Okay so you accept that every reason you voted for the Lib Dems has been shelved by Cleggie and the Lib Dems and you state that whatever happens, the Lib Dems will suffer at the next election. Like I said before I havent got your crystal ball.
And then you say,
"None of it means voting Lib Dem was a waste."
Err, right then! Aren't you a wee bit arsed off though to see your vote has translated into nothing with regard to the policies for which you voted?
Then you say
"You might see another election as a chance for Labour to retake power while I see it as another chance for the Tories to scrape a majority".
So what are you saying - that the Lib Dems are a bunch of virginal maidens that allow themselves to be fucked rigid by Cameron because if they didnt, the Tories would be in power by themselves? So Cleggie has to put up with the horrors of being Deputy Prime Minister for the good of the nation?
Don't you think there is an eensy teensy weensy bit of political self-interest and naked desire for power somewhere in the Lib Dems which has allowed them to ditch all the policies you voted for?
Blimey and you still have the quote from Cleggie in your sig!
What have the Lib Dems got to do to you to get rid of that sig? Has Cleggie got to come round and throttle your grannie?
D
Sam's disappointments?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
[quote]Err, right then! Aren't you a wee bit arsed off though to see your vote has translated into nothing with regard to the policies for which you voted?[/quote]
Whaaaat? And the policies you voted for are where? The bin? The system we have means that 60%+ of voters vote for a party that will be in opposition anyway. Are they wasted votes just because policies they voted for never see the light of day? I didn't vote for the Lib Dems thinking they'd win, I voted for them because I agreed with their general philosophy and many policies. Compromising doesn't mean that their ideology has changed, just that some of their policies have had to be put on the backburner for this coalition to work. Why do you struggle to understand this? If you watch Sex and the City because you're wife likes it it doesn't mean you've suddenly become a fan of the show.
But I'll answer your question about being a bit arsed off: yes, a bit. But not half as arsed off as I would have been if I'd voted Labour. Labour let down many of their voters who would have preferred a Lab/Lib coalition over a Lib/Con or Con minority government.
[quote]So what are you saying - that the Lib Dems are a bunch of virginal maidens that allow themselves to be fucked rigid by Cameron because if they didnt, the Tories would be in power by themselves? So Cleggie has to put up with the horrors of being Deputy Prime Minister for the good of the nation?[/quote]
Well, I wouldn't use such crass terminology but yes. They decided that they could represent their voters better inside government than by being in opposition, even knowing it might not be the best decision politically. I think that more admirable than Labour's first policy of looking after their own interests first. You seem to differ.
[quote]Don't you think there is an eensy teensy weensy bit of political self-interest and naked desire for power somewhere in the Lib Dems which has allowed them to ditch all the policies you voted for?[/quote]
Of course. I'm sure there are some that think that a few years in coalition is good for them that get a decent job, but for the rest they must know this isn't good for the Lib Dems....and Clegg got over 75% to back him, so as a party they put their voters before their own party's popularity......Labour did the opposite.
[quote]Blimey and you still have the quote from Cleggie in your sig![/quote]
Not for much longer.
[quote]What have the Lib Dems got to do to you to get rid of that sig? Has Cleggie got to come round and throttle your grannie?[/quote]
Lol. I'm sorry it gets to you, Dave. Like I said, it won't be their much longer.
All our debates are very much one-sided, David. It's always you questioning me. Do you feel let down by Labour promising referendums on this and that only to back away, despite being in government and having the power to push things through?
How do you feel about Labour backing away from a coalition and not giving the majority of the country what they voted for, a centre-left government? We both know politically it was the best thing for them to do but they didn't care enough about us all to save us from the Tories, did they?
Whaaaat? And the policies you voted for are where? The bin? The system we have means that 60%+ of voters vote for a party that will be in opposition anyway. Are they wasted votes just because policies they voted for never see the light of day? I didn't vote for the Lib Dems thinking they'd win, I voted for them because I agreed with their general philosophy and many policies. Compromising doesn't mean that their ideology has changed, just that some of their policies have had to be put on the backburner for this coalition to work. Why do you struggle to understand this? If you watch Sex and the City because you're wife likes it it doesn't mean you've suddenly become a fan of the show.
But I'll answer your question about being a bit arsed off: yes, a bit. But not half as arsed off as I would have been if I'd voted Labour. Labour let down many of their voters who would have preferred a Lab/Lib coalition over a Lib/Con or Con minority government.
[quote]So what are you saying - that the Lib Dems are a bunch of virginal maidens that allow themselves to be fucked rigid by Cameron because if they didnt, the Tories would be in power by themselves? So Cleggie has to put up with the horrors of being Deputy Prime Minister for the good of the nation?[/quote]
Well, I wouldn't use such crass terminology but yes. They decided that they could represent their voters better inside government than by being in opposition, even knowing it might not be the best decision politically. I think that more admirable than Labour's first policy of looking after their own interests first. You seem to differ.
[quote]Don't you think there is an eensy teensy weensy bit of political self-interest and naked desire for power somewhere in the Lib Dems which has allowed them to ditch all the policies you voted for?[/quote]
Of course. I'm sure there are some that think that a few years in coalition is good for them that get a decent job, but for the rest they must know this isn't good for the Lib Dems....and Clegg got over 75% to back him, so as a party they put their voters before their own party's popularity......Labour did the opposite.
[quote]Blimey and you still have the quote from Cleggie in your sig![/quote]
Not for much longer.
[quote]What have the Lib Dems got to do to you to get rid of that sig? Has Cleggie got to come round and throttle your grannie?[/quote]
Lol. I'm sorry it gets to you, Dave. Like I said, it won't be their much longer.
All our debates are very much one-sided, David. It's always you questioning me. Do you feel let down by Labour promising referendums on this and that only to back away, despite being in government and having the power to push things through?
How do you feel about Labour backing away from a coalition and not giving the majority of the country what they voted for, a centre-left government? We both know politically it was the best thing for them to do but they didn't care enough about us all to save us from the Tories, did they?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
All the points you make about Labour "backing away" have been done to death in your previous posts which haven't been backed up in the post-coalition interviews given by Cleggie and Cable that I have seen.
I have no desire or interest to go there yet again.
So from my point of view this has been useful.
You have admitted that everything you voted for in the Lib Dems has been shelved. This is a first for you on the forum.
You have also said that you think the Lib Dems will suffer whatever happens in the next election.
Maybe this is the new politics that Cleggie is always on about. You vote for a set of policies as you did The Lib Dems get into power and they throw all the policies you voted for out of the window for the duration of the coalition with the party you would rather eat your face off than vote for.
I think I prefer the old politics, ta!
Cheerio
D
I have no desire or interest to go there yet again.
So from my point of view this has been useful.
You have admitted that everything you voted for in the Lib Dems has been shelved. This is a first for you on the forum.
You have also said that you think the Lib Dems will suffer whatever happens in the next election.
Maybe this is the new politics that Cleggie is always on about. You vote for a set of policies as you did The Lib Dems get into power and they throw all the policies you voted for out of the window for the duration of the coalition with the party you would rather eat your face off than vote for.
I think I prefer the old politics, ta!
Cheerio
D
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
[quote]All the points you make about Labour "backing away" have been done to death in your previous posts which haven't been backed up in the post-coalition interviews given by Cleggie and Cable that I have seen.[/quote]
No but many a Labour MP has said they didn't want a coalition, in many an interview.
[quote]I have no desire or interest to go there yet again.[/quote]
That's a shame because I do. Please answer my questions. Ta.
[quote]So from my point of view this has been useful.[/quote]
In what way?
[quote]You have admitted that everything you voted for in the Lib Dems has been shelved. This is a first for you on the forum.[/quote]
I don't quite get what you mean. I never argued that things weren't shelved. I think from day one of the coalition I spoke about compromise. If you think getting me to say something I never argued against is some sort of victory then well done! Ha ha ha.
[quote]You have also said that you think the Lib Dems will suffer whatever happens in the next election.[/quote]
And? I've said this previously as well. What's your point?
[quote]Maybe this is the new politics that Cleggie is always on about. You vote for a set of policies as you did The Lib Dems get into power and they throw all the policies you voted for out of the window for the duration of the coalition with the party you would rather eat your face off than vote for.[/quote]
Lol. And Labour did what? Run away for fear of being called names. We don't want power because we might be called 'losers'. We believe our policies are best for the country but we're not going to play if you're going to poke fun at us! Boo-hoo!
[quote]I think I prefer the old politics, ta![/quote]
Ah, a traditionalist! It seems if anyone is the closet Tory, it's you, Johnson! Maybe that's why you're so upset at the coalition and Clegg. You're a hardline Tory in disguise! I remember the good old days when I could tell the difference between a Tory and a Whig, between a man and a woman! What's the world coming to, hey?
No but many a Labour MP has said they didn't want a coalition, in many an interview.
[quote]I have no desire or interest to go there yet again.[/quote]
That's a shame because I do. Please answer my questions. Ta.
[quote]So from my point of view this has been useful.[/quote]
In what way?
[quote]You have admitted that everything you voted for in the Lib Dems has been shelved. This is a first for you on the forum.[/quote]
I don't quite get what you mean. I never argued that things weren't shelved. I think from day one of the coalition I spoke about compromise. If you think getting me to say something I never argued against is some sort of victory then well done! Ha ha ha.
[quote]You have also said that you think the Lib Dems will suffer whatever happens in the next election.[/quote]
And? I've said this previously as well. What's your point?
[quote]Maybe this is the new politics that Cleggie is always on about. You vote for a set of policies as you did The Lib Dems get into power and they throw all the policies you voted for out of the window for the duration of the coalition with the party you would rather eat your face off than vote for.[/quote]
Lol. And Labour did what? Run away for fear of being called names. We don't want power because we might be called 'losers'. We believe our policies are best for the country but we're not going to play if you're going to poke fun at us! Boo-hoo!
[quote]I think I prefer the old politics, ta![/quote]
Ah, a traditionalist! It seems if anyone is the closet Tory, it's you, Johnson! Maybe that's why you're so upset at the coalition and Clegg. You're a hardline Tory in disguise! I remember the good old days when I could tell the difference between a Tory and a Whig, between a man and a woman! What's the world coming to, hey?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
!sleep! !sleep!
Do a search on my posts and you will see I have already commented on your questions about Labour "running away". I ain't going to do it again.
Goodnite!
D
Do a search on my posts and you will see I have already commented on your questions about Labour "running away". I ain't going to do it again.
Goodnite!
D
![[IMG]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9678/beakerii.jpg[/IMG]](http://img175.imageshack.us/i/beakerii.jpg/){kind=link}
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
You have? I can't remember but I bet it's Clegg's fault. *rolls eyes*
We all know Labour backed out. I wanna know how you feel about them letting down their voters to save their own arses. They didn't want PR either because they're comfortable with it just being a two party race every election. Less choice for the voters! Yay!
We all know Labour backed out. I wanna know how you feel about them letting down their voters to save their own arses. They didn't want PR either because they're comfortable with it just being a two party race every election. Less choice for the voters! Yay!
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam's disappointments?
They didn't back out. If you read any of the interviews and commentary after the election, it was obvious to Labour that while the likes of Cable and Paddy Ashdown wanted the Labour coalition, others like Clegg and Laws and Danny Who? wanted to work with the Tories and it was easy for the right of the party to win the day because the proposed coalition with Labour didn't have the numbers to make it work.
At the same time, there was a split in Labour ranks as some took the view, quite reasonably, that they'd struggle to hold a progressive coalition of four or five parties together in order to make it work.
Even if they'd got the numbers, Clegg and Laws and Danny Who? would STILL have done the deal with the Tories. Clegg made it perfectly clear who his preference was after the first leadership debate when his head got swelled and he started talking in terms of having enough of the vote to be Prime Minister in a coalition with Labour.
What a joke that turned out to be.
So you have two possibilities - sticking to your principles and letting the Tories get on with minority government or dropping everything you believe in to get into bed with them.
Scenario one would have worked. With a minority government, the Tories would have known they would have to water down their manifesto to get the votes in Parliament, or risk another election.
In scenario two, the Lib Dems decided to allow the Tories to do what they want, they surrendered their principles and policies to get power and allowed the Tories to put some things off for so long, by the time they should be implemented in a year, they will be forgotten about. By giving them their official support/abstention on certain policies, they have actually allowed the Tories to stay strong in some areas, such as cuts.
Vince Cable, he of the flip flopping brain, came up with a gem in the Paxman interview last week. You must have seen it, but haven't made any comment. In case you didn't, here's the highlight. - Within two days of getting elected, he says he had enough evidence before him to completely change his mind about the need for cuts. He claimed that if the Lib Dems had won a majority, within two days of taking office they would have reversed one of their key manifesto pledges on cuts and implemented them, making it one of the fastest and worst policy betrayals in history. He claimed he would have done that within two days, yet he was one of those pushing his party towards forming a progressive alliance that would have NOT implemented cuts at all had it come off. Some quite incredible flip flopping and position switching there, even by his usual standards.
The Lib Dems, on that interview alone, are clearly a power at any cost party. If you don't feel angered by such two faced behaviour and bare faced lies, I'm frankly staggered. And you'd vote for them again, despite knowing they stand for nothing...
At the same time, there was a split in Labour ranks as some took the view, quite reasonably, that they'd struggle to hold a progressive coalition of four or five parties together in order to make it work.
Even if they'd got the numbers, Clegg and Laws and Danny Who? would STILL have done the deal with the Tories. Clegg made it perfectly clear who his preference was after the first leadership debate when his head got swelled and he started talking in terms of having enough of the vote to be Prime Minister in a coalition with Labour.
What a joke that turned out to be.
So you have two possibilities - sticking to your principles and letting the Tories get on with minority government or dropping everything you believe in to get into bed with them.
Scenario one would have worked. With a minority government, the Tories would have known they would have to water down their manifesto to get the votes in Parliament, or risk another election.
In scenario two, the Lib Dems decided to allow the Tories to do what they want, they surrendered their principles and policies to get power and allowed the Tories to put some things off for so long, by the time they should be implemented in a year, they will be forgotten about. By giving them their official support/abstention on certain policies, they have actually allowed the Tories to stay strong in some areas, such as cuts.
Vince Cable, he of the flip flopping brain, came up with a gem in the Paxman interview last week. You must have seen it, but haven't made any comment. In case you didn't, here's the highlight. - Within two days of getting elected, he says he had enough evidence before him to completely change his mind about the need for cuts. He claimed that if the Lib Dems had won a majority, within two days of taking office they would have reversed one of their key manifesto pledges on cuts and implemented them, making it one of the fastest and worst policy betrayals in history. He claimed he would have done that within two days, yet he was one of those pushing his party towards forming a progressive alliance that would have NOT implemented cuts at all had it come off. Some quite incredible flip flopping and position switching there, even by his usual standards.
The Lib Dems, on that interview alone, are clearly a power at any cost party. If you don't feel angered by such two faced behaviour and bare faced lies, I'm frankly staggered. And you'd vote for them again, despite knowing they stand for nothing...