It is odd the Dems didn't go for a Brown coalition but could AV really have been introduced without a referendum? doubtful. Brown was also a serious electoral liability as PM, and if I recall correctly Labour weren't willing to move him on, perhaps they preferred letting the Tories and Dems deal with the rest of the crisis and take some of the flak.
It is odd the Dems didn't go for a Brown coalition but could AV really have been introduced without a referendum? doubtful. Brown was also a serious electoral liability as PM, and if I recall correctly Labour weren't willing to move him on, perhaps they preferred letting the Tories and Dems deal with the rest of the crisis and take some of the flak.
The Liberals swore blind they wouldn't raise tuition fees, but then waved not just a raise, but a tripling, through. They then felt it was necessary to say sorry. Then the interest rate on the fees are 6.8%. There could be all kinds of reasoning and explanations, after all politicians are clever lawyers who can construct all kinds of supposed justifications. However the Liberals lied, went back on their word yet assume all you have to do is say sorry and it is all forgiven. That knowledge remains with people. I know they're probably all at it, but their lie, or promise, was so barefaced and was driven by a lust for a bit of power, and the impact has been very widespread. In that context I believe voters avoid the Liberals because you don't know what you're going to get.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
When you say swore blind, I think you mean it was a manifesto declaration they wanted to enact in coalition. This was BEFORE the note ; From the Grauniad ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives.
Which, whilst mere piffle, highlighted the state of the nations finances. something not declared at the time Lib Dems wrote their manifesto.
So a good intention, thwarted by 'global recession' means that a whole political party cannot be taken seriously again?
This is just nuts, but saves lazy voters putting any thought into their choices.
I am far from being a lazy voter. I attend local hustings, I even went to my MP's surgery three weeks ago. I pay attention. The Liberals apologised for what they were a party to, they realised they had broken their word (one which they had made a song and dance about before that election), so why apologise if they could shift the blame? My point is that they damaged trust in themselves, if you think people who feel a bit conned are wrong because they are 'lazy' or refuse to see the bigger picture then of course you must think that, but I am afraid there are many voters who didn't and don't like what happened.
So one manifesto aim unable to be met. Massively overblown by the right/left wing press wanting to keep the status quo. Not quite an illegal war or years of austerity or universal credit is it?
Years later to dismiss a party on that basis looks lazy and ill informed to me. Obviously you feel it is crucial.
It is odd the Dems didn't go for a Brown coalition but could AV really have been introduced without a referendum? doubtful. Brown was also a serious electoral liability as PM, and if I recall correctly Labour weren't willing to move him on, perhaps they preferred letting the Tories and Dems deal with the rest of the crisis and take some of the flak.
Ultimately, the numbers weren't there for one.
It could only have happened in a rainbow coalition but Labour ultimately didn't want one.
I wanted it to happen but the numbers were a few too short for it to be workable. It was common sense. I think the issue was, the Lib Dems were a bit too supportive of the government. They enjoyed having power and it cost them afterwards. Having said that, there is never just one reason.
The Liberals swore blind they wouldn't raise tuition fees, but then waved not just a raise, but a tripling, through. They then felt it was necessary to say sorry. Then the interest rate on the fees are 6.8%. There could be all kinds of reasoning and explanations, after all politicians are clever lawyers who can construct all kinds of supposed justifications. However the Liberals lied, went back on their word yet assume all you have to do is say sorry and it is all forgiven. That knowledge remains with people. I know they're probably all at it, but their lie, or promise, was so barefaced and was driven by a lust for a bit of power, and the impact has been very widespread. In that context I believe voters avoid the Liberals because you don't know what you're going to get.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
When you say swore blind, I think you mean it was a manifesto declaration they wanted to enact in coalition. This was BEFORE the note ; From the Grauniad ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives.
Which, whilst mere piffle, highlighted the state of the nations finances. something not declared at the time Lib Dems wrote their manifesto.
So a good intention, thwarted by 'global recession' means that a whole political party cannot be taken seriously again?
This is just nuts, but saves lazy voters putting any thought into their choices.
I am far from being a lazy voter. I attend local hustings, I even went to my MP's surgery three weeks ago. I pay attention. The Liberals apologised for what they were a party to, they realised they had broken their word (one which they had made a song and dance about before that election), so why apologise if they could shift the blame? My point is that they damaged trust in themselves, if you think people who feel a bit conned are wrong because they are 'lazy' or refuse to see the bigger picture then of course you must think that, but I am afraid there are many voters who didn't and don't like what happened.
So one manifesto aim unable to be met. Massively overblown by the right/left wing press wanting to keep the status quo. Not quite an illegal war or years of austerity or universal credit is it?
Years later to dismiss a party on that basis looks lazy and ill informed to me. Obviously you feel it is crucial.
Not crucial. I am discussing why a lot of voters find it hard to trust a Liberal.
The Liberals swore blind they wouldn't raise tuition fees, but then waved not just a raise, but a tripling, through. They then felt it was necessary to say sorry. Then the interest rate on the fees are 6.8%. There could be all kinds of reasoning and explanations, after all politicians are clever lawyers who can construct all kinds of supposed justifications. However the Liberals lied, went back on their word yet assume all you have to do is say sorry and it is all forgiven. That knowledge remains with people. I know they're probably all at it, but their lie, or promise, was so barefaced and was driven by a lust for a bit of power, and the impact has been very widespread. In that context I believe voters avoid the Liberals because you don't know what you're going to get.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
When you say swore blind, I think you mean it was a manifesto declaration they wanted to enact in coalition. This was BEFORE the note ; From the Grauniad ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives.
Which, whilst mere piffle, highlighted the state of the nations finances. something not declared at the time Lib Dems wrote their manifesto.
So a good intention, thwarted by 'global recession' means that a whole political party cannot be taken seriously again?
This is just nuts, but saves lazy voters putting any thought into their choices.
I am far from being a lazy voter. I attend local hustings, I even went to my MP's surgery three weeks ago. I pay attention. The Liberals apologised for what they were a party to, they realised they had broken their word (one which they had made a song and dance about before that election), so why apologise if they could shift the blame? My point is that they damaged trust in themselves, if you think people who feel a bit conned are wrong because they are 'lazy' or refuse to see the bigger picture then of course you must think that, but I am afraid there are many voters who didn't and don't like what happened.
So one manifesto aim unable to be met. Massively overblown by the right/left wing press wanting to keep the status quo. Not quite an illegal war or years of austerity or universal credit is it?
Years later to dismiss a party on that basis looks lazy and ill informed to me. Obviously you feel it is crucial.
Not crucial. I am discussing why a lot of voters find it hard to trust a Liberal.
Does anyone really trust any political party? Don’t think in nearly 30 years of voting age I ever have!
Henry can party with his Lib Dem chums - and bemoan the fact that nobody will vote for them. And never quite undertsand why! It is becoming clear from statements from all parties that the house will not accept a hard Brexit. May is driving into the wall and us remainers have to let her.
BTW, the reason I was hoping for a failed coup against the Prime Minister, is there is going to be a point after the plan is defeated, where the hard Brexiters will be faced with supporting a second reading of May's plan or a referendum - they are hoping we will crash out, but if that doesn't happen, it is better they burn the bridges by the time that vote comes.
Yet again @MuttleyCAFC you have to make up someone else's politics to put them in a little box so you can ignore what they say. Typical far left tactics where everyone derided as a Red Tory/Blairite/Centralist.
Also very hypocritical when you were calling for less name calling and nastiness.
At least May proved to me yesterday, what I always felt about her, which is she is a typical Middle class boomer racist. Horrible comments yesterday about jumping the queue. These people haven't cheated anyone, that's what she was getting at.
The fact that someone wrote that speech and that, presumably, it went through several hands before she ultimately delivered it proves it was a deliberate play to the Brexiteer base. Doubling down on anti-immigrant sentiment, regardless of the actual truth, is sadly very successful.
Henry can party with his Lib Dem chums - and bemoan the fact that nobody will vote for them. And never quite undertsand why! It is becoming clear from statements from all parties that the house will not accept a hard Brexit. May is driving into the wall and us remainers have to let her.
BTW, the reason I was hoping for a failed coup against the Prime Minister, is there is going to be a point after the plan is defeated, where the hard Brexiters will be faced with supporting a second reading of May's plan or a referendum - they are hoping we will crash out, but if that doesn't happen, it is better they burn the bridges by the time that vote comes.
Yet again @MuttleyCAFC you have to make up someone else's politics to put them in a little box so you can ignore what they say. Typical far left tactics where everyone derided as a Red Tory/Blairite/Centralist.
Also very hypocritical when you were calling for less name calling and nastiness.
For the record I've never been a Liberal Democrat
I love the way you accuse people of doing what you do all the time. I mean what is constantly accusing people who support something different to you of being a cultist? I am, with a smile on my face, simply playing you at your own game. The smile is that you are probably the only one who can't see it! It doesn't bother me if you chose to LOL every post, I am trying to build up my LOLs so they are more balanced to my likes as it worries me that I have no sense of humour
The Liberals swore blind they wouldn't raise tuition fees, but then waved not just a raise, but a tripling, through. They then felt it was necessary to say sorry. Then the interest rate on the fees are 6.8%. There could be all kinds of reasoning and explanations, after all politicians are clever lawyers who can construct all kinds of supposed justifications. However the Liberals lied, went back on their word yet assume all you have to do is say sorry and it is all forgiven. That knowledge remains with people. I know they're probably all at it, but their lie, or promise, was so barefaced and was driven by a lust for a bit of power, and the impact has been very widespread. In that context I believe voters avoid the Liberals because you don't know what you're going to get.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
When you say swore blind, I think you mean it was a manifesto declaration they wanted to enact in coalition. This was BEFORE the note ; From the Grauniad ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives.
Which, whilst mere piffle, highlighted the state of the nations finances. something not declared at the time Lib Dems wrote their manifesto.
So a good intention, thwarted by 'global recession' means that a whole political party cannot be taken seriously again?
This is just nuts, but saves lazy voters putting any thought into their choices.
I am far from being a lazy voter. I attend local hustings, I even went to my MP's surgery three weeks ago. I pay attention. The Liberals apologised for what they were a party to, they realised they had broken their word (one which they had made a song and dance about before that election), so why apologise if they could shift the blame? My point is that they damaged trust in themselves, if you think people who feel a bit conned are wrong because they are 'lazy' or refuse to see the bigger picture then of course you must think that, but I am afraid there are many voters who didn't and don't like what happened.
So one manifesto aim unable to be met. Massively overblown by the right/left wing press wanting to keep the status quo. Not quite an illegal war or years of austerity or universal credit is it?
Years later to dismiss a party on that basis looks lazy and ill informed to me. Obviously you feel it is crucial.
Not crucial. I am discussing why a lot of voters find it hard to trust a Liberal.
Does anyone really trust any political party? Don’t think in nearly 30 years of voting age I ever have!
It's more to do with voting for the party who is most likely to beat the party you hate. I imagine 9 out of 10 voters vote against a party than vote for one.
As for the Lib Dems, they played the voting reform/Lords reform/tuition fees poorly. They should have shelved the Lords reform and concentrated on a proper system of PR and pushed it through the Commons without a referendum.
Tuition fees was a disaster. Nick Clegg and co were bound by collective ministerial responsibility to vote for it but they should have coordinated with the others to vote it down despite the 3 line whip. It certainly wouldn't have brought the coalition down. Instead they pushed it through on the false promise of electoral and Lords reform.
I've said it before on this thread, but the idea that European nationals get priority or 'jump the queue' over essential workers in countless other countries doesn't work for me.
We should have a far more global view on immigration.
'Jump the queue' is offensively worded, but it's a shame that it's detracted a view from a good point she was trying to make.
I've said it before on this thread, but the idea that European nationals get priority or 'jump the queue' over essential workers in countless other countries doesn't work for me.
We should have a far more global view on immigration.
'Jump the queue' is offensively worded, but it's a shame that it's detracted a view from a good point she was trying to make.
and you probably think freedom of movement is a one way street, or do you think British workers in the EU should be treated with the same contempt?
Henry can party with his Lib Dem chums - and bemoan the fact that nobody will vote for them. And never quite undertsand why! It is becoming clear from statements from all parties that the house will not accept a hard Brexit. May is driving into the wall and us remainers have to let her.
BTW, the reason I was hoping for a failed coup against the Prime Minister, is there is going to be a point after the plan is defeated, where the hard Brexiters will be faced with supporting a second reading of May's plan or a referendum - they are hoping we will crash out, but if that doesn't happen, it is better they burn the bridges by the time that vote comes.
Yet again @MuttleyCAFC you have to make up someone else's politics to put them in a little box so you can ignore what they say. Typical far left tactics where everyone derided as a Red Tory/Blairite/Centralist.
Also very hypocritical when you were calling for less name calling and nastiness.
For the record I've never been a Liberal Democrat
I love the way you accuse people of doing what you do all the time. I mean what is constantly accusing people who support something different to you of being a cultist? I am, with a smile on my face, simply playing you at your own game. The smile is that you are probably the only one who can't see it! It doesn't bother me if you chose to LOL every post, I am trying to build up my LOLs so they are more balanced to my likes as it worries me that I have no sense of humour
In a few years time you and many others will shuffle your feet and look at the ground whenever people mention the cult of Corbyn. You will be too embarrassed to admit you were a paid up member of the cult and will claim you always had doubts about his anti-semitism, his backing from terror groups and his pro-Brexit stance.
I've said it before on this thread, but the idea that European nationals get priority or 'jump the queue' over essential workers in countless other countries doesn't work for me.
We should have a far more global view on immigration.
'Jump the queue' is offensively worded, but it's a shame that it's detracted a view from a good point she was trying to make.
and you probably think freedom of movement is a one way street, or do you think British workers in the EU should be treated with the same contempt?
I can't speak for Theresa May, but I doubt that she deliberately wanted to treat existing EU nationals in the UK with 'contempt' but it was worded extremely poorly and I get the offence it has caused. As far as I've seen EU nationals can apply for Leave to Remain and can stay in the UK. I hope British Nationals working abroad will be given the same opportunity.
But to flip your point, and use your own phrase and mirror your baseless assumptions... 'you probably think' that freedom of movement in Europe is more important than a fairer, global immigration system. Does that make you xenophobic to non-Europeans?
If unskilled workers from the EU are able to easily migrate here but skilled in demand workers from outside the EU have a harder time then that's well within the purview of the Home Office to manage. There was absolutely nothing stopping the Home Office from introducing a fast track points based system for skilled workers outside the EU.
Instead we have a Home Office that is actively operating a "hostile environment" policy and banning plenty of skilled or temporary migrants/visitors (such as visiting scientists/artists/musicians/lecturers) for entirely nebulous reasons.
And no, EU workers do not "jump the queue" or get preferential treatment. We have an entirely reciprocal agreement with the other nations in the EEA that is the result of years of work and negotiations.
I've said it before on this thread, but the idea that European nationals get priority or 'jump the queue' over essential workers in countless other countries doesn't work for me.
We should have a far more global view on immigration.
'Jump the queue' is offensively worded, but it's a shame that it's detracted a view from a good point she was trying to make.
When was that?
Tories don't want, and never have wanted to control immigration because it will undermine economic performance. What they have repeatedly done over my lifetime is sound like they want to, because they think there is votes in it.
Its rarer than rocking horse shit to hear a Tory talking of the positive advantages to our country of freedom of movement. The right of my children to work & live in 27 plus, other countries.
Comments
Years later to dismiss a party on that basis looks lazy and ill informed to me.
Obviously you feel it is crucial.
Also very hypocritical when you were calling for less name calling and nastiness.
For the record I've never been a Liberal Democrat
Edit as neatly proved by mutley the hypocrite LOLing my last two posts
Plus ca change as the French have it.
Same arguments, similar Parliamentary arithmatic. 71 The Vote to Go In
As for the Lib Dems, they played the voting reform/Lords reform/tuition fees poorly. They should have shelved the Lords reform and concentrated on a proper system of PR and pushed it through the Commons without a referendum.
Tuition fees was a disaster. Nick Clegg and co were bound by collective ministerial responsibility to vote for it but they should have coordinated with the others to vote it down despite the 3 line whip. It certainly wouldn't have brought the coalition down. Instead they pushed it through on the false promise of electoral and Lords reform.
We should have a far more global view on immigration.
'Jump the queue' is offensively worded, but it's a shame that it's detracted a view from a good point she was trying to make.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46267684
But to flip your point, and use your own phrase and mirror your baseless assumptions... 'you probably think' that freedom of movement in Europe is more important than a fairer, global immigration system. Does that make you xenophobic to non-Europeans?
Instead we have a Home Office that is actively operating a "hostile environment" policy and banning plenty of skilled or temporary migrants/visitors (such as visiting scientists/artists/musicians/lecturers) for entirely nebulous reasons.
And no, EU workers do not "jump the queue" or get preferential treatment. We have an entirely reciprocal agreement with the other nations in the EEA that is the result of years of work and negotiations.
Tories don't want, and never have wanted to control immigration because it will undermine economic performance. What they have repeatedly done over my lifetime is sound like they want to, because they think there is votes in it.
Its rarer than rocking horse shit to hear a Tory talking of the positive advantages to our country of freedom of movement. The right of my children to work & live in 27 plus, other countries.