Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

Someone please dig up a record of him joining the young tories at uni and then sell it to the Sun or something. Please.
 
JHE said:
Try to set aside your dreary notion that the issue of electoral reform should be decided on the basis of whether or not it offers an immediate advantage to the remnants of the Labour left.
Click to expand...

You should try learning to read before replying to people's postings on here. Where have I phrased any point in relation to "the remnants of the Labour left"? I deliberately phrased to encompass either a socialist Labour Party or some other party.

The only point of being involved in politics that I can see is to further your views and interests. Only one question matters: does this idea further the cause of working class control of society? In this case, I don't think it would make a jot of difference. Therefore, I don't care.
 
Of course it matters if they're a beneficiary of that privilege and have defended it and said they'd be willing to put transmit that privilege to their kids. It's utterly relevant.
 
frogwoman said:
Someone please dig up a record of him joining the young tories at uni and then sell it to the Sun or something. Please.
Click to expand...

Nick Clegg, Cambridge University Conservative Association:

cucatory.jpg


8th name down on the left.
 
Given that there are MPs that have shifted loyalty whilst ACTUALLY BEING AN MP, I don't think people are going to care that much about which political views somebody held 20 years ago.
 
I care - and more to the point, he's lied about it, said it never happened, said he was almost a marxist at that time. He's a flat out liar. It also demonstrates to those that think the lib-dems share a natural affinity with labour or the left, that they don't. They'll support the tories if it's in their best interests (labour as well, but again with the lib-dems interests being the primary concern). Not a principled bone in the party.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
Oh, you mean changed parties? I was talking in terms of "completely reversed position".
Click to expand...
Yes, I mean changed parties.

If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.
 
kabbes said:
Yes, I mean changed parties.

If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't matter why has he lied about it?

Louis MacNeice
 
Has he lied about it? That scan is hardly convincing proof.

But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse. He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."
 
kabbes said:
Yes, I mean changed parties.

If somebody can go from being a Tory MP to a Labour MP during a single session then somebody joining a different party during their youth 20 years ago isn't even going to register on the shockometer.
Click to expand...

It might if they repeatedly lied about it. Shaun Woodward didn't pretend he was still a tory when he crossed the floor did he?

More to the point, it shows how despite the media-led attempts to get a Nick Clegg Tea Party ball rolling on the basis that he's different, that he's not part of the old gang he is in fact exactly the same - the same lies, the same self-serving careerism - and he's been up to his eyeballs in this shit since he was a kid.
 
kabbes said:
Has he lied about it? That scan is hardly convincing proof.

But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse. He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."
Click to expand...

Yes he has.

Just to highlight his tory links even further, he used to be an advisor to Leon Brittain. I wonder why that could be?
 
kabbes said:
Has he lied about it? That scan is hardly convincing proof.

But if he has lied about it then more fool him, because I don't think many people would actually give much of a rat's arse. He should just say, "Yes, I thought differently when I was young but I've learnt a few things since then."
Click to expand...

Yes he has lied about it; google is your friend. So why should he bother? Perhaps he is concenred to build a credible political backstory that doesn't in reality exist. While you may not think that playing fast and loose with his own personal history is a big deal, part of his appeal is being a trustworthy change from the soiled and failed big two; his real political back story questions both that trustworthiness and his seperation from the big two.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. just saw BA's rather quicker and more succinct reply above.
 
frogwoman said:
He used to be a tory mp as well didn't he?
Click to expand...

Nah.

A report from the lib-dems think tank Centreforum looking into the possibilitity of a tory/lib-dem coalition two years ago concluded that :

to a much greater extent than is commonly understood, it is also the result of a significant congruence of opinion between leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg. These two declared liberals share a vision of a new, ‘post-bureaucratic’ politics in which power is devolved, not just from central to local government, but from government at all levels to individuals, families and communities.
Click to expand...

and that

the Liberal Democrats are today closer to the Conservative Party than they have been for many years.
Click to expand...

This was at a point where it looked like Cameron was going to cruise it, so it can be seen as a desperate attempt to grab onto their coat tails. What do we find today? Well, as if to prove once more that they've not got a principled bone in their bodies the very same think tank now says:

the two parties’ similarities are being wildly overstated, as are the chances of them working together in a formal coalition if the Tories are returned as the largest party in a hung parliament.
Click to expand...

Shameless - absolutely shameless.
 
glenquagmire said:
You should try learning to read before replying to people's postings on here. Where have I phrased any point in relation to "the remnants of the Labour left"? I deliberately phrased to encompass either a socialist Labour Party or some other party.

The only point of being involved in politics that I can see is to further your views and interests. Only one question matters: does this idea further the cause of working class control of society? In this case, I don't think it would make a jot of difference. Therefore, I don't care.
Click to expand...

I didn't misread you at all, you silly sausage. The only good or bad that you are capable of seeing in electoral reform is the advantage it gives or doesn't give to the remnants of the Labour left in the party or, having left, outside, fighting under their own (presumably socialist) flag.

You claim that your cause is "working class control of society", yet you are uninterested in democracy.
 
JHE said:
I didn't misread you at all, you silly sausage. The only good or bad that you are capable of seeing in electoral reform is the advantage it gives or doesn't give to the remnants of the Labour left in the party or, having left, outside, fighting under their own (presumably socialist) flag.

You claim that your cause is "working class control of society", yet you are uninterested in democracy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying your earlier inaccurate statement. It's still not quite right, but near enough.

I am interested in how democracy can serve the cause of socialism, not in democracy per se as some sort of bizarre liberal fetish.
 
paulhackett66 said:
Because his step-daughter was in the same year at school as him?
Click to expand...

Is that right? I'd read it was because Lord Carrington, long term tory politician and family friend of the Cleggs got him the job. I expect both of these elite connections helped him.

(He again denies - today - ever being in the Cambridge University Conservative Association in that linked article btw, and also tells a half truth about his employment under Brittain)
 
glenquagmire said:
Thanks for clarifying your earlier inaccurate statement. It's still not quite right, but near enough.

I am interested in how democracy can serve the cause of socialism, not in democracy per se as some sort of bizarre liberal fetish.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you see democracy and socialism as only instrumentally related. I suspect your sort of socialism would be a grim set-up run by bossy people with party-approved opinions. Most people would have to do what they're told, but it'd be for their own good and in the name of the working clas or the people or something.

The socialism I want has democracy at its nub. It is the extension of democracy over our common life and in particular over what and how and how much we produce and what we then do with and how we distribute our products. Is that really a 'bizarre liberal fetish'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
tim
  • Poll
The kulaks are revolting - does Urban back big farmer?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
261
Views
7K
Funky_monks
F
likesfish
Mark Duggans Son pleads guilty to gun crime
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Spymaster
Spymaster
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
9K
PTK
PTK
nogojones
Mark Drakeford standing down
Replies
28
Views
1K
weltweit
weltweit
Back
Top Bottom