Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

Random said:
No idea? Not something that you even think is important to find out?
Click to expand...

Not particularly - Osborne tried to make out their was a conflict of interest, since services would stand to benefit from more complex electoral arrangements. But he backed down in the end, as he couldn't substantiate it.
 
articul8 said:
Well we could technically have gone into the first ever UK-wide referendum on the voting system by attacking the very idea of it, and threatening not to campaign for a Yes. But the LDs could have called our bluff - you can't very well be the Electoral Reform Society campaigning against electoral reform. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Even when it was a reform that the Society had explicitly said was shit? Except after the referendum was announced and the website was redacted to remove the arguments against it.
 
articul8 said:
hmm...who was responsible for the boundary change fuck up? What is it a) The Tories, b) the Lib Dems, or c) the electoral reform society :D
Click to expand...
Who could have stopped it, who said they were opposed to it. Who agreed to make sure that as far as possibkle that it would happen and that they would be paid to make it happen?

Do you have any idea what you look like to people?
 
butchersapron said:
Who could have stopped it, who said they were opposed to it. Who agreed to make sure that as far as possibkle that it would happen and that they would be paid to make it happen?
Click to expand...
I don't accept that we could have stopped it - and we didn't "pay to make it happen". We wanted the referendum, but were agnostic or critical (opinions differed) about the boundary changes - and suggested that they issues needed to be decoupled.
 
articul8 said:
I don't accept that we could have stopped it - and we didn't "pay to make it happen". We wanted the referendum, but were agnostic or critical (opinions differed) about the boundary changes - and suggested that they issues needed to be decoupled.
Click to expand...
Yes you could, but you didn't have the principles or the bottle.

Can you read - who on earth mentioned you paying for the referendum to happen? I said that you were paid to make sure the thing you were so opposed to happened.
 
This is a stupid argument - I opposed and oppose the boundary changes. I supported holding a referendum on the voting system. I argued they should be decoupled. End of.
 
No, not end of. You helped as far as possible to implement the thing you claim to be opposed to - and as you point out - you took money for it. No matter who or what you called upon or for.
 
Clegg:

Clegg said:
"There's no easy way to say this: We made a pledge, we didn't stick to it - and for that I am sorry. When you've made a mistake you should apologise.

"But more importantly - most important of all - you've got to learn from your mistakes. And that's what we will do.

"I will never again make a pledge unless as a party we are absolutely clear about how we can keep it"
Click to expand...

And literally in the next breath he says the lie was forced on him by labour and the tories.

And the apology only exposes his lies even further - when questioned on an apology over the lie in December 2010 he boasted:

To govern is to choose particularly when there is not very much money and we have chosen and I am not going to apologise for this for one minute.
Click to expand...
 
Even taken at face value which obv you shouldn't he's still digging isn;t he? Saying he had to learn that it's not OK to make false promises, that famously tricky ethical question that has vexed philosophers and priests for so long. And how did he learn? By not getting away with it, as otherwise it's business as usual.
 
Suppose he will apologise next for three line whipping an abstention over a referendum on the EU constitution. A referendum being a manifesto commitment
 
everything he's said since 2010 seems to have been carefully crafted to invite the most ridicule possible. Its hard to believe anyone ever thought him a viable politician.
 
He was youngish and his hideous moral deformities didn't show up on a casual appraisal. His party would have known what they'd signed up for, of course.
 
Clegg" said:
I shouldn't have committed to a policy that was so expensive when there was no money around.
Not least when the most likely way we'd end up in Government was in coalition with Labour or the Conservatives, who were both committed to put fees up.

I know that we fought to get the best policy we could in those circumstances.
But I also realise that isn't the point.
There's no easy way to say this: we made a pledge...
we didn't stick to it - and for that I am sorry.
When you've made a mistake you should apologise.
But more importantly - most important of all - you've got to learn from your mistakes. And that's what we will do.
I will never again make a pledge unless as a party we are absolutely clear about how we can keep it.
Click to expand...


um, logically next election they could only end up in power is again in coalition. And he can only deliver pledges if other parties share the same commitment....so what's the USP? If you want the policies Labour or Conservatives offer, why not just vote Labour or Tory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mentalchik
Why does Football have such a problem with homophobia ?
2
Replies
40
Views
978
8ball
8ball
Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
258
Views
10K
PTK
PTK
likesfish
Mark Duggans Son pleads guilty to gun crime
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Spymaster
Spymaster
N
How does Labour win an election where concerns over immigration, Islamophobia etc are dominant themes?
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Brownlow
B
Back
Top Bottom