Why the lib-dems are shit

[Pickman's model]

yes we can

 

[Sgt Howie]

Clegg last night had the sheer effrontery to claim the condems will increase social mobility

They will. Downwards.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They will. Downwards.

The question is: Will the descent remain at the same pitch as under "new" Labour, or will the decline become sharper?

I'm guessing, given the scope of the CSR cuts, and other policies that the coalition has, that it's the latter.

 

[butchersapron]

Anyone remember that astute commentator Julian Glovers spot-on advice to Nick Clegg:

"Hug students close"

He's now been warned by his security team not to go cycling or he's likely to be physically attacked by students.

 

[Citizen66]

oh but, of course, silly me, they're actually stopping the tories from doing far worse

I've got a great idea. Instead of forming a coalition with the Labour Party, we'll let the Tories have a crack at it and just water down the nastiness...

 

[butchersapron]

Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.

However, I also believe that all of us involved in this debate have a greater responsibility to ensure that we do not let our genuinely held disagreements over policy mean that we sabotage an aim that we all share - to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university.

Like me I am sure you have regularly spoken to people who believe that the new proposals will mean them having to pay before they go to university or say that they cannot afford the fees. As you know, there is no upfront charge and the repayments only apply to graduates who earn over £21,000. If the proposals are passed by Parliament I believe it is crucial that all of us are able to ensure that people know the true picture.

And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.

 

[moon23]

Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.



And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.

Damn it, why didn't I think of that

 

[chilango]

Anyone remember that astute commentator Julian Glovers spot-on advice to Nick Clegg:



He's now been warned by his security team not to go cycling or he's likely to be physically attacked by students.

Great pic!

 

[frogwoman]

Excellent - Clegg blames students protests for putting poor off university - not the 50 grand plus fees he's saddled them with.



And not a glove is put near Cameron over the whole issue. Fantastic politics.

I hope someone punches him in the face.

 

[butchersapron]

Great pic!

I nicked it off Bone's blog

 

[Quartz]

Clegg last night had the sheer effrontery to claim the condems will increase social mobility

Jebus. What utter crap Clegg's uttering.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought he was in total control Quartz and cameron was in trouble?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

on QT now. the man is a vacuous airheid who uses words in ways which defy comprehension.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Vince is now a one man coalition of all the diffent ideas in his head.

In an interview published in the Richmond and Twickenham Times, Cable said he had "no doubt" that he should vote in favour of the fees rise, in an apparent reversal of his comments last week that he might abstain in next Thursday's vote. "Obviously I have a duty as a minister to vote for my own policy – and that is what will happen," Cable told the paper.

But last night the minister appeared to reverse his decision, when questioned about the local paper story on student radio. "I didn't announce anything. I think there might have been some slight misunderstanding," Cable said in the interview, which was also broadcast on the Today programme this morning.

What are the symptoms of senile dementia again?

 

[Santino]

Opposing an increase to statutory maternity pay: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703377504575650882413327998.html

Because giving women on low pay more money is socially regressive if women on higher pay also receive more.

Stupid cunts.

 

[butchersapron]

"...secretly cutting funding for the disabled to get free walking sticks, wheelchairs and hearing aids."

 

[_angel_]

"...secretly cutting funding for the disabled to get free walking sticks, wheelchairs and hearing aids."

Fucking hell, first the state declares everyone on sickness benefits well, and now this!

Former work and pensions secretary David Blunkett, himself blind, described the decision, coinciding with International Day of Disabled People yesterday, a disgrace. He added: “The Government is throwing new hurdles in the way of enabling disabled people – already four times as likely to be unemployed – to find work.”

I'm not sure how he's got the nerve to say anything, since Labour wanted to pretend that disabled people not being in work was their own fault when they were in power.

 

[stethoscope]

Lib Dem MP with sizeable student population in his constituency wants to delay the tuition fees vote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11927905

Meanwhile, another Lib Dem MP threatening to resign over it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11929128

Why not just get a fucking backbone and vote against

 

[frogwoman]

But ... but ...

 

[moochedit]

"If we got Rage against the Machine to No. 1 we can get the lib dems to office"

they did it too. they must be so proud.

Doesn't look like it. They've changed it to a closed members only page now (you have to request an admin to join)

 

[Streathamite]

Meanwhile, another Lib Dem MP threatening to resign over it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11929128

Why not just get a fucking backbone and vote against

tbf, lib dem MPs who are also ministers have to resign if they vote against govt policy, so baker could be indeed growing a spine

 

[stethoscope]

Yeah, see that. I think I've just got zero tolerance/patience with the Lib Dems over all this constant dilly-dallying - might vote against, might abstain, might for, might resign...

 

[butchersapron]

tbf, lib dem MPs who are also ministers have to resign if they vote against govt policy, so baker could be indeed growing a spine

They don't have to. It's the done thing in single party govts though.

 

[Lock&Light]

Yeah, see that. I think I've just got zero tolerance/patience with the Lib Dems over all this constant dilly-dallying - might vote against, might abstain, might for, might resign...

Some of that is not meant for our ears, but to send a message to those presenting this Bill that some little changes might persuade more LibDems to vote for it.

 

[Lock&Light]

They don't have to. It's the done thing in single party govts though.

Th PM would sack them if they didn't resign.

 

[butchersapron]

Th PM would sack them if they didn't resign.

He might, he might not. Considering the paucity of lib-dem MPs, and especially considering the paucity of talented or experienced lib-dem MPs plus the precarity of one component of the coalition govt this is not something that should just be assumed would happen.

 

[Lock&Light]

It's inconcievable to imagine that a PM could retain a Minister who has voted against the government's policy.

 

[butchersapron]

I just conceived of how it's possible. In that post that you're replying to.

 

[Lock&Light]

I just conceived of how it's possible. In that post that you're replying to.

Not really clever, butchers.

 

[butchersapron]

Well done there, you almost sustained a discussion over more than two posts. So close!

It's quite simple, ministers resigning if they vote against govt legislation is mere convention, and it's mere convention that developed out of single party govts where the need for a united face was seen to be paramount. In a coalition govt reliant on keeping the lib-dems propped up and feeling like they're getting something out of it the resignation of an unknown minor or junior minister might well be overlooked for the sake of the bigger picture. That's what politics is like - it's doesn't operate on any principle other than self-preservation - if the judgment is that a convention needs to be ignored for this to take place then that will happen.