Sam's disappointments?

[David Johnson]

I will ignore the blather. Let's get to the nub.

You suggest that the reason the Lib Dems joined the coalition as opposed to a confidence and supply arrangement is as follows:

"And I've pointed out that maybe the Lib Dems felt that this wasn't the best way to represent their voters (they've said as much). "

Perhaps you can explain then why a coalition in which everything you voted for has been shelved by the Lib Dems and pretty well everything that other Lib Dems voted for in terms of Lib Dem. defence, nuclear energy, student fees, immigration, foreign policy and education policies has been shelved in return for propping up a whole range of Tory policies REPRESENTS THE LIB DEM voters who voted for these shelved policies better than a confidence and suppy arrangement?

Compare this then with a confidence and supply arrangement where the Lib Dems support the Tory budget (in the national interest) and then oppose ,where necessary and get supported rather than hammered by the Lib Dem whips, all the measures which are totally anathema to your good self as a hater of the Tory party.


"And if things the Tories did really were unpalatable then I'm sure there'd be enough Lib Dem backbenchers who would get together and do just that, without threatening their own futures."

You are doing your Gypsy Rose Slater shtick again! How can you possibly be "sure"? And you are also ignoring the fact that the Lib Dems have ALREADY agreed as part of the coalition a whole host of policies unpalatable to to Lib Dem principles and diametrically opposed to their views on education, immigration, nuclear energy etc.

Havent you read that coalition agreement yet?

Cheers
D

[alicia_fan_uk]

Excuse my ignorance in butting in here, but maybe you guys should exchange messenger addresses and just short things out in one sitting. Also, it may well be my gnat-like attention span, but do we really need to keep scrolling down and down and down and down for the one single post/thesis.

Also, you do know there's links to and pics of hot naked chics on this forum, right!?

[David Johnson]

You don't of course have to read the thread!

[alicia_fan_uk]

True. Neither does Sam...

[David Johnson]

Of course!

[Sam Slater]

Yet more questions in this month-long Q&A for Sam.

Find me one question from your last post that I've not already answered (more than once I'm sure for some of them) and I'll answer it honestly. Unlike you I don't duck questions.

I'm sorry for calling you a troll but I can think of no other reason why you'd be constantly questioning and criticising every day for a month, why you'd imply I'm naive, or say I'm being juvenile, or ignorant; why you start off our debates a good what?.....90% of the time only to tell me you're bored (I'm boring?); and why you start threads that contain little Cleggie quizzes and threads with titles like 'Sam's Disappointments'. Calling me out, jibes and repeating questions I've already answered can only be an attempt at trolling, or at the very least plain old attention seeking.

Every question you've asked I've answered and you're just going through the same old shit to which I'll reply with the same old shit. Like I said, Labour's loss has really affected you, I think (and I'm not being facetious here).

The 'nub' of this is that Labour didn't do enough to form a centre-left alliance. For the umpteenth time, Labour could have offered a deal Clegg couldn't refuse. For whatever reason (I think for selfish, political reasons - you're welcome to differ.....thought you've admitted they were scared of the 'coalition of losers' tag) they didn't do that. Why do I think this? Because Clegg could never have got the party on side if there was a serious centre-left option available. I've said all this before, though.

Let it sink in: Labour lost and shelved ALL their policies by not doing enough to strike a deal with the Lib Dems. Highlighting every little concession the Lib Dems have done does not change that. Labour lost, David. Mmmmmkay? Lost.

Conservative and Lib Dem and Green vote share went up. Labour vote share went down. Vince Cable and Nick Clegg are still popular and the Millibands and Balls of our island aren't. ().

Oh, I forgot to say in my last post: It's 'toodle pip' !thumbsup!

[Ned]

The 'nub' of this is that Labour didn't do enough to form a centre-left alliance. For the umpteenth time, Labour could have offered a deal Clegg couldn't refuse.


That is absolute tosh. How the fucking hell could they have pulled together a coalition that would have had some opposition in their own party when to work, it would have required bringing Nationalist parties into the equation with their own agendas. That coalition would have spent all its time bending over backwards to please each faction and keep them on board that it would have been worthless.

There's enough opposition around to the current two party deal within both parties and THAT one has the numbers to absorb minor dissent and get policies through.

Simple facts - The progressive alliance is a nice idea but a pipe dream. It was never going to work, they didn't have the numbers and, crucially, the leadership of the Lib Dems didn't want to deal with Labour anyway. They made it clear throughout the campaign that the Tories were their party of choice. I warned people on here, I believe, that voting for Lib Dem would get you a Tory PM, but sadly the naive fools who voted for that party believed their own hype, failed and have ended up throwing everything away on some vague promises about implementing things "later on".

I know it's hard for you to admit you fucked up by voting Lib Dem and difficult to accept that Clegg and your party leadership always planned to fuck you over like this and dress it up as a victory, but you have to face up to some facts. Eventually.

[David Johnson]

I apologise if you have answered the following question before

"Perhaps you can explain then why a coalition in which everything you voted for has been shelved by the Lib Dems and pretty well everything that other Lib Dems voted for in terms of Lib Dem. defence, nuclear energy, student fees, immigration, foreign policy and education policies has been shelved in return for propping up a whole range of Tory policies REPRESENTS THE LIB DEM voters who voted for these shelved policies better than a confidence and suppy arrangement?"

Can you please provide a link to your answer because I could not find it? It was only in this thread that you admitted that everything you had voted for had been shelved. I am genuinely interested in how throwing out a huge range of Lib Dem policies as part of a coalition serves Lib Dem voters better than not throwing out a huge range of Lib Dem policies as part of a confidence and supply arrangement.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

The simple answer, which I've given more than once, is that had they let the Tories get on with a minority government non Lib Dem policies at all would be on the table and they're inside government. I think that makes them better placed to represent Lib Dem voters better than just giving up.

Is it ideal? No. But it's not a 'shafting'. No one's been hoodwinked by voting Lib Dem.

[David Johnson]

"is that had they let the Tories get on with a minority government non Lib Dem policies at all would be on the table and they're inside government."

I am not sure what the above actually means. It doesn't make much grammatical sense.

If you are talking about a Tory minority government without any arrangement with the Lib Dems, you are correct if what you are saying is that no Lib Dem policies would be on the table.

If you are talking about a Tory minority government with a confidence and supply arrangement with the Lib Dems, which is what I am talking about in my message, you are incorrect.

In the case of confidence and supply, the Lib Dems would support the Tories on their budget and votes of no confidence etc in return for some Lib Dem policies being introduced (otherwise why should the Lib Dems support teh Tory budget?). The difference with a confidence and supply agreement is that the Lib Dems are not tied in closely with the Tories and they can vote against Tory education, nuclear energy etc etc
policies in line with Lib Dem beliefs. The Lib Dems are not allowed to do this as per the terms of the coalition.

Since you may have misunderstood the question I put, can you have another go, please?

""Perhaps you can explain then why a coalition in which everything you voted for has been shelved by the Lib Dems and pretty well everything that other Lib Dems voted for in terms of Lib Dem. defence, nuclear energy, student fees, immigration, foreign policy and education policies has been shelved in return for propping up a whole range of Tory policies REPRESENTS THE LIB DEM voters who voted for these shelved policies better than a confidence and suppy arrangement?"

Cheers
D