Why the lib-dems are shit

[Lock&Light]

It would be an interesting Cabinet meeting next day.

 

[Pickman's model]

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

how the fuck is it inconceivable to imagine that? it's a fucking piece of piss to imagine such a situation. you have no imagination, lock&light.

now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.

 

[Lock&Light]

I've tried to imagine a useful post from Pickman's model, but I'm afraid that is beyond me.

 

[ericjarvis]

now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.

Not in Hebden Bridge it isn't.

 

[Streathamite]

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

Yes, I can see why it usually applies to single party govts, but I would have thought it would also apply to coalitions, or otherwise, any minority party minister can break ranks any time s/he chose, without comeback. I also thought not having that convention (i.e. you can't vote down govt policy and stay a minister) would cause huge problems with govt members of the larger party in coalition, who would see that as unrerasonable and unfair? especially as its' their policy at risk?
so are you saying that the fragility of the coalition, the need to keep their stooges onside, and the overriding priority given to maintaining the majority (and the govt) means that the leader of the larger party would be prepared to overlook the occasional minister breaking ranks to vote against govt policy?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes

 

[Streathamite]

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.

Apols! I didn't see this answer before asking the questions in my last post, so feel free to negotiate the answer between the two, as it were. Let's say however that the fragility of the coalition (and the majority), and the need to keep LDs sweet drove the PM to overlook a minister voting against coalition publicity; wouldn't his own party's ministers and backbenchers go apeshit? And wouldn't it have all the makings of a spinners'/press nightmare?

 

[butchersapron]

I think they'd swallow it as well.

 

[Streathamite]

Yes

apols for confusion created by me not seeing your earlier answer before posting - see post 2527 for where I see the problem with that

 

[Streathamite]

I think they'd swallow it as well.

really? THAT shamelessly? That really will take front.
must admit, I'd've thought it would cause a near-riot
e2a: actually, that's what I hope will happen, at some stage in the coalition, simply for the sheer fun of seeing them talk their way through that one.

 

[butchersapron]

What other option have they?

 

[Streathamite]

What other option have they?

well, If by 'they' you mean 'the tories', the only other one is to tough it out with the Libdems, insist on collective responsibility/toeing a joint policy line, even at the price of ministerial resignations, and risk everything on it not breaking the coalition (in other words, on clegg & co blinking first).
Catch 22; they either give a green light to mass libdem rebellion at any time, putting (in theory) any govt policy 100% at risk of being voted down....or they risk EVERY policy, by risking the abrupt end of the coalition

 

[Lock&Light]

Nick Clegg interview on Five Live now.

 

[belboid]

Nick Clegg interview on Five Live now.

the first words I heard him say were 'with little baby dragons'

Sadly, it turned out to be Radio 4. But it was a lot more interesting than the crap he is coming out with now

 

[rekil]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

Tuition fees could still be out of next Lib Dem manifesto, claims MP

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat MP and party president who rebelled in the tuition fees vote, says the next Lib Dem manifesto could still contain a renewed pledge to abolish tuition fees in some form.

Yes really.

 

[belboid]

I really hope it is, everyone would piss themselves laughing.

 

[little_legs]

Simon Hughes, my local MP and the deputy leader of the LibDem party has just said on Radio's 4 World at One: 'I wish I could have voted against the fees rise.' What a loser.

 

[Pickman's model]

Simon Hughes, my local MP and the deputy leader of the LibDem party has just said on Radio's 4 World at One: 'I wish I could have voted against the fees rise.' What a loser.

it was a straight choice and he fluffed it

 

[little_legs]

he also mentioned that he is unsure about the control orders. he may have to vote against abolishing them.

 

[Pickman's model]

he also mentioned that he is unsure about the control orders. he may have to vote against abolishing them.

for the straight candidate he is rather twisty and turny

 

[little_legs]

straight i see what you did there.

 

[butchersapron]

Hughes started it!

Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:

Mr Clegg has traded for too long on platitudes about fairness and what it means to be "progressive". That phase is over. He can still prove that Britain is better off with Lib Dems in government, but only by the old-fashioned method of delivering liberal policies. His claim to represent "new politics" is dead.

 

[binka]

sunday mirror today had an article about clegg being lined up to be britain's next eu commissioner
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...may-have-to-leg-it-to-the-eu-115875-22777683/
good to see the pic of sad nick making another appearance.

 

[Streathamite]

now, a cow with human hands and the tail of a duck-billed platypus wandering the lanes of yorkshire inciting sheep to rise up and compose poetry in non-rhyming iambic pentameters, that's a little harder to imagine.

what an extraordinary imagination you have!

 

[Streathamite]

andrew Rawnsley actually nailed it quite well in today's Observer The tories really are getting the best of this

 

[Streathamite]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

Tuition fees could still be out of next Lib Dem manifesto, claims MP
Yes really.

christ alive, is Farron currently orbiting Mars or summink?
These people have completely lost touch with reality!

 

[Sgt Howie]

Hughes started it!

Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:

They make it pretty clear that they still support the Lib Dems and their participation in the coalition:

This newspaper supported Nick Clegg's party at the last election, not because of their pledges on higher education, but on the grounds that a substantial Lib Dem presence in parliament would make more likely the enactment of a wide range of liberal policies and a definitive break from the tribal duopoly of British politics.

The crisis around tuition fees should not prevent the Lib Dems from driving that agenda further. There are key battles to be won on restoring civil liberties and modernising Britain's constitution, reforming the voting system and the House of Lords. Meanwhile, a Conservative backlash is brewing against plans drawn up by Ken Clarke for a more enlightened prison policy. The Lib Dems should be reinforcing the Tory justice secretary's position. Next year, the Lib Dems must lobby more effectively for budget changes that clearly benefit the many not the few.

 

[butchersapron]

Sure, they're not going to abandon them, but an editorial with that tone would have been impossible at any point from the election up until last week. For the spineless morons who decide on what the line will be that constitutes a very definite change in approach -from the lib-dems participation reflecting modern liberal values blah blah blah to demanding that continued participation takes place on a return to liberal values blah blah blah

 

[Streathamite]

Could be that they are responding to the growing anger/unease of their readers. after all, all sensible publishers keep themselves attuned with their readership, for fear of haemorrhaging circulation

 

[ymu]

Hughes started it!

Has there been a palace coup at the Guardian/Obseverver btw? From today's editorial - following weeks of thinly disguised Glover penned slime-editorials bigging up Nick Clegg, pretending there's no anger, no real anger, that it's all going swimmingly - we find:

I don't know if it's just my mental filters working spectacularly well, but Glover seems to have had much less presence for the last few weeks. They do seem to have come through a mildly apologetic stage to a more outright critical stance.