Spiffing Lib Dem Con idea

[David Johnson]

Eric
"But you know, the funniest thing about you banging on and on about the LibDems abandoning their principles and how utterly shameful and terrible you think that is, is that you're a supporter of a party that ditched its own 'socialist' principles and 'core values' years ago ."

You miss the point, completely and utterly. The issue is the extent to which a party goes to a specific election on a manifesto and a statement of their beliefs and then changes the vast majority of them one week later. The issue is NOT about what the party may or may not have believed 30 years ago e.g. in Labour's case nationalisation.

Nor is the issue about what is in Iain Dale, Telegraph writer, failed Tory candidate's blog - namely alleged failure to meet statistical targets.

Like a number of forumites you seem totally unable to answer my question.

I repeat "Why the fuck should the Lib Dem party go into coalition with the most right wing government of a generation and agree in a document to vote either for or in a very few cases, abstain, from measures, 90% of which go totally against what the Lib Dems stated in their manifesto one week previously? Go on, have a go at answering it!

To say "they are in a coalition" is a total copout Its a bit like voting for the BNP and finding that one week later they have changed into the Labour party.

By the way, you have obviously got the hang of smileys. Perhaps you can have a go at understanding how threads work? In the situation where we are responding to each other's messages, if you highlight the message that you are responding to and then write your reply, it will be indented.

Maybe you can have a go?

Have a nice day
David

[Flat_Eric]

Dave, you'll have to ask the Cleggster exactly why whe decided to jump into bed with Cameron and not the Tartan Cyclops. It's no good asking me.

We may come from the same city, but I'm not a member of his inner circle. And we're not pals or owt like that. We don't meet up of a weekend for a pie and a pint, then go and have a flutter on the dogs together.

Maybe he just thought that NuLabour were shite (not such a stretch is it !laugh!). Or maybe he wanted a taste of power (which brings us neatly round to "Shock horror: Politician in power bid" !laugh! !laugh!). Maybe it was a bit of both.

And what's this obsession you have with Iain Dale? It's not healthy at all. I mean - I never even mentioned the bloke!!

All I said was google "Labour broken manifesto promises" and that's as far as you got. There's plenty more where that came from.

- Eric

PS: I understand perfectly well how threads work, ta. And yes, I have got the hang of smilies! Some of them are quite fun as well. I particularly like these:

!domme! !deadhorse! !getaroom! !shitstorm! and of course !vamp!

[David Johnson]

Thanks for your in-depth political analysis. And relayed with such humour too. It's been great!

You said
"Or maybe he wanted a taste of power (which brings us neatly round to "Shock horror: Politician in power bid"

Good lad, even though you dont know Cleggie personally, you've got it right, methinks. Hang on though, funny how you feel free to slag off the Labour party about their actions without even knowing Brown isnt it?


And even though you know how to use Google you have not come up with a single list/link whatever that equals the list of Cleggie and the Lib Dems' manifesto betrayals within a week.

Not much cop are you, bonnie lad? More comfortable as the buffoon rather than the bar-room debater, eh?

No more to be said, really. Smiley away, but do try to get the hang of using threads.

Cheers
D

[Flat_Eric]

David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

Dave, you're welcome, me old cocksparra.


David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

Strange logic you're employing there, Dave. I don't **need** to know Broon personally to be aware of the Labour Party's actions (and to subsequently slag them off). Because said **actions** are clear for all to see.

Of course if I want to understand his thinking and motivation as to **why** he decided upon such-and-such a course of action, **then** I may need to sit down with him and have a natter.

See the difference?


David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

Oh dear Dave. And there I was thinking you were actually reading and understanding what I'd typed! !laugh!.

That's because I'm not trying to prove that particular point, or even disputing that Clegg & Co. **did** policy U-turns! Read back through my posts and you'll see that's the case.

My point was simply that this is the nature of coalitions. You handwave that away as a "cop-out" (in true spurned suitor style), which of course is your prerogative. But like it or not, that is how coalitions work.


David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

Now now Dave, that's not very nice is it? Calling fellow forumites names. It's usually the sign of a lost argument. An indication that you're on shaky ground. But not being a vindictive sort of chap, I'll let it slide.


David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

Like I said Dave, I've very much got the hang of them. In fact it's you who appears to be struggling a bit. That's why this time I've laid it out all nice and neat just for you, in a "who said what" kind of way. Hope that helps!

Whipcrackaway !domme!

- Eric

[David Johnson]

Well done. I knew you would get the hang of it! !laugh!

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

Eric
So in short, your argument is "Politicians go back on promises. Politicians in coalitions are allowed to go back on nearly all their promises. I don't know why politicians do this"

Makes me wonder why we bother with a news program at all. I'll drop a line to the Newsnight editor to tell Paxman to sling his hook!

Cheers
D

[Flat_Eric]

David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

We can by all means couch it in such simplistic terms if that makes it easier for you to grasp, Dave.

In which case in "Johnsonspeak", your own position would appear to be something along the lines of "Politicians go back on promises. But it's not so bad if its Labour politicians, because they don't go back on them as quickly."

But even if we do that, you still appear to be struggling to understand what I said.

For instance, where did I imply that they're "allowed" to go back on their promises? They do of course go back on them (whatever party we're talking about, and whether it's in or out of coalitions). Which is of course what I said.

But that's not the same as saying that they're "allowed" to (or that it's "alright" to, which I suspect is what you actually meant when you were attempting to paraphrase me).

I suppose that strictly speaking they are indeed "allowed" to do so, given that manifestos aren't legally binding. But once again, that's not the same as saying that they're necessarily **right** to do so every time, is it?

Nor did I say that "I don't know why" politicians do this. No idea where you got that from Dave. You appear to be making things up now. More desperation perhaps?

But of course they may do so for all manner of reasons: Being overtaken by world events, wars, acts of God, bad book-keeping, economic shortsightedness or (quite often) simply because they're lying, cynical bastards. The reasons are myriad.


David Johnson wrote:

>>

To which Eric replies:

I appreciate the vote of confidence Dave. But really, there's no need. I'm quite happy doing what I'm doing. I can knock off at teatime and the evening's all mine. Besides, I don't really fancy the "celebrity" status: The paps after a scoop, the money, women throwing themselves at me .... I'm not the wild man I once was. More into the quiet life these days.

- Eric

PS: Oooops, sorry. Nearly forgot: !laugh! !grin! !drink! !banana!

[David Johnson]

Err, you have obviously impressed someone. Even if it's only yourself.

I will leave you to bask in the warm glow of your own smug self-satisfaction.

I have no more to say to you, Eric, other than when you have nowt to say next time, try to use a few less words.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]try to use a few less words.[/quote]

You know what's coming....

Do you mean 'fewer words'?

[David Johnson]

Err, you have obviously impressed someone. Even if it's only yourself.

I will leave you to bask in the warm glow of your own smug self-satisfaction.

I have no more to say to you, Sam, other than when you have nowt to say next time, try to use a few less words.

Cheers
D