange Booker.


----------



## Ptolemy (Jul 22, 2019)

Libertad said:


> Ed Davey is also an Orange Booker.



He certainly is, although I don't bank on him winning. Just goes to show what a shite party it really is.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 22, 2019)

Is the tory leader result today as well? 
Bit daft of the lib dems to announce same day if it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

moochedit said:


> Is the tory leader result today as well?
> Bit daft of the lib dems to announce same day if it is.


tories tomorrow
lib dems today


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> tories tomorrow
> lib dems today


Reminds me of when Ed Miliband's Comms (Tom Baldwin) instructed the party to stop referring to 'the coalition' and, from then on, call it the 'tory-led government'. The next week Maurice Glasman took to calling it the 'Liberal-led government'!


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Swinson wins.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 22, 2019)

Arch-unionist (to add to her many qualities.)


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

a snap that the vomit emoji was made for


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Clearly don't know how many members they've got.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Clearly don't know how many members they've got.
> 
> View attachment 178274


Genuinely surprised they have 75 - 100k members. I would have thought maybe 30k. Tories aren't much above 100k are they


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2019)

Quid a month. Jumped up by 25% after brexit vote, then about same year after and has stabilised around 100k. This is their historic limit.

 Arseholes. Each and every one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2019)

Some public mischief could be made about her thatcher statue support - get a petition to do it in her name going or something, something to very clearly tie her to _her_.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 22, 2019)

She did a dodgy vote on something like age of consent for same sex or abortion a short while back too, an old housemate who was once a member was grumbling about it because she was otherwise quite a fan. A closet Farronist possibly?  Sort of thing that could do with exposing really, as a party they have a lot of form for being quietly social illiberal.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> a snap that the vomit emoji was made for
> 
> View attachment 178272


Chuck looks like he is trying to conjure up a knife. "Ah ha my plan is coming true. Stage one complete"


----------



## kenny g (Jul 22, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> She did a dodgy vote on something like age of consent for same sex or abortion a short while back too, an old housemate who was once a member was grumbling about it because she was otherwise quite a fan. A closet Farronist possibly?  Sort of thing that could do with exposing really, as a party they have a lot of form for being quietly social illiberal.



Need some kind of evidence for that.. The information superhighway suggests otherwise https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/07/05/liberal-democrat-jo-swinson-trans-rights-are-human-rights/

Where does Jo Swinson stand on abortion?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jul 23, 2019)

In case we forgot...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2019)

Swinson is that monument.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2019)

The Blairoid filth are having a twitter love-in for this Maggie-loving, austerity-promoting PoS and the #FBPE vermin are lapping it up. Cunts.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The Blairoid filth are having a twitter love-in for this Maggie-loving, austerity-promoting PoS and the #FBPE vermin are lapping it up. Cunts.


Well put, Sir.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2019)

just seen her voting record, no thanks.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2019)

kenny g said:


> Chuck looks like he is trying to conjure up a knife. "Ah ha my plan is coming true. Stage one complete"



So, so, transparent.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2019)

theres loads of reasons why the new lib dem leader is a shite (besides the axiomatic one). fatch stach  demands aside, theres this Coalition row erupts as workers are 'priced out' of tribunals


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> theres loads of reasons why the new lib dem leader is a shite (besides the axiomatic one). fatch stach  demands aside, theres this Coalition row erupts as workers are 'priced out' of tribunals


and fact that she was on R4 this am flatly denying she, as Minister responsible, had anything to do with it and had fought tooth & nail against it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> and fact that she was on R4 this am flatly denying she, as Minister responsible, had anything to do with it and had fought tooth & nail against it.


if you believe the lib dems they were either totally absent from all decision making and/or held the tories back from satanic ritual sacrifices.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 23, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> if you believe the lib dems they were either totally absent from all decision making and/or held the tories back from satanic ritual sacrifices.


tbf both of those statements are probably true.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 24, 2019)

Back in business aren't they, all those 'nice' tories


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 26, 2019)

Nobody:

Me: Borisism and Libdemism (aka 'Social Borisism') are not antipodes, they are twins. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. In any conflict between Corbynism and Borisism the Social Borisists - objectively the moderate wing of Borism will back Borisism. Both - alongside the rightist deviationist Watsonism faction of The Party - must be mercilessly crushed by the Corbynist Vanguard to ensure victory for the proletariat.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 30, 2019)

I know it's easy to find people saying stupid stuff on twitter but even for the LDs this seems insanely deluded 
 
This is a seat where the LDs lost their deposit in 2017.


----------



## binka (Aug 15, 2019)

I see the Lib Dems were the only ones* to outright dismiss Corbyn's proposal to lead a temporary government with the sole intention to extend article 50 and call a general election. Might be a bit confusing for all their supporters to understand


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2019)

In 2nd referendum or nothing for them.  Weirdly they appear to be making a hard brexit more likely by the day.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> In 2nd referendum or nothing for them.  Weirdly they appear to be making a hard brexit more likely by the day.



I'm not sure they really care either way tbh. Being vocally anti-Brexit and anti-Corbyn is all they need to do to retain their modest rise in popularity whatever happens. The actual outcome of things doesn't matter.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 15, 2019)

They've had a serious think about matching the student fees u turn and have decided that locking in a No Deal Brexit is the only way to top that flourish.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2019)

They're in a bit of a bind here tbf, Labour have played this well. The Libs want to keep hold of the 2017 Labour voters who've come over to them purely on the Brexit issue, but their main route to gaining seats at the next election is by attracting liberal tories who can't abide Corbyn. So they can't agree to this, but also can't not.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 15, 2019)

Quite.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> They're in a bit of a bind here tbf, Labour have played this well. The Libs want to keep hold of the 2017 Labour voters who've come over to them purely on the Brexit issue, but their main route to gaining seats at the next election is by attracting liberal tories who can't abide Corbyn. So they can't agree to this, but also can't not.



It's highly enjoyable. Everything they wanted, in the worst possible way .


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2019)

After months of being able to just push a single line and not get challenged on what that really means, it's interesting to see their reaction when faced with a difficult question. 

they fucked it, of course.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 16, 2019)

The funniest thing about the thought of a Lib Dem/Labour alliance is that, after moving between 3 parties, Chucka will still have Corbyn as his big daddy.


----------



## binka (Aug 16, 2019)

The thing is though it's not even an alliance - labour don't have to give the lib dems an inch, what option do they have other than to fall in line and bring down Johnson and back Corbyn?


----------



## Des Kinvig (Aug 16, 2019)

Jo swinson is awful.


----------



## vanya (Aug 16, 2019)

All That Is Solid ...: The Liberal Democrats' Worst Nightmare



> It's not been a good day for the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson. Still on a high after snatching a seat at the Brecon by-election, chillaxing in the after glow of picking up another recruit from the much-missed Change UK, and making uncomfortable waves for Labour with her Tom Watson chum-in, I expect she arose this morning felling quite chuffed.
> 
> And then that utter bastard Jeremy Corbyn went and ruined everything.
> 
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 18, 2019)

BBC News - Michael Brown regrets 'stupid' £2.4m Lib Dem donation
Convicted businessman regrets Lib Dem donation


----------



## Smick (Aug 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> BBC News - Michael Brown regrets 'stupid' £2.4m Lib Dem donation
> Convicted businessman regrets Lib Dem donation


I listened to him on R4. An interesting man.


----------



## Sue (Aug 18, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> BBC News - Michael Brown regrets 'stupid' £2.4m Lib Dem donation
> Convicted businessman regrets Lib Dem donation


Aye, and it wasn’t even his money...


----------



## Whagwan (Aug 21, 2019)

Just a little reminder that the last time the Lib Dems demanded Labour give them a different leader to work with, Labour acquiesced and they still went into coalition with the Tories:

Gordon Brown plays last card – proffering his resignation


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2019)

Lib-dem IRON FIST:


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem IRON FIST:



Carshalton & Wallington; 57% L


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 28, 2019)

An army awakes and silently dusts off purple bandanas


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Carshalton & Wallington; 57% L


Brake knows full well that when the next GE will be cast as a 'people vis Parliament' poll with the tories presented by the media as the 'people's party' of Brexit, he'll be gone.

Locally the tories have ditched the 3 times unsuccessful challenger (the Heir presumptive of the Baronetcy etc etc.) and picked a local, sec. mod. educated, openly gay candidate.

Brake's gone.


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Brake knows full well that when the next GE will be cast as a 'people vis Parliament' poll with the tories presented by the media as the 'people's party' of Brexit, he'll be gone.
> 
> Locally the tories have ditched the 3 times unsuccessful challenger (the Heir presumptive of the Baronetcy etc etc.) and picked a local, sec. mod. educated, openly gay candidate.
> 
> ...


wouldn't be sure about that - a lot of those Labour votes will move to lib dem - how're the tories going to grow their share?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> wouldn't be sure about that - a lot of those Labour votes will move to lib dem - how're the tories going to grow their share?


They'll take from the LDs like they did to elect Scully in neighbouring Sutton & Cheam.


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2019)

The bleed between people who voted lib dem in 2017 and people who're going to vote Tory in 2019 is tiny. It's not going to happen.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> The bleed between people who voted lib dem in 2017 and people who're going to vote Tory in 2019 is tiny. It's not going to happen.


Fair enough.
It's where I live and I think differently.
Time will tell.


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Fair enough.
> It's where I live and I think differently.
> Time will tell.


There was movement from lib dems to tories in 2015 (as happened in Sutton & Cheam) and maybe some in 2017: it's pretty maxed out now though, and a load of the lib dem > labour voters from 2017 will be moving back this time, especially in such a marginal seat.


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

It would be nice for the Lib Dems to become an established third force in politics after all of this Brexit mess, but I fear FPTP really works against them in this regard. That said, with how disillusioned people are becoming with the mainstream parties and politics in general they might be ideally placed to capitalise.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> It would be nice for the Lib Dems to become an established third force in politics after all of this Brexit mess, but I fear FPTP really works against them in this regard. That said, with how disillusioned people are becoming with the mainstream parties and politics in general they might be ideally placed to capitalise.


What do you think this thread is called? FFS


----------



## JimW (Aug 28, 2019)

Bold admission.


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What do you think this thread is called? FFS


Why the Lib Dems are Shit - what do you think it's called? 

I just think another large party in politics is a good thing, forcing compromise over single-bloody-mindedness. Lib Dems are most likely to achieve that. They're no favourite of mine, and their handling of Brexit has made me dislike them even more - especially seeing as Swinson can't put party politics aside long enough to see they've got to work_ with_ Labour this time around, not just tangentially sort of align with them.

I suppose, more accurately, I like the idea the Lib Dems currently represent - a third party in British Politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> Why the Lib Dems are Shit - what do you think it's called?
> 
> I just think another large party in politics is a good thing, forcing compromise over single-bloody-mindedness. Lib Dems are most likely to achieve that. They're no favourite of mine, and their handling of Brexit has made me dislike them even more - especially seeing as Swinson can't put party politics aside long enough to see they've got to work_ with_ Labour this time around, not just tangentially sort of align with them.
> 
> I suppose, more accurately, I like the idea the Lib Dems currently represent - a third party in British Politics.


in the same way the gendarmerie represent a third force in french policing?


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> in the same way the gendarmerie represent a third force in french policing?


Predominantly crowd and riot control? I guess that analogy is pretty apt.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> Why the Lib Dems are Shit - what do you think it's called?
> 
> I just think another large party in politics is a good thing, forcing compromise over single-bloody-mindedness. Lib Dems are most likely to achieve that. They're no favourite of mine, and their handling of Brexit has made me dislike them even more - especially seeing as Swinson can't put party politics aside long enough to see they've got to work_ with_ Labour this time around, not just tangentially sort of align with them.
> 
> I suppose, more accurately, I like the idea the Lib Dems currently represent - a third party in British Politics.


This thread isn't for extremism like that, it's for sensible grown up discussion of how and why they are shit.


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> This thread isn't for extremism like that, it's for sensible grown up discussion of how and why they are shit.


Extremism? Hardly. But fair point, I'll stay on topic.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> Extremism? Hardly. But fair point, I'll stay on topic.


Anything supportive of the lib-dems in any fashion, of past or future actions, idea or personalities  - is inherently a perfect example of murderous centrist grown up adult sensible extremism.


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Anything supportive of the lib-dems in any fashion, of past or future actions, idea or personalities  - is inherently a perfect example of murderous centrist grown up adult sensible extremism.


You'll have to forgive me, I'm new here - I'll to try and avoid murderous sentiments in the future


----------



## binka (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> I'm new here


Unlikely. We've not had anyone new here since about 2012


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

binka said:


> Unlikely. We've not had anyone new here since about 2012


News to me, I found the forum through a 2009 post from ChrisC about Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space series at about 5:30AM this morning. Never seen nor heard of it prior to that, and the fact that it was a UK forum caught my interest and I browsed further. Now here I am, talking about why the Lib Dems are shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2019)

binka said:


> Unlikely. We've not had anyone new here since about 2012


2002 i think you'll find


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> You'll have to forgive me, I'm new here - I'll to try and avoid murderous sentiments in the future


FYI the forum rules state that you are not allowed to post any opinions which may disagree with the sentiment of the relevant thread title.

If you start a thread called "why the lib-dems are OK really" you'll find that no-one comes on there to disagree with that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2019)

teuchter said:


> FYI the forum rules state that you are not allowed to post any opinions which may disagree with the sentiment of the relevant thread title.


they also state that it's forbidden to lie to newbies


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

teuchter said:


> If you start a thread called "why the lib-dems are OK really" you'll find that no-one comes on there to disagree with that.


They're really that unpopular here, ey? I'll keep my extremist dreams of pluralist representative politics on the side then 


Pickman's model said:


> they also state that it's forbidden to lie to newbies


Awh that's a nice rule.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> Awh that's a nice rule.


more often honoured in the breach than the observance tbf


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> Awh that's a nice rule.


its a lie , or a trap , or both


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> They're really that unpopular here, ey?



Everything is unpopular here, except for proposals for things that will never happen, although if they did happen, there'd be a thread about why they are no good.


----------



## Tacit Apathy (Aug 28, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> its a lie , or a trap , or both


Only one way to find out.


teuchter said:


> Everything is unpopular here, except for proposals for things that will never happen, although if they did happen, there'd be a thread about why they are no good.


My kind of place then.


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2019)

we're mostly against things that will never happen too, tbf.


----------



## strung out (Aug 28, 2019)

Tacit Apathy said:


> They're really that unpopular here, ey? I'll keep my extremist dreams of pluralist representative politics on the side then
> 
> Awh that's a nice rule.


You can post on this thread if you like: Why the Lib Dems are great


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem IRON FIST:



I was having a drink when I read that and laughed so it came out of my nose onto my desk. Might add that to the why the lib dems are shit thread, I hate it when that happens.

Edit: this is the lib dems are shit thread and I am a twat.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 28, 2019)

teuchter said:


> FYI the forum rules state that you are not allowed to post any opinions which may disagree with the sentiment of the relevant thread title.
> 
> If you start a thread called "why the lib-dems are OK really" you'll find that no-one comes on there to disagree with that.


I don't believe you


----------



## mauvais (Aug 28, 2019)

Further development: the Queen wasn't available, so Swinson's met with Deputy Queen Hans Gruber and has agreed to execute all the hostages.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 3, 2019)

The % of LD MPs with no mandate form their constituents = 20% and rising.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 3, 2019)

Been looking up this Phillip Lee chap and I knew they name rang a bell.  He seems to have a bit of a track record of homophobia.  Obviously not a problem for the lib dems.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 3, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Been looking up this Phillip Lee chap and I knew they name rang a bell.  He seems to have a bit of a track record of homophobia.  Obviously not a problem for the lib dems.


Surely it would help him feel at home - Hughes, Williams, Farron.


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Been looking up this Phillip Lee chap and I knew they name rang a bell.  He seems to have a bit of a track record of homophobia.  Obviously not a problem for the lib dems.


You're not the only person to notice

*Lib Dems' LGBT chair resigns over Lee defection*


> Jennie Rigg, chair of the Lib Dems LGBT group, says on Twitter that she has sent an email to the membership resigning after the party accepted Phillip Lee as an MP. Among her concerns is his support in 2014 for banning HIV-positive immigrants from Britain. In a blogpost, Ms Rigg accused him of being a "homophobe, a xenophobe, and someone who thinks people should be barred from the country if they are ill".


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2019)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 8, 2019)

Funny tinge

BBC News - Angela Smith: Former Labour MP joins the Lib Dems
Former Labour MP Angela Smith joins the Lib Dems


----------



## inva (Sep 8, 2019)

teqniq said:


> View attachment 183564


What were the Lib Dems like before Swinson turned them into this?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 8, 2019)

Not much better in all honesty.


----------



## Santino (Sep 8, 2019)

inva said:


> What were the Lib Dems like before Swinson turned them into this?


Tory-enabling cunts, mostly.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 8, 2019)

inva said:


> What were the Lib Dems like before Swinson turned them into this?


Have a look at her voting record and you'll get the gist of what her party was like before her election as leader.


----------



## Argonia (Sep 8, 2019)

It's hilarious to see the Chukas descend on the Lib Dumbs - they're still going to lose their fucking seats.


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2019)

inva said:


> What were the Lib Dems like before Swinson turned them into this?





Badgers said:


>


----------



## campanula (Sep 8, 2019)

My partner of over 35 years announced that he quite liked Jo Swinson and would vote for her.  Horrified and startled, I pulled down the above 'They work for you' site, reading off her voting positions, getting more irate as I went down the list, practically levitating when I shouted that she had voted against support for 16-19 year olds (very pertinent to us and our particular 16-19 year old at the time). I called him a nit wit, an idiot and worse when I was then accused of 'only reading the bad stuff' and challenged to find something positive (could only come up with bankers bonuses and some  same sex marriage) so was then told I was just reading some 'diss sheet'. Aghast silence. He has stomped off to bed. I am sitting here, contemplating a fucking night on the sofa I am so horrified.

He is never going to vote for anyone, tbf, as he isn't on the electoral register...but FFS - The Lib Dems.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 9, 2019)

campanula said:


> My partner of over 35 years announced that he quite liked Jo Swinson and would vote for her.  Horrified and startled, I pulled down the above 'They work for you' site, reading off her voting positions, getting more irate as I went down the list, practically levitating when I shouted that she had voted against support for 16-19 year olds (very pertinent to us and our particular 16-19 year old at the time). I called him a nit wit, an idiot and worse when I was then accused of 'only reading the bad stuff' and challenged to find something positive (could only come up with bankers bonuses and some  same sex marriage) so was then told I was just reading some 'diss sheet'. Aghast silence. He has stomped off to bed. I am sitting here, contemplating a fucking night on the sofa I am so horrified.
> 
> He is never going to vote for anyone, tbf, as he isn't on the electoral register...but FFS - The Lib Dems.



Did you sleep on the sofa though? The class must know.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2019)

campanula said:


> My partner of over 35 years announced that he quite liked Jo Swinson and would vote for her.  Horrified and startled, I pulled down the above 'They work for you' site, reading off her voting positions, getting more irate as I went down the list, practically levitating when I shouted that she had voted against support for 16-19 year olds (very pertinent to us and our particular 16-19 year old at the time). I called him a nit wit, an idiot and worse when I was then accused of 'only reading the bad stuff' and challenged to find something positive (could only come up with bankers bonuses and some  same sex marriage) so was then told I was just reading some 'diss sheet'. Aghast silence. He has stomped off to bed. I am sitting here, contemplating a fucking night on the sofa I am so horrified.
> 
> He is never going to vote for anyone, tbf, as he isn't on the electoral register...but FFS - The Lib Dems.



Yeah, he fancies her. That's all.


----------



## campanula (Sep 9, 2019)

I tried...but the sheepdog clearly thought this was  a fantastic night-time game, licking my tightly closed eyes, ears, feet... I gave up around 4ish and crept back to my own treacherous, but dog-free bed.

I am easily bought off though - tea, toast and redcurrant jelly has mollified me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 12, 2019)

Christ

BBC News - Jo Swinson: Serious talks on Lib Dem-Plaid election pact
'Serious' talks on Lib Dem-Plaid election pact


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 14, 2019)

Any further defections as a conference showpiece predicted?


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2019)

Liberal Democrat party to consider scrapping Brexit


> Liberal Democrat party members are in Bournemouth for their annual conference, with the party's leader hoping to convince them to back a new policy of scrapping Brexit without another referendum. Jo Swinson says holding the referendum got the UK "into a mess". And she believes revoking Article 50 - the formal process to leave the EU - is the only satisfactory way out.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> Liberal Democrat party to consider scrapping Brexit



Irrelevant anyway, more chance of a german-franco military occupation than the libdems getting a majority. But it does amaze me how they seem to see politics as something that only happens in parliament, divorced from wider society, so ok let's cancel A50 and there will be no social or political repurcussions at all, all be fine


----------



## agricola (Sep 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Any further defections as a conference showpiece predicted?



Heidi Allen has apparently denied she would be joining this morning, but said they were going to unveil someone at Conference.


----------



## planetgeli (Sep 14, 2019)

agricola said:


> Heidi Allen has apparently denied she would be joining this morning, but said they were going to unveil someone at Conference.



Shamima Begum?

Meanwhile Ed Davey has been on the happy drugs.

Lib Dems election victory would be mandate to cancel Brexit, Ed Davey says

Just in case they don’t win he’s reminded everybody they’re prepared to go into coalition with the Tories, because cunt.

And said he’s prepared to go for a second referendum while saying, “let’s be clear”, that he wouldn’t do that because that would mean asking people to vote twice. Because, idiotic cunt.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 14, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Shamima Begum?
> 
> Meanwhile Ed Davey has been on the happy drugs.
> 
> ...


Presumably not winning is therefore a mandate for leaving then


----------



## campanula (Sep 14, 2019)

There are no Tories in my hometown, merely a kind of liberal, socially left academic type for whom the support for lefty politics means socially liberal but economically they are neo-liberal, rentier types through and through. But only 'ethical investments' and a bit of BTL - but only 1 'extra' property, along with the massively inflated 'worker's cottages they have enthusiastically gentrified and the little place in France. Avid consumers of greenwash and possess a bizarre belief that their regular flights to some socially improving arty destination (Prague, Uppsala and Barcelona  are popular) can be offset by a donation to the Woodland Trust. The rest are Lib-Dems (shy Tories). Obviously, there are more egalitarian types...but  entire generations of working class  have basically been displaced  to some fenny hinterland or feel ever more isolated. Depressing.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2019)

Not very liberal.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not very liberal.
> 
> View attachment 184203



Bit more nuanced than that - John Nicolson's PMB was filibustered, but the pardon legislation was folded into the Police and Crime Bill - which Gyimah was govt lead on.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Bit more nuanced than that - John Nicolson's PMB was filibustered, but the pardon legislation was folded into the Police and Crime Bill - which Gyimah was govt lead on.


Not really; there was a clear difference between Nicholson's PMB automatic pardon and the Govt's disregard process.


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2019)

Some of the Gyimah defence on Twitter today from them has been fantastic


----------



## rekil (Sep 15, 2019)

Was this really 5 years ago? 



Spoiler








*shudder*


----------



## teqniq (Sep 15, 2019)

I see Chukka is moving to contest a seat in the City of London and Westminster in the next general election. I wonder why.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2019)

Formation


copliker said:


> Was this really 5 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Containing a pop at Farage _for all that gay marriage stuff. _That looks good in 2019 don't it?

They baronessed that goon as they retreated into Berlin from the Seelow Heights as well.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 15, 2019)

copliker said:


> Was this really 5 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shit the bed. Horrific


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Christ
> 
> BBC News - Jo Swinson: Serious talks on Lib Dem-Plaid election pact
> 'Serious' talks on Lib Dem-Plaid election pact


 Plaid are fucking desperate to keep Welsh Labour in business aren't they


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2019)




----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 15, 2019)

Urgh, the lovely anti-racist LibDems.

Nice to see the LDs keeping their usual standard of candidate though.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Urgh, the lovely anti-racist LibDems.
> 
> Nice to see the LDs keeping their usual standard of candidate though.


Yes, should have said the LD PPC for North Devon interviewed on today's R4 News.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 16, 2019)

Jo Swinson is badly, badly out of her depth if this morning's Nicola Murray-esque media interviews (Morgan, Today) are anything to go by.

Morgan had her 6-4 after five overs on a benign wicket; his dreary medium pace had her caught behind on the Scottish referendum question, bowled middle stump on article 50, given out after an umpire's review on homophobia, and repeatedly playing and missing on the democracy question.

Then her innings on the _Today_ programme was an absolute disaster; 1984 England against the West Indies in their pomp, on a damp green wicket at Heanor, in September. She was only saved from a complete rout when bad light stopped play (i.e. the weatherman came).

Prim diction, young Anne-Widdecombe-style right wing authoritarianism, and hoovering up ever more dubious Tory refugees don't make her a strategic genius, despite what some of the MSM would have you believe. The cancelling Brexit without consultation is a major miscalculation.

I'm not in favour of Brexit, but just to cancel it unilaterally is the worst thing that could happen right now, pouring petrol on the flames of Farage and the ERG. Hope she's burnt at the election in all honesty. Ghastly character all round.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> Jo Swinson is badly, badly out of her depth if this morning's Nicola Murray-esque media interviews (Morgan, Today) are anything to go by.
> ...
> I'm not in favour of Brexit, but just to cancel it unilaterally is the worst thing that could happen right now, pouring petrol on the flames of Farage and the ERG. Hope she's burnt at the election in all honesty. Ghastly character all round.


What time was it on Today steeplejack?

EDIT: found it 2:15 into todays programme. Fuck she's abysmal, she must have know this question would come up


----------



## Argonia (Sep 16, 2019)

Jo Swinson says she wants to win over 300 seats. She's crackers.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2019)

Tbf a Lib dem majority would be a mandate to cancel article 50. And we could get one of the flying pigs to drop the retraction paperwork off in Brussels.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Irrelevant anyway, more chance of a german-franco military occupation than the libdems getting a majority. But it does amaze me how they seem to see politics as something that only happens in parliament, divorced from wider society, so ok let's cancel A50 and there will be no social or political repurcussions at all, all be fine



Well. I mean what the Lib Dems actually want/are hoping for is a hung Parliament. Probably best to read this as saying that they will argue for revoking A50 within some sort of coalition govt. 

Are there gonna be enough centrist MP's willing to throw a petrol bomb on the fire and revoke? We may well find out.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Probably best to read this as saying that they will argue for revoking A50 within some sort of coalition govt.


no need to read it as this, as they've explicitly said they'll argue for a second referendum in the event of them not winning a majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

Read it as them being the hardest remainers as labour moves onto 2nd ref territory.

Electorally it means nothing as this is what people think they were anyway.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2019)

killer b said:


> no need to read it as this, as they've explicitly said they'll argue for a second referendum in the event of them not winning a majority.



Regardless of what they've explicitly said I wouldn't be surprised if they did start from a position of arguing for revoke in any GNU negotiations.


----------



## chilango (Sep 16, 2019)

Couple of "shy Tories" (i.e. they don't self-identify as Tories at all, but always seem to manage to find some 'good reason' to vote for them, every single time) are now making the 'pragmatic decision' to vote Lib Dem because 'revoke'. Their sensible, grown up politics hasn't cottoned on to the fact that in this semi-marginal its Lab v Tory with the Lib Dems some way behind the Greens.

I won't tell them if you don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

chilango said:


> Couple of "shy Tories" (i.e. they don't self-identify as Tories at all, but always seem to manage to find some 'good reason' to vote for them, every single time) are now making the 'pragmatic decision' to vote Lib Dem because 'revoke'. Their sensible, grown up politics hasn't cottoned on to the fact that in this semi-marginal its Lab v Tory with the Lib Dems some way behind the Greens.
> 
> I won't tell them if you don't.


Your mates sound proper shit tbh. You can do better.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2019)

Swinson has also said she/they won't go into coalition with either Johnson or Corbyn, which would seem to limit her options.


----------



## Argonia (Sep 16, 2019)

chilango said:


> Couple of "shy Tories" (i.e. they don't self-identify as Tories at all, but always seem to manage to find some 'good reason' to vote for them, every single time) are now making the 'pragmatic decision' to vote Lib Dem because 'revoke'. Their sensible, grown up politics hasn't cottoned on to the fact that in this semi-marginal its Lab v Tory with the Lib Dems some way behind the Greens.
> 
> I won't tell them if you don't.



Don't worry, it'll be one of Jo Swinson's 300+ seats


----------



## JimW (Sep 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> Swinson has also said she/they won't go into coalition with either Johnson or Corbyn, which would seem to limit her options.


DUP are always available for the right price


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2019)

> The Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, has ruled out entering into a coalition with the Conservatives or the Labour party if a general election delivers a hung Parliament.


LOL.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> Swinson has also said she/they won't go into coalition with either Johnson or Corbyn, which would seem to limit her options.



Would guess her calculation is that there will be plenty of Labour and Tory MP's who will be open to working with her.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

editor said:


> LOL.





> The Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, has ruled out entering into a coalition with the Conservatives or the Labour party if a general election delivers a hung Parliament.


So their main policy is something they can't deliver and they rule out the only things two that might make it possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

_Yourself alone_


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 16, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So their main policy is something they can't deliver and they rule out the only things two that might make it possible.


Rendering yourself politically useless is a great move. Not even sincere is it, its just a hopeless attempt to try and retain current polling share and avoid it being seen as labour v tory (it is though), which can and will be thrown back at them if they end up in a coalition/supply and confidence. Learnt nothing.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 16, 2019)

In fairness I think Swinson has ruled out working with the Conservatives whilst they have Johnson as leader and Labour whilst they have Corbyn as leader. Not the parties specifically.

That being said it means the same thing as there will be an election shortly and the tories and Labour aren't about to change their leader before that.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Would guess her calculation is that there will be plenty of Labour and Tory MP's who will be open to working with her.



I guess if she *can* win 300+ seats she won't need to find that many Labour and Tory MP's, given that she can also reckon on a handful of Green and Plaid MPs as well (and even some DUP as JimW suggests).

It's not really a calculation though, is it, it's a fantasy...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> I guess if she *can* win 300+ seats she won't need to find that many Labour and Tory MP's, given that she can also reckon on a handful of Green and Plaid MPs as well (and even some DUP as JimW suggests).
> 
> It's not really a calculation though, is it, it's a fantasy...



The 300+ seats thing is pure fantasy, sure, but the coalition of the centre is what they want/hope for/expect I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> In fairness I think Swinson has ruled out working with the Conservatives whilst they have Johnson as leader and Labour whilst they have Corbyn as leader. Not the parties specifically.
> 
> That being said it means the same thing as there will be an election shortly and the tories and Labour aren't about to change their leader before that.


Well, in all fairness, that is fucking super


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> In fairness I think Swinson has ruled out working with the Conservatives whilst they have Johnson as leader and Labour whilst they have Corbyn as leader. Not the parties specifically.
> 
> That being said it means the same thing as there will be an election shortly and the tories and Labour aren't about to change their leader before that.


You are one of them - aren't you? You fucking div.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 16, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You are one of them - aren't you? You fucking div.



What on earth are you on about?  Some tremendous leaps being made there.

Fine work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, he fancies her. That's all.



Someone who I no longer count as a friend: "I'd vote for her. She's got nice big tits".


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2019)

Video Re-emerges Of Jo Swinson Calling For Brexit Referendum - LBC


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Someone who I no longer count as a friend: "I'd vote for her. She's got nice big tits".



a sun reader, by any chance?


----------



## Ground Elder (Sep 17, 2019)

She's had the best time. It's all about the buzz


----------



## Riklet (Sep 17, 2019)

Never thought I could dislike or mistrust the Illiberal Democrats more than I already did.

My God they are fucking awful. Cant wait to see the shit eating grins wiped off their smug faces when all this latest bollocks starts to backfire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> a sun reader, by any chance?




Worse, a Guardian reader.


----------



## andysays (Sep 24, 2019)

Chuka has just called for an "emergency government"


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 24, 2019)

andysays said:


> Chuka has just called for an "emergency government"


which party is he going to be standing for ?


----------



## andysays (Sep 24, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> which party is he going to standing for ?


Not an election, an emergency government


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 24, 2019)

andysays said:


> Not an election, an emergency government


I was joking


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> which party is he going to be standing for ?


i put this question to his office and they said that negotiations are ongoing and a final announcement would be made in due course.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 24, 2019)

Jo Swinson has said "said Boris Johnson had tried to silence the voices of the people"

this being the same Jo Swinson who wants to revoke article 50 without another referendum


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Jo Swinson has said "said Boris Johnson had tried to silence the voices of the people"
> 
> this being the same Jo Swinson who wants to revoke article 50 without another referendum


Jo 'austerity' Swinson


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2019)

andysays said:


> Chuka has just called for an "emergency government"



Meaning an emergency govt that includes him in a cabinet role.  The man is a fucking stain.


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2019)

Berger confirmed as standing in Golders Green and Finchley at next election


----------



## greenfield (Sep 26, 2019)

what a surprise


----------



## Raheem (Sep 27, 2019)

They've started recruiting Timelords.

Doctor who clashed with Rees-Mogg to run as Lib Dem in Javid's seat


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2019)

"Nicholl joined the Lib Dems earlier this summer. He left the Labour party after Owen Smith, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, was sacked, considering it a decision with damaging consequences for the region."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 2, 2019)




----------



## Libertad (Oct 2, 2019)

Two weeks later.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2019)

edit: that does look like an odd leaflet though


----------



## strung out (Oct 10, 2019)

This happened a couple of days ago, but must have been buried by the Coleen Rooney vs Rebekah Vardy spat

Ex-Tory MP Heidi Allen joins Lib Dems


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 10, 2019)

strung out said:


> This happened a couple of days ago, but must have been buried by the Coleen Rooney vs Rebekah Vardy spat
> 
> Ex-Tory MP Heidi Allen joins Lib Dems


Passed me by. Is this four a piece now?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2019)

Lordy.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2019)

this is quite something.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is quite something.



'kinnel


----------



## andysays (Oct 15, 2019)

I want as many people to be enfranchised as possible, as long as they're our sort of people


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2019)

You know what i'm going to post now


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2019)

The fair votes thing seems to have developed into dis-enfranchise the non-intelligentsia. The next step is likely to be a synthesis of the two into _more votes for the intelligentsia_, and let others vote, but not count quite as much. (As it used to be up till 1948 when uni students and multiple property owners could vote twice) And they chose a privately educated daughter of privilege (and an EU pimp/diplomat) who has spent her entire life in education to publicly float what they have privately been thinking for some time. And idea not too far from some who see themselves as on the sensible left and in loco parentis over the thicko anti-eu types. That lot just want things done without public acknowledgement of what's behind their odious beliefs though i.e just revoke article 50, nothing else.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2019)

Look at her disgusting backtracking underneath btw where she pretends she posted this to in opposition to the plans, to suggest that they can use her argument to persuade the tories not to go ahead with their proposals. What an out and out liar.

_Please don’t get me wrong. I do not support this and will not support this! But if I am right and we can prove that, and let’s assume the Tories haven’t caught up with political shifts, then maybe we can convince THEM to not back this too as it disadvantages them._


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> View attachment 187165
> 
> The fair votes thing seems to have developed into dis-enfranchise the non-intelligentsia. The next step is likely to be a synthesis of the two into _more votes for the intelligentsia_, and let others vote, but not count quite as much. (As it used to be up till 1948 when uni students and multiple property owners could vote twice) And they chose a privately educated daughter of privilege (and an EU pimp/diplomat) who has spent her entire life in education to publicly float what they have privately been thinking for some time. And idea not too far from some who see themselves as on the sensible left and in loco parentis over the thicko anti-eu types. That lot just want things done without public acknowledgement of what's behind their odious beliefs though i.e just revoke article 50, nothing else.


How very JSM.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Look at her disgusting backtracking underneath btw where she pretends she posted this to in opposition to the plans, to suggest that they can use her argument to persuade the tories not to go ahead with their proposals. What an out and out liar.
> 
> _Please don’t get me wrong. I do not support this and will not support this! But if I am right and we can prove that, and let’s assume the Tories haven’t caught up with political shifts, then maybe we can convince THEM to not back this too as it disadvantages them._


the tory calculus is clearly that while all parties will be affected by this voter suppression thing, the tories will be less affected

everyone saying this is a bad idea is missing the point, which is the same one thatcher had in mind when she introduced the poll tax and later declared it worked: that the number of people who left the electoral register to avoid the poll tax was a great win for the tories, and it's the same with this id proposal. people bleating on about  it's a good or a bad idea because of the tiny number of people who've impersonated voters are really missing the point


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the tory calculus is clearly that while all parties will be affected by this voter suppression thing, the tories will be less affected
> 
> everyone saying this is a bad idea is missing the point, which is the same one thatcher had in mind when she introduced the poll tax and later declared it worked: that the number of people who left the electoral register to avoid the poll tax was a great win for the tories, and it's the same with this id proposal. people bleating on about  it's a good or a bad idea because of the tiny number of people who've impersonated voters are really missing the point


Agreed, but I think quite a deal of the personation rebuttal stuff is reacting against the vermin's 'but look at Tower Hamlets' lines.
Significantly, amongst the raft of electoral malpractice that the Electoral Commissioner upheld in TH, personation was notably absent; they didn't need such small-fry fraud.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2019)

You lot are so wound up by the lib dems that when one of them expicitly says something is a bad idea, you try to find the hidden message that actually says it's a good idea. Conspiracy theory style.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is quite something.



fuck me


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 15, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is quite something.


This is the most libdem thing ever. Sentiment, check, shitty thinking, check, completely ignoring class, check. Incredible.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2019)

It's of a type with a lot of the things liberals/the left have been reassuring themselves with recently - cf _If They've Got Books They Aren't Voting Tory_ from last year, etc etc. It's probably the most tone-deaf version of it I've seen so far though.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2019)

andysays said:


> I want as many people to be enfranchised as possible, as long as they're our sort of people


Reminds me of:



Wilf said:


> Here's yer man saying we, _literally_, need to take an exam before having a vote on Brexit:
> A citizens’ assembly is the best way out of the Brexit mess
> 
> Read the whole thing, it's only short, but here's an appetizer:
> ...


----------



## treelover (Oct 15, 2019)

How Macron discovered the soft power of the working class | Christophe Guilluy

read this article, and some of the the comments after.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2019)

Hold on a mo....



Voting for Johnson's "deal"!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Hold on a mo....
> 
> 
> 
> Voting for Johnson's "deal"!



i wouldn't be surprised if after the next election the golden showers seek a coalition with the tories


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Hold on a mo....
> 
> 
> 
> Voting for Johnson's "deal"!




Swinson has clearly been doing the rounds. She was also interviewed, if you can call it that,  by Dan Walker (  ) on BBC Breakfast this morning. I'm having issues just now finding the "interview" (  ) from BBC-site searching. But there was not a single question/challenge from him about LD policy to revoke Article 50 _minus_ a referendum, or the contradictions between the latter policy and now advocating a 2nd ref.
His questions to her were a lot more Brexit-flavoured ("we already had a referendum in 2016", to paraphrase crudely).
He often pisses me off, but she's vastly worse.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 24, 2019)

All the Lib Dems abstained on a vote tabled yesterday by Labour to protect the NHS from privatisation.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 24, 2019)

teqniq said:


> All the Lib Dems abstained on a vote tabled yesterday by Labour to protect the NHS from privatisation.


All of them - even the recent labour defectors?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

teqniq said:


> All the Lib Dems abstained on a vote tabled yesterday by Labour to protect the NHS from privatisation.


Consistent, if nothing else.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 24, 2019)

treelover said:


> How Macron discovered the soft power of the working class | Christophe Guilluy
> 
> read this article, and some of the the comments after.



So that we can laugh at it? I mean fucking hell calling Trump a working-class puppet has all the political nous of Toby Young at a eugenics convention.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2019)

Evidence led cunts.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

It seems the amendment was about fully repealing the Health and Social Care Act, without saying what would replace it. The lib dems say that they don't think the whole act should be repealed, so they didn't vote for it. Seems fair enough to me.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

teuchter said:


> It seems the amendment was about fully repealing the Health and Social Care Act, without saying what would replace it. The lib dems say that they don't think the whole act should be repealed, so they didn't vote for it. Seems fair enough to me.


As I said, consistent.
They legislated to introduce the H&SC act, so logical that the yellow tory scum should vote to retain it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> As I said, consistent.
> They legislated to introduce the H&SC act, so logical that the yellow tory scum should vote to retain it.


It would not be inconsistent to vote for changes to the act once no longer in coalition.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 24, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> All of them - even the recent labour defectors?


Apparently yes.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

teuchter said:


> It would not be inconsistent to vote for changes to the act once no longer in coalition.


As you wish, but consistency was the only justification I could discern for their vote. So they're inconsistent yellow tory scum.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> As you wish, but consistency was the only justification I could discern for their vote. So they're inconsistent yellow tory scum.


But they didn't vote. 

If labour wanted to get their amendment through then they should have agreed the wording with the lib dems in advance.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

teuchter said:


> But they didn't vote.
> 
> If labour wanted to get their amendment through then they should have agreed the wording with the lib dems in advance.


You really want a semantic argument about whether abstention could be interpreted as a voting decision?
Nah, it's fine...the LDs have revealed where they stand very clearly.


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> As you wish, but consistency was the only justification I could discern for their vote. So they're inconsistent yellow tory scum.


At least they're consistent in being yellow Tory scum, even if the detail of how that manifests itself varies


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2019)

Indeed.
The guilty men & women:


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Indeed.
> The guilty men & women:
> 
> View attachment 187991


the missing jane dodds


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

brogdale said:


> You really want a semantic argument about whether abstention could be interpreted as a voting decision?
> Nah, it's fine...the LDs have revealed where they stand very clearly.


Not voting is frequently defended on here as a means of indicating that you are not in favour of either the choices being presented to you.

That's what the Lib Dem's abstention "reveals" in this case too. 

I put the word in scare quotes because they aren't pretending otherwise.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 24, 2019)

Story about the NHS vote with some detail: East Dunbartonshire MP Jo Swinson under fire for refusing to back bid to protect NHS


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2019)

Also here.

It’s misleading to claim the Lib Dems refused to support an end to NHS privatisation


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Also here.
> 
> It’s misleading to claim the Lib Dems refused to support an end to NHS privatisation


It's misleading to claim the libdems refused to support an end to privatisation is false because the motion wouldn't have been binding and would instead have just 'applied political pressure' is the claim there - but that is still refusing to support an end to privatisation isn't it. Think about it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2019)

Fullfact.org, more evidence based shithousery


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 25, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> *Fullfact.org*, more evidence based shithousery



Are they Lib Dem-associated? I'm not really aware of them.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's misleading to claim the libdems refused to support an end to privatisation is false because the motion wouldn't have been binding and would instead have just 'applied political pressure' is the claim there - but that is still refusing to support an end to privatisation isn't it. Think about it.


Quite.
The relevant part of the piece linked to by teuchter :



All that needs to be said. The yellow tory scum gladly legislated for the open door to privatisation act (H&SCA 2012) and are clearly content with what they did.
Utter fucking scum.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> Are they Lib Dem-associated? I'm not really aware of them.


Not directly no. Founded by a tory peer I think. Supposedly impartial but they are of that ilk aren't they, if everybody had the hard rational facts they would make hard rational decisions blah. Politics as policy.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

Bloody hell Teuchter! Stop letting the highland side down. What a bunch of cunts honestly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Bloody hell Teuchter! Stop letting the highland side down. What a bunch of cunts honestly.


i think teuchter isn't in fact scottish but he abhors scots so he pretends to be one to undermine them


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i think teuchter isn't in fact scottish but he abhors scots so he pretends to be one to undermine them


That’s got to be the explanation, a plant.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

"NHS privatisation" is so ill-defined that pretty much any headline that mentions it is fairly meaningless. 

Voting for this amendment would not have meant an "end to NHS privatisation" even if it had been legally binding.

The amendment was about Labour signalling that they in principle want less private sector involvement in delivering NHS services, which is then translated into voter-friendly language about "stopping the sell-off of the NHS" or "ending NHS privatisation" and so on. The reality is that repealing that bill would not mean anything like ending private sector involvement in the NHS.

The Lib Dems I believe are fairly open about the fact that they are more interested in increasing funding to the NHS than fundamentally changing its structure. On that basis it seems unsurprising that they didn't feel like voting for this amendment. By abstaining they signal that they are not entirely opposed to reducing private sector involvement. 

Headlines that say stuff like "refusing bid to protect NHS" are just meaningless and simplistic rubbish journalism.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

Apparently real.



They removed Hitler.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> "NHS privatisation" is so ill-defined that pretty much any headline that mentions it is fairly meaningless.
> 
> Voting for this amendment would not have meant an "end to NHS privatisation" even if it had been legally binding.
> 
> ...


They're cunts.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> "NHS privatisation" is so ill-defined that pretty much any headline that mentions it is fairly meaningless.
> 
> Voting for this amendment would not have meant an "end to NHS privatisation" even if it had been legally binding.
> 
> ...



 P


----------



## Ptolemy (Oct 25, 2019)

All fine words and a 'logical' delivery, but people should not be concerned with the semantics of the Lib Dems and more concerned with what it indicates - to me, any private sector running of NHS services is a crowbar to opening it up to more private sector involvement, not simply existing in a status quo vacuum. All actions (and lack of actions) have consequences.

It's one thing to crow about protecting the public nature of the NHS and then do nothing about it. It's quite another to not even spout the rhetoric. Why can't they even bring themselves to engage in the optics?

The LDs are a mess, a total void at the centre of politics.


----------



## Ptolemy (Oct 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Apparently real.
> 
> View attachment 188067
> 
> They removed Hitler.



Ironic coming from the party which backed every Tory welfare "reform" in the Coalition and quite literally cost many thousands upon thousands of lives.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

Probably rude reply, I’m just out to the foodbank that Carmichael said we didn’t need in Orkney to some local gov types in the pub. 
And we’re back on topic with Lib Dem Shit News you won’t get in the papers guys!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> They're cunts.


Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.


----------



## Ptolemy (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, I know that's your opinion.
> 
> I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.



The only thing simplistic about their stance is that it's an electoral dumpster fire and for what purpose unless it reveals their true leanings?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, I know that's your opinion.
> 
> I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.


I'm arguing about the right or wrong of the cunts' position.
They were wrong to enact the legislation and wrong not to support the regret amendment.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

Ptolemy said:


> The only thing simplistic about their stance is that it's an electoral dumpster fire and for what purpose unless it reveals their true leanings?


Whose stance?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> "NHS privatisation" is so ill-defined that pretty much any headline that mentions it is fairly meaningless.
> 
> Voting for this amendment would not have meant an "end to NHS privatisation" even if it had been legally binding.
> 
> ...


shut up you bell end


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> They're cunts.







teuchter said:


> Yeah, I know that's your opinion.



It's objectively true I'm afraid. Hard facts. Like gravity or death.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2019)

You know that feeling where you see that there's been new posts on a thread that you're interested in then you spot _last post - teuchter. _Horrible ain't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, I know that's your opinion.
> 
> I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.


lib dems'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2019)

Ptolemy said:


> All fine words and a 'logical' delivery, but people should not be concerned with the semantics of the Lib Dems and more concerned with what it indicates - to me, any private sector running of NHS services is a crowbar to opening it up to more private sector involvement, not simply existing in a status quo vacuum. All actions (and lack of actions) have consequences.
> 
> It's one thing to crow about protecting the public nature of the NHS and then do nothing about it. It's quite another to not even spout the rhetoric. Why can't they even bring themselves to engage in the optics?
> 
> The LDs are a mess, a total void at the centre of politics.


leave optics where they belong, in pubs


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, I know that's your opinion.



As someone who is surrounded by them all the time, living in probably the most lib dem place in the country as I do.  I am happy to confirm they are indeed cunts.  HTH.


----------



## Ptolemy (Oct 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> leave optics where they belong, in pubs



Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2019)

Ptolemy said:


> Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.


many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

Ptolemy said:


> Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.


In this case, voting for the amendment might have been good for their 'optics' (fewer kneejerk headlines from lazy or disingenuous journalists) but not for their integrity, as it would have meant voting for something that is not consistent with their stated position.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> but not for their integrity,



Ha ha ha.

You're a total bell but you do do a lovely line in sardonic humour.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses


Yeah I’ve seen Carmichael’s face up close he’s well engaged with the optics


A joke I intended to make earlier before you beat me to it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's misleading to claim the libdems refused to support an end to privatisation is false because the motion wouldn't have been binding and would instead have just 'applied political pressure' is the claim there - but that is still refusing to support an end to privatisation isn't it. Think about it.


It's funny that, while you could argue that what the motion means has been misrepresented, the actual "fact check" site phrases the issue in such a way that what they say is "misleading" simply isn't.

The Lib Dems didn't support the motion. They seem to be annoyed that that's is being used to make it out that they are happy with NHS privatisation but, well, if their policies means they won't vote for a motion that opposes NHS privatisation, they'll get that happening. "It's so unfair that people are publicising what we want to do" is basically what this is.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's funny that, while you could argue that what the motion means has been misrepresented, the actual "fact check" site phrases the issue in such a way that what they say is "misleading" simply isn't.
> 
> The Lib Dems didn't support the motion. They seem to be annoyed that that's is being used to make it out that they are happy with NHS privatisation but, well, if their policies means they won't vote for a motion that opposes NHS privatisation, they'll get that happening. "It's so unfair that people are publicising what we want to do" is basically what this is.


Yep; whinging cunts.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> In this case, voting for the amendment might have been good for their 'optics' (fewer kneejerk headlines from lazy or disingenuous journalists) but not for their integrity, as it would have meant voting for something that is not consistent with their stated position.



Their stated position of being yellow vermin.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2019)

Actually, come to think of it, if they'd had any courage in their convictions they'd have voted no, not abstained.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.


It’s alright though, because your mandate to go to the ballot box is just the wee cheerleader in your head so we can leak integrity until the tank is empty, who cares!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.


Yes, obviously...the actions of the legislators that presume to govern us equating exactly to the electoral participation of those invited to vote for them.


----------



## chilango (Oct 25, 2019)




----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 25, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses



Is gurgling amber liquid another of Oaten’s things?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It’s alright though, because your mandate to go to the ballot box is just the wee cheerleader in your head so we can leak integrity until the tank is empty, who cares!





brogdale said:


> Yes, obviously...the actions of the legislators that presume to govern us equating exactly to the electoral participation of those invited to vote for them.



My point was to do with the interpretation of an abstainer's position but you both respond in a way that implies the act of abstention (regardless of context) is in itself problematic if taken by an MP. Is that your view?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> My point was to do with the interpretation of an abstainer's position but you both respond in a way that implies the act of abstention (regardless of context) is in itself problematic if taken by an MP. Is that your view?


No.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 25, 2019)

.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> No.


I don't know what your point was then.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I don't know what your point was then.


That's OK


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2019)

Trends & patterns.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2019)

Revealing.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 28, 2019)

Twats


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2019)

Very acute selfie awareness.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 28, 2019)

i hate these fuckers more than the tories. at least you know where you stand with the tory bastards.


----------



## inva (Oct 28, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> i hate these fuckers more than the tories. at least you know where you stand with the tory bastards.


To be fair I think by this point we've got a pretty good idea what this lot are about.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2019)

I know where I stand with the lib dems - on their necks etc etc


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 28, 2019)

inva said:


> To be fair I think by this point we've got a pretty good idea what this lot are about.



true, they are tory enablers, which makes them the worst of all.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Calling all you Swinson fans...have you had the postal glossy booklet yet? Or is just that I have the misfortune to live in a yellow tory constituency?



> *Britain's next Prime Minister*


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 29, 2019)

A bunch of twats that would make a deal with anyone if it kept their snouts in the trough.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> A bunch of twats that would make a deal with anyone if it kept their snouts in the trough.


Anyone who's a tory, that is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Calling all you Swinson fans...have you had the postal glossy booklet yet? Or is just that I have the misfortune to live in a yellow tory constituency?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 188488


someone's been on the drugs if they think she has any chance of being a prime minister at any time in the future


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Very acute selfie awareness.
> 
> View attachment 188437


that's the saddest photo you'll ever see of her, as there's no one she could ask to take a picture on her phone, not and give the phone back to her anyway


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Calling all you Swinson fans...have you had the postal glossy booklet yet? Or is just that I have the misfortune to live in a yellow tory constituency?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 188488


 

That’s some spectacular self-delusion. I knew the CHUK lot had joined them, but I didn’t realise they’d taken over writing the literature.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 188490
> 
> That’s some spectacular self-delusion. I knew the CHUK lot had joined them, but I didn’t realise they’d taken over writing the literature.


Seriously, wtf have we done to...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, wtf have done to...
> 
> View attachment 188493


we must all have done something really shit in a past life


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> we must all have done something really shit in a past life


really, really bad


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> really, really bad


been spurs fans perhaps


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 29, 2019)

I’ve got the Pet Shop Boys as an ear worm now.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Calling all you Swinson fans...have you had the postal glossy booklet yet? Or is just that I have the misfortune to live in a yellow tory constituency?



yes, got a copy yesterday - seemed more to be attacking the tories than labour (presume there's a different version for seats where labour are their main rivals)

constituency here (wokingham) is traditionally pretty safe tory, held by a brexiter (john fucking redwood) but had a remain majority (although the local authority boundary does not quite match the constituency).  ex tory remainer phillip lee (currently MP in bracknell) has been parachuted in as limp dem candidate.   limp dems traditionally distant second here, but overtaken by labour in 2015 / 17.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, wtf have done to...
> 
> View attachment 188493


Self-delusion writ large.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2019)

Britain's Next Prime Minister*

*terms & conditions apply: real prize may differ from advertised


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Funny how their commitment to their existing constituents do not hold with their latest, new party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I’ve got the Pet Shop Boys as an ear worm now.


this will sort you out


Spoiler


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2019)

Then revel in the shafting/buy-off of the previous PPC who actually did the leg-work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> this will sort you out
> 
> 
> Spoiler



danny la rouge one glance at this and the psb will be out of your head


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> danny la rouge one glance at this and the psb will be out of your head


You’re on my list now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You’re on my list now.


yeh but did it work?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2019)

The Lib Dems are a constant reminder that middle class progressives are among the worst groups of people on the planet.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 29, 2019)

I fucking hate them all


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2019)

I've just had someone tell me that they're going to vote LibDem in a Labour/Tory marginal because stopping Brexit is what counts


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 29, 2019)

Honestly, it's the smugness and self-delusion, in them and the media, that gets me more than the policies. I mean the policies are bad but as long as they aren't in power that isn't a problem. But that they and journos constantly say that they are intrinsically better than the Tories, whose worst ideas they often support and go above and beyond... pretending each time that the Lib Dems are the sensible nice co-operative party, despite everything they've done in coalition and all the policies they promote... that gets to me. Mythological politics.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2019)

To be frank probably the only consolation post-Election is watching the.smug new LibDem voters slowly realising that they've just enabled a hard Brexit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> To be frank probably the only consolation post-Election is watching the.smug new LibDem voters slowly realising that they've just enabled a hard Brexit.


I am not sure how many have really realised though, or maybe I meet the worst examples.

obviously I am steadfastly against political violence but the closest I have come is wanting to grab Lib Dem remainers by the shoulders, shake them vigorously, and shout "you want to stop Brexit? _you have to get rid of the Tories_, what are you TALKING ABOUT with this don't-like-labour's-brexit-policy BOLLOCKS"


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 29, 2019)

the last few liberal leaders have been ghastly mealy mouthed wannabe Tory scum tbh.


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I am not sure how many have really realised though, or maybe I meet the worst examples.
> 
> obviously I am steadfastly against political violence but the closest I have come is wanting to grab Lib Dem remainers by the shoulders, shake them vigorously, and shout "you want to stop Brexit? _you have to get rid of the Tories_, what are you TALKING ABOUT with this don't-like-labour's-brexit-policy BOLLOCKS"



Oh they haven't realised yet.

They will though.

Too late.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> I've just had someone tell me that they're going to vote LibDem in a Labour/Tory marginal because stopping Brexit is what counts


Did you ask them how they expect this to help stop brexit?


----------



## chilango (Oct 29, 2019)

emanymton said:


> Did you ask them how they expect this to help stop brexit?



Yep. 

Got some politically illiterate crap about voting for your principles 

From people who voted Labour last time and the Tories the time before...

Didn't push too hard as I'm quite happy for them to waste their vote.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> You know that feeling where you see that there's been new posts on a thread that you're interested in then you spot _last post - teuchter. _Horrible ain't it?



It's like that cold watery feeling you get in you bowels, just before you shit yourself explosively.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but did it work?



Only insofar as it made him stick knitting needles down his lugholes.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> To be frank probably the only consolation post-Election is watching the.smug new LibDem voters slowly realising that they've just enabled a hard Brexit.


If they don't realise while they're doing it, they won't realise.


----------



## elbows (Oct 29, 2019)

Urine tories, remember to wring your hands after touching your economic policies.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2019)

Raheem said:


> If they don't realise while they're doing it, they won't realise.



dunno.

quite a lot of LD voters in 2010 didn't realise what they were doing at the time but didn't vote for them in 2015

i work with a few liberal-ish types who live in one of the reading (tory/labour marginals) who will probably vote LD 'to stop brexit' and because Corbyn is 'too extreme'


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno.
> 
> quite a lot of LD voters in 2010 didn't realise what they were doing at the time but didn't vote for them in 2015


But that outcome (a hung parliament) was unforeseen. This time round, it's bleedin' obvious. 

Agree that a lot of people are likely to vote Lib Dem all the same. But they can hardly act surprised afterwards.


----------



## killer b (Oct 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> Oh they haven't realised yet.
> 
> They will though.
> 
> Too late.


They probably wont tbf


----------



## Gerry1time (Oct 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Calling all you Swinson fans...have you had the postal glossy booklet yet? Or is just that I have the misfortune to live in a yellow tory constituency?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 188488



I vaguely knew Jo Swinson when she was a student. I received one of these 'brochures' through my door this morning. Waking up, going downstairs and picking it up from the doormat was possibly one of the most surreal moments I've experienced in a long time. She was a terrible political wanabee back then. The idea of her ever being PM is a joke. Her husband Duncan in contrast was quite a nice chap. To the right of the Lib Dems in some regards, but I always got the impression he genuinely cared about his role as an MP and wanted to do the right thing for his contituents.


----------



## chilango (Oct 30, 2019)

A further irony for the ultra-remainers turning to the LibDems. A constant refrain from them has been "but people didn't know what they were voting for!".


----------



## Guineveretoo (Oct 30, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Seriously, wtf have we done to...
> 
> View attachment 188493


"tipped to be Prime Minister"?? OMFG these people are even more deluded than I thought. Or just lying to themselves and us for the lols.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 30, 2019)

Swindon lost her seat to the SNP in 2015
Not impossible that they could take it again would be funny if LD did really well but she lost her seat


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 30, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Swindon lost her seat to the SNP in 2015
> Not impossible that they could take it again would be funny if LD did really well but she lost her seat



Although tbf not as funny as if they did really badly and she lost her seat.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 30, 2019)

this Swinson character was on the radio this morning. She ruled out working with bojo & Corbyn and when asked if she would work with either party without those leaders in charge she said she wouldn't. Thinks the LDs are going to win the election. She's nuttier than a peanut turd.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2019)

Lib Dems could win hundreds of seats in election, says Swinson

"within a small swing of winning hundreds of seats"

mmm


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 30, 2019)

I think they will do well 30+  would not be surprised if they got 40 but 300+? 
What are you smoking woman?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 30, 2019)




----------



## Riklet (Oct 30, 2019)

Engaged the last Lib Dem on my door step for the euros with firm but fair political discussion.

Next one that graces the threshold will be told to fuck right off in no uncertain terms.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 30, 2019)

The last one that turned up got a shouty hot earful from me as I sat on the couch and played far cry. Mrs NBE has the misfortune to actually open the door and face the chump as I did this.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Oct 30, 2019)

Lib Dems have descended from sheer opportunism to the full on delusion and fantasy that is afflicting more and more of the traditional political spectrum. It is like watching a documentary on mid life crises. Reality is now too horrible for whole swathes of people to contemplate.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 30, 2019)

My seat is Richmond Park a very tight LibDem/Conservative swing seat - currently occupied by Zac Goldsmith.

I don't mind saying that the temptation to vote tactically just get him out and to lend support to revoke, is strong right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> My seat is Richmond Park a very tight LibDem/Conservative swing seat - currently occupied by Zac Goldsmith.
> 
> I don't mind saying that the temptation to vote tactically just get him out and to lend support to revoke, is strong right now.


i've got that tipped to switch due to the heathrow expansion


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2019)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Lib Dems have descended from sheer opportunism to the full on delusion and fantasy that is afflicting more and more of the traditional political spectrum. It is like watching a documentary on mid life crises. Reality is now too horrible for whole swathes of people to contemplate.


that's why we post here where fantasies like sending the entire political class to labour on a lunatic bridge in the south atlantic can take on a certain reality


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 30, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> My seat is Richmond Park a very tight LibDem/Conservative swing seat - currently occupied by Zac Goldsmith.
> 
> I don't mind saying that the temptation to vote tactically just get him out and to lend support to revoke, is strong right now.



I had the same quandary when I lived there.  Tbh I think Goldsmith is toast anyway I was pretty surprised he won it back in 2017 and brexit has been a shitshow since then.  It is however one of the few seats in the country where its actually worth voting.


----------



## Combustible (Oct 31, 2019)

A classic of the genre (see the small print)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2019)

Vs the reality


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2019)

So even with a manufactured deceiving poll question they can't win?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

I'm a little baffled they released that one tbh. If this is the best bit of private polling they've done...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Reckon Bush reads our output.


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 31, 2019)

Politics... it's a wasteland of poor decision making, deception, self-serving interests and inefficiency.  The illusion of democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> Politics... it's a wasteland of poor decision making, deception, self-serving interests and inefficiency.  The illusion of democracy.


it's only teenage wasteland


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

Swinson's GE slogan:
_"Build a brighter future"_
Dull.
_
_


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Reckon Bush reads our output.
> 
> View attachment 188645


doubt it, everyone on the internet is laughing at that one this morning.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2019)

killer b said:


> doubt it, everyone on the internet is laughing at that one this morning.


Not an entirely serious post killer b 
But the graph does, indeed, kick off the yellow tories' campaign with an embarrassing fail.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not an entirely serious post killer b


I guess. it's an idea that often crops up though, often on threads full of links to what people are saying on twitter - which shows a more likely direction of information flow...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 31, 2019)

had a thing in the post from my limp dem PPC today (Phillip Lee - former tory then independent MP in bracknell)



it has a reply paid envelope for me to send my thoughts back.  any suggestions?



also complicates the electoral process here - in the past i've not wanted to draw a cock on the paper as it might be seen as vote for john redwood, but i guess it's not as clear now...


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 31, 2019)




----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Swinson's GE slogan:
> _"Build a brighter future"_
> Dull.
> _
> View attachment 188648_



It was originally 'give us blighters a future' but this tested poorly with the opinion proles.


----------



## vanya (Oct 31, 2019)

All That Is Solid ...: Dear Jo Swinson



> Dear Jo,
> 
> Examining your recent pronouncements on what might happen after Boris Johnson is no-confidenced, you again reiterate your opposition to Jeremy Corbyn getting made an interim Prime Minister to see through an election or a second referendum. You say the LibDems can only support an alternative "compromise" candidate because the Labour leader "does not have the numbers". Your new friend Chuka Umunna has proven enthusiastic in pushing this line too.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2019)

_Fill yer boots...

_


----------



## maomao (Nov 2, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> it has a reply paid envelope for me to send my thoughts back. any suggestions?


Shit in it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> _Fill yer boots...
> 
> View attachment 188854_


They look like the worst cbbc presenter crew ever, absolute dickhead trousers


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2019)

also a slight homes under the hammer vibe imo


----------



## rekil (Nov 2, 2019)

You know who else liked jackboots?


----------



## JimW (Nov 2, 2019)

brogdale said:


> _Fill yer boots...
> 
> View attachment 188854_


United Colours of Benilyn


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> They look like the worst cbbc presenter crew ever, absolute dickhead trousers


Look at the hand gestures combined with facial expressions. Sick individuals.


----------



## andysays (Nov 2, 2019)

They've made a complaint to ITV after Swinson inexplicably not included in the Johnson/Corbyn debate.

I guess not everyone believes the stuff about her being the  next PM


----------



## Poi E (Nov 3, 2019)

One on the right not wearing a poppy. Fucking traitor.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 3, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Reckon Bush reads our output.
> 
> View attachment 188645



Come on now, this was a local Lib Dem branch, it’s not as Jo Swinson herself would def..... 



Oh.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2019)

Perhaps a package of suspicious statistics for the election campaign.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2019)

elbows said:


> View attachment 189050
> Perhaps a package of suspicious statistics for the election campaign.


The correct headline should be "Non-suspicious package wrongly suspected by Lib Dems".


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2019)

My favourite tweet today on #libdembarcharts


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2019)

elbows said:


> View attachment 189050
> Perhaps a package of suspicious statistics for the election campaign.


  It was a box of integrity that was dumped years ago


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> It was a box of integrity that was dumped years ago


Rinka's remains.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2019)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 5, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

The Guardian don't mention themselves being _caught/pimping_ by sort of thing a few days ago but:

Lib Dems accused of using misleading data on election material



> In analyses in July and August, the fact-checking site Full Fact criticised the Lib Dems’ use of Flavible, which had drawn on previous polling by YouGov and Survation to make claims about their candidates’ likelihood of winning key seats. They included a prediction, which Full Fact concluded was incorrect, that Corbyn would lose his seat to the Lib Dems despite the Labour leader winning the seat in 2017 with 73% of the vote.



Full-fact started as a lib-dem op of this kind  - and even they think this stinks.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Not sure if this should be here or the tinge thread, but this has to be the most uplifting story of the day

This MP Claims She's Being "Discriminated Against" Because She's Lost Out On A £22,000 Golden Goodbye


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

What  fucking bizzare construction :



> “I cannot underestimate my horror in finding in the latest guidance these payments are only available if you stand in the same ‘seat’



Reminds me of Johan Hari's 'imagine my disgust when i discovered what i had done' excuse for years of faking interviews, plagiarism and amending wiki entries of critics.

_I cannot underestimate my horror_


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Not sure if this should be here or the tinge thread, but this has to be the most uplifting story of the day
> 
> This MP Claims She's Being "Discriminated Against" Because She's Lost Out On A £22,000 Golden Goodbye



She's been selected for a seat where the LibDems were 3rd on a 7.7% vote share last time, oh dear.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 5, 2019)

we've all done it, underestimating our own horror.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> She's been selected for a seat where the LibDems were 3rd on a 7.7% vote share last time, oh dear.


The Best for Britain MRP has Altrincham on Tories 37 Lab 21 Lib Dem 25, so I guess the Lib Dems own polling is probably showing something similar. Graham Brady's seat, but a big remain majority so it's not totally out of the question a remain candidate could take it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

(I suspect that Angela Smith is not going to be that remain candidate tho)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> The Best for Britain MRP has Altrincham on Tories 37 Lab 21 Lib Dem 25, so I guess the Lib Dems own polling is probably showing something similar. Graham Brady's seat, but a big remain majority so it's not totally out of the question a remain candidate could take it.


Why would their own polling show the same given it's just a front to make it look like independent polling says exactly what lib-dems want to hear. In that seat in particular. It might do, but there's no connection between the two is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

Labour and Tory have hoovered up 75-80% in that seat forever - even at lib-dem surge in 2010.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Why would their own polling show the same given it's just a front to make it look like independent polling says exactly what lib-dems want to hear. In that seat in particular. It might do, but there's no connection between the two is there?


I meant the polling they base their decisions on, not the polling they release to try and bounce people into voting tactically for them. 

I recognise it's a stretch either way, but they must have had _something_ to offer her there.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I meant the polling they base their decisions on, not the polling they release to try and bounce people into voting tactically for them.
> 
> I recognise it's a stretch either way, but they must have had _something_ to offer her there.


I think you're overestimating.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2019)

Yeah I'd agree, it wasn't a coup to get Smith from Labour as she'd already left and she wasn't an MP for a seat that either her or Lib Dems could win. She joined the Lib Dems because she had nowhere else to go, they were hardly begging her.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

They'll have extrapolated from the EU vote, and assumed almost nothing has changed since then. It's not a _wholly _stupid idea, but does rely upon the idea that people will vote as if the EU is all that matters. Which is the entire LibDem pitch, of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> They'll have extrapolated from the EU vote, and assumed almost nothing has changed since then. It's not a _wholly _stupid idea, but does rely upon the idea that people will vote as if the EU is all that matters. Which is the entire LibDem pitch, of course.


That is exactly a wholly stupid idea. And let's be honest, it's not offered genuinely. It's offered to trick people. I am expecting a slow nibble away at their polling as previous labour voters come to realise the full horror and recoil.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

I think that 2017 lab vote that moved to lib-dems pretty central - and this mad posh woman seems determined to alienate it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Not sure if this should be here or the tinge thread, but this has to be the most uplifting story of the day
> 
> This MP Claims She's Being "Discriminated Against" Because She's Lost Out On A £22,000 Golden Goodbye


Hahahaha with this and dexter joining plaid cymru my spirits are lifted, lovely stuff, some autumn cheer


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 5, 2019)




----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think you're overestimating.


I'm not overestimating anything, just speculating. We know the Lib Dems are doing a load of MRP modelling, and the one MRP model we have the data from more or less supports the idea that the Lib Dems are in contention in Altrincham as things stand. Maybe that model is bullshit (although overall it's well within the bounds of current polling), and either way things are going to shift before Dec 12 - but there's no way Smith would have moved and risked losing her 22 grand unless they showed her some convincing data that it was winnable.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

She's a proper nutter  - now she's attacking corbyn for not saying he would blow up the world whereas she would. Didn't they do this one already?

She really is not good.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm not overestimating anything, just speculating. We know the Lib Dems are doing a load of MRP modelling, and the one MRP model we have the data from more or less supports the idea that the Lib Dems are in contention in Altrincham as things stand. Maybe that model is bullshit (although overall it's well within the bounds of current polling), and either way things are going to shift before Dec 12 - but there's no way Smith would have moved and risked losing her 22 grand unless they showed her some convincing data that it was winnable.


They're idiots not infallible robots. She had to move. The closest one to getting her back in might have been the best of a set of desperate unwinning choices.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Why did she have to move? If she'd stood as an indie (or even a lib dem) in Penistone she'd have lost and got 20 grand. Now she's going to lose and get fuck all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Not sure if this should be here or the tinge thread, but this has to be the most uplifting story of the day
> 
> This MP Claims She's Being "Discriminated Against" Because She's Lost Out On A £22,000 Golden Goodbye


it shows how desperately stupid these people are, you'd have thought an mp would be _au fait_ with the regulations about getting a golden goodbye. especially someone who not only jumps seats but also parties.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Why did she have to move? If she'd stood as an indie (or even a lib dem) in Penistone she'd have lost and got 20 grand. Now she's going to lose and get fuck all.



I was guessing that she was desperate to go somewhere a bit more winnable and that's what they offered her. But I might be trying to find logic where there is none.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2019)

killer b said:


> Why did she have to move? If she'd stood as an indie (or even a lib dem) in Penistone she'd have lost and got 20 grand. Now she's going to lose and get fuck all.


I don't care about the 20 grand. It's irrelevant. She wanted to remain an MP - i thought that you were indicating this was the best way for her to do so (or al least viable) and backed up by some form of polling. That she'd ended up on this one doesn't mean she has a chance, it might mean that so poor were the pickings this was the best she had open to her.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

Ah, no I don't think there's any chance she'd win, and I don't think there ever was. But she was convinced by the LDs that there was.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2019)

Anywhere the libs _really _have a chance, they've had candidates for for ages, so can't parachute anyone in.  They have to find some places to shoehorn these people into, and they can convince themselves that an ex-Labour MP is going to have a decent chance of picking up more ex-Labour voters.  There may be a couple of places where it could work (the specific circumstances in Finchley, _maybe_), but I don't see any great reason to believe it would in Altrincham.


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2019)

belboid said:


> Anywhere the libs _really _have a chance, they've had candidates for for ages, so can't parachute anyone in.  They have to find some places to shoehorn these people into, and they can convince themselves that an ex-Labour MP is going to have a decent chance of picking up more ex-Labour voters.  There may be a couple of places where it could work (the specific circumstances in Finchley, _maybe_), but I don't see any great reason to believe it would in Altrincham.


they got their candidate to stand down for Heidi Allen. That was funny - eating all that shit only for her to bail anyway.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 5, 2019)

Funny article here:



> To the Liberal Democrat campaign launch, then, in a small room all of fifty yards away from the House of Commons.
> 
> Britain’s third party has been through a radical reinvention in the last few months, from which it has now *emerged as a pioneering rehab clinic offering a brutal treatment program for MPs suffering Brexit related political PTSD.
> 
> Only the Lib Dems are offering the full Brexit cold turkey. No customs union, no “strong single market deal”, no second referendum, no methadone, no Tramadol.*





> *So a vote for the Liberal Democrats, really, is a vote for whatever you want it to be.* It might be a vote to stop Brexit but it might enable it. It might be a vote to stop Johnson, but you might end up getting it. It might be a vote to stop Corbyn, but you might end up getting that too.
> 
> Oh well, best not to think too hard about all that just yet. No one said it was going to be easy. Results cannot be guaranteed. The first stage is just to admit you’ve got a problem. Then you check it in to the Lib Dems and from there, the best you can hope for is to take each day as it comes.



Jo Swinson has opened the Brexit rehab clinic, and its treatment program is brutal | Tom Peck


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 5, 2019)

1.9k laugh reacts. It’s got to be uncommon to get more laugh reacts than likes on a not-deliberately-comical post on fb right?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 6, 2019)




----------



## ignatious (Nov 6, 2019)

Angela Smith of “funny tinge” infamy clearly hadn’t read the rules when deciding to switch seats...

Labour MP who defected to Lib Dems complains she'll miss out on £22,000 payout


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 6, 2019)

ignatious said:


> Angela Smith of “funny tinge” infamy clearly hadn’t read the rules when deciding to switch seats...
> 
> Labour MP who defected to Lib Dems complains she'll miss out on £22,000 payout



see post #9576


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 6, 2019)

Their new 'battle bus' is branded 'Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats' with a big picture of her.


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Their new 'battle bus' is branded 'Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats' with a big picture of her.


All the mentions of Stalin got them thinking about a cult of personality. If only she had one.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 6, 2019)

Can't believe the dems think austerity swinson is some sort of electoral asset. Shes like some sort horrible  science experiment where donald trumps dna is combined with the entire back catalouge of guardian opinion pieces. Sanctimonious, delusional, narcissistic and thick as shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2019)

Caught at it in putney now - pretending that the duff vote lib-dem flavible stuff  - that even the guardian have realised  they can't use without further losing credibility - is from yougov.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 6, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Caught at it in putney now - pretending that the duff vote lib-dem flavible stuff  - that even the guardian have realised  they can't use without further losing credibility - is from yougov.




And, the real result in 2017...


----------



## killer b (Nov 6, 2019)

also the bus. _Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats_


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 6, 2019)

Didn't May try this presidential nonsense back in 2017 and when her personality proved to be lacking, the campaign went down in flames?

I predict the same will happen to Swinson.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 6, 2019)

After months and months of (rightly) pointing out that you can't trust a single word Johnson says the lib dems come out with this bunch of obvious lies. The mind boggles.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 6, 2019)

Worth a read for a laugh:

Three times Jo Swinson’s LibDems have already tried to mislead voters


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 6, 2019)

Swinson fails to declare family company was given 3.5m euro by the European Union - Nye Bevan News

not sure if we have had this yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Swinson fails to declare family company was given 3.5m euro by the European Union - Nye Bevan News
> 
> not sure of we have had this yet


there may be trouble ahead


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> Swinson fails to declare family company was given 3.5m euro by the European Union - Nye Bevan News
> 
> not sure of we have had this yet


It's on the front page of the BBC!  Mainly for not really being entirely true - How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader went viral


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 6, 2019)

I dont read the bbc website, sorry.

but happy to be corrected for spreading fake news 

ETA , you cant believe anything on the internet anymore


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2019)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's on the front page of the BBC!  Mainly for not really being entirely true - How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader went viral



Bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2019)

Sorry


----------



## JimW (Nov 6, 2019)

BBC straight in to correct that, how many lies about Stalin Corbyn have they left to run or pushed themselves?


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2019)

Have they claimed that Russia hacked their bar charts yet?

How did the yellow lose their grip? Putins pie charts made them sick!


----------



## killer b (Nov 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> It's on the front page of the BBC!  Mainly for not really being entirely true - How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader went viral


It's cute that they take the opportunity to look with forensic detail at an anti Lib Dem and an anti-tory one, but have neglected to include an anti-labour story in their analysis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Sorry


tbh no one was more surprised to find out that this wasn't the case than jo swinson, who had based her brexit policy on the belief that the firm would lose out on such eu largesse in the future.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2019)

Some details on the previously mentioned "Remain Alliance', from the BBCs election coverage feed page.



> The Liberal Democrats will be standing down their candidate in Beaconsfield to boost the chances of Dominic Grieve returning to Parliament.
> 
> Mr Grieve - a leading Remainer in the Commons - was a Conservative but was booted out of the party by Boris Johnson when he voted to block a no-deal Brexit.
> 
> ...



Jo Swinson's Gliberal Alliance.


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2019)

Flavible - the polling company the LibDems make use of - say the LibDems are a bunch of liars - Flavible Politics - Statement on misuse of data


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2019)

Their past excuse for such blatant consistent nationwide dishonesty was that this was a result of their openness and impulse to decentralise and their inherent democratic nature. It, in fact, _makes them better than anyone else._


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 6, 2019)

I think they should just be honest and admit that it happens because it is inherent in their politics that they know best and therefore it's fine to lie to ordinary thickos. Victory to the liberal intelligentsia


----------



## killer b (Nov 6, 2019)

I think their _campaign via constituency polling _is quite neat, must say: they only publish the ones that look good for them - then when they publish, the polling company - Survation - legally have to publish the tables, which are then picked up by the likes of Britain Elects and boosted further , and they don't appear immediately to be connected to the Lib Dems, and look like standard polls rather than LD campaigning - look



which comes from this:



the polls that they get done which don't appear so favourable get buried.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 6, 2019)

Time to get the pic out again butchersapron


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Time to get the pic out again butchersapron


I think it probably is - it certainly will be in the weeks immediately after the election when they're whining for PR or something. I wish i'd saved more at the time. I think they were on the Open Democracy site with a Anthony Barnett piece (him being the one who decided to take the blame for it).


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 6, 2019)

killer b said:


> the polling company - Survation - legally have to publish the tables



There's no legal requirement, just their trade association, British Polling Council, rules.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Their past excuse for such blatant consistent nationwide dishonesty was that this was a result of their openness and impulse to decentralise and their inherent democratic nature. It, in fact, _makes them better than anyone else._



Future excuses might include an innocent mixup when they attempted to bar Chartism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2019)




----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 7, 2019)




----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 7, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think it probably is - it certainly will be in the weeks immediately after the election when they're whining for PR or something. I wish i'd saved more at the time. I think they were on the Open Democracy site with a Anthony Barnett piece (him being the one who decided to take the blame for it).
> 
> View attachment 189229


Jesus! Needs one of those Gen Z remixes where there’s a close up of Intelligentsia’s face aside it but I CBA


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 7, 2019)

Wonder where these people are now, somebody must know one of them surely. Probably spads or something


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 8, 2019)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wonder where these people are now, somebody must know one of them surely. Probably spads or something


The speccy one front right in the top pic looks really familiar, can't place him though. I've never seen a more disgusting gathering of human sewage in my life.


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> The speccy one front right in the top pic looks really familiar, can't place him though. I've never seen a more disgusting gathering of human sewage in my life.



I've just noticed he's wearing a purple armband.


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've never seen a more disgusting gathering of human sewage in my life.


I'll see your puddle of disgusting human sewage and raise you this putrescent clump of murderous walking abortions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2019)

copliker said:


> I'll see your puddle of disgusting human sewage and raise you this putrescent clump of murderous walking abortions.
> 
> View attachment 189343


Yer man on the left is the spit of someone I used to work with, but about 15 years too young and several inches too short

He was a tory too


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Aker is in the Brexit Party now the little slug


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2019)

#NotAllSlugs


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

The one in the red not dead t-shirt, conservative home editor, he looks exactly the same now but swollen, like he's had a row with every bee in the world


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Didn't Hayek boy end up with some sort of position in the Tories?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Aker is in the Brexit Party now the little slug


Soz which one aker?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> The one in the red not dead t-shirt, conservative home editor, he looks exactly the same now but swollen, like he's had a row with every bee in the world


Fuck is that Tim Montgomerie? Wouldn't have recognised him


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Soz which one aker?


One on the left in a suit. Tim Aker


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> One on the left in a suit. Tim Aker


Ah no relation of my former colleague then


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck is that Tim Montgomerie? Wouldn't have recognised him


That's Mark Wallace. Does nobody review their files anymore?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck is that Tim Montgomerie? Wouldn't have recognised him


No Mark Wallace, dunno what 'Montie' does now, he did set up that unherd but then fucked off


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

copliker said:


> That's Mark Wallace. Does nobody review their files anymore?


Ahh thought he didn't look like Montgomerie. Sorry for letting the side down copliker


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> No Mark Wallace, dunno what 'Montie' does now, he did set up that unherd but then fucked off


He is now "Special Adviser to @BorisJohnson on Social Justice."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 8, 2019)

One of them, possibly with the long hair, was called Felix Quigley iirc. What do his files say?


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2019)

Mark Wallace is actually worth following on twitter, it pains me to say. Horrible tory obviously, but he posts some genuinely insightful stuff about the inner working of the scum.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> One of them, possibly with the long hair, was called Felix Quigley iirc. What do his files say?


That he's a character from Harry Potter? Felix Quigley, FFS.


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> That he's a character from Harry Potter? Felix Quigley, FFS.



Hufflepuff wanker.

ETA: My mistake, thought you were talking about a LibDem


----------



## rekil (Nov 8, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> One of them, possibly with the long hair, was called Felix Quigley iirc. What do his files say?


Felix Bungay | Deloitte UK


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> Mark Wallace is actually worth following on twitter, it pains me to say. Horrible tory obviously, but he posts some genuinely insightful stuff about the inner working of the scum.


Not on twitter any more but when I was he blocked me for posting that photo


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

copliker said:


> Felix Bungay | Deloitte UK


Says there before deloitte he worked in regulatory design at FCA, exactly the sort of person you want responsible for that stuff, some mad fucker who thinks rules and taxes and sharing and stuff is a criminal violation of the purity of markets. This is why the financial sector is well known for its excellenf governance and conduct


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2019)

He probably gets it a lot...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> He probably gets it a lot...


This was about 2012, I like to think I was ahead of the curve


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 8, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wonder where these people are now, somebody must know one of them surely. Probably spads or something



Mr Logic (4th from right) might still be appearing in Viz.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 8, 2019)

copliker said:


> I'll see your puddle of disgusting human sewage and raise you this putrescent clump of murderous walking abortions.
> 
> View attachment 189343


Fair enough, I know when I'm beaten


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough, I know when I'm beaten


Never mind SpineyNorman ...silver medal in the World Championship Cunt off, is still something to  be proud of.


----------



## binka (Nov 8, 2019)

Did we have this yet? The Lib Dem candidate for Hove



There's a lot of good stuff there but I think my favourite is the reply a bit further down where she seems to think all brexit voting northerners are carpenters, builders or electricians


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2019)

binka said:


> Did we have this yet? The Lib Dem candidate for Hove
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of good stuff there but I think my favourite is the reply a bit further down where she seems to think all brexit voting northerners are carpenters, builders or electricians



Thank you binkers, i meant to save this one ages ago but forgot or lost it - even got a workers liberty banner as well:


----------



## binka (Nov 8, 2019)

You're welcome I like to feel useful


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2019)

She literally says that you northerners can go and be my skivvy whilst i'm skiing in Switzerland. She doesn't seem to know that Switzerland isn't in the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2019)

God, i think she's South African as well.

edit: well, Davos. So she doesn't even known that her own country isn't in the EU.


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2019)

Wow.

Just. Wow.


----------



## LDC (Nov 8, 2019)

chilango said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just. Wow.



Yeah, just been looking through her Twitter. Mind blowing.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2019)

Gotta say that the B&H conurbation constituencies really do seem to have it all.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2019)

This is great stuff. Last two election they lost their deposit there. Green tories too.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2019)

Fucking hell. This is has got to be a piss take. Even for the yellow scum this one's a fucking dribbling moron


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2019)

May as well whack this one here for as well - it doesn't mention that he was a lib-dem candidate in numerous local elections


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 9, 2019)

Er....


----------



## Santino (Nov 9, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2019)

Oh frig, the first one is real.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 9, 2019)

Wtf is a skills wallet?


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wtf is a skills wallet?


It’s a wallet pre-filled with skills.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2019)

Like a Chatham pocket for your CV?


----------



## rekil (Nov 9, 2019)

It has to be an e-marketing thing, deliberately weird in order to go viral and increase brand awareness resulting in a net positive outcome or some such bollocks, but this is the libdems.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 9, 2019)

They'll be unveiling their talent bumbag and happiness purses soon


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 9, 2019)

Sticky ballots, free for all


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 9, 2019)

Good grief, this buzzword bullshit is the best they can come up with in 2019?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2019)

elbows said:


> Future excuses might include an innocent mixup when they attempted to bar Chartism.


I waited and waited but no one picked it up i'm afraid...


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Like a Chatham pocket for your CV?


More like a fortitude table, I'd guess.


----------



## elbows (Nov 9, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I waited and waited but no one picked it up i'm afraid...



Never mind.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 9, 2019)

elbows said:


> Never mind.
> 
> View attachment 189453


Really?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Nov 9, 2019)

Jeff Robinson said:


> One of them, possibly with the long hair, was called Felix Quigley iirc. What do his files say?



Felix Bungay actually


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 9, 2019)

There isn't even much on google about what a skills wallet is. I found this which if it's the same thing is some awful managerial technocratic bollocks


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> There isn't even much on google about what a skills wallet is. I found this which if it's the same thing is some awful managerial technocratic bollocks


So that's clear, then?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2019)

binka said:


> Did we have this yet? The Lib Dem candidate for Hove
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of good stuff there but I think my favourite is the reply a bit further down where she seems to think all brexit voting northerners are carpenters, builders or electricians



You've all got it wrong...it was just a random joke and she's Swiss anyway...so skiing, obvs.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> So that's clear, then?


Some Black Mirror thing where everybody is an avatar attached to their linkedin profile or something


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Some Black Mirror thing where everybody is an avatar attached to their linkedin profile or something


Think I'm in danger of going full Icke and start railing about implants or summat!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 9, 2019)

A passion for going skiing for two months straight. That's pretty relatable.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> A passion for going skiing for two months straight. That's pretty relatable.


All those chalet maids' jobs to look after her...she's a wealth creator.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2019)

brogdale said:


> All those chalet maids' jobs to look after her...she's a wealth creator.


Saw a sign said for wealth creators
Sounds like I'd have some fun
Took a ride to that two bit town
Couldn't see nobody around
Then a man tried to slash my face
Welcome to this town
I'm a wealth creator here I come
I'm a human racer watch me run
I'm a pain reliever
I'm a firm believer
I'm a wealth creator
Here I come
Ain't got time to hang around
Ain't got time to play no games
Just rock and roll is on my mind
I can't feel no pain
All I need is a shotgun heart
A crossfire lightening dance
I blow your mind to outerspace
Love don't stand a chance
I'm a wealth creator here I come
I'm a human racer watch me run
I'm a pain reliever
I'm a firm believer
I'm a…

with apologies to steve jones


----------



## BigTom (Nov 9, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> There isn't even much on google about what a skills wallet is. I found this which if it's the same thing is some awful managerial technocratic bollocks


----------



## Libertad (Nov 10, 2019)

I sense a lack of aspiration here. Get with the program.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 10, 2019)

Libertad said:


> I sense a lack of aspiration here. Get with the program.



No, you are right. Having slept on it, I realise that the Skills Wallet is not just a rehash of the marvelous National Record Of Achievement, but a transformation of the idea into the digital age.
They are going to be getting school kids to setup a LinkedIn account.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 10, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> A passion for going skiing for two months straight. That's pretty relatable.



Going downhill will be something the candidate is comfortable with.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 10, 2019)

> LibDems are planning to press for reform of first past the post voting system if they hold the balance of power in the next Parliament
> 
> Senior figures have laid down two initial priority “red line” demands in the event of a hung Parliament which would be a second referendum on EU membership and *a refusal to put Corbyn in no 10.*
> 
> ...


----------



## maomao (Nov 10, 2019)

If a Corbyn government is a 'red line' then they're basically saying from the off that their preference is for a Tory coalition. It couldn't be more overt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> If a Corbyn government is a 'red line' then they're basically saying from the off that their preference is for a Tory coalition. It couldn't be more overt.


who they would trust to back them on PR the same way they backed them on AV right? lol


----------



## maomao (Nov 10, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> who they would trust to back them on PR the same way they backed them on AV right? lol


I think AV is a better idea than what we have now. I just voted no because the lib dems are cunts. I think most people did the same.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> If a Corbyn government is a 'red line' then they're basically saying from the off that their preference is for a Tory coalition. It couldn't be more overt.


No I don't think so, there's no way they could go into coalition with the Tories without completely betraying the Remain voters they're pitching for. The last time they betrayed their supporters they payed a heavy price. They're pitching for a Labour minority where the Labour Party is willing to ask/force Corbyn to stand down and replace him with a leader more acceptable to them than Corbyn. This is unfortunately for them as equally unlikely as Swinsons insistence that she has a chance of being PM. They've foolishly backed themselves into a corner where neither of the only 2 ways out is acceptable. 
Besides the SNP will be Corbyn's first port of call for support, Sturgeon is much more pragmatic than Swinson and has already hinted at her price. Labour will only need the LibDems if they still can't achieve a majority even with SNP support.
The best hope for the LibDems now is for them to do well south of the border and for Swinson herself to lose to the SNP, then they can choose a new leader who is prepared to swallow deeply and work with a Corbyn led Govt. As things now they stand to just end up as an ineffectual noise in the background.


----------



## maomao (Nov 10, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Besides the SNP will be Corbyn's first port of call for support,


In a best case scenario for Labour he'd probably still need both.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2019)

I am waiting to see what policies LD's have on Social Security, given Swinsons voting record, not promising.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2019)

I bet they think they can do a DUP.


----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2019)

BigTom said:


> No, you are right. Having slept on it, I realise that the Skills Wallet is not just a rehash of the marvelous National Record Of Achievement, but a transformation of the idea into the digital age.
> They are going to be getting school kids to setup a LinkedIn account.



When searching for the term I couldnt help but notice a registered trademark of an existing service.


----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2019)

treelover said:


> I am waiting to see what policies LD's have on Social Security, given Swinsons voting record, not promising.



The name of every person who dies as a result of their policies will go into their kills wallet.


----------



## maomao (Nov 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> I bet they think they can do a DUP.


Where do they take their bribe though? DUP want money for their people. The lib dems don't have people.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> I bet they think they can do a DUP.


You are no doubt correct, behind the 'we can win' bull there are no doubt people who are planning/hoping they will have enough MP's to be able to hold the balance of power and force concessions out of a Labour Party desperate enough to make deals.
I think they're wrong myself, I expect them to do better than 2017 but not well enough to be a powerbroker


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> Where do they take their bribe though? DUP want money for their people. The lib dems don't have people.


Trade votes for RQF level 3 awards in management theory and interpersonal skills


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2019)

chilango said:


> I bet they think they can do a DUP.


No one will ever give the golden showers a billion pounds


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 12, 2019)

> Kevin McNamara is Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Thurrock, Honorary Vice-President of the Young Liberals and the Liberal Democrat Campaign for Race Equality.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 12, 2019)

Standing down now the prick. 

Also WEP backing the LibDems in two seats (there's a surprise)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Standing down now the prick.
> 
> Also WEP backing the LibDems in two seats (there's a surprise)


from your second link

i love the way the guardian puts chuka first even tho she's on the left and he's on the right


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2019)

Without comment.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 12, 2019)

“Christmas due soon because Jo Swinson is the Lib Dem leader”.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2019)

and the latest candidate is....






Jo  Swinson insists it is not a joke.


----------



## andysays (Nov 13, 2019)

General election 2019: Lib Dem candidate stands down to avoid Remain vote split


> The Liberal Democrat candidate in Canterbury has stood down because he feared dividing the Remain vote. Tim Walker said he was concerned standing would allow the Conservative candidate to take the seat from Labour. Mr Walker said the Lib Dems had tried to do a deal with Labour over the seat, and when that failed he made the decision himself to stand down.


Sounds pretty sensible, nothing much to criticise the LibDems for there. But here's the punchline


> The Lib Dems told the BBC they will be selecting a new candidate to contest the Kent constituency...


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

What else are they going to do? Their election strategy rests on reassuring corbyn averse remain leaning tories they wont put Corbyn in downing street. They can't stand aside for labour anywhere (although it looks like the local party wont be campaigning for whoever is standing for them now)


----------



## andysays (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> What else are they going to do? Their election strategy rests on reassuring corbyn averse remain leaning tories they wont put Corbyn in downing street. They can't stand aside for labour anywhere (although it looks like the local party wont be campaigning for whoever is standing for them now)


Interesting that the story mentions attempting to reach a deal with Labour. It's not clear from the article, but I wonder if that refers to the local party rather than the national one.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

andysays said:


> Interesting that the story mentions attempting to reach a deal with Labour. It's not clear from the article, but I wonder if that refers to the local party rather than the national one.


Pretty sure that referring to Canterbury, there.
The great thing about Walker & Canterbury LD's decision is that it completely exposes the incoherence of Swinson's 'strategy' & whichever way the national party turn she'll look bad. Either as weak & not in control of events, or as 'party before country' tribal and a facilitator of a hard brexit tory victory.
Delicious.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Their election strategy rests on reassuring corbyn averse remain leaning tories they wont put Corbyn in downing street.



That's quite a small constituency, no?


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

chilango said:


> That's quite a small constituency, no?


It's obviously big enough for the Lib Dems to make it their main target for the general election.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's obviously big enough for the Lib Dems to make it their main target for the general election.



I think they're making the classic bubble mistake of thinking that everyone is like them.

See also the consistent failure of new centrist projects.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

Perhaps, but it's their strategy anyway.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> Perhaps, but it's their strategy anyway.



I hope so.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

this is fun.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> What else are they going to do? Their election strategy rests on reassuring corbyn averse remain leaning tories they wont put Corbyn in downing street. They can't stand aside for labour anywhere (although it looks like the local party wont be campaigning for whoever is standing for them now)


Clearly not everyone has got the memo.



Given how they've positioned themselves I suspect there may be quite a few people who had previously thought it was a party that supported Remain, rather than a party that targets Tory Remainers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2019)

ffs


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> this is fun.



Yeats time!


> Things fall apart; *the centre cannot hold*


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Clearly not everyone has got the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> Given how they've positioned themselves I suspect there may be quite a few people who had previously thought it was a party that supported Remain, rather than a party that targets Tory Remainers.




Yep.

They'll pick up votes from people who'd never vote Labour anyway and drive the soft progressives back into the arms of Labour.

Hopefully.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

this piece from Stephen Bush goes into a little more detail on the Lib Dem strategy

The Liberal Democrats want to be the party of David Gauke, not the party of Tim Walker


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2019)

killer b said:


> this piece from Stephen Bush goes into a little more detail on the Lib Dem strategy
> 
> The Liberal Democrats want to be the party of David Gauke, not the party of Tim Walker



Good.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Yeats time!


The well-known blood and soil fascist.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The well-known blood and soil fascist.


Blut und Boden


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Blut und Boden


Tread softly, you are treading on my volk.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 13, 2019)

chilango said:


> That's quite a small constituency, no?



It's quite a small constituency nationally, but not in parts of London or the South East.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2019)

i for one look forward to the day this thread is retitled 'why the lib dems were shit'


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

chilango said:


> Yep.
> 
> They'll pick up votes from people who'd never vote Labour anyway and drive the soft progressives back into the arms of Labour.
> 
> Hopefully.


Quite an amusing challenge...can anyone on here remember such a scenario?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ... and he's on the right



No change there then etc.


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 13, 2019)

Jo Swinson rapidly losing control of this narrative.

Good.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


>



Sounds...er...a little illiberal and not very democratic?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2019)

I mean most parties just dump their candidates when they turn out to be massive racists or something (and they can't just ignore it). We've moved to a new level now.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I mean most parties just dump their candidates when they turn out to be massive racists or something (and they can't just ignore it). We've moved to a new level now.


How to motivate the local activist base, eh?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> How to motivate the local activist base, eh?


Can't be too strict when purging the enemies of the yellow revolution.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Can't be too strict when purging the enemies of the yellow revolution.


The Swinsonist purge.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2019)

It's not unreasonable to drop a candidate if they've just been on national telly urging people to vote for a different party tbf. Still funny as fuck mind.


----------



## Marty1 (Nov 14, 2019)

Wera Hobhouse comes across badly whilst banging on about climate change and flooding.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2019)

I'd like to see a fight to the death between Marty1 and Dontrooomp, I think that would be entertaining. Then the winner gets executed for murder.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2019)

New evidence that LibDems sold voter data for £100,000 held back till after election

ew evidence which confirms that the Liberal Democrats sold voter data to the Remain campaign in 2016 for almost £100,000 is being withheld from public scrutiny by the UK's information watchdog, openDemocracy has learned.

A report in 2018 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said it had obtained evidence that the Liberal Democrats sold the personal data of its party members to the Britain Stronger In Europe (BSiE) campaign ahead of the Brexit referendum. The party insisted it only shared publicly available electoral register data that had been “enhanced”, but not private membership information.

openDemocracy has seen the evidence held by the ICO for over a year. In official Liberal Democrat documents that have been examined and validated by the data watchdog, the 2016 income of the party specifically identifies both “data services sale” and “data services fees” worth almost £100,000 which occurred during the lengthy EU referendum campaign


----------



## JimW (Nov 14, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> New evidence that LibDems sold voter data for £100,000 held back till after election
> 
> ew evidence which confirms that the Liberal Democrats sold voter data to the Remain campaign in 2016 for almost £100,000 is being withheld from public scrutiny by the UK's information watchdog, openDemocracy has learned.
> 
> ...


Only shared publicly available information but it was worth 100 grand. Oh aye.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 14, 2019)

What the fuck.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 14, 2019)

They really are scum, a different sort of scum to tories but in some ways worse, absolute scum


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 14, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> They really are scum, a different sort of scum to tories but in some ways worse, absolute scum


At least you know where you are with Tories, these slime want to pretend they're all lovely and progressive but they are every bit as dedicated to inequality as any Conservative.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2019)

Their party name on the ballot paper is going to be _The Liberal Democrats - To Stop Brexit_


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 17, 2019)

Not 'Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats'? I thought they were onto a winner with that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2019)

Austerity forever has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 17, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Their party name on the ballot paper is going to be _The Liberal Democrats - To Stop Brexit_


Is this real? I hope it's real


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Is this real? I hope it's real


It is, it's was in the new european 'paper' but i don't want to link to that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 17, 2019)

It's glorious. Democrats - to stop a referendum to leave the most undemocratic structure outside of DPRK. Brilliant.


----------



## agricola (Nov 17, 2019)

From a few days ago, but still this is pretty shameful from Sam Gyimah:



> He told _The Independent_: “Clearly we know now that this was essentially a candle that people were living in, and that is why this horrific tragedy happened. We’ve got to deal with it, and I will be reaching out to the communities, but we’ve got to be very careful that Grenfell is not just part of the party political knockabout. It’s one of those issues that should be above party politics and about the people and their families rather than being part of the culture war that is happening.”
> 
> 
> He continued: “If you look at the Phase One report [of the official inquiry into the disaster], which is a very bleak assessment, there are many things that went wrong. By the way, Emma Dent Coad was on the council and was part of all the discussions that went on in terms of the cladding.
> ...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 17, 2019)

agricola said:


> From a few days ago, but still this is pretty shameful from Sam Gyimah:



EDC has had anonymous death threats since he said that.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 17, 2019)

Further to the above:


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 18, 2019)

Loved by the CBI = a guaranteed shit.

Jo Swinson gets best reception at CBI for Lib Dems' pro-EU stance


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 18, 2019)

Latest election news as Lib Dems and SNP lose court battle over ITV debate snub

Fucking good.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Latest election news as Lib Dems and SNP lose court battle over ITV debate snub
> 
> Fucking good.


Minor parties can fuck off.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 18, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Minor parties can fuck off.



In a debate between potential PMs, yes.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2019)

How's that electoral strategy of running as _Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats_ working out then? 

Oh.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 19, 2019)




----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> How's that electoral strategy of running as _Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats_ working out then?
> 
> Oh.
> 
> View attachment 190357




Wonder if her name will be coming off all the leaflets then?


----------



## YouSir (Nov 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Wonder if her name will be coming off all the leaflets then?



Willing to bet Chuka's already got a garage full of 'Chuka Umunna's Liberal Democrats' fliers ready to go if she needs them.


----------



## YouSir (Nov 19, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Willing to bet Chuka's already got a garage full of 'Chuka Umunna's Liberal Democrats' fliers ready to go if she needs them.



May have to wade through the mouldy boxes of 'Chuka Umunna's Labour' t-shirts and 'Chuka Umunna's CUK' hats that are in front of them mind.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2019)

She has also felt compelled for some reason to deny a widely shared and very enjoyable satirical story which claims she kill squirrels with a catapult. Shortly after this Labour did a press release on their anti-animal cruelty policies.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2019)

this one:


----------



## YouSir (Nov 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> this one:




Best bit of British politics these days - people conjuring up these stories on Twitter and 'real' journalists getting sucked in, or acting ultra-offended at it all. Hats off to the Trevor Bastard Extended Universe & Co for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2019)

Mark e Smith rip off


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Best bit of British politics these days - people conjuring up these stories on Twitter and 'real' journalists getting sucked in, or acting ultra-offended at it all. Hats off to the Trevor Bastard Extended Universe & Co for that.


I wonder if we need a separate thread for election shitposting, cause there's some absolute beauts right now. Michael Crick was suckered gloriously this morning:


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Best bit of British politics these days - people conjuring up these stories on Twitter and 'real' journalists getting sucked in, or acting ultra-offended at it all. Hats off to the Trevor Bastard Extended Universe & Co for that.



Now we can all be Chris Morris.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 19, 2019)

killer b said:


> She has also felt compelled for some reason to deny a widely shared and very enjoyable satirical story which claims she kill squirrels with a catapult. Shortly after this Labour did a press release on their anti-animal cruelty policies.


I hadn’t heard the rumours until now. I believe them. Her saying “pleb bunnies” rings true.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 20, 2019)

The Lib Dems Have Suspended A Candidate Who Repeatedly Made Antisemitic Remarks


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 20, 2019)

D'wards said:


> The Lib Dems Have Suspended A Candidate Who Repeatedly Made Antisemitic Remarks


I like the bit where he posts on facebook to call for a boycott of whatsapp because it's a zionist conspiracy because it's owned by facebook, gold


----------



## D'wards (Nov 20, 2019)

This isn't a comment about Gaza or anything like that but well heavy anti semitism including posting a hook nose caricature.

The man is a prick of the highest order


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2019)

Just read on CIF that at LD's conference, they voted to keep UC, but completely abolish sanctions, bit suprised there.

then again, no conf decisions ever seems binding.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 20, 2019)

Yet another reason why they are scum then. I have had dealings in my job with supporting people through applying for UC and I can confidently say it is delibately designed to disavantage people that are most likey to need benefits.


----------



## maomao (Nov 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> then again, no conf decisions ever seems binding.


Especially when you've got fuck all chance of ever forming a government.


----------



## magneze (Nov 20, 2019)

Jo Swinson dubbed "the queen of austerity" on Channel 4 news. Wonder if that might stick...


----------



## chilango (Nov 20, 2019)

Ed Davey already saying that they'd back the Tories in return for a 2nd Ref.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

killer b said:


> How's that electoral strategy of running as _Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats_ working out then?
> 
> Oh.
> 
> View attachment 190357


Right at front of their election _catalogue_:


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2019)

chilango said:


> Ed Davey already saying that they'd back the Tories in return for a 2nd Ref.


His interview here is great - got to be worth a fat 5 points for Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

This from the spectator i think may well be right on the swinson shit, the second para esp - all the below married to professional campaigners being told to work on that basis:



> One of the main problems might be that the party has miscalculated what its strongest selling points are. The campaign is heavily focused on two things: Swinson and the stop Brexit pledge. It is hard to move for massive pictures of the Lib Dem leader, whether on the battle bus or in party documents and today’s manifesto was branded ‘Jo Swinson’s plan for Britain’s future’. Party political broadcasts have similarly heavily focused on Swinson. Yet it’s not just the polls that suggest this may have been a mistake. I was recently surprised by conversations I had with a group of pro-Remain, and generally sympathetic to the Lib Dem voters in key target seats including Putney and Twickenham who named Swinson herself as a problem. A couple went so far as to call her an ‘extremist’ because of her pledge to revoke Article 50, a description that is at odds with the party’s efforts to depict her as the only reasonable person in British politics.





> It is perhaps difficult for those working on the party’s campaign to fully appreciate this. Many of them have quite an emotional connection to Swinson, having effectively watched her grow up in the party. There is footage of a very young and earnest-looking Swinson speaking at Lib Dem conferences that activists and party campaigners remember well. The Lib Dems bear the greatest resemblance to a family or perhaps a local church out of all the parties, and you simply do not find this fondness in the other parties, regardless of the ongoing slavish admiration from some Labour activists for Jeremy Corbyn, or the excitement that Boris Johnson generates in his party conference hall. Many of the staffers on this election campaign – with the exception of workers such as deputy director of campaigns Denise Baron, who has worked in the US for the Democrats – are old hands in the party, which certainly helps them understand its bizarre structures, but also means they may not have the perspective of the kind of voters they actually need to attract.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 21, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Right at front of their election _catalogue_:
> 
> View attachment 190517


She looks like she wants to release equity from my home


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> She looks like she wants to release equity from my home


----------



## andysays (Nov 21, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> She looks like she wants to release equity from my home


I was going to say she looks like a career as a catalogue model beckons after the GE


----------



## chilango (Nov 21, 2019)

Jo from HR.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

Not a word from the _LBC are great_ remain nutters on this.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 21, 2019)

Shit:


----------



## Santino (Nov 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Shit:



"Will jew let me finish"


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 21, 2019)

Her personal popularity seems to be fading somewhat faster than the LibDem's as a whole. I suspect that Ed Davey must be wondering if he should brush off his leadership speech after all.
I can see the LD's getting more seats but Death of Squirrels losing her own


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

Santino said:


> "Will jew let me finish"


Yep, they def did that there. Arseholes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 21, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Shit:




very, very weird.


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> very, very weird.



Grass roots, momentum, meme based perceived Labour successes during recent elections were bound to cause a deeply naff, trying too hard, stale and manufactured response from political parties whose base and fans arent going to generate their version of that content for them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 21, 2019)

And there's more shit where that came from:


----------



## mx wcfc (Nov 21, 2019)

The bastards are clearly targeting the youth vote round here. This is a handwritten envelope from the Lib Dem’s delivered today apparently to my daughter.

1.  Forgive the redaction, but that is nothing like her first name.
2. our family name is not Webb.

of course, this leaves aside the fact that she is a student and therefore in debt as a result of their collaboration.  And a myriad of other shit obv.

But hey!  Youth vote!


----------



## hash tag (Nov 21, 2019)

Is MS Swanson really Johnson in disguise? 
Quick check if voting records not to mention lib dems selling out on fees 
How ‘liberal’ are the Lib Dems now: Jo Swinson and Boris Johnson’s past votes compared


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2019)

i can't find that clip of Jo Swinson attempting a stand up comedy bit at a Lib Dem conference and dying on her arse. Anyone got it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2019)

Think you mean Sarah Teather. Though I do hope you don't and she tried and failed too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 21, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Think you mean Sarah Teather. Though I do hope you don't and she tried and failed too.


oops, maybe i was thinking of her.  
yes, yes I was:


----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> oops, maybe i was thinking of her.
> yes, yes I was:




That's awesome. Thank you.


----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2019)

chilango said:


>


Said it before, but it won't stop me doing so again...Swinson is that monument.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 22, 2019)

The leader's interview nuke stuff was breathtaking, from the Swinson as brisk genocidaire, a nanny to nukes, to the moral vacuum of the presenter's response.


----------



## Sue (Nov 22, 2019)

I so hope she loses her seat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2019)

chilango said:


>


the article beneath it isn't any better


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2019)

Sue said:


> I so hope she loses her seat.



Yes. Worth staying up for.

Would be funny as fuck.


----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2019)

chilango said:


>


that's an immediate fail as she's no mouthguard in


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2019)

Maybe not...one that we could forgive, encourage even?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 22, 2019)

Disappointed each glove doesn't have 'stop' and 'brexit' on them


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2019)

I wonder what would happen if i typed in "stop brexit" tattoo? There must be one min.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 22, 2019)

Yesterday they hand delivered two bits of election bumf to my house within half an hour of each other. And they want to make efficiency savings in the public sector? Fuck em.


----------



## belboid (Nov 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what would happen if i typed in "stop brexit" tattoo? There must be one min.


you just made me find this, you bastard!






on an anti-Brexit UKP voter, apaprently


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2019)

belboid said:


> you just made me find this, you bastard!
> 
> <snip>
> on an anti-Brexit UKP voter, apaprently




Ugh - all round shit show there.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2019)

SWINSON


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 22, 2019)

Swinson, you lose some.


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2019)

I'm still catching up. So a nuclear war on squirrels is now considered a proportionate response?

Are we sure there isnt some confusion due to operation Gladio codewords that were chosen? 'Red squirrel' must be stopped by any means necessary!


----------



## discokermit (Nov 22, 2019)

That was a fantastic bit of telly. Two lying bellends looking like twats. Lol.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 23, 2019)

Doing their bit to make the state subsidise the private rental sector


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 23, 2019)

You really couldn’t make this fucking shit up!


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Doing their bit to make the state subsidise the private rental sector



It's not even a state subsidy, it's a loan. It absolutely guarantees rents would go up _and_ you'd have to pay the money back. It's the stupidest policy ever unless you're specifically trying to get btl landlords and letting agents to vote for you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 23, 2019)

Head the ball stuff, it really is


----------



## Azrael (Nov 23, 2019)

Poi E said:


> The leader's interview nuke stuff was breathtaking, from the Swinson as brisk genocidaire, a nanny to nukes, to the moral vacuum of the presenter's response.


Making Ronald Reagan look like a peacenik takes some doing, but she managed it. Mrs May pulling the same stunt's what conviced me that Britain's unfit to be in the nuclear club, so it's not even original. How far they've plummeted since Charles Kennedy joined us on the Iraq march.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2019)

And demanded a mandate for a. proper war.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 23, 2019)

Yeah well, a liberal would be all for international law and view the U.N. as a global policeman. Still a useful ally. (Doubt many there that day shared my belief in Westphalian sovereignty.) Still several rungs up from “Glass ‘em and we get 5p on plastic bags.”


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 23, 2019)

I’m going to have to watch the QT special aren’t I? TV reception was bad last night: picture freezing and sound cutting out, so watching live wasn’t an option. But I’m enjoying hearing that Swinson and Johnson especially were cringe-worthy.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 23, 2019)

just been watching it this morning on iplayer , depending on your leanings it was fantastic or a total car crash , its def worth a watch


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2019)

The swinson section is the only essential bit. Johnson gets handed his arse but he's too disgusting to take any pleasure in watching.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 23, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I’m going to have to watch the QT special aren’t I? TV reception was bad last night: picture freezing and sound cutting out, so watching live wasn’t an option. But I’m enjoying hearing that Swinson and Johnson especially were cringe-worthy.



You are!


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2019)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2019)

Don't think i want this Belgian bun now. Thanks.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 23, 2019)

I don't even fucking _understand_ the above picture  

I'm sure it's utter shit, but I don't know exactly why ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> I don't even fucking _understand_ the above picture
> 
> I'm sure it's utter shit, but I don't know exactly why ...


The man is lembit opik the former lib dem mp most famous for a liaison with a cheeky girl, and Jo Swinson on left


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2019)

Debate Her


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2019)

woman leader


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The man is lembit opik the former lib dem mp most famous for a liaison with a cheeky girl


It's also Swinson on the left isn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> It's also Swinson on the left isn't it.


Was just editing to say that


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The man is lembit opik the former lib dem mp most famous for a liaison with a cheeky girl, and Jo Swinson on left


I take it the 'point' of the deeply creepy photo op was to oppose Blair's imposition of tuition fees...or am I off beam with that?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 23, 2019)

I've just watched last night's QT, what a car-crash for Swinson, only out done by the train-wreck of the Prince Andrew interview.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I take it the 'point' of the deeply creepy photo op was to oppose Blair's imposition of tuition fees...or am I off beam with that?


Must be considering the sums on the cheques. It's really creepy given lo's predilection for relationships with rather younger women and the way the three seem positioned around him. Even if I didn't know who they were or what the gist was, it's clear where power is supposed to reside in that image.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I take it the 'point' of the deeply creepy photo op was to oppose Blair's imposition of tuition fees...or am I off beam with that?


Yes, and aside from all the other thing it's an argument for scottish independence, which after her anti-snp stuff these last weeks is more gold.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Must be considering the sums on the cheques. It's really creepy given lo's predilection for relationships with rather younger women and the way the three seem positioned around him. Even if I didn't know who they were or what the gist was, it's clear where power is supposed to reside in that image.


So not only creepy as fuck, but also deeply ironic.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The man is lembit opik the former lib dem mp most famous for a liaison with a cheeky girl, and Jo Swinson on left



I had totally forgot about the bloody cheeky girls, and them posing with Johnson, thanks for reminding me of them. 



Spoiler: Three twats together...


----------



## chilango (Nov 23, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Must be considering the sums on the cheques. It's really creepy given lo's predilection for relationships with rather younger women and the way the three seem positioned around him. Even if I didn't know who they were or what the gist was, it's clear where power is supposed to reside in that image.



Stick #girlyswot on that photo and see what message it sends.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 23, 2019)

William of Walworth said:


> I don't even fucking _understand_ the above picture
> 
> I'm sure it's utter shit, but I don't know exactly why ...


I like that they're all in kilts so you can tell they're definitely Scottish.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2019)

I think it’s important to have that authenticity in politics. And I have had a lot of good feedback and I look forward to future opportunities to discuss issues with the public


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think it’s important to have that authenticity in politics. And I have had a lot of good feedback and I look forward to future opportunities to discuss issues with the public


Authenticity is so relevant, so now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2019)

.


----------



## Duncan2 (Nov 23, 2019)

IF i may just for a moment refer back to Swinson's woeful performance on Leader's QT yesterday wasn't that a great question at one hour twenty four minutes in and didn't Swinson resemble someone who had just been struck between the eyes by a well-aimed dart at that point?"Hi there can I just check in on the whole climate-change thing?You recently said you were "okay" with using nuclear weapons.Could you just clarify for us how that helps the Planet exactly?"
Really enjoyed that bit.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 23, 2019)

Duncan2 said:


> IF i may just for a moment refer back to Swinson's woeful performance on Leader's QT yesterday wasn't that a great question at one hour twenty four minutes in and didn't Swinson resemble someone who had just been struck between the eyes by a well-aimed dart at that point?"Hi there can I just check in on the whole climate-change thing?You recently said you were "okay" with using nuclear weapons.Could you just clarify for us how that helps the Planet exactly?"
> Really enjoyed that bit.


Yeah, there were some great zingers from the audience.
Sheffield and the surrounds should be proud.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 23, 2019)

doing the rounds on teh tweeter


----------



## Libertad (Nov 24, 2019)

Our local vermin enabler Danny Chambers:

Election 2019: Disabled Lib Dems complain to their party over candidate’s disablist tweets


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2019)

Libertad said:


> Our local vermin enabler Danny Chambers:
> 
> Election 2019: Disabled Lib Dems complain to their party over candidate’s disablist tweets


His defence seems to be that he's the genuine voice of those offended.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 24, 2019)

A Lib Dem of my acquaintance (via football) is now circulating stuff from Jewish Chronicle (& I don’t think he is Jewish) about 80 something percent of British Jews believing Labour Leader and Party itself to be antisemitic. Definitely the sense of desperation and nastiness growing around the failing, flailing Lib Dem’s. Seems in almost all likely outcomes they are going to lose big time.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 24, 2019)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> A Lib Dem of my acquaintance (via football) is now circulating stuff from Jewish Chronicle (& I don’t think he is Jewish) about 80 something percent of British Jews believing Labour Leader and Party itself to be antisemitic. Definitely the sense of desperation and nastiness growing around the failing, flailing Lib Dem’s. Seems in almost all likely outcomes they are going to lose big time.



I'd guess they'll still improve their position a bit but only because they're starting from such a low base.

I wouldn't bet on Swinson keeping her seat though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2019)

Libertad said:


> Our local vermin enabler Danny Chambers:
> 
> Election 2019: Disabled Lib Dems complain to their party over candidate’s disablist tweets


Danny dire


----------



## treelover (Nov 24, 2019)

maomao said:


> It's not even a state subsidy, it's a loan. It absolutely guarantees rents would go up _and_ you'd have to pay the money back. It's the stupidest policy ever unless you're specifically trying to get btl landlords and letting agents to vote for you.



Some councils already do this, i am hoping to access one when I need to move, stuck without one.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 25, 2019)

> The candidates hoping to oust Jeremy Corbyn and Emily Thornberry at the December 12 poll also say "there's no such thing as a Labour stronghold" in Islington - and they believe the borough's remain supporting majority will coalesce behind them.
> 
> But Nick Wakeling and Kate Pothalingam admitted it's "regrettable" the party has been distributing some misleading election literature, with Mr Wakeling saying: "We shouldn't be doing that."
> 
> ...



Deluded.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 25, 2019)

Fucking lib dems, giving weed a bad name. wankers.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 25, 2019)

Weed Is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to libdemisn - ban this filth now


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2019)

but the golden shower would maintain a minority tory administration in office


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2019)

My constituency:

'Mathis now finds himself suspended from his party, which accuses him of bringing it "into disrepute", though it is too late after candidate nominations for the Liberal Democrats to remove him from the ballot paper.

The former London Overground worker is now running as an independent candidate, and has accused Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson of "throwing him under the bus"."



Hackney North Lib Dem candidate dropped over 'clearly offensive' tweets


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2019)

Sue said:


> My constituency:
> 
> 'Mathis now finds himself suspended from his party, which accuses him of bringing it "into disrepute", though it is too late after candidate nominations for the Liberal Democrats to remove him from the ballot paper.
> 
> ...





Sue said:


> though it is too late after candidate nominations for the Liberal Democrats to remove him from the ballot paper.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 25, 2019)

So how does that work then? Is he now standing as an independent with no lib dem on the ballot paper? Is he on the paper as both lib dem and independent?
I'm guessing he will still be on the ballot as the lib dem candidate, and then if elected he would sit as an independent?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 25, 2019)

Guys everything is fine. Coldplay’s Chris Martin is down with the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 25, 2019)

BigTom said:


> So how does that work then? Is he now standing as an independent with no lib dem on the ballot paper? Is he on the paper as both lib dem and independent?
> I'm guessing he will still be on the ballot as the lib dem candidate, and then if elected he would sit as an independent?


?, no, no, yes & he won't be.


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ?, no, no, yes & he won't be.


Yep. Overturning a 35 0000 majority may be a bit of a stretch...


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Guys everything is fine. Coldplay’s Chris Martin is down with the Liberal Democrats.



Oh what a thing to do


----------



## andysays (Nov 25, 2019)

Following on from Swinson's nuclear button stuff, Umanna is promising to spend the Remain bonus on boosting defence spending


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 25, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Guys everything is fine. Coldplay’s Chris Martin is down with the Liberal Democrats.



He’s consciously uncoupled from his senses.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 25, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Weed Is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to libdemisn - ban this filth now


Thing is though, proper stoners often do have really fucking bad politics. Conspiracy wing of libdemmery


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 25, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is though, proper stoners often do have really fucking bad politics. Conspiracy wing of libdemmery



Exceptions apply. For example, my politics are cool as


----------



## Poi E (Nov 26, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is though, proper stoners often do have really fucking bad politics. Conspiracy wing of libdemmery



Yeah but drink sends you Tory Chris Mooney: Can Drinking Make You Conservative?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 26, 2019)

Basingstoke Gazette is not happy about this...



> Katie French, who edits the Basingstoke Gazette, has criticised the Lib Dems over the party’s publication the Mid Hampshire Gazette, which has been produced in support of Paula Ferguson, its election candidate for Winchester.
> 
> The Mid Hampshire Gazette describes itself as a “free newspaper” covering several local districts, with the words “Liberal Democrats” appearing in very small print at the top right of the front page.



 

Mind you, the Tories did something similiar in Kent...



> Last month HTFP reported how the Kentish Gazette had been forced to distance itself from a publication called the Canterbury and Whitstable Gazette, which had been produced by the Canterbury Constituency Conservative Association.



https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/...-free-newspaper-with-similar-name-to-her-own/


----------



## CNT36 (Nov 26, 2019)

Duncan2 said:


> IF i may just for a moment refer back to Swinson's woeful performance on Leader's QT yesterday wasn't that a great question at one hour twenty four minutes in and didn't Swinson resemble someone who had just been struck between the eyes by a well-aimed dart at that point?"Hi there can I just check in on the whole climate-change thing?You recently said you were "okay" with using nuclear weapons.Could you just clarify for us how that helps the Planet exactly?"
> Really enjoyed that bit.


Personally I'd feel much more secure with a prime minister who is likely to condemn us all to nuclear oblivion the next time Putin is doing the judo.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 26, 2019)

It’s the utter dedication of Swinson / her seat will be a smoking irradiated wasteland given its location between faslane and Glasgow- she is so enthusiastic about setting off trident, she is willing to incinerate her constituents. That’s dedication


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> It’s the utter dedication of Swinson / her seat will be a smoking irradiated wasteland given its location between faslane and Glasgow- she is so enthusiastic about setting off trident, she is willing to incinerate her constituents. That’s dedication


Snuggling up with her precious nukes


----------



## mx wcfc (Nov 26, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Yeah but drink sends you Tory Chris Mooney: Can Drinking Make You Conservative?


I can assure you that as a raving alcoholic complete fucking pisshead, that drinking far far too much is making me more and more leftie/anarchist fuck everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> It’s the utter dedication of Swinson / her seat will be a smoking irradiated wasteland given its location between faslane and Glasgow- she is so enthusiastic about setting off trident, she is willing to incinerate her constituents. That’s dedication


Only the ones who don't vote for her will be incinerated #smartnukes


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 26, 2019)

Santino said:


> Oh what a thing to do


cos its all yellow..

should have seen it coming ages ago


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2019)

ruffneck23 said:


> cos its all yellow..
> 
> should have seen it coming ages ago



Like when he called his kid Apple.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2019)

With an Andrew Neil interview coming i think


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 27, 2019)

"Over the moon" with Tory support


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2019)

Sad news for the Lib Dems, even Best for Britain is abandoning them. 

82 seat recommendations changed from LD to Labour

GetVoting tactically


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 27, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> "Over the moon" with Tory support




That's one Tory seat I don't want them to lose.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 27, 2019)

killer b said:


> Sad news for the Lib Dems, even Best for Britain is abandoning them.
> 
> 82 seat recommendations changed from LD to Labour
> 
> GetVoting tactically


. 


  Eroding faster than the Lincolnshire coastline there


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

I needed cheering up...and this has helped.
That face.


----------



## andysays (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I needed cheering up...and this has helped.
> That face.
> 
> View attachment 191206


Politics makes strange bedfellows (or maybe not so strange...)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2019)

andysays said:


> Politics makes strange bedfellows (or maybe not so strange...)


Indeed...just shocking how un-strange that all is.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I needed cheering up...and this has helped.
> That face.
> 
> View attachment 191206


I’m disappointed to see the First Doctor sharing a platform with Chuka Umunna.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's one Tory seat I don't want them to lose.


I'm genuinely curious to see how that seat will go, Clearly Chuka thinks there is a 'well known name' vote that will vote for him just because they recognise his name and that might swing it his sway.
And clearly someone in the LibDems is dubious but thinks it might just be worth punting £500 on just in case.
I think he's wrong and that it just won't make a difference, but this is one of a handful of seats I am going to watch out for in the early hours of Friday


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 27, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> I'm genuinely curious to see how that seat will go, Clearly Chuka thinks there is a 'well known name' vote that will vote for him just because they recognise his name and that might swing it his sway.
> And clearly someone in the LibDems is dubious but thinks it might just be worth punting £500 on just in case.
> I think he's wrong and that it just won't make a difference, but this is one of a handful of seats I am going to watch out for in the early hours of Friday



They are not punting £500 on it, they will get over a 5% vote share & therefore get their deposit back anyway. 

I still hope that Chuka is chucked-out.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 27, 2019)

Tufty Club CEO makes stunning election intervention.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 27, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Tufty Club CEO makes stunning election intervention.


Speaking for all of us


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 27, 2019)

Today's communication from the yellow vermin is about jo swinson's plan for improving mental health services.

the same plan that included voting for tory cuts to the NHS and just about everything else.

the same plan that included voting for the benefit cuts that are damaging peoples' mental health, and punish people for being ill, especially people who are mentally ill.

FUCK OFF

and then fuck off some more.


----------



## gosub (Nov 27, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> With an Andrew Neil interview coming i think



Who would have thought thumbing their nose at a plebiscite vote and trying to rely on personality politics would misfire for Jo Swinson"s Liberal Democrat's


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 27, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> and then fuck off some more.



the thing did come with a freepost address so I can respond.

at the moment, anything i can think of saying would probably constitute some sort of 'malicious communications' offence...

CUNTS


----------



## Azrael (Nov 27, 2019)

This is why I believe the Lib Dems should've wound up and relaunched the party: the stain of the Con-Dem years runs through the current setup like various choice Viking expletives embedded in a stick of Blackpool rock. A grovelling apology accompanied by fresh faces with no Con-Dem baggage and a dramatic gesture like entrenching a no coalition policy in their federal constitution could've turned things around.

Electing Swinson, with her record, was the precise opposite. It's no wonder it's biting them big time.


----------



## Cid (Nov 27, 2019)

Azrael said:


> This is why I believe the Lib Dems should've wound up and relaunched the party: the stain of the Con-Dem years runs through the current setup like various choice Viking expletives embedded in a stick of Blackpool rock. A grovelling apology accompanied by fresh faces with no Con-Dem baggage and a dramatic gesture like entrenching a no coalition policy in their federal constitution could've turned things around.
> 
> Electing Swinson, with her record, was the precise opposite. It's no wonder it's biting them big time.



Well, yeah, but then they wouldn't be Lib Dems.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 27, 2019)

True!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 28, 2019)

I live in Leeds North West, which has a small Lab majority taken off the Lib Dems in 2015, so I guess it's a target constituency. Still, I was surprised and really quite annoyed to get a letter from Chuka Umunna urging us to vote Lib Dem. The brass neck of a Londoner telling me who to vote for...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> She literally says that you northerners can go and be my skivvy whilst i'm skiing in Switzerland. She doesn't seem to know that Switzerland isn't in the EU.




She's got that wrong. A German-certified tradesman might earn those rates, but _gastarbeiter_ will struggle to make a quarter of that, unless they join the local branch of the trade's union.
Typical dishonest lib dem drywank.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2019)

killer b said:


> How's that electoral strategy of running as _Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats_ working out then?
> 
> Oh.
> 
> View attachment 190357



Burn the jazz hands witch!!!


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2019)

This didn't go so well for either party (read the comments!) 



> A wonderful opportunity for one of the main enablers of austerity to gloat at her handiwork while you allow her an opportunity to try & whitewash her crimes. This seriously impacts on my decision as to whether you get any of my time & support this xmas





> Oh dear..extremely poor taste, it's like inviting Dr.Harold Shipman to your local GP practice.





> I'm appalled that Crisis are engaging in party political posturing during an election campaign. I'm writing to the Charity Commissioners, and also you have just lost your clients a very considerable donation for Christmas (check my past donations). Whoever approved this at Crisis should be ashamed of themselves and resign immediately. (And my donation will now go to St Mungo's)


----------



## Smangus (Nov 29, 2019)

Fucking gurning, gap toothed, squeaky voiced, psychowoman.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Fucking gurning, gap toothed, squeaky voiced, psychowoman.


those are her good points, it's her politics that let her down


----------



## Smangus (Nov 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> those are her good points, it's her politics that let her down


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

Much as I dislike Swinson, the insults thrown her way are often more gendered and... _appearance focused_ than I really feel comfortable with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Fucking gurning, gap toothed, squeaky voiced, psychowoman.



Bottom pic, she looks like she's necked 5 grams of amphetamine sulphate, and is trying - unsuccessfully - to "look normal".

Still, at least she isn't doing her "I am the crucified Christ" pose.


----------



## Smangus (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> Much as I dislike Swinson, the insults thrown her way are often more gendered and... _appearance focused_ than I really feel comfortable with.



Well for BBC style balance I should add then that I think Johnson is a floppy haired, big nosed, mendacious lying  blonde cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Well for BBC style balance I should add then that I think Johnson is a floppy haired, big nosed, mendacious lying  blonde cunt.


you and they mistake balance for impartiality


----------



## Smangus (Nov 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you and they mistake balance for impartiality



I've never claimed to be impartial though, unlike woar Beeb like....


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

Smangus said:


> Well for BBC style balance I should add then that I think Johnson is a floppy haired, big nosed, mendacious lying  blonde cunt.


I'm just flagging it as something I think people should try to be a bit more aware of. It wasn't just your post I was responding to either tbh, it's everywhere.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 29, 2019)

I've received the strangest letter through the post today apparently from Mike Smithson "Polling and Elections Expert".  Its a letter about the importance of tactical voting and why Labour voters in seats where Labour can't win should vote Lib Dem.  All fairly normal but its the way they've employed a supposedly impartial polling person to give the whole thing a different feel to a standard mail out.

After several paragraphs explaining why I should vote Lib Dem he finises of by saying "I'm not here to tell you who to vote for..."  Oh really?

Anyway in the tiny print at the bottom you can see its from the lib dems.  They really do have a very slippery approach with their literature.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I've received the strangest letter through the post today apparently from Mike Smithson "Polling and Elections Expert".  Its a letter about the importance of tactical voting and why Labour voters in seats where Labour can't win should vote Lib Dem.  All fairly normal but its the way they've employed a supposedly impartial polling person to give the whole thing a different feel to a standard mail out.
> 
> After several paragraphs explaining why I should vote Lib Dem he finises of by saying "I'm not here to tell you who to vote for..."  Oh really?
> 
> Anyway in the tiny print at the bottom you can see its from the lib dems.  They really do have a very slippery approach with their literature.


He is a massive election betting bod. There is a def story in this. He profits from outcomes if...

I wonder who'd be interested in this?

He's also a really nasty arsehole.


----------



## chilango (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> Much as I dislike Swinson, the insults thrown her way are often more gendered and... _appearance focused_ than I really feel comfortable with.



Indeed.

...and that she is promoting herself/being promoted using the same logic is pretty shit too.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

chilango said:


> ...and that she is promoting herself/being promoted using the same logic is pretty shit too.


we live in a deeply misogynist and patriarchal society - that ambitious female politicians might choose to campaign in ways which don't challenge this very much isn't really their fault.


----------



## chilango (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> we live in a deeply misogynist and patriarchal society - that ambitious female politicians might choose to campaign in ways which don't challenge this very much isn't really their fault.



Well it is and it isn't.

Let's not deny Swinson agency in this.

Could you imagine Sturgeon posing for photos in a #girlyswot t-shirt and boxing gloves?

Swinson's decision to go along with this doesn't justify or excuse any shit she might be getting on the grounds of gender or appearance. Of course not.

From the start, and I think I mentioned it on here somewhere, I've been very uncomfortable with how she has been promoted and represented. Perhaps not on the scale of that awful photo op for Opik upthread, but the patriarchy has been strong throughout her campaign so far, from supporters and opponents alike.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2019)

I defy anyone to come up with a sadder campaign tweet...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2019)

A fake harry kane, fake ben stokes and that bloke impersonator?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2019)

And the one looking fakest is that twat.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2019)

Tom Brake is often at the centre of these humiliating attempts at engagement. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the #girlyswot thing - and their continuous attempt to make it happen despite literally everyone cringing their spleens out every time she posts it - has his fingerprints on it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2019)

killer b said:


> Tom Brake is often at the centre of these humiliating attempts at engagement. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the #girlyswot thing - and their continuous attempt to make it happen despite literally everyone cringing their spleens out every time she posts it - has his fingerprints on it.


Quite possible; he is a very creepy individual (I've had the misfortune to meet him IRL a few times).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2019)

I presume the ginger one is supposed to be ben stokes?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I presume the ginger one is supposed to be ben stokes?


I'd guessed at Prince Hewitt...doesn't say much for the agency supplying the 'talent' tbh.
btw Rosehill should so be a Labour 'heartland' (as was until 2006) that a LD like Brake shouldn't be safe around there.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I'd guessed at Prince Hewitt...doesn't say much for the agency supplying the 'talent' tbh.
> btw Rosehill should so be a Labour 'heartland' (as was until 2006) that a LD like Brake shouldn't be safe around there.


That was my first thought, but allying with royal princes right now... but then, yes, makes total sense.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 29, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I'd guessed at Prince Hewitt...doesn't say much for the agency supplying the 'talent' tbh.
> btw Rosehill should so be a Labour 'heartland' (as was until 2006) that a LD like Brake shouldn't be safe around there.



Prince Hewitt.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 30, 2019)

Is that supposed to be Mike off The Young Ones?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2019)

Quite a jolly read.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Is that supposed to be Mike off The Young Ones?



He's let himself go.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Quite a jolly read.
> 
> View attachment 191546


Well at least they didn’t lie about suspending the fraudster. 

Lib Dems suspend campaigner after apparent email forgery


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2019)




----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 191570


First our intelligence and now our very homes!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2019)

Stealing policy from posho thornberry now. The rotters.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2019)

JimW said:


> First our intelligence and now our very homes!


May well use that on twatter!


----------



## andysays (Dec 1, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 191570



Is it just me, or does he look like he's standing outside a *castle*?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2019)

andysays said:


> Is it just me, or does he look like he's standing outside a *castle*?


Squirrel prison.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 1, 2019)

andysays said:


> Is it just me, or does he look like he's standing outside a *castle*?


He is, it's Penrith Castle.


----------



## andysays (Dec 1, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Squirrel prison.


Your front door is shit mate, I've got a fucking *portcullis*


----------



## mauvais (Dec 1, 2019)

Lib Dem sponsored austerity has fucked it, by the way.

2009 photo:







2019 photo:






Hides the state of _that _in his leaflet, doesn't he.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 1, 2019)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 191570


also I think maybe transforming mental health_care_ would be more of an achievable task for a politician... and ideally also transforming physical healthcare, otherwise you just end up with two equally important things that you have to wait for a year to see someone about


----------



## killer b (Dec 2, 2019)

This story has it all. Absolutely delicious.

What are Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats so desperate to hide?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 2, 2019)

*Whining Here!*

**

When Swhinson is replaced after her party's failure at the polls, this is the image I'll have in my dim, distant memory of her as a political figure.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2019)

he thought this was a good idea...


----------



## andysays (Dec 4, 2019)

belboid said:


> he thought this was a good idea...
> 
> View attachment 191835


Is he suggesting that the LibDems are yellow on the outside but pink underneath?

Nice try, Sam, but no-ones falling for that again...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 4, 2019)

bzzzzzz


----------



## elbows (Dec 4, 2019)

Sounds like the 2010 regime is a main line of attack in the Andrew Neil interview with Swinson.

Swinson sorry for backing coalition welfare cuts


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 4, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> bzzzzzz




Turns out it was a electric bus, so not the best target.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2019)

elbows said:


> Sounds like the 2010 regime is a main line of attack in the Andrew Neil interview with Swinson.
> 
> Swinson sorry for backing coalition welfare cuts



Vine read out her entire appalling record when he had her in earlier. Not a good look for her.


----------



## treelover (Dec 4, 2019)

At least she turned up, the Johnson coward didn't.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 4, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Turns out it was a electric bus, so not the best target.


Using an electric bus doesn't have an effect on bees. Or much else, tbh.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 4, 2019)

treelover said:


> At least she turned up, the Johnson coward didn't.


Even if Johnson were recklessly brave (narrator: he isn't), he'd be a fool to take the risk, just as a defendant facing a weak case is wise to stay out the witness box. Swinson has nothing to lose (beyond, I hope, the seat where she serves as absentee landlord).

So well done for turning up, but if that apology was worth a damn, she'd have resigned from politics in disgrace, donated her wealth to charity, and set herself to work in food banks until every last one's shut down for lack of demand. Hairshirt not optional, but hey, sure they'd dye one yellow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Turns out it was a electric bus, so not the best target.


Any lib dem bus is a good target


----------



## elbows (Dec 4, 2019)

The bees were hired by the squirrels for protection.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 4, 2019)

Are you sure? I heard them squirrels are well hard.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 5, 2019)

I see Swinson as an albatross around the libdem scums neck now. She is awful opportunistic soft Tory vermin but she seems to irk the press more than libdem filth usually do - the media do seem to have an institutionalised downer on prominent women. Obvs.


----------



## Sue (Dec 6, 2019)

Heard part of Swinson's interview on Women's Hour earlier. Couldn't believe how rubbish she was. (Haven't seen any of her other interviews.)


----------



## killer b (Dec 6, 2019)

they're all rubbish.


----------



## Sue (Dec 6, 2019)

killer b said:


> they're all rubbish.


Sure, but she was rubbish and ill-prepared. I mean she was massively fucking up on stuff she must've know she'd get asked about. V strange.


----------



## belboid (Dec 6, 2019)

12,000 registered postal votes in East Dunbartonshire.   Let's hope they've done the right thing.


----------



## belboid (Dec 6, 2019)

Easy caption competition


----------



## fishfinger (Dec 6, 2019)

Why are you hogging all the biscuits?


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 6, 2019)

Where's Tufty !!!


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2019)

Please miss, can I have some less?

Let them eat squirrel biscuits.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Easy caption competition


Why've i even got be at a foodbank?


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2019)

Of course I can become Prime Muncher.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Easy caption competition


“And these are poisonous to squirrels, you say?”


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2019)

I am skeptical of your promise to scrap nutrition fees.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Easy caption competition



Why are the lib-dems shit?


----------



## Casual Observer (Dec 6, 2019)

"Go back to your constituency and prepare for government."


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> 12,000 registered postal votes in East Dunbartonshire.   Let's hope they've done the right thing.


Tweet @ Ruth Davidson. She’ll know which way they went.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Easy caption competition


miss! she's shat her pants!


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 6, 2019)

belboid said:


> Easy caption competition



Swinson: Yes, they have got poison in them, but thanks to the Lib Dems' important role in the coalition at least it's not a poisoned brussel sprout.


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2019)

My leadership really takes the biscuit.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2019)

Soylent green is squirrels.


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 6, 2019)

It's ok, I'm a red squirrel.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 10, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Dec 10, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2019)

10000


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2019)

LOCAL TEAM TO FILL IN


----------



## poului (Dec 10, 2019)

Fez909 said:


>




The added tragedy about this is that the first positive point is only slightly more specific.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2019)

On my facebook, despite me not living in this constituency:

 

Yougov’s MRP however says:

 

I really want to know what twisted question they asked now for this fraudulent answer, maybe it was ‘Candidates from all three parties are on fire. You have two fire extinguishers. Which one do you let burn to death?’


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2019)

It's from a shitty free paper (which i think may actually be the old admag in disguise) and, of course, it's an online self selecting piece of guff



> The Times conducted an online election survey which received 544 responses. Its results are summarised below.



_Breaking news_ indeed.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> It's from a shitty free paper (which i think may actually be the old admag in disguise) and, of course, it's an online self selecting piece of guff



The old Admag ceased publication years ago, the LDs have been bringing out their own 'free newspapers' with titles & mastheads similiar to other local newspapers. So have the Tories, but not on the same scale.

Industry launches fightback against politicians’ ‘fake newspapers’


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The old Admag ceased publication years ago, the LDs have been bringing out their own 'free newspapers' with titles & mastheads similiar to other local newspapers. So have the Tories, but not on the same scale.
> 
> Industry launches fightback against politicians’ ‘fake newspapers’


This isn't one of them though - it's an actual 'paper' ran by the same people and from the same office that do the proper  (pay with money!) local paper  - and who do actually do the new version of the admag as well.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 11, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't one of them though - it's an actual 'paper' ran by the same people and from the same office that do the proper  (pay with money!) local paper  - and who do actually do the new version of the admag as well.



Oh, fair enough, TBH I hadn't clicked on the link in your post. 

Yeah, I forgot the old Admag was re-branded as the North Somerset Times or the Weston Midweek_, _some time after Archant took over the Weston & Somerset Mercury, I am surprised they still going, as they have closed most of their free rags across the country.

But, the so-called 'poll' is a joke, considering it's down to just 544 responses on their website.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2019)

I don’t get why they do this flagrantly misleading shit, given their supporters tend to be more of the academic types that value proper science and so on, it seems such a bad fit but is clearly a national strategy, try and hoodwink people into believing they have a chance when they don’t by a country mile. It’s like something a shitty cult would do. Liberal intelligentsia my arse.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 11, 2019)

Yellow vermin finally put their local shit bar graph through my door today. I corrected it (in red).
Perhaps Brakey boy is worried?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

So they now, after stabbing swinson in the back seconds after she lost her seat, have not one,_ but two_ privately educated oxbridge types as party leader.


----------



## elbows (Dec 13, 2019)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> So they now, after stabbing swinson in the back seconds after she lost her seat, have not one,_ but two_ privately educated oxbridge types as party leader.


Who what


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Ed Davey and Sal Brinton are now acting party leaders.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)

I see we have these cunts to thank for the people of Grenfell waking up to a Tory council.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> I see we have these cunts to thank for the people of Grenfell waking up to a Tory council.


MP, yes.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 13, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


>


Lot's of sleep deprived stuff today...me included.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Ed Davey and Sal Brinton are now acting party leaders.


Sadly Brinton does not share the politics of the famous Maurice Brinton


----------



## brogdale (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Sadly Brinton does not share the politics of the famous Maurice Brinton


Had to read that twice...couldn't believe her parents had named her sadly!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Sadly Brinton does not share the politics of the famous Maurice Brinton


I did actually think there may be some relation (i'd never even hear of her before) but on checking i discovered she's the well fed daughter of a tory mp.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Had to read that twice...couldn't believe her parents had named her sadly!


It would have been better never to name her at all


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 13, 2019)

sunnysidedown said:


> I see we have these cunts to thank for the people of Grenfell waking up to a Tory council.


Was going to say that (apart from the "council" bit  ) - absolutely shameless, including lies in the campaign and, I heard, saying that Labour had conceded the seat during the vote. Even then, Dent Coad only lost by a small amount, but that's enough. I'm particularly annoyed about this one.

Backed up by "tactical voting" sites of course. I hope everyone has now learned never to use these again.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 13, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I don’t get why they do this flagrantly misleading shit, given their supporters tend to be more of the academic types that value proper science and so on, it seems such a bad fit but is clearly a national strategy, try and hoodwink people into believing they have a chance when they don’t by a country mile. It’s like something a shitty cult would do. Liberal intelligentsia my arse.



The one i had from them tried to use "projected results" based on the last euro elections to claim that if green voters switched to the libs they could beat the brexit party and win in coventry south! Total bollocks.

leaflet:



Actual Coventry South vote shares last night:


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2019)

How many lost deposits this time?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Not only shit; fucked as well..


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

And with that south west vote they picked up a single SW seat - the posh pricks in bath. I don't know why they have one by great torrington on that list of first places - they didn't win there. 

edit: unless that's meant to be bath. Which would be odd give it's not there.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Apparently, this is real...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2019)




----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


Cheered up a dark evening when I saw that!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Apparently, this is real...
> 
> View attachment 192994


Excellent. Tragic, indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Apparently, this is real...
> 
> View attachment 192994


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 14, 2019)

"Key Lib Dems warned party not to back December election"

more here.

oops.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> "Key Lib Dems warned party not to back December election"
> 
> more here.
> 
> oops.





> Swinson has blamed the decision by the Brexit party to pull out of many seats for the Lib Dems' struggles, while others believe her exclusion from televised leaders’ debates was a key development



Holy fuck the arrogance. They would possibly have lost a few more if she had appeared.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> "Key Lib Dems warned party not to back December election"
> 
> more here.
> 
> oops.


Incredible stupidity from the former person Swinson, it'd good to know she'll never again be given a position of the slightest responsibility ever again


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2019)

What's the Brexit Party got to do with it?

'Lib Dems - winning here through FPTP if someone else fucks up and fragments the vote of all the people that won't vote for us'?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 14, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> "Key Lib Dems warned party not to back December election"
> 
> more here.
> 
> oops.


Peak Swinsonian libdemery?


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Apparently, this is real...
> 
> View attachment 192994



I know someone who witnessed Clegg in tears in 2015 when he was packing up his Deputy PM office.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 14, 2019)

Was just thinking whether there has been any other MPs like Swinson, losing a seat, gaining it back at next election, then losing it again at the next one. Then I thought Chris Williamson basically did the same, so must be other examples. But surely none who were a party leader during one of those stints.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 15, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Was just thinking whether there has been any other MPs like Swinson, losing a seat, gaining it back at next election, then losing it again at the next one. Then I thought Chris Williamson basically did the same, so must be other examples. But surely none who were a party leader during one of those stints.



Zac Goldsmith? Voted out at by-election after pointless grandstanding resignation, back in at next election and now out again.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 15, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Zac Goldsmith? Voted out at by-election after pointless grandstanding resignation, back in at next election and now out again.



Ah yeah good shout - he did it twice (in and out twice)


----------



## Marty1 (Dec 16, 2019)

Apparently Swinson could be back in Parliament as a Baroness.

Jo Swinson could return to politics as a PEER despite losing her seat in election flop | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 16, 2019)

Fuck off with your Fail link.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 16, 2019)

Also, just fuck off


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 16, 2019)

Kingston and Surbiton election results: Sir Ed Davey blames Corbyn not Swinson for Lib Dem let down



> *Sir Ed Davey, MP for Kingston and Surbiton, blamed the fear of Jeremy Corbyn rather than Jo Swinson’s leadership for the Liberal Democrats’ disappointing performance.*


*

*


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Kingston and Surbiton election results: Sir Ed Davey blames Corbyn not Swinson for Lib Dem let down
> 
> *
> 
> *


so nothing to do with his announcement the lib dems would support the tories in government.


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 16, 2019)

Swinson’s election count result was so delayed as she was having extended temper tantrums, demanding a recount repeatedly and threatening the returning officer with legal action when this was refused.

Unlucky


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

Think my former MP needs some help tbh...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> Swinson’s election count result was so delayed as she was having extended temper tantrums, demanding a recount repeatedly and threatening the returning officer with legal action when this was refused.
> 
> Unlucky



TBF I am not surprised, she only lost by 149 out of 53,031 votes.


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom will be there clearing his office out.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> Tom will be there clearing his office out.


They have to do that at the dissolution of parliament, I think.


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 16, 2019)

Not necessarily-others have tweeted about clearing out this weekend.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

steeplejack said:


> Not necessarily-others have tweeted about clearing out this weekend.


If so, Brakexit's tweet takes on an even more tragic level of delusion.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 16, 2019)

Stood there with a cardboard box covered in bollocks to brexit stickers, plastic yukka plant poking out of the top, light drizzle across his face 'Well done lads' he shouts to a small group walking past with their heads down, shortly before a double decker smashes a puddle all over him


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Stood there with a cardboard box covered in bollocks to brexit stickers, plastic yukka plant poking out of the top, light drizzle across his face 'Well done lads' he shouts to a small group walking past with their heads down, shortly before a double decker smashes a puddle all over him



i think hes in this compilation somewhere ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2019)

Clegg, Farron, Swinson .... who is the shittest? Its a tough call - I think swinson is the possibly the most disastrous/hilarious. Events had put the libdems in the perfect position to be reborn after the debacle of the coalition - and she single handedly utterly fucked it up via heroic levels of self delusion.


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 16, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Stood there with a cardboard box covered in bollocks to brexit stickers, plastic yukka plant poking out of the top, light drizzle across his face 'Well done lads' he shouts to a small group walking past with their heads down, shortly before a double decker smashes a puddle all over him



“I’m sorry Mr. Brake but we’ll have to ask you to move on, sir” says fresh-faced young PC who has just completed his “dealing professionally with upset members of the public” course at Bramshill Police College


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2019)

More shocking news

*"Tim Farron* has told the BBC that he won’t be standing for the Liberal Democrat leadership."


----------



## binka (Dec 16, 2019)

belboid said:


> More shocking news
> 
> *"Tim Farron* has told the BBC that he won’t be standing for the Liberal Democrat leadership."


It's only fair he waits for everyone else to have their go before it's his turn again


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 16, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> Clegg, Farron, Swinson .... who is the shittest? Its a tough call - I think swinson is the possibly the most disastrous/hilarious. Events had put the libdems in the perfect position to be reborn after the debacle of the coalition - and she single handedly utterly fucked it up via heroic levels of self delusion.



That is tough. I think it depends on the criteria. Clegg did the most damage but by his own standards he was a success - he got to hang around the government for a bit and now he's coining it in from Facebook. While Swinson was a disaster for the Lib Dems but quite entertaining for the rest of us. And Tim Who?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That is tough. I think it depends on the criteria. Clegg did the most damage but by his own standards he was a success - he got to hang around the government for a bit and now he's coining it in from Facebook. While Swinson was a disaster for the Lib Dems but quite entertaining for the rest of us. And Tim Who?


Christian bore tim


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Christian bore tim


Jesus.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 16, 2019)

They have only got 11 MPs, will they actually find one that even wants the job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have only got 11 MPs, will they actually find one that even wants the job?


They don't even have enough for a subs bench. Labour should field a brutal football team and cripple them


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have only got 11 MPs, will they actually find one that even wants the job?


Davey is such a massive cunt; he's ideal.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have only got 11 MPs, will they actually find one that even wants the job?



Draw straws?


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have only got 11 MPs, will they actually find one that even wants the job?


This is _all _of them..


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> This is _all _of them..


+1!
Baroness Brinton, of Kenardington is not an MP.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 16, 2019)

That's all that _remains_.


----------



## strung out (Dec 16, 2019)

Jamie Stone is missing from that picture, so not quite all that remains...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 17, 2019)

simon jenkins, writing in the guardian says 




> The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband
> 
> The party’s only achievement was to split the vote. It should now merge with Labour and become a moderate influence


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2019)

Well he would say that. 



> Similarly, on the left, there are vague hopes being expressed that if Jeremy Corbyn is replaced by a fresh face (preferably female), it will produce some form of political alchemy, turning unelectable dross into gold. We still hear the plaintive cry that “popular” policies – such as offering lots of things free of charge – are the route to power.


Isn't there a consensus backed up by polling that the policies were popular while Corbyn was not? Cable is engaging in ye olde liberal jiggery pokery.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 17, 2019)

Puddy_Tat said:


> simon jenkins, writing in the guardian says



Has he been asleep for the last 10 years or something?


----------



## moochedit (Dec 17, 2019)

.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2019)

Ed Davey on Today just now blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dems losing - "because he was so unpopular so people were voting Tory not us to keep him out".


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2019)

Fez909 said:


> This is _all _of them..


so who took the picture?


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 19, 2019)

They asked some tourist wandering past to take it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ed Davey on Today just now blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dems losing - "because he was so unpopular so people were voting Tory not us to keep him out".


Disgusting moral free wreck of a person/people/party.


----------



## MickiQ (Dec 19, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ed Davey on Today just now blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dems losing - "because he was so unpopular so people were voting Tory not us to keep him out".


After last week both the Labour and LibDems need to step up and own their fuckups, Labour isn't doing it yet so it's not surprising that LibDems aren't either.


----------



## andysays (Dec 19, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ed Davey on Today just now blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dems losing - "because he was so unpopular so people were voting Tory not us to keep him out".


I read a couple of days ago about him saying something similar.


----------



## chilango (Dec 19, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> After last week both the Labour and LibDems need to step up and own their fuckups, Labour isn't doing it yet so it's not surprising that LibDems aren't either.



Nah, the LibDems should carry on _exactly_ as they are...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2020)

Little bit of local (to me) bother for the loathsome LDs that might cheer the spirits in these dark times....

Basically a residents association of a new-build estate have agreed to ban the LDs from campaigning or canvassing on their (privately owned) estate. 
They've even agreed a fine structure for any transgressions!

The context is that the (ever so) green LD controlled council have built this monstrosity of an enviro-crime just up the road from the estate:



...and, as with all incinerators, the local authorities have to prove some form of energy recovery (ERF) to get permission. So, the residents of said estate (NewMillQuarter) are compelled to take district heating from the incinerator at about 4X conventional costings.

They've got nowhere with their FoIs/campaigning etc so far...so banning the vile LDs looks good to me



lol


----------



## redsquirrel (May 16, 2020)

Not been enough activity on this thread recently. 


> The Liberal Democrat election campaign last year was “a high-speed car crash” worsened by structural failures, poor tactics, and an inexperienced inner circle around Jo Swinson, an internal party review has concluded.





> The party, concluded the report, suffered from “an optimism that was to maintain itself even when the evidence started to turn against it”.


You don't say.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 16, 2020)

Incidentally re-reading the first pages of this thread is rather interesting. 

Of course I'm sure that those posters that invoke the principle that a vote for a party makes one responsible for the actions of that party are consistent in applying such a principle.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2020)

I picked a random page from the first 50 and found this beauty - utterly bonkers.


----------



## vanya (May 16, 2020)

If there's one thing I hate worse than the Tories it's the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 16, 2020)

vanya said:


> If there's one thing I hate worse than the Tories it's the Liberal Democrats.



at least the tories are honest about being tories...


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2020)

Still bent:

A Liberal Democrat peer criticised for furloughing himself to get a government subsidy while continuing to claim a daily allowance from the House of Lords has apologised and promised to pay the money back.

Lord Fox admitted placing himself on leave so he could receive a subsidised income as the director of his own communications company via the coronavirus job retention scheme.

The 62-year-old Lib Dem spokesman for business was accused by MPs of “milking” the state by claiming around £1,000 a month from the Treasury and taking the £162 daily allowance for his work in the Lords.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2020)

I've heard of fraudulent furloughing claims I wonder how they're being followed up by the police


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 26, 2020)

Observer practically wetting themselves over this, as no doubt some prats on here will be.

*Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran hints at closer links with Labour*


> She called on activists within the two parties to consider forming a “huge campaigning force” to help each other at the next election. She said she wanted a “Paddy plus” arrangement with Labour, in reference to the close relationship between former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair before the 1997 election.
> 
> "We need to be really smart about it,” she said. “I would like to get to the point where at the very least, in those seats where we stand a chance of defeating the Tories, [activists] aren’t fighting each other, because that just defeats the purpose. But even better, if we can inspire a progressive movement of activists to take those seats off Boris Johnson’s Tories, that’s where I’d like to get to. ‘Paddy plus’ is kind of what we’re aiming for, but it’s not a pact and it’s not anything formal.”


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 26, 2020)

Kiss of death for the Northern seats but will go down well in London


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> Kiss of death for the Northern seats but will go down well in London


not around here it fucking won't

They say this every so often anyway, and it always turns out to be "would definitely co-operate if you changed this policy, oh and this one, oh and your leader, and..." - they don't really have any intention of doing it, it's just sabotage. (ETA: obviously, no matter how many times it happens, the Guardserver never ever keeps its pants dry.)


----------



## oryx (Jul 26, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> not around here it fucking won't



Not around here it fucking won't either. Or indeed in most of London, I would imagine.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Observer practically wetting themselves over this, as no doubt some prats on here will be.
> 
> *Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran hints at closer links with Labour*



Paddy Plus sounds like a chain of betting shops


----------



## JimW (Jul 27, 2020)

Dom Traynor said:


> Paddy Plus sounds like a chain of betting shops


Or particularly absorbent incontinence pants


----------



## Bollox (Jul 28, 2020)

Though never commanding the numbers of followers that Labour and the Conservatives could,  have the LDs perhaps become almost completely surplus in this increasingly left win/ right wing devisive world?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 28, 2020)

Bollox said:


> this increasingly left win/ right wing devisive world?


What?


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 28, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Though never commanding the numbers of followers that Labour and the Conservatives could,  have the LDs perhaps become almost completely surplus in this increasingly left win/ right wing devisive world?


You seem to like talking about division and polarisation so it's best you know this place is one of the poles.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 28, 2020)

badass here we are


----------



## Serge Forward (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Though never commanding the numbers of followers that Labour and the Conservatives could,  have the LDs perhaps become almost completely surplus in this increasingly left win/ right wing devisive world?


----------



## Bollox (Jul 29, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> You seem to like talking about division and polarisation so it's best you know this place is one of the poles.




That you respond in this confrontational way is sort of my point, you have percieved I have a certain view that is distant from yours and feel the need to mouth off even though its adding nothing to the subject
something I have now done in my response...shame on me.

 I think there are probably nuances here even if their is an overall Bias, like most places.

Humberto, perception is everything


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Humberto, perception is everything


No it's not.


----------



## Bollox (Jul 29, 2020)

I'm very sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Though never commanding the numbers of followers that Labour and the Conservatives could,  have the LDs perhaps become almost completely surplus in this increasingly left win/ right wing devisive world?


Do you mean that they were sort of in the sensible centre - not left or right - and increasing left/right polarisation has sidelined them? Bu they were and are right-wing extremists. Their surplus-ness is due to people who thought they weren't, that they were in the centre/non-extremist, realising what a nonsense that idea is and was when their extremism was put into horribly damaging real life action.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> That you respond in this confrontational way is sort of my point, you have percieved I have a certain view that is distant from yours and feel the need to mouth off even though its adding nothing to the subject
> something I have now done in my response...shame on me.
> 
> I think there are probably nuances here even if their is an overall Bias, like most places.
> ...


Confrontational? Wtf?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> That you respond in this confrontational way is sort of my point, you have percieved I have a certain view that is distant from yours and feel the need to mouth off even though its adding nothing to the subject
> something I have now done in my response...shame on me.
> 
> I think there are probably nuances here even if their is an overall Bias, like most places.
> ...


I think you'll find that as uhtred says destiny is all


----------



## Bollox (Jul 29, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean that they were sort of in the sensible centre - not left or right - and increasing left/right polarisation has sidelined them? Bu they were and are right-wing extremists. Their surplus-ness is due to people who thought they weren't, that they were in the centre/non-extremist, realising what a nonsense that idea is and was when their extremism was put into horribly damaging real life action.




Back to the thread, cheers.

No I don't see the Lib Dems as being the sensible centre but they present as such which is why I see imcreased polarisation will tend to lower the parties standing.
I dont believe that centrist is any more a nonsense term than Left/Right, but as a political concept it will always fail as Humans seem to veer one way or the other partly down to being  indoctrinated into one side or the other at a young age and partly due personal life experiences


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Back to the thread, cheers.
> 
> No I don't see the Lib Dems as being the sensible centre but they present as such which is why I see imcreased polarisation will tend to lower the parties standing.
> I dont believe that centrist is any more a nonsense term than Left/Right, but as a political concept it will always fail as Humans seem to veer one way or the other partly down to being  indoctrinated into one side or the other at a young age and partly due personal life experiences


What polarization? In the political parties?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Back to the thread, cheers.
> 
> No I don't see the Lib Dems as being the sensible centre but they present as such which is why I see imcreased polarisation will tend to lower the parties standing.
> I dont believe that centrist is any more a nonsense term than Left/Right, but as a political concept it will always fail as Humans seem to veer one way or the other partly down to being  indoctrinated into one side or the other at a young age and partly due personal life experiences


Well, you certainly gave an indication of how "personal life experiences" have determined your own "veer" when you took a great big bigoted shit over the Cardiff photos thread:

_ _


----------



## andysays (Jul 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Well, you certainly gave an indication of how "personal life experiences" have determined your own "veer" when you took a great big bigoted shit over the Cardiff photos thread:
> 
> _View attachment 224144_


What a surprise that someone who's chosen the name Bollox would also choose to post such utter bollocks. 

I for one am simply amazed to see it


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2020)

andysays said:


> What a surprise that someone who's chosen the name Bollox would also choose to post such utter bollocks.
> 
> I for one am simply amazed to see it


Bridge dweller.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Back to the thread, cheers.
> 
> No I don't see the Lib Dems as being the sensible centre but they present as such which is why I see imcreased polarisation will tend to lower the parties standing.
> I dont believe that centrist is any more a nonsense term than Left/Right, but as a political concept it will always fail as Humans seem to veer one way or the other partly down to being  indoctrinated into one side or the other at a young age and partly due personal life experiences


Thank fuck we're back to the thread and its not just confrontational types mouthing off.

How do you think taking an extreme position on EU membership and the overturning of the referendum result with other policies pushed into irrelevance helped with their presentation as a sensible centre? How do you think this worked for them in the last election?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 29, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I picked a random page from the first 50 and found this beauty - utterly bonkers.


oh gawd yes, I remember Moon23


----------



## Bollox (Jul 29, 2020)

Oh joy I seem to have attracted a third rate stalker and his tag team of fellow offendees..how delightfull


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Oh joy I seem to have attracted a third rate stalker and his tag team of fellow offendees..how delightfull



You've just joined up to a discussion forum, one that is known for its strong politics too, but not expecting to engage with anyone when they challenge/respond to  what you've posted. Seems legit.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2020)

Bollox said:


> Oh joy I seem to have attracted a third rate stalker and his tag team of fellow offendees..how delightfull


You'll find most people here are offended by casual, racist bigotry; if that's a problem it might be sensible to post in other places where that's not the case.


----------



## Bollox (Jul 30, 2020)

Steth, I'm old and fugly enough to know the difference between someone who wants to debate and a charmless Leg Humper.
Strong politics are fine, arseholes who can't see further than reflections of their own narrow bigoted soul can fuck off


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2020)

34th post.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

Anyone booked work off for Wednesday's close of voting in the Leadership election?

Excitement mounting?



No idea why Smithson's graphic title says 2021.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Anyone booked work off for Wednesday's close of voting in the Leadership election?
> 
> Excitement mounting?
> 
> ...


the election is for the period january to december 2021


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> the election is for the period january to december 2021


Oh, really?

So are they just buggering on with no one in place till January?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> So are they just buggering on with no one in place till January?


if the membership had their way there wouldn't be another leadership election, they think they do better without a permanent leader just a succession of non-entities stepping in


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> if the membership had their way there wouldn't be another leadership election, they think they do better without a permanent leader just a succession of non-entities stepping in


Here's the appropriately boring Wiki explanation:



> A timetable was set at a meeting of the party's governing body, the Federal Board, on 18 January 2020. Nominations were due to open on 11 May, after the local elections which were due to be held on 7 May 2020, and close on 28 May; voting would begin on 18 June and close on 15 July.[9] The timetable allowed time for a review of the party's performance in the 2019 general election.[10]In March 2020, the election was postponed to May 2021, after the local elections which had been postponed to that month due to the coronavirus pandemic.[11] Reaction to this decision was largely negative amongst the party membership. The party's Federal Appeals Panel found that, although the Federal Board was correct to suspend the election, it did not have power to set the May 2021 date. The panel directed the board to keep the suspension under continuous review until "the exceptional circumstances that exist at present cease".[12] On 20 May 2020, the party announced that the Federal Board had reversed their decision to delay the election until 2021. Voting would take place between 30 July and 26 August so a new leader would be in place for the party's autumn conference.[13][14]
> 
> Liberal Democrat leadership elections use the alternative vote (instant run-off) system, with all party members being entitled to vote under a one member, one vote method.[15] Candidates must be an MP, and must be nominated by at least one other Liberal Democrat MP. Proposed candidates must also have 200 supporters across 20 or more local parties, including the Young Liberals.[16]


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Here's the appropriately boring Wiki explanation:


my spy says they'd have done their best to get the election indefinitely suspended indefinitely even if there hadn't been the pandemic and within a year there'll be calls for a definite and final suspension of davey.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

_....but I don't like to talk about it...

_


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> _....but I don't like to talk about it...
> 
> View attachment 227736_


so he wrote something like a 20 page paper 20 years ago which everyone else bar him has forgotten. even for the golden shower that's a poor low.


----------



## PTK (Aug 24, 2020)

"Sadly, my press officer was sent to prison for pushing a woman onto the track of Clapham Junction Station."


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> so he wrote something like a 20 page paper 20 years ago which everyone else bar him has forgotten. even for the golden shower that's a poor low.


His own website is comedy gold...talk about wrong'un looking...


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2020)

Is that a 1980s IBM PC non-graphics display?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Is that a 1980s IBM PC non-graphics display?


1997


----------



## JimW (Aug 24, 2020)

What turned it round for him after his opponent's healthy early lead? Did the rescue story come out or was she revealed to have a personality thus frightening the horses?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> _....but I don't like to talk about it...
> 
> View attachment 227736_


Probably pushed her onto the tracks in the first place. Last point damning too, the twat.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> 1997



Well spotted - 1980s types were green phosphor, not 1990s new hi-tech orange phosphor


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

I mean...OK...so, I'm a bit long in the tooth myself...but FFS...this is the header pic for his own website...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I mean...OK...so, I'm a bit long in the tooth myself...but FFS...this is the header pic for his own website...
> 
> View attachment 227746


yes, he's surrounded by members of the golden shower's youth wing


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> I mean...OK...so, I'm a bit long in the tooth myself...but FFS...this is the header pic for his own website...


Come friendly Covid-19


----------



## two sheds (Aug 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, he's surrounded by members of the golden shower's youth wing



oh come on at least they're not tories ... oh wait


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2020)

two sheds said:


> oh come on at least they're not tories ... oh wait


they're i can't believe they're not tories


----------



## JimW (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> _....but I don't like to talk about it...
> 
> View attachment 227736_


Open two-club wanker to boot


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2020)

JimW said:


> Open two-club wanker to boot


.
Of course, what else would expect from the LibDems, want to be able to jump the right way


----------



## PTK (Aug 24, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> they're i can't believe they're not tories


Spot on. It's the I Can't Believe They're Not Tories Party. Nine out of Ten victims of benefits cuts could not tell the difference.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 24, 2020)

Is that Rolf Harris second left above his shoulder?


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 24, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Anyone booked work off for Wednesday's close of voting in the Leadership election?
> 
> Excitement mounting?
> 
> ...



And who the hell knows where those 'polls' are coming from????? 

Small changes amongst an ultra-tiny 'electorate' can produce disproportionately huge swings, I guess??


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> And who the hell knows where those 'polls' are coming from?????
> 
> Small changes amongst an ultra-tiny 'electorate' can produce disproportionately huge swings, I guess??


Betfair punters on niche political outcomes; can’t be a huge number, can it?


----------



## Petcha (Aug 27, 2020)

Unbelievably, they've just eschewed the opportunity to vote in a young, charismatic, female leader in favour of ed davey, a man with the charisma of a very very dead fish.

I had assumed it was a formality that his tenure was very much a stop-gap. Idiots.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2020)

Quite possibly the least meaningful election of the decade. And likely to stay that way.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 27, 2020)

Here’s Paul Mason’s dribble:


----------



## moochedit (Aug 27, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Quite possibly the least meaningful election of the decade. And likely to stay that way.



Yeah about as meaningfull as a ukip leadership election.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Here’s Paul Mason’s dribble:



tbh, most Momentum members are embarrassed at Mason's continued cosying up to them. They think he's a bit of a nutter (well, the ones I've spoken to).


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

So, _Sir _Keir and _Sir _Edward will be battling to take the Red Wall...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 27, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, most Momentum members are embarrassed at Mason's continued cosying up to them. They think he's a bit of a nutter (well, the ones I've spoken to).



Cant say I blame them


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

I haven't got a clue about the policy differences between moran and davey - who cares? It's all irrelevant, but in a battle between a suit and a not quite as much a suit, you'd have probably gone for the latter. The bigger issue for me in that scenario would be _why the fucking fuck am I a Libdem member? _


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 27, 2020)

Wilf said:


> I haven't got a clue about the policy differences between moran and davey - who cares? It's all irrelevant, but in a battle between a suit and a not quite as much a suit, you'd have probably gone for the latter. The bigger issue for me in that scenario would be _why the fucking fuck am I a Libdem member? _


Some people are just really attracted to lost causes.
It's hard to imagine anyone getting very excited about this, The opinions of the Libdems are currently no more relevant to national politics than the ones expressed on U75, How Ed Daveys thinks he might rebuild them is beyond me.


----------



## JimW (Aug 27, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> ...How Ed Daveys thinks he might rebuild them is beyond me.


He knows where the EU CAP Mandarins dump their wet lettuce.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Some people are just really attracted to lost causes.
> It's hard to imagine anyone getting very excited about this, The opinions of the Libdems are currently no more relevant to national politics than the ones expressed on U75, How Ed Daveys thinks he might rebuild them is beyond me.


if you read the papers carefully, you will find in every one, from the sun and the star through to the heavyweight broadsheets, reference made to opinions which have been aired first here.

you cannot say the same of the golden shower.


----------



## moochedit (Aug 27, 2020)

How many people voted in this contest? Did they get into double figures?


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 27, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> if you read the papers carefully, you will find in every one, from the sun and the star through to the heavyweight broadsheets, reference made to opinions which have been aired first here.
> 
> you cannot say the same of the golden shower.


Fair enough they're even less relevant than we are, this does not bode well for Ed's plans.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2020)

Portions of urban75 now so deluded that they think these forums play a more significant role in UK politics than the Lib Dems.

Get a grip.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

moochedit said:


> How many people voted in this contest? Did they get into double figures?


It was about 40k to 20k I think. _'I know! I'll vote in the Libdem leadership election!_'  Lockdown does funny things to some people.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Portions of urban75 now so deluded that they think these forums play a more significant role in UK politics than the Lib Dems.
> 
> Get a grip.


Oh, heck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Portions of urban75 now so deluded that they think these forums play a more significant role in UK politics than the Lib Dems.
> 
> Get a grip.


even your concerns about toilets without locks have been taken up by newspapers, there was an article about it in the guardian on 27 may last year

have you ever seen any of the golden shower's views on toilets make it into the local let alone national press?


----------



## moochedit (Aug 27, 2020)

Our time has come urb's!   go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2020)

moochedit said:


> Our time has come urb's!   go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!


or in teuchter's case, go back to your toilet and lock the door.


----------



## PTK (Aug 27, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, most Momentum members are embarrassed at Mason's continued cosying up to them. They think he's a bit of a nutter (well, the ones I've spoken to).


I am a member of Momentum and I am not at all embarrassed, as I was unaware that Paul Mason was cosying up to me or my comrades. Where does this "cosying" occur? This comment seems to me more evidence that for the observation that people in certain online goldfish bowls falsely believe that they are engaging with the world at large.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

Anyway, why did they spend all those billions on that Hadron Collider? Should have just got Sir Edward and Sir Keir to bump into each other. Perfect vacuum, piece of piss. 

I expect this insight to be taken up by Nature and other leading science periodicals.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2020)

PTK said:


> I am a member of Momentum and I am not at all embarrassed, as I was unaware that Paul Mason was cosying up to me or my comrades. Where does this "cosying" occur? This comment seems to me more evidence that for the observation that people in certain online goldfish bowls falsely believe that they are engaging with the world at large.


OK, what I meant by that is that Mason. for quite some time now, has been engaged in shameless, all-out online boosterism of the Momentum end of Labour, and generally trying to cosy up to them.
However, it's been pretty much one-way traffic. I have found Momentum members (who I campign with on various individeual issues) to be either embarrassed by his antics or simply  u naware of them, like you.


----------



## tim (Aug 27, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> if you read the papers carefully, you will find in every one, from the sun and the star through to the heavyweight broadsheets, reference made to opinions which have been aired first here.
> 
> you cannot say the same of the golden shower.




Given their collective inability to think creatively, I'm sure denizens of the golden puddle (calling them a shower credits them with a dynamism that they clearly lack), have been as keen to lift ideas and opinions from here as the aforementioned members of the Fourth Estate.

And of course, it shouldn't be forgotten that U75 was the springboard of Baron Paddick's career of political failure.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> even your concerns about toilets without locks have been taken up by newspapers, there was an article about it in the guardian on 27 may last year
> 
> have you ever seen any of the golden shower's views on toilets make it into the local let alone national press?


While my thoughts and views might be highly influential on the UK/world stage, even this is not enough to offset the rest of the postership's irrelevance to mainstream affairs.


----------



## PTK (Aug 27, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> OK, what I meant by that is that Mason. for quite some time now, has been engaged in shameless, all-out online boosterism of the Momentum end of Labour, and generally trying to cosy up to them.
> However, it's been pretty much one-way traffic. I have found Momentum members (who I campign with on various individeual issues) to be either embarrassed by his antics or simply  u naware of them, like you.


Thanks. That is a relief. I was getting worried that people were conspiring behind my back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2020)

tim said:


> Given their collective inability to think creatively, I'm sure denizens of the golden puddle (calling them a shower credits them with a dynamism that they clearly lack), have been as keen to lift ideas and opinions from here as the aforementioned members of the Fourth Estate.


the descent inherent in a shower is their dynamism


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> While my thoughts and views might be highly influential on the UK/world stage, even this is not enough to offset the rest of the postership's irrelevance to mainstream affairs.


irreverence i think you'll find


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2020)

Wilf said:


> So, _Sir _Keir and _Sir _Edward will be battling to take the Red Wall...



In a _literal_ sense , they won't be -- Lib Dems have zero or less than zero chance in almost all of those areas.

Labour's chances in such seats -- somewhat more than that ..... maybe ....... depending as much on how much Johnson/the Tories screw up big-style, as on Labour or Keir Starmer ....


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> In a _literal_ sense , they won't be -- Lib Dems have zero or less than zero chance in almost all of those areas.
> 
> Labour's chances in such seats -- somewhat more than that ..... maybe ....... depending as much on how much Johnson/the Tories screw up big-style, as on Labour or Keir Starmer ....


'_Look, look! Here comes Sir Keir's sensible battle bus!_'


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2020)

Wilf said:


> '_Look, look! Here comes Sir Keir's sensible battle bus!_'



I bet you several pints that the only person actually saying that will turn out to be you, now


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

William of Walworth said:


> I bet you several pints that the only person actually saying that will turn out to be you, now


'_Let us go into the streets so that we might touch the hem of his garment_!'


----------



## PTK (Aug 27, 2020)

Wilf said:


> So, _Sir _Keir and _Sir _Edward will be battling to take the Red Wall...


A joust! A joust between two Knights of the Realm! I hope that they sell tickets. 

The Labour Battle Bus could be re-named Sir Keir's Forensic Lance.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2020)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2020)

Twatter also reminds me...warra cunt he is.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2020)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 228095


Yeah, it's true, even Screaming Lord Such was a ..... 

Surely Lord Botham's time has come to kick this country into shape.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 27, 2020)

Wilf said:


> '_Let us go into the streets so that we might touch the hem of his garment_!'



*I'll* say it in GE 2024, so long as I'm paid enough, from now,  to live in comfortable retirement starting from Tuesday**

**Any promise like that won't be in advance plans for the 2020 Labour Manifesto, I predict


----------



## TopCat (Aug 28, 2020)

Useless loathsome cunt he is.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2020)

Who but a useless, vacuous wanker of a LD vermin collaborator could open their leadership with the _Wake up and small the coffee! _comment in 2020?


----------



## belboid (Aug 28, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> OK, what I meant by that is that Mason. for quite some time now, has been engaged in shameless, all-out online boosterism of the Momentum end of Labour, and generally trying to cosy up to them.
> However, it's been pretty much one-way traffic. I have found Momentum members (who I campign with on various individeual issues) to be either embarrassed by his antics or simply  u naware of them, like you.


He’s been an active member of momentum since it was set up, why on earth shouldn’t he mention them? What a silly post


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 28, 2020)

belboid said:


> He’s been an active member of momentum since it was set up, why on earth shouldn’t he mention them? What a silly post


Ahhh...I wasn't actually aware of that, mainly cos i get info about  Momentum secondhand from local members. My bad. he does seem to have invested an extraordinary amount of blind faith in them.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 28, 2020)

belboid said:


> He’s been an active member of momentum since it was set up, why on earth shouldn’t he mention them? What a silly post



What a pity for Momentum.


----------



## belboid (Aug 28, 2020)

NoXion said:


> What a pity for Momentum.


Still better than that shit Lansman


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 28, 2020)

belboid said:


> Still better than that shit Lansman


I'm intrigued. Why do you say that? i'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why do _you_ say that? I'd be interested to hear your views


----------



## belboid (Aug 28, 2020)

Mason is/was at least a democrat who wanted a member led organisation and open debate whereas lansman was a complete stitch up merchant from the (pro Assad and pro China) socialist action.   He (lansman) stopped momentum being an activist group to being one solely concerned with elections (internal and external)


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 28, 2020)

belboid said:


> Mason is/was at least a democrat who wanted a member led organisation and open debate whereas lansman was a complete stitch up merchant from the (pro Assad and pro China) socialist action.   He (lansman) stopped momentum being an activist group to being one solely concerned with elections (internal and external)


Yep, ta for that, useful info. Kinda chimes with bits I hear, here and there. I must admit, when Corbyn became leader and momentum started, it almost got me rejoining Labour and involved in Momentum. Now, i'm relieved I didn't.


----------



## PTK (Aug 28, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> Yep, ta for that, useful info. Kinda chimes with bits I hear, here and there. I must admit, when Corbyn became leader and momentum started, it almost got me rejoining Labour and involved in Momentum. Now, i'm relieved I didn't.


Why are you relieved that you did not get involved in Momentum and the Labour Party? I am a member of Momentum, and I always thought that it should be properly democratic, as did many other members. We could have done with the support of people like you. It is better to have fought and lost, then to have never fought at all. Momentum, for all its faults, had a very positive effect in enthusing and mobilising people. Getting involved would not have tainted your immortal socialist soul.

By the way,I had never heard before that Lansman was connected with the group known as Socialist Action, and I was not aware of Mason's attempts to democratise Momentum. I blame social media; it creates a bubble that actually excludes people. If you are not on What's App, etc., then events transpire of which you are completely unaware, but the "in crowd" (as we used to call it in the old days) assumes that everyone knows what they know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2020)

PTK said:


> Why are you relieved that you did not get involved in Momentum and the Labour Party? I am a member of Momentum, and I always thought that it should be properly democratic, as did many other members. We could have done with the support of people like you. It is better to have fought and lost, then to have never fought at all. Momentum, for all its faults, had a very positive effect in enthusing and mobilising people. Getting involved would not have tainted your immortal socialist soul.
> 
> By the way,I had never heard before that Lansman was connected with the group known as Socialist Action, and I was not aware of Mason's attempts to democratise Momentum. I blame social media; it creates a bubble that actually excludes people. If you are not on What's App, etc., then events transpire of which you are completely unaware, but the "in crowd" (as we used to call it in the old days) assumes that everyone knows what they know.


the problem with momentum is that at the end of the day momentum was a very pro-labour party organisation and everyone knows that there is no parliamentary path to socialism. the reactionary positions the lp has assumed throughout its history means that participation in it is a waste of time for any genuine socialist.


----------



## PTK (Aug 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem with momentum is that at the end of the day momentum was a very pro-labour party organisation and everyone knows that there is no parliamentary path to socialism. the reactionary positions the lp has assumed throughout its history means that participation in it is a waste of time for any genuine socialist.


A Labour government under Corbyn would have introduced certain reforms that would have strengthened the strategic position of the working class. Such an outcome is certainly not a waste of time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2020)

PTK said:


> A Labour government under Corbyn would have introduced certain reforms that would have strengthened the strategic position of the working class. Such an outcome is certainly not a waste of time.


yeh where is this wondrous beast to be found? a pipe dream, like the labour party getting rid of the poll tax - when labour councils like haringey and camden enthuasiastically implemented it.


----------



## andysays (Aug 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem with momentum is that at the end of the day momentum was a very pro-labour party organisation and *everyone knows* that there is no parliamentary path to socialism. the reactionary positions the lp has assumed throughout its history means that participation in it is a waste of time for any genuine socialist.



If only


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2020)

andysays said:


> If only


everybody knows the boat is sinking
everybody knows that the captain lied
everybody got that sinking feeling
like their father or their dog just died


----------



## PTK (Aug 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh where is this wondrous beast to be found? a pipe dream, like the labour party getting rid of the poll tax - when labour councils like haringey and camden enthuasiastically implemented
> 
> 
> Pickman's model said:
> ...


----------



## PTK (Aug 28, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh where is this wondrous beast to be found? a pipe dream, like the labour party getting rid of the poll tax - when labour councils like haringey and camden enthuasiastically implemented it.


 [Sorry, I messed up the posting of this, and had to re-post it].

Haringey Labour Party shifted to the left a few years ago, and the Council abandoned its plans to "socially cleanse" part of the borough. It also increased Council Tax relief to jobless householders. Momentum played a role in these victories. 

People suffering from the cuts to social security benefits implemented by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government would have benefited from the policies introduced by a Corbyn-led government within months. It would have abolished the draconian sanctions regime imposed on unemployed people by Job Centres, and abolished the cruel regime of Work Capability Assessments imposed upon the ill. 

A Corbyn government would have repealed Tory anti-union legislation, making it easier for workers to take strike action. 

The reversal of many (alas, not all) benefit cuts would have put an upward pressure on wages and increased the bargaining positions of the organised working class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2020)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, most Momentum members are embarrassed at Mason's continued cosying up to them. They think he's a bit of a nutter (well, the ones I've spoken to).



The only Momentum members I know, that like Mason, are a pair of former AWL members. Says it all, really!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 28, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only Momentum members I know, that like Mason, are a pair of former AWL members. Says it all, really!


It very much does!


----------



## BlanketAddict (Aug 28, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, it's true, even Screaming Lord Such was a .....
> 
> Surely Lord Botham's time has come to kick this country into shape.



Lord Botham, it just doesn't sound right. It's like Lord Coe all over again.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 28, 2020)

PTK said:


> Why are you relieved that you did not get involved in Momentum and the Labour Party? I am a member of Momentum, and I always thought that it should be properly democratic, as did many other members. We could have done with the support of people like you. It is better to have fought and lost, then to have never fought at all. Momentum, for all its faults, had a very positive effect in enthusing and mobilising people. Getting involved would not have tainted your immortal socialist soul.


Because I was previously a member of the Labour party - and a serious member, activist, holder of god knows how many branch, ward, committee etc positions, even a one-time council candidate - from 1986 to 2000. And at the end of that bruising, chastening but undoubtedly educative experience, I came to one unavoidable conclusion; the parliamentary road to socialism simply does not exist. For all the terrific people and definite socialists I met through Labour (including most definitely one J Corbyn esq, my MP when I lived on crouch Hill, in the Islington North constituency, and very much an early mentor to me), it simply cannot - will not - offer that route to real, meaningful social, economic and political change.

Labour were, and are, a dead end, because their commitment to Parliamentarianism menas they will always compromise too damn much. Yes, Corbyn briefly cane close to pullng it off, but there was always simply too much stacked against him.

And under Sir Quiff, you are about to go through _exactly_ the same sorry, disillusioning process I went through, in Labour and probably even in Momentum as well.

Deja Vu, close up? No thanks.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2020)

Sir Davey was on C4 news this evening...yep, he said it again


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2020)

PTK said:


> [Sorry, I messed up the posting of this, and had to re-post it].
> 
> Haringey Labour Party shifted to the left a few years ago, and the Council abandoned its plans to "socially cleanse" part of the borough. It also increased Council Tax relief to jobless householders. Momentum played a role in these victories.
> 
> ...


Would have butters no parsnips


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Sir Davey was on C4 news this evening...yep, he said it again
> 
> View attachment 228237


And if you press another button he says go home and prepare for government.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Sir Davey was on C4 news this evening...yep, he said it again
> 
> View attachment 228237


Not all Libdem's use the line 'wake up and smell the _coffee_'. Mark Oaten's house guests, for example, were in for a very different olfactory experience,


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 29, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Not all Libdem's use the line 'wake up and smell the _coffee_'. Mark Oaten's house guests, for example, were in for a very different olfactory experience,


YEEUUCCHHH!!!
Brain bleach needed


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2020)

When you look at the electoral basket-case that the yellow tories are at present it's odd to think that just 15 months ago they were capable of gaining a YG Westminster polling lead!

Yes, really...what a fucked up few years...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> When you look at the electoral basket-case that the yellow tories are at present it's odd to think that just 15 months ago they were capable of gaining a YG Westminster polling lead!
> 
> Yes, really...what a fucked up few years...
> 
> View attachment 228291


Says a lot about who yg talk to


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2020)

brogdale said:


> When you look at the electoral basket-case that the yellow tories are at present it's odd to think that just 15 months ago they were capable of gaining a YG Westminster polling lead!
> 
> Yes, really...what a fucked up few years...
> 
> View attachment 228291


I'd forgotten all about the chuka collective, I wonder where they are now


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Says a lot about who yg talk to


I'm no particular fan of Zahawi's outfit but, tbf, that singular poll was at the very strange pinch-point in Westminster polling when EU election considerations took over sentiment and the UK briefly exhibited a 4 party system! All of the polling outfits had the LDs in that ball park figure:


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 29, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd forgotten all about the chuka collective, I wonder where they are now





> The most militant internal opponents of Corbyn’s leadership, who defected in February 2019 to form something called ‘Change UK’, then the ‘Independent Group for Change’, are now finding new careers in lobbying and consultancy after losing their seats in last year’s election. Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger have joined the communications firm Edelman UK, while Chris Leslie has become chief executive of a trade association for debt collectors. The party they believed to be dangerous and no longer able to accommodate them is now rebranding itself as a kind of democratically elected management consultancy.


----------



## vanya (Aug 29, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd forgotten all about the chuka collective, I wonder where they are now



The one consolation of last year's awful election was seeing all the Chuk bunnies lose their seats.









						Dear Change UK, a Belated Love Letter
					

Dear Change UK,   A year has flown since you came into my life. You were a mould-breaking gun slinger of centrism, fresh as a daisy and pr...




					averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
				






> Dear Change UK,
> 
> A year has flown since you came into my life. You were a mould-breaking gun slinger of centrism, fresh as a daisy and pregnant with mucho newness and changeable changeness. And I was, and still am, a no-mark politics nerd blogging from the back streets of Stoke-on-Trent. As your star ascended, you didn't cast a glance in my direction. And when your brilliance faded, affecting nothing but indifference among those minded to vote in the EU elections, I still kept the faith. You never amounted to much, but I was a loyal fan and you provided good fodder for half a dozen blog posts. For that, accept this love note as a demonstration of my gratitude.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2020)

Sir Davey's been putting his shadowy, shadow cab together this afternoon naming 3 of his MPs in position and then tweeted this:



Those other 7 MPs must be so excited.


----------



## steeplejack (Aug 31, 2020)

The yellow “haha” emoji is the best one for these scumbags these days. Long may that continue.

Hateful, hateful rabble.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2020)

Micro-party so strapped it (behind £-wall) massively out furloughs the big 2:


----------



## moochedit (Sep 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Micro-party so strapped it (behind £-wall) massively out furloughs the big 2:
> 
> View attachment 229054


Does it say how many staff each party furloughed?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2020)

moochedit said:


> Does it say how many staff each party furloughed?


The only visible bit =


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Sir Davey's been putting his shadowy, shadow cab together this afternoon naming 3 of his MPs in position and then tweeted this:
> 
> View attachment 228632
> 
> Those other 7 MPs must be so excited.


The rest of the team. Enough for a five a side team. Or rugby sevens. Not even enough to put out a rowing eight.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 4, 2020)

Full article in case anyone can't get behind paywall

------
The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats claimed more than £250,000 under the government’s furlough scheme to subsidise the wages of their staff.

The Electoral Commission published figures disclosing that the Tories claimed £70,164, Labour £9,914 and the Liberal Democrats £178,907 between April and June. During that period the scheme, which is being gradually wound down, covered 80 per cent of the wages of those on furlough.

The Conservatives said that the party did not furlough staff at its headquarters and that the claims were made by local associations. The Liberal Democrats reportedly put nearly half their staff on furlough at their headquarters in response to the pandemic.

Meanwhile, the total value of party donations was £9 million, compared to £16 million over the same period last year. Parties have been struggling to raise money during the pandemic.

Labour outstripped the Conservatives, with a total of £3.7 million in donations, predominantly from trade unions. The Tories received £2.5 million and the Liberal Democrats £1.3 million.

The biggest individual donation was made to the Liberal Democrats by the head of an investment fund. David Tilles, the executive chairman of Mondrian Investment Partners, gave the Lib Dems £500,000. Labour received £291,575 from Unison, £290,125 from GMB and £530,000 from Usdaw.
Malcolm Healey, the owner of Wren kitchens, gave the Conservatives £250,000, while John Armitage, a hedge fund manager, gave £100,000.
Lubov Chernukhin, an ex-banker whose husband is a former deputy finance minister to President Putin, gave them £66,000. She has given the Conservative Party a total of £1.8 million since 2014, making her its biggest female donor.
They also received £279,000 in donations from property developers. The party is facing a backlash from its own MPs over an overhaul of the planning system.

The Tories are offering virtual stalls at this year’s party conference at prices ranging from £6,000 to £25,500. All the parties are holding their conferences online this year amid concerns about the spread of coronavirus.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “CCHQ has not furloughed any member of its staff. Local political associations are, however, no different from other voluntary sector organisations in facing challenging times. The purpose of the coronavirus job retention scheme is to encourage organisations to keep on furloughed workers and prevent local job losses.

“This funding from the coronavirus job retention scheme has been openly published, and all payments are in line with the prevailing guidance from HMRC and the Electoral Commission.”


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 15, 2020)

The Lib Dems' prospective Mayoral candidate (Geeta Sidu Robb) has been suspended from the party after a video of her antisemitism emerged : Lib Dems drop mayoral contender over antisemitic comment about Jack Straw

This women is a millionaire 'health food entrepreneur' and former member of the conservative party (the antisemitic statements were made while she was a member of the conservative party). She was also vice-chair of the 'People's Vote' campaign.

Her prospective candidacy for the Mayoralty was announced by the Lib Dems last Tuesday (she was one of two who would be chosen), despite comments she made on Channel 5's Rich Home, Poor Home where she swapped her £7m home for a two bedroom flat in a community housing project. During her appearance on this programme she said that staying at the top of a tower block was her "idea of hell" and described leaving the "safety" of Chelsea as  an "edgy experience". The Lib Dem hopeful was filmed struggling to use a can opener and stating that she did not want to drink tap water.

She is also apparently on record saying that vaccines have caused her son's eczema.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Sep 15, 2020)

Wilf said:


> Not all Libdem's use the line 'wake up and smell the _coffee_'. Mark Oaten's house guests, for example, were in for a very different olfactory experience,


Need to pay attention when he asks you 'one lump or two?'


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 15, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> She is also apparently on record saying that vaccines have caused her son's eczema.



Anti-vaccination shite alone should disqualify her automatically anyway 

Along with all the other bollocks obviously, but she's very clearly an utter fruitloop ......


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 21, 2020)

Lib Dems to drop commitment to UK membership of the EU
					

Exclusive: Motion at virtual conference will say rejoining must be by ‘public assent’




					www.independent.co.uk
				




It's almost as if they have no coherent values of their own...


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 21, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Lib Dems to drop commitment to UK membership of the EU
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Motion at virtual conference will say rejoining must be by ‘public assent’
> ...


Well there's no point to them anymore is there? Prior to 2010, their biggest selling point was that the fact they weren't the Tories and you could vote for them in a seat where the Labour candidate was even more of a no-hoper than elsewhere.
The trouble with them is they didn't realise that fact and that joining the Coalition would wipe out 90% of their vote in one fell swoop. They're desperately thrashing around for something to be relevant over, they were hoping it was Europe but it wasn't and now they can't find anything else. Any LibDem recovery will need to wait until enough younger voters who can't remember what they did have got old enough and that is going to take years.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 27, 2020)

Twats







> However, his stance is already being challenged by members. About 700 are said to have signed up to a conference motion to back rejoining the EU “preferably within 10 years”. A similar motion calling on the party to back EU membership in principle will be voted on at the virtual gathering.





> Davey said the departure of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would help the Lib Dem revival in seats where it was competing against the Tories. He said the fear of a Corbyn government had hindered the party at the last election. “Corbyn was not helpful to us in our key marginals with the Tories. And the only way we’re going to get Johnson out of No 10 is if Liberal Democrats win more Tory seats, and I’m determined we win many more seats off the Tories.”


Deliberately aiming for the tory vote - but hey vote LD to keep out the Tories


> Liberal Democrats are planning a four-year drive to woo “soft conservatives” repulsed by the “thuggish” values of the Tories under Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, the party’s new campaigning chief has revealed.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 27, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> Twats
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again I think this is where he is going wrong whilst there are undoubtedly a few centrist-right voters in this for them, it will not compensate for the centrist-left ones who felt betrayed by the Coalition.  I have to admire his optimism but not his grip on reality.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 27, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Again I think this is where he is going wrong whilst there are undoubtedly a few centrist-right voters in this for them,* it will not compensate for the centrist-left ones who felt betrayed by the Coalition. * I have to admire his optimism but not his grip on reality.


(my emphasis)
But those voters are already gone, most wavering liberal-left centrists potentially turned off by Corbyn will be attracted back to Labour by Sir Kier and those daft apeths that saw the LDs as some sort of radical alternative have moved to the Greens (or PC/SNP). 

Solely from the strategic point of view I think Davey/Cooper's plan is probably the best one available to the LDs, I don't think it will get them many votes but what is the alternative?


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 27, 2020)

I don't think there is one either, they would need to build public trust as an alternative to the Tories in order to win back voters who are opposed to the Tories but not necessarily supporting Labour and that will take them a generation. They always trumpeted themselves as neutral and principled only to take a side (and the wrong one at that) when it suited their leaders ambitions.
Changing the leader doesn't change that, Death of Squirrels proved that.
The LD's are currently on a par with the Twyford chimps on the political relevance scale.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2020)

They're full on commies now with support for universal basic income. Lots of people can safely go home now. The future is back.


----------



## andysays (Sep 27, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> They're full on commies now with support for universal basic income. Lots of people can safely go home now. The future is back.


"the future is orange"


----------



## campanula (Sep 27, 2020)

Good Grief, I had genuinely forgotten that this lot even existed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2021)

Lib Dems Defend Party Leafleting During Lockdown As 'Volunteering'
					

Ed Davey's party under fire after Labour and Tories suspended all door-to-door campaigning.




					www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
				




Lib dems continue leafleting in covid lockdown


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Lib Dems Defend Party Leafleting During Lockdown As 'Volunteering'
> 
> 
> Ed Davey's party under fire after Labour and Tories suspended all door-to-door campaigning.
> ...


Yellow super-spreaders.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 15, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Lib dems continue leafleting in covid lockdown


Trying to kill off older eurosceptic voters so that they can rejoin their beloved EU.


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2021)

Classical liberalism


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 15, 2021)

Been mentioned before probably, but there’s going to be plenty of naturopathics in the Lib Dem’s?


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 15, 2021)

Have to admit that I'm not totally sure where I stand on this one - obviously no-one actually needs Lib Dem leaflets at the best of times, but I wouldn't have thought of door-to-door leafleting in itself as being that much more dangerous than going for a walk or getting letters delivered by a postie, deliveries from a delivery service and so on? Or do people think that it's actually dangerous enough that no-one should do any leafleting for local mutual aid groups, tenants' unions and the like?


----------



## campanula (Jan 15, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Have to admit that I'm not totally sure where I stand on this one - obviously no-one actually needs Lib Dem leaflets at the best of times, but I wouldn't have thought of door-to-door leafleting in itself as being that much more dangerous than going for a walk or getting letters delivered by a postie, deliveries from a delivery service and so on? Or do people think that it's actually dangerous enough that no-one should do any leafleting for local mutual aid groups, tenants' unions and the like?


 I think the  focus of discontent  relates to Lb-Dems rather than leafleting.


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 15, 2021)

Ah yeah, if the point is just "no one ever really needs to be giving out Lib Dem leaflets under any circumstances" then I'm fine with it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 15, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Been mentioned before probably, but there’s going to be plenty of naturopathics in the Lib Dem’s?



Didn't they all move to the Greens under Tim Farron's tenure?

Has the current leader made any public statements at all, for example has he (or she) been a guest on a radio station current affairs program? I can't recall hearing anything at all about the LibDems since the election, it's like they lost all their seats and have disbanded.


----------



## moochedit (Jan 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Do they even have a leader now that M
> 
> 
> Didn't they all move to the Greens under Tim Farron's tenure?
> ...



Without googling it, i have no idea who the current lib dem leader is!


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2021)

moochedit said:


> Without googling it, i have no idea who the current lib dem leader is!


It’s the bloke who was so shit he lost to wotsername who was utterly useless.  You know, thingamebob


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 15, 2021)

Ed Vaizey isn't it?


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 15, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> Ed Vaizey isn't it?


Was he from the Fast Show or League of Gentlemen?


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> Ed Vaizey isn't it?


Isn’t it the ginger one? Ed Sheeran?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Jan 18, 2021)

They finally got some air time which has led to some traction in the press....about leafleting!


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They finally got some air time which has led to some traction in the press....about leafleting!



Is he a different one to Ed Vaizey or is it a stage name?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They finally got some air time which has led to some traction in the press....about leafleting!



The justification for leafletting was utter bollux, even by their own usual standards.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2021)

This story is really fucking weird:








						Ex-Lib Dem candidate now far-right organiser living in 'whites-only' Catford base
					

A former Catford Lib Dem council candidate is now an organiser for a “secretive far-right racist group” living locally in a whites-only…




					www.newsshopper.co.uk
				



"He reportedly lives in a self-sufficient white’s only “ethno village” in Catford and grows food and makes wine under the label “Ethno Villages”."
"In 2016, his schizophrenic flatmate tried to hack him to death with a meat cleaver, leaving his nose hanging off."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2021)

red flare appearing a lot. They seem to have only one story. Literally about PA. Who are they?


----------



## agricola (Jan 22, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> red flare appearing a lot. They seem to have only one story. Literally about PA. Who are they?



Presumably they are Catford-based (or Catford Bridge-based).


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 22, 2021)

brogdale said:


> The justification for leafletting was utter bollux, even by their own usual standards.


We've had a couple of LibDem leaflets (in an area which is about as solid blue as you can get), Even Domino's have knocked off doing it.


----------



## Gerry1time (Feb 18, 2021)

Nick Clegg's basically their global political advisor right? A solid result from him in this matter then, from governments across the globe.









						Facebook under fire over move to 'bully democracy' in Australia
					

Politicians and news providers in UK and US condemn site after blocking access to media content




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Feb 19, 2021)

The title of this thread really doesn't need to start with  'Why'


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2021)

JuanTwoThree said:


> The title of this thread really doesn't need to start with  'Why'


Not after 342 pages anyway


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Feb 19, 2021)

A comma after 'Why' ?


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 19, 2021)

Why oh why oh why...


----------



## tim (Jul 14, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Why oh why oh why...


An orange phoenix is hatching


----------



## Sue (Aug 20, 2021)

New Lib Dem leader in Scotland replacing Willie Whatsisface.

'Mr Cole-Hamilton told a party meeting on Friday: “There is a sense of optimism in our party that we might have turned a corner, that there might be something better coming over the horizon and my goodness, couldn’t the people Scotland do with a bit of that right now?' 









						Alex Cole-Hamilton confirmed as new Lib Dem leader
					

The MSP was the only candidate in the running to succeed Willie Rennie as the Scottish Liberal Democrats leader.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 21, 2021)

Lib Dems continue messing around with giant lego/duplo bricks:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 21, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Lib Dems continue messing around with giant lego/duplo bricks:



Hopefully some personal injury claims being worked on right now


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 21, 2021)

Let a thousand cabaret acts bloom


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 23, 2021)

Some of you may not be aware of this. But according to this analysis from Corporate Watch, ex-Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten was the CEO of the International Fur Federation:









						The Fur Industry: a corporate overview - Corporate Watch
					

Fur production is banned in the UK, and the industry has been on the decline in Europe for years. Yet fur can still be readily bought and sold here, whether from niche London boutiques, or major online platforms like Etsy and Amazon. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrust the international fur trade...




					corporatewatch.org


----------



## JimW (Sep 23, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> Some of you may not be aware of this. But according to this analysis from Corporate Watch, ex-Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten was the CEO of the International Fur Federation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is it that famously sticks to fur?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 23, 2021)

This thread demonstrates that there's one thing, at least, that the Lib Dems don't get nearly enough credit for:

They were the first entirely self-satirising political party, long before it became the fashion for _all _political parties to do that.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 14, 2021)

Feel free to inform the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats what their priorities should be and also that they are shit. They seem to think it’s a good idea to ask the internet









						Local Mole Valley survey
					

Your feelings  Please say how happy you are about your prospects for the following using the scale 1-5 where 1 = Very unhappy, 2 = Somewhat unhappy, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat happy, 5 = Very happy, Leave answer blank for Don't Know   Being able to pay your bills over the next 6 months     1 2 3...




					molevalleylibdems.org.uk


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Feel free to inform the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats what their priorities should be and also that they are shit. They seem to think it’s a good idea to ask the internet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well they are my local lib dems , would be rude if I were not to ask


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 5, 2021)

Hate to do the recycling of twitter posts but Broder on the money


Also makes it clear why a progressive alliance is vomit inducing shit


----------



## kabbes (Dec 5, 2021)

Although, it genuinely is hard to tell this iteration of Labour apart from this iteration of the Lib Dems, so there’s that. But on the other hand, they’re both hard to tell from this iteration of the Tories so there’s that too.


----------



## NoXion (Dec 5, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> Hate to do the recycling of twitter posts but Broder on the money
> 
> 
> Also makes it clear why a progressive alliance is vomit inducing shit




How fucking arrogant do you have to be in order to think that "get over it" is an appropriate or indeed effective response to voters' concerns? They could have chosen to engage, but they chose imperious dismissal instead. Is this what it means to be progressive these days? Illegal wars, austerity, actually having an opposition worth a damn... just _get over it_.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 5, 2021)

Oh yeah the lib demo exist. I'd forgotten about them.


----------



## Spandex (Dec 5, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> Hate to do the recycling of twitter posts but Broder on the money
> 
> 
> Also makes it clear why a progressive alliance is vomit inducing shit



That... what do you call those things thrown together with the intention of being spammed about on social media?.. is such a clusterfuck I felt the need to check it was genuine and not some kind of a spoof. And yep, there it is, proudly posted on the Progressive Alliance Facebook page. Since this is what they want to put out there let's have a closer look at it.

1. _but the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories - it was a decade ago. Get over it._

While they went into coalition 11 years ago, they happily stayed in coalition until just 6 years ago. The impact of their austerity programme continues to hammer people across the country to this day. The LDs have never, afaik, disavowed, distanced themselves from or apologised for austerity. It's still a live issue and it's absolutely right that people blame the Lib Dems for it. Cunts.

2. _Jeremy Corbyn is no longer Labour Leader - he lost... badly... get over it_

It might be easier for Corbyn supporters to 'get over it' if he hadn't been replaced by an uncharismatic, dishonest, petty, clueless, business loving, cardboard cut out Lib Dem lawyer nonentity who has done everything in his power to drive the left away from Labour. Cunts.

3. _Blah blah jabber jabber Tony Blair blah blah Iraq - it was 18 years ago. Get over it._

"Genuine reasons we've seen..." they say. Go on, admit it. This one isn't genuine is it? It's paraphrasing something someone said isn't it? But that bit of dishonesty aside, maybe it's worth considering that when people have been betrayed by their political representatives and say they'll never vote for them again, maybe they mean it. Not everyone has a goldfish's political attention span, swayed by the latest twitter storm of the day. Some people have principles, something the Progressive Alliance seem unacquainted with. Cunts.

4. _The Lib Dems will just flounce off with the Tories - no, they blatantly aren't going to do that again_

Well, currently the Tories don't need or want them, so it's not really an issue. But given the same circumstances they'd totally do the same thing again. And besides that, the Lib Dems time in government totally showed them up as the yellow Tories they are, something that everyone to the left of Starmer is painfully aware of. Cunts.

5. _But Keith [insert politically ignorant rant here] - so you want to stay in opposition forever then?_

Again, this isn't a "genuine reason we've seen", it's not even paraphrasing a position they've heard. It's just saying there's no alternative to the dismal Starmer. Well, people want an alternative to his centralist, neoliberalism as normal, business before people, failed politics. That's the problem more than any love from anyone for the clown Johnson and the corrupt, inept, swivel eyed weirdos in his government. Give people a well thought through alternative that is about giving normal people a chance for a decent life and they'll vote for it. But all this seems lost on the centrist dad alliance. Cunts.

6. _I will always vote for [party] out of loyalty - if they have no hope of winning you seat, it's futile_ 

Lib Dems winning here! Cunts.

TL;DR - Cunts.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 5, 2021)

If you want a quick laugh the TheProgAlliance and The Anti-Tory Alliance twitter feeds are worth have a look at. A combination of deluded stupidity and vacuity



Spandex said:


> TL;DR - Cunts.


Or this^ in a nutshell


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 5, 2021)

emanymton said:


> Oh yeah the lib demo exist. I'd forgotten about them.


Depends what you mean by 'exist'. By far their most significant real-world impact these days is on the volume of laughter of anyone reading this thread.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 17, 2021)

I had forgotten how much I hate Tim Farron, but here he is again on my TV. 

Creeping around the by-election with his homophobic teeth.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 17, 2021)

Of all the unforgivable things Boris Johnson is responsible for ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 17, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I had forgotten how much I hate Tim Farron, but here he is again on my TV.
> 
> Creeping around the by-election with his homophobic teeth.


There should be an _I ❤️ The 1970s_ type nostalgia show bulked up with lower-tier circuit comedians for people to pretend to remember yellow Tories of yesteryear.

_I Hate The LibDems_ would suffice, would probably only stretch to a single episode though.



"Which one is that? Is that the glass table shitter, the paedo or the pocket-liner?"


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2021)

DaveCinzano said:


> There should be an _I ❤️ The 1970s_ type nostalgia show bulked up with lower-tier circuit comedians for people to pretend to remember yellow Tories of yesteryear.
> 
> _I Hate The LibDems_ would suffice, would probably only stretch to a single episode though.
> 
> ...


there's the cat-nonce too.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 17, 2021)

killer b said:


> there's the cat-nonce too.


It's like there's more paraphilias amongst their front bench than actual MPs


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 18, 2021)

DaveCinzano said:


> "Which one is that? Is that the glass table shitter, the paedo and the pocket-liner?"



"Yes"


----------



## steeplejack (Dec 19, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I had forgotten how much I hate Tim Farron






_shudder_


----------



## Carvaged (Dec 19, 2021)

> Lib Dems and Labour should forget the mutual peevishness to target the Tories​
> The message from the North Shropshire by-election is one of mutual dependence despite the recriminations







__





						Subscribe to read | Financial Times
					

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication




					www.ft.com


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2021)

My brother just linked me to this clip of Lib Dem firebrand Liz Truss calling for the abolition of the monarchy.


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 20, 2021)

Spandex said:


> That... what do you call those things thrown together with the intention of being spammed about on social media?.. is such a clusterfuck I felt the need to check it was genuine and not some kind of a spoof. And yep, there it is, proudly posted on the Progressive Alliance Facebook page. Since this is what they want to put out there let's have a closer look at it.
> 
> 1. _but the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories - it was a decade ago. Get over it._
> ...
> ...


----------



## kabbes (Dec 20, 2021)

Highly amusing but, of course, it doesn’t mean anything unless people think she secretly still believes this and is trying for the long game.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 20, 2021)

Carvaged said:


> Lib Dems and Labour should forget the mutual peevishness to target the Tories​
> The message from the North Shropshire by-election is one of mutual dependence despite the recriminations



No. Won't. <pouts>


----------



## hitmouse (Dec 20, 2021)

Just seen the "similar threads" down the bottom of this one, . But also life's definitely too short to go wading through "why the Lib Dems are good and effective/great" threads from a decade ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just seen the "similar threads" down the bottom of this one, . But also life's definitely too short to go wading through "why the Lib Dems are good and effective/great" threads from a decade ago.


that's not a very urban attitude


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just seen the "similar threads" down the bottom of this one, . But also life's definitely too short to go wading through "why the Lib Dems are good and effective/great" threads from a decade ago.



I think they're mostly just about what Lib Dems'll do sexually that the other parties won't.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 20, 2021)

billy_bob said:


> I think they're mostly just about what Lib Dems'll do sexually that the other parties won't.


That reminded me of this LD video featuring the former C&W MP...the first 10 seconds of which.....well, bad prono storyline stylee


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 20, 2021)

Isn't it incredible that at no point in the approval process did anyone prevent that from being released as a promotional tool.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2022)

The LDs in my neighbouring constituency of Sutton & Cheam appear to have selected an 'interesting' candidate to fight what is a formerly held, target seat:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2022)

oh dear









						Ex-mayor, 65, is probed over claims he posed as a decorated war hero
					

The former mayor of Otley, in West Yorkshire, is being investigated over allegations that he faked being a decorated war hero who served in the Falklands and Northern Ireland.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2022)

This is quite special from my LibDem controlled London Borough; they've put up the results of the latest London Assembly constituency election with one little omission:


 and calculated the %s of share of the popular vote on that basis!

fucking clowns


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2022)

brogdale said:


> This is quite special from my LibDem controlled London Borough; they've put up the results of the latest London Assembly constituency election with one little omission:
> 
> View attachment 309896
> and calculated the %s of share of the popular vote on that basis!
> ...


Do you think this was a silly mistake, rather than an electioneering technique that they've used with some success for decades?


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2022)

I mean, we all sneer at the 'only the lib dems can beat the tories here!' bollocks on their flyers, but then stuff like North Shropshire happens so I guess maybe they're the ones who should be laughing.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2022)

killer b said:


> Do you think this was a silly mistake, rather than an electioneering technique that they've used with some success for decades?


Yes, an error on the part of the council...but a pretty crass one.


----------



## killer b (Feb 13, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, an error on the part of the council...but a pretty crass one.


Ah, I thought you must've meant the party had used this on some election literature - so it's on the council website? Do you think putting this kind of information is something the ruling group would have any input to? That would be weird - it's just a mistake by someone entering data at the town hall surely?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2022)

killer b said:


> Ah, I thought you must've meant the party had used this on some election literature - so it's on the council website? Do you think putting this kind of information is something the ruling group would have any input to? That would be weird - it's just a mistake by someone entering data at the town hall surely?


AFAIK the LibDems have not used this on their literature, but they're currently busy leafletting for the locals with the usual dodgy bar graphs showing GE vote share for the whole constituency.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 13, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Yes, an error on the part of the council...but a pretty crass one.


Yeah but it's not the Libdems is it? This should be on the why council comms teams are underfunded and over worked and make silly mistakes thread.


----------



## magneze (Feb 16, 2022)

Nick Clegg promoted to top Facebook role
					

Former Lib Dem leader becomes president of global affairs while Mark Zuckerberg to reduce his own role in policy decisions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## CH1 (Feb 27, 2022)

Something odd going on here. The Nick Clegg profile broadcast this morning on Radio 4 seems to have been pulled








						BBC Radio 4 - Profile, Sir Nick Clegg
					

The former deputy prime minister who’s landed a top job in Silicon Valley.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## bluescreen (Feb 27, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Something odd going on here. The Nick Clegg profile broadcast this morning on Radio 4 seems to have been pulled
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not really. It was re-re-broadcast just now. Schedules have been rejigged to expand news. Still online. 








						BBC Radio 4 - Profile, Sir Nick Clegg
					

The former deputy prime minister who’s landed a top job in Silicon Valley.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 11, 2022)

I'm not laughing at the guy for having a stroke, obviously. I am laughing a bit at the fact that they're so inconsequential that their leader had a potentially debilitating health incident and no one noticed.

Vince Cable reveals he had a stroke when leader of the Lib Dems


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2022)

Interesting conundrum in the latest "Liberator"
IS TRUSS THE TORIES’ CORBYN?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 15, 2022)

(a) Insighful analysis or (b) liberal crap 
NB Typo in first line is from article


> Lix Truss’s premiership is likely to be nasty, brutish and short, as Thomas Hobbes didn’t quite say.
> Nasty because everything reported from the Truss campaign over the summer suggests her government will combine all the faults of Boris Johnson’s with none of its few merits.
> Johnson - if in a half-hearted and ineffective way - at least appeared to support ‘levelling up’ and net zero for carbon. Truss does not even pay that kind of lip service.
> Brutish because she relies on and appeals to a narrow section even of the Conservative party on its far right.
> ...


----------



## Raheem (Sep 15, 2022)

This bit


> Appealing to a fundamentalist base that did not even amount to majority in its own party did of course work wonders for Labour in 2019.


is revisionism.

Corbyn stood twice for Labour leader and won both times (and won even if you discount "Corbyn surge" voters).

Likewise, Truss has just been elected leader of the Tory party.

Corbyn may have been at odds with his MPs, but they both have/had the endorsement of their respective parties.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 15, 2022)

redsquirrel Raheem 

can this be true?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 15, 2022)

CH1 said:


> redsquirrel Raheem
> 
> can this be true?



Slightly different issue. Everyone knows Truss is not an elected prime minister. But neither she nor Corbyn are/were running a party without the consent of the members.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 15, 2022)

CH1 said:


> redsquirrel Raheem
> 
> can this be true?



What has that got to do with the empty rubbish Liberator piece you were promoting?
It is total rubbish anyway - Truss was elected as an MP and the leader of the Conservative Party, she is PM as she commands a majority in the HoC. Are you, and the LibDems(?), now calling for a directly elected President ?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 16, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> What has that got to do with the empty rubbish Liberator piece you were promoting?
> It is total rubbish anyway - Truss was elected as an MP and the leader of the Conservative Party, she is PM as she commands a majority in the HoC. Are you, and the LibDems(?), now calling for a directly elected President ?


It's the Dialectic.
I'm Green - the cheapie version.
Fuck off to Kate Hoey and Red Rum Lisa - who YOU promote.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 16, 2022)

Raheem said:


> This bit
> 
> is revisionism.
> 
> Corbyn stood twice for Labour leader and won both times (and won even if you discount "Corbyn surge" voters).


Yeah, and more important than his results in internal Labour elections is the result he got in 2017 - I always think it's tricky for people to offer a convincing narrative that accounts for both 2017 Corbynism and 2019 Corbynism, but this thing doesn't even try, it just ignores 2017. You could equally well say that "the Tories' Corbyn" would be someone who saw their vote rise by 10% and won 30 new seats.


CH1 said:


> redsquirrel Raheem
> 
> can this be true?



I thought it seemed plausible enough, since the population of London is much much larger than the membership of the Conservative party, but looking it up it appears to be fake news, he only got 24,775. And apparently the number for Liz Truss is out by ten, come to that.


----------

