Why the lib-dems are shit

[TAE]

Have a check of the record on intimidating workers and strikers that Ian Wright's - secret payer into Nick Clegg's personal bank account - company Diageo has:

Nice use of the word 'secret' there to make it sound sinister.

According to the Lib Dems' figures, Mr Clegg paid £20,437.30 into party coffers between March 2006 and February 2008 for staffing costs. The figures appear to show Mr Clegg was left £747.30 out of pocket as a result of the arrangement.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Churchill-to-Nazi-in-a.6248368.jp

 

[Beanburger]

What i'm not supportive of is this complacency that PR will operate as a Panacea

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

nobody's advocating PR as a panacea

 

[butchersapron]

Who's said that? Both me and others have readily described the proposed form of PR as shit. Baby steps.

Baby step where and to what? How long will they take?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

PR will save us - just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland, Ireland etc - all in great shape.

Or Slovakia where the Labour Party's allies govern in coalition with the equivelant of the BNP. For social democracy and no filthy gypsies.

Yeah PR would go a long way to readressing power imbalances in the UK. The Greens would be able to support a Liberal/Tory coalition (hello Leeds) or a violent warmongering and immigrant scapegoating Labour one (hello Germany).

The only good thing about PR is that Dave Nellist would get a good wage the majority of which he would donate to worker's movement causes. But that is not enough to justify support for the Trade Union attacking Clegg, as I'm sure Dave would be the first to agree.

 

[Beanburger]

Well no, it's a model of PR, albeit one designed to be friendly to forming majorities

... which isn't a model that's on the table here.

- precisely as many people have suggested introducing to this country

Who? Labour and the Lib Dems aren't advocating systems of PR that are likely to deliver clear single-party majorities.

You mean where they supported cuts in social spending, pensions etc and roll back of the welfare state and supported foreign military interventions?

Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.

 

[butchersapron]

Nice use of the word 'secret' there to make it sound sinister.

Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post - it wasn't at all about Nick Clegg being funded by executives of companies that threaten workers and strickers who protest the unjustified shutting down of their workplace at all. No, no.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.

To be fair on balance, they probably had the same sort of positive influence on government in Germany, that the remaining progressive wing of Labour had here, and the same sort of negative influence - IE providing a "left" cover for an anti working class government.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post

That seems to be a trend among the Libdem voting cowards.

 

[butchersapron]

... which isn't a model that's on the table here.

Who? Labour and the Lib Dems aren't advocating systems of PR that are likely to deliver clear single-party majorities.

No models are on the table here yet - which means none of them are ruled out either thank you. Many supporters of both pure PR and pure FPTP have advocated a half-way house model as a compromise.

Oh yeah, that's all the greens ever did in Germany. Silly me.

Is that not enough? I'd think doing that sort of stuff doesn't really demonstrate a small party being able to pull a large party left-wards but the large party pulling the small one rightwards (see also the Greens recent coalition in Tasmania)

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

What, this one?



There's not much to answer there really is there? To steal a phrase from Butchers (who will no doubt savage me now), it's drivel.

The bit about waitng - I'm still waiting for you to answer it.

The problem is, if you do you'll be forced to admit that you're a lazy do-nothing who expects things to be handed to him on a plate presumably, at least judging by your posts so far. Fair enough if I'm wrong, I apologise.

 

[Corax]

Baby step where and to what? How long will they take?

I've got an answer for that, but first I'd like to see your alternative. You've been asked this lots of times now.

 

[butchersapron]

I've got an answer for that, but first I'd like to see your alternative. You've been asked this lots of times now.

To what FFS? Can you please ask a question with some content? We're back at the sort of idiocy encountered earlier in the thread that if you attack the lib-dems you must want the tories or labour to win. What is it that my alternative is supposed to be the alternative to?

 

[TAE]

Wow you really picked up on the important part of that post - it wasn't at all about Nick Clegg being funded by executives of companies that threaten workers and strickers who protest the unjustified shutting down of their workplace at all. No, no.

I picked up on the fact that you want to make him look as bad as you can - we all know that - and posted an article which adds a bit of balance to the "personal bank account" accusation.

Also "executives of companies [which have (another) executive(s)] that threaten workers" is a bit of a tenous link and sounds almost like "evidence of WMD related program activities".

 

[Corax]

To what FFS? Can you please ask a question with some content? We're back at the sort of idiocy encountered earlier in the thread that if you attack the lib-dems you must want the tories or labour to win. What is it that my alternative is supposed to be the alternative to?

What's your position on the election Butchers?

Vote Labour?
Vote Libdem?
Vote Bullingdon?
Vote minority?
Spoil?

You're producing plenty of bile, but I can't ascertain the purpose.

.

 

[butchersapron]

I picked up on the fact that you want to make him look as bad as you can - we all know that - and posted an article which adds a bit of balance to the "personal bank account" accusation.

Also "executives of companies [which have (another) executive(s)] that threaten workers" is a bit of a tenous link and sounds almost like "evidence of WMD related program activities".

Are you suggesting that he's not a chief executive of Diageo? He is you know - here's their executive committee including the man himself.

Did you find out what you needed about Nick Clegg's membership of the Cambridge tories yet?

 

[butchersapron]

.

You mean my alternative to voting lib-dem? Don't vote.

 

[Corax]

You mean my alternative to voting lib-dem? Don't vote.

Okay. What's that going to achieve, realistically?

 

[butchersapron]

Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.

 

[Corax]

Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Okay. What's that going to achieve, realistically?

It's not going to achieve anything.

However if your vote did mean something, and the Libdems got influence on government, then we would expect to see more attacks on the "overpowerful" trade unions, among various other goodies.

 

[gentlegreen]

Exactly the same as you voting, You've just been moaning above that your vote means nothing. Guess what - neither does mine.

So what do you reckon ?

Are the Libdems in with a chance in our constituency ?

 

[butchersapron]

So what do you reckon ?

Are the Libdems in with a chance in our constituency ?

They've got a much better chance then a few weeks back that's for sure - but i can't see them coming up with a 100% increase on their vote on a probably higher turnout, especially not when the tories are better placed to offer a challenge as well. And KM remains baffling popular locally. I think labour are still very strong favs.

 

[sihhi]

because they are pro-war:

"The threat of war now looms over us all. Increasingly it seems we shall see conflict very soon, perhaps next week and probably without a second UN resolution authorising the use of force. When war comes, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats will be backing our troops. We supported the deployment to the Gulf in support of UN Resolution 1441. If they are now asked to risk their lives for their country and for all of us, they will have our unqualified support. They are in the Gulf region to deal with a dangerous and brutal tyrant-Saddam Hussein. Iraq must be disarmed"

 

[TAE]

Are you suggesting that he's not a chief executive of Diageo?

Why would I ?

Did you find out what you needed about Nick Clegg's membership of the Cambridge tories yet?

No, been a bit busy, I'll have a look now.

 

[TAE]

The discussion tab on Wiki is always very interesting when looking at controvertial issues:

Greg hands has alleged that Clegg was briefly a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. Theres a copy of a membership list on Hands blog and it's been mentioned in quite a few diary pieces in the print media, but these aren't really suitable for use as a reference. Has anyone seen anything anywhere that might corroborate this information?

I don't think that there are any, or that any reliable sources would print it, unless Nick confirms the story. I would support including that information iff such verification happened. RossEnglish 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:N...hip_of_Conservative_Association_at_university

So it's the then chairman of this terrible group which is now making these accusations. It seems his hand written piece of paper is the only evidence there is.

BTW, here's a much better scan of the alleged membership list:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/06/cuca_msp_list_amended.jpg


So I hit google and all the newspaper stories go back to this one person - a Tory MP - making an accusation against Nick Clegg based on this piece of paper:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/nick-cleggs-tor.html

I'm not saying he is lying, as I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I'm not necessarily going to trust the ex-Chairman of CUCA either.

 

[paulhackett]

I'm not saying he is lying, as I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I'm not necessarily going to trust the ex-Chairman of CUCA either.

There's a lot of doorstepping and cold contacting people by papers like the Mail trying to add flesh to any 'allegation' at the moment.. anyone on that list will have been contacted recently and asked to comment.

 

[tbaldwin]

because they are pro-war:

True i heard they want to give trident to North Korea and cut pensions so they can help Iran build more nuclear weapons.
Apparently they are going to cut child benefit so that they can give more money to illegal immigrants to stage cock fighting on tower bridge.

 

[butchersapron]

The discussion tab on Wiki is always very interesting when looking at controvertial issues:


So it's the then chairman of this terrible group which is now making these accusations. It seems his hand written piece of paper is the only evidence there is.

BTW, here's a much better scan of the alleged membership list:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/06/cuca_msp_list_amended.jpg


So I hit google and all the newspaper stories go back to this one person - a Tory MP - making an accusation against Nick Clegg based on this piece of paper:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/nick-cleggs-tor.html

I'm not saying he is lying, as I have no evidence to back up such a claim, but I'm not necessarily going to trust the ex-Chairman of CUCA either.

I told you that it was him who'd provided the list days ago -and of course all the links to the evidence go back to him as he's the one who provided it (how many other people do you think would have such records?) - after it being hinted at by one of Clegg's fellow Lib-dems during the leadership election campaign. I've posted all this already. If you think he's trying to smear Clegg with falsehoods he's not making much of an effort is he? He even goes to some lengths to play it down on the article from 2 years ago (yes, it's not a new attempt to get Clegg since the lib-dem surge) - and it hasn't been brought back up since.

 

[TAE]

I told you that it was him who'd provided the list days ago

Indeed, you said:

Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.

However, you saying "Seriously, google the story - it's kosher" lead me to expect that there might be lots of corroborating information on the web, but there isn't.

If you think he's trying to smear Clegg with falsehoods he's not making much of an effort is he?

It's been in enough newspapers.

 

[butchersapron]

What - recently? I can find one single passing mention.