Why Liberal/Conservative talks are going well....

[randyandy]

Funny how times change:

[David Johnson]

Thanks Randyandy
I particularly like this phrase from the Blessed Cleggie

"My argument is simple: if progressives are to avoid being marginalised by an ideologically barren Conservative party, bereft of any discernible convictions other than a sense of entitlement that it is now their turn to govern, then the progressive forces in British politics must regroup under a new banner. I believe that liberalism offers the rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain."

cHeers
D

[Sam Slater]

Still a peculiar analogy. I don't know how many times babies steal the toys of babysitters. Maybe in your world; that same world where Labour can play around with the country's hopes and still be a party you're proud to have voted for - a strange world.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Ignore PR it appears to be causing you problems.[/quote]

I don't think so. It was you who implied most people wouldn't even understand what PR was, giving me the impression you wasn't so sure either. If anyone is having problems, it is you quoting me without understanding the context those quotes were typed in.

[quote]Try to answer this question without mentioning the words "bottling" or "Pr". Difficult for you, I know.[/quote]

There you go again with the personal attacks when you can't get your way. Implying your opponent is stupid, or naive, or delusional in some way. I know when you do this it hints at frustration.

As for your questions: I don't think I'll answer them. Now, you can look back on my posts over 6-7 years and know I don't back down on challenges. I'm pretty confident that during our debates I've answered many, if not all, of those questions already. That's one reason. The second is that your previous post centred around quoting me entirely out of context and when I pointed this out you've not even had the grace to admit this error and, instead, moved on to yet more 'points' I supposedly need to address. And lastly, your last question is unanswerable as I can only give thoughts on what the Lib Dems' motivations were. I have no idea and neither do you. But again, in my numerous posts with you and Bob I have, I think, clearly given my views on Lib Dem motives.

I hope you recognise my points for I do not want to leave you dissatisfied in any way when explaining my side of the argument.

[number 6]

Clegg is noe exposed as a lying,power at all costs con man. How his party have gone along with supporting a right wing govt is beyond me.

[David Johnson]

I said

"Try to answer this question without mentioning the words "bottling" or "Pr". Difficult for you, I know.

You said
"There you go again with the personal attacks when you can't get your way. Implying your opponent is stupid, or naive, or delusional in some way. I know when you do this it hints at frustration"

Sam, you posted something of the order of about 20 messages over the last day or so which mention exactly the same point about the Labour Party offering PR and bottling it.

Even though myself and Bob have pointed out numerous times that you have no firm evidence for this and you could just as easily, if not more easily, argue that other factors such as "coalition of the losers", Labour losing 100 seats, no Labour prime minister who took part in the debates, dodgy Rainbow coalition etc etc caused the talks to fall apart, you still carry on regardless.

I had to mention it because I figured if I didnt I would get exactly the same message about PR and bottling it as to the umpteen other messages posted by you in response to me and Bob's comments as well as others.

Simples!

D

[Sam Slater]

You're accusing me of gathering circumstantial evidence and coming to conclusions without any firm evidence? Really? I remember one poster -I forget his name- that did the exact same thing when calling Clegg a hypocrite for apparently using expenses as an MEP to pay off a mortgage (directly or indirectly). If only I could remember the poster's name! Can you help me out, David?

I don't disagree that I don't have much evidence to back up my opinion that Labour bottled out of PR. And in my defence, I think I've expressed more than once with you and Bob that this was just my view. As you've pointed out, I've posted over 20 messages and in all those I'm sure I've pointed to interviews, columns and god knows what else to lay out my line of thought surrounding it all. You don't agree and that's fine. I have no real evidence and I admit it. But I wouldn't get too excited about me accusing people without real evidence unless you know you've never sinned yourself....he who casts the first stone, and all that!