[quote]Still banging away at that tired, old, totally discredited line, I see.[/quote]
Tired, maybe; discredited, no.
[quote]Even a similarity of views on many issues and the resignation of Brown couldn't get a Lib Dem Labour alliance. The main reason, I suspect, was that many thought the numbers didnt really add up and they felt that they would forever be tarnished with the coalition of the losers tag.[/quote]
So the numbers didn't add up? Neither did the Tories on their own but you've more than once criticised the Lib Dems for not letting the Tories get on with a minority government. I'm glad, however, that you admit Labour backed out of a coalition with the Lib Dems, not due to some unbeknown principles, but to save their own skin. According to myself they backed out because they think it's the best way to win the next election and according to you they were afraid of being labelled a coalition of losers............no doubt that being detrimental to their long-term popularity. You've finally come round.
[quote]Given the vast majority of Lib Dem manifesto measures have been kicked into touch with regard to the economy, education, foreign policy, defence etc. I really dont know why you voted Lib Dem in the first place.[/quote]
Eh? Please read the above quote back to yourself and let me know what you mean. I can't make head nor tail of it.
[quote]As far as I recall all the reasons you originally gave for voting Lib Dem instead of Labour have been more or less scotched by joining the coalition.[/quote]
Most, yes, but not all. The Lib Dems came 3rd in the election. I don't expect them to push every blinking policy through. Again, you still cannot grasp what compromise means. A Tory voter could just as rightly complain of giving the Lib Dems too much. It's still a silly argument anyway, given you obviously didn't get what you wanted either in voting Labour. In fact, regardless of the party you voted for, did anyone get what they wanted?
clegg,what happened to taxing the rich?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[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
Sam's life full of disappointments?
Hi,
You stated
"According to myself they backed out because they think it's the best way to win the next election and according to you they were afraid of being labelled a coalition of losers............no doubt that being detrimental to their long-term popularity. You've finally come round"
First of all, read the message that you are replying to. I use the word "many". My view is that there were people in BOTH Labour and Lib Dems who were a tad uncomfortable with the concept of a party that had lost nearly 100 seats and the Lib Dems who had lost 5 seats forming a coalition keeping out the party that had won nearly 100 seats. Obviously I don't know this for certain. I don't have your crystal ball. The other drawback is that a straight Lib Dem Lab coalition would not have provided a majority.
Your view that the Labour party backed out of a coalition with the Lib Dems which left the Lib Dems with no alternative but to form a coalition with the Tories is very much the cornerstone of your argument these last few weeks.
Unfortunately, it doesn't tally with what the Lib Dems themselves say. I have listened to a number of interviews with the likes of Cleggie and Cable after the Lib Dem Tory coalition was announced in which they came out with the same reason I have outlined above, together with the view that the Lib Dems couldnt really see the coalition hanging together given it depended on the involvement of a number of other parties apart from the Lib Dems and Labour.
So the question I ask myself is why does Sam continue with this line even though the Lib Dem leadership doesnt seem to support him?
I suspect the answer to this is that you cannot bear the thought that the Blessed Cleggie and the Lib Dem leadership decided that they had a much better long term opportunity in keeping in power by joining with the party that won by far the most seats, the Tories. Here was a party who you would rather eat your face off being selected as a better bet for the Lib Dems as coalition partners.
I noticed you did not respond to my challenge to pull out the reasons you stated prior to the election for your voting Lib Dem as opposed to Labour. You merely stated that this is a compromise, one of your favourite words for dealing with personal disappointments, namely your own.
So to help you out, I have done it for you. Invoice in the post. I have provided a commentary in bold
First of all, from an economic point of view you preferred Gordon Brown and you supported the Lib Dem/Labour view that ?6 billion of cuts should not take place in the first year (shafted there then by the Lib Dems. Soon as they got in to power the Lib Dems agreed with the Tory plan which Cleggie argued would lead to a double dip recession)
But I'm disappointed with Labour about other things. I don't want trident ( bloody hell, nul points again for the Lib Dems, they are likely to go ahead with it but with a review of costs) , they've not done enough to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, they let the banking system become too powerful ( oh dear, the Lib Dems have agreed that the employees will pay the national insurance increase, but not the employers and that nice Vince Cable has been told he is not in charge of bank reforms and with regard to taking people on below 10,000 out of tax altogether, this has become a "longer term objective" .....and I don't like Labour's policy on immigration. I prefer the Lib Dems' policy of amnesty for those that have been here a long time, and want to contribute to our society. I actually think Labour think this is a good policy too, but are too scared of what the general public think. That's why I admired Clegg's standing....refusing to back down on his principles in spite of the public's opinion while he was being judged on national tv. ( bloody hell, Sam, you have lost out again, the amnesty has been kicked in to touch, the very thing that you admired Cleggie for doing "refusing to back down on his principles, he has actually done!!!!!.
In the end I realised that there were more policies I agreed with the Lib Dems on than Labour. I didn't agree with Lib Dem policies on europe, the war, and their blank refusal to build more nuclear power stations (no worries there then, because the Lib Dems have backed down on foreign policy altogether and they have that nice anti-nuclear power chap Chris Huhne to introduce the legislation for nuclear power stations but I knew they wouldn't take us into the Euro without a referendum (no worries there, the Lib Dems have dropped the idea of the euro whilst in the coalition, thank Christ)
Yeah, well anyway, the Lib Dems are cleaning up Parliament on the subject of expenses aren't they? oh dear, best change the subject
Life's a bitch eh Sam, and then it gets worse.
Cheers
D
You stated
"According to myself they backed out because they think it's the best way to win the next election and according to you they were afraid of being labelled a coalition of losers............no doubt that being detrimental to their long-term popularity. You've finally come round"
First of all, read the message that you are replying to. I use the word "many". My view is that there were people in BOTH Labour and Lib Dems who were a tad uncomfortable with the concept of a party that had lost nearly 100 seats and the Lib Dems who had lost 5 seats forming a coalition keeping out the party that had won nearly 100 seats. Obviously I don't know this for certain. I don't have your crystal ball. The other drawback is that a straight Lib Dem Lab coalition would not have provided a majority.
Your view that the Labour party backed out of a coalition with the Lib Dems which left the Lib Dems with no alternative but to form a coalition with the Tories is very much the cornerstone of your argument these last few weeks.
Unfortunately, it doesn't tally with what the Lib Dems themselves say. I have listened to a number of interviews with the likes of Cleggie and Cable after the Lib Dem Tory coalition was announced in which they came out with the same reason I have outlined above, together with the view that the Lib Dems couldnt really see the coalition hanging together given it depended on the involvement of a number of other parties apart from the Lib Dems and Labour.
So the question I ask myself is why does Sam continue with this line even though the Lib Dem leadership doesnt seem to support him?
I suspect the answer to this is that you cannot bear the thought that the Blessed Cleggie and the Lib Dem leadership decided that they had a much better long term opportunity in keeping in power by joining with the party that won by far the most seats, the Tories. Here was a party who you would rather eat your face off being selected as a better bet for the Lib Dems as coalition partners.
I noticed you did not respond to my challenge to pull out the reasons you stated prior to the election for your voting Lib Dem as opposed to Labour. You merely stated that this is a compromise, one of your favourite words for dealing with personal disappointments, namely your own.
So to help you out, I have done it for you. Invoice in the post. I have provided a commentary in bold
First of all, from an economic point of view you preferred Gordon Brown and you supported the Lib Dem/Labour view that ?6 billion of cuts should not take place in the first year (shafted there then by the Lib Dems. Soon as they got in to power the Lib Dems agreed with the Tory plan which Cleggie argued would lead to a double dip recession)
But I'm disappointed with Labour about other things. I don't want trident ( bloody hell, nul points again for the Lib Dems, they are likely to go ahead with it but with a review of costs) , they've not done enough to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, they let the banking system become too powerful ( oh dear, the Lib Dems have agreed that the employees will pay the national insurance increase, but not the employers and that nice Vince Cable has been told he is not in charge of bank reforms and with regard to taking people on below 10,000 out of tax altogether, this has become a "longer term objective" .....and I don't like Labour's policy on immigration. I prefer the Lib Dems' policy of amnesty for those that have been here a long time, and want to contribute to our society. I actually think Labour think this is a good policy too, but are too scared of what the general public think. That's why I admired Clegg's standing....refusing to back down on his principles in spite of the public's opinion while he was being judged on national tv. ( bloody hell, Sam, you have lost out again, the amnesty has been kicked in to touch, the very thing that you admired Cleggie for doing "refusing to back down on his principles, he has actually done!!!!!.
In the end I realised that there were more policies I agreed with the Lib Dems on than Labour. I didn't agree with Lib Dem policies on europe, the war, and their blank refusal to build more nuclear power stations (no worries there then, because the Lib Dems have backed down on foreign policy altogether and they have that nice anti-nuclear power chap Chris Huhne to introduce the legislation for nuclear power stations but I knew they wouldn't take us into the Euro without a referendum (no worries there, the Lib Dems have dropped the idea of the euro whilst in the coalition, thank Christ)
Yeah, well anyway, the Lib Dems are cleaning up Parliament on the subject of expenses aren't they? oh dear, best change the subject
Life's a bitch eh Sam, and then it gets worse.
Cheers
D