Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 6:49 PM BST

AV isn't PR.

We haven't had a referendum on PR.

We have had a referendum on pretend PR.

View original

Well, we had a bunch of parliamentary geniuses debate the issue of what ought to be put to the public in that referendum, of which the LibDems were a prominent part.
All sides agreed to go for AV.
In essence it was the most marginal change one could propose.
The UK public, under an onslaught of join Tory/Labour campaigning clearly rejected even this small change.
The people get the politics they deserve.
The vote we had must mean something. It wasn't the result I wanted, but so what?

Alex Salmond is an ass for demanding a new referendum for Scotland already.
I have no desire to be an ass on voting systems.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 6:57 PM BST

Well, we had a bunch of parliamentary geniuses debate the issue of what ought to be put to the public in that referendum, of which the LibDems were a prominent part.
All sides agreed to go for AV.
In essence it was the most marginal change one could propose.
The UK public, under an onslaught of join Tory/Labour campaigning clearly rejected even this small change.
The people get the politics they deserve.
The vote we had must mean something. It wasn't the result I wanted, but so what?

Alex Salmond is an ass for demanding a new referendum for Scotland already.
I have no desire to be an ass on voting systems.

View original

Just because people reject a small change doesn't mean that they don't want a big change instead.

Anyhow, here's today's quiz question. Who is the leader of the Lib Dems? I only ask because we now have Dave Cameron as Tory Leader, FIVE women leaders - Harman (Temp, Labour), Bennett (Green), Sturgeon (SNP), Wood (Plaid Cymru), Evans (Temp, UKIP) - and a gap left by a bloke who reneged on tuition fees and PR and was going to sacrifice his party's policy on EU if he could still be Deputy PM.

PR great for smaller parties yes, utter crap for major ones, just leads to Coalitions all the time in European countries.

It's a large part of why the EU is so readily bowed down to by them, they're the only solid laws they get because they can't ever agree on their own. F**k Europe. Which I hope we'll be doing in 2017. Can't wait.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 9th May 2015, 7:07 PM BST

PR great for smaller parties yes, utter crap for major ones, just leads to Coalitions all the time in European countries.

It's a large part of why the EU is so readily bowed down to by them, they're the only solid laws they get because they can't ever agree on their own. F**k Europe. Which I hope we'll be doing in 2017. Can't wait.

View original

I'm guessing you don't live in a place like Sunderland, do you?

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 9th May 2015, 7:07 PM BST

PR great for smaller parties yes, utter crap for major ones, just leads to Coalitions all the time in European countries.

It's a large part of why the EU is so readily bowed down to by them, they're the only solid laws they get because they can't ever agree on their own. F**k Europe. Which I hope we'll be doing in 2017. Can't wait.

View original

Erm - I suppose one opposing point is that all parties are coalitions including Con and Lab.

The Cameron and Clegg are two peas in a pod but Bill Cash is a fly in Cameron's ointment.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 7:07 PM BST

Just because people reject a small change doesn't mean that they don't want a big change instead.

Anyhow, here's today's quiz question. Who is the leader of the Lib Dems? I only ask because we now have Dave Cameron as Tory Leader, FIVE women leaders - Harman (Temp, Labour), Bennett (Green), Sturgeon (SNP), Wood (Plaid Cymru), Evans (Temp, UKIP) - and a gap left by a bloke who reneged on tuition fees and PR and was going to sacrifice his party's policy on EU if he could still be Deputy PM.

View original

You really seem to have it in for Cleggy, don't you?

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 7:15 PM BST

You really seem to have it in for Cleggy, don't you?

View original

Yes. I did from the day he was elected leader of the Lib Dems. It isn't personal. I could have a pint with him. Just as I could have a pint with any opportunist who has a horribly destructive mindset.

The LD leader I liked best was poor old Charlie Kennedy. He was the only one I did feel really sorry for on the night. It is sad what has happened to him. I've never spoken to him but saw him regularly in London pubs on many Friday nights when with work friends. I think he is the proverbial good bloke.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 7:17 PM BST

Yes. I did from the day he was elected leader of the Lib Dems. It isn't personal. I could have a pint with him. Just as I could have a pint with any opportunist who has a horribly destructive mindset.

View original

I have my problems with Cleggy.
Not least on his abysmal record on the Great Repeal Act.

But I don't see the need to continue kicking him, now that's hes already got a public battering.

I'm not sure where you see his 'destructive mindset'.
In Blair I saw it, no fail. But Clegg?

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 7:25 PM BST

I have my problems with Cleggy.
Not least on his abysmal record on the Great Repeal Act.

But I don't see the need to continue kicking him, now that's hes already got a public battering.

I'm not sure where you see his 'destructive mindset'.
In Blair I saw it, no fail. But Clegg?

View original

He smashed up his own party.

Just as he set fire to a professor's cactus collection in his youth.

That man had spent years building that collection and caring for it.

Just as the Liberals spent many years building their party from the grass roots.

I saw in 2007 what would happen. It was this article which informed me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/1563819/Lib-Dems-Nick-Clegg-tells-of-prickly-past.html

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 7:32 PM BST

He smashed up his own party.

Just as he set fire to a professor's cactus collection in his youth.

That man had spent years building that collection and caring for it.

Just as the Liberals spent many years building their party from the grass roots.

I saw in 2007 what would happen. It was this article which informed me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/1563819/Lib-Dems-Nick-Clegg-tells-of-prickly-past.html

View original

I can't say I'm much bothered about cacti in the past, Horseradish.
It seems a strange grievance to dig up.

I suspect you're a guy on the left who simply begrudges that he formed a coalition with the right.

But what honestly would you have had Clegg do back in 2010?
The numbers for a Labour/LibDem coalition were not really there. They'd have needed Plaid Cymru and Co.
Moreover a certain Mr Balls was throwing brick bats at the idea during negotiations.
So, with the country in a mess, what should Clegg have done?
Refuse coalition with the Tories?

I suspect it largely was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Especially with the left.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 7:45 PM BST

I can't say I'm much bothered about cacti in the past, Horseradish.
It seems a strange grievance to dig up.

I suspect you're a guy on the left who simply begrudges that he formed a coalition with the right.

But what honestly would you have had Clegg do back in 2010?
The numbers for a Labour/LibDem coalition were not really there. They'd have needed Plaid Cymru and Co.
Moreover a certain Mr Balls was throwing brick bats at the idea during negotiations.
So, with the country in a mess, what should Clegg have done?
Refuse coalition with the Tories?

I suspect it largely was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Especially with the left.

View original

First, I often get things wrong. Yes. I thought we would have a February 1974 situation on Thursday and I was wrong. I thought the Lib Dems would get at least 18 seats - and I was wrong on that too.

But I moved in my mind against Clegg in 2007 so that was at the very beginning. It had nothing to do with Coalition. It did have a lot to do with the way all these people suddenly appeared from nowhere - Clegg, Laws, Browne - and took over. Actually, it happened when CK was having some problems and his eye was not on the ball. Instinctively I just knew that something about it all was very, very dodgy.

Why? It was the biggest coup since Livingstone ousted McIntosh from the Labour leadership in 1981 just after Labour won the GLC elections. But this one was an Establishment fix. They are all effectively Tories. It looked for a long time that the Conservatives didn't have a cat in hell's chance of winning an election and consequently the Establishment were worried sick about any left wing Labour majority after the departure of Blair. I see them as having been planted there to ensure that it didn't happen.

The arithmetic in 2010 meant that only an agreement between the Tories and the LDs was realistic. I said from day one that it should be on a vote-by-vote basis. I was proven right but their egos got in the way. They wanted Cabinet positions and titles and were prepared to sacrifice their party for that purpose. Even, sadly, Cable who does at least believe in that party unlike quite a lot of the others.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 7:54 PM BST

First, I often get things wrong. Yes. I thought we would have a February 1974 situation on Thursday and I was wrong. I thought the Lib Dems would get at least 18 seats - and I was wrong on that too.

But I moved in my mind against Clegg in 2007 so that was at the very beginning. It had nothing to do with Coalition. It did have a lot to do with the way all these people suddenly appeared from nowhere - Clegg, Laws, Browne - and took over. Actually, it happened when CK was having some problems and his eye was not on the ball. Instinctively I just knew that something about it all was very, very dodgy.

Why? It was the biggest coup since Livingstone ousted McIntosh from the Labour leadership in 1980 just after Labour won the GLC elections. But this one was an Establishment fix. They are all effectively Tories. It looked for a long time that the Conservatives didn't have a cat in hell's chance of winning an election and consequently the Establishment were worried sick about any left wing Labour majority after the departure of Blair. I see them as having been planted there to ensure that it didn't happen.

As for the Coalition in 2010, the Tories did quite well. Life is such that whatever has been decided ahead of time turns out to be ironic given changing and unexpected circumstances. The arithmetic meant that only an agreement between the Tories and the LDs was realistic. I said from day one that it should be on a vote-by-vote basis. I was proven right but their egos got in the way. They wanted Cabinet positions and titles and were prepared to sacrifice party for that purpose. Even, sadly, Cable.

View original

Hang on.
Clegg was a Tory plant in the LibDems?
Er, don't you think that's taking conspiracy a bit far?

As for coalition; I think Clegg did the right thing.
Yes, it was always going to be an unholy alliance. But stability at the time was all-important. I think it's important to remember just how dire things were back then.

What we need to remember is that the LibDems are as such a coalition.
We're talking of Liberals and Social Democrats. This is in itself an unholy alliance. The two wings have utterly different priorities.
I suggest their merger was a bad idea from the start.
Clegg I suppose came from the liberal wing, which meant that the Social Democrats will have called him a Tory right from the start.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 8:19 PM BST

Hang on.
Clegg was a Tory plant in the LibDems?
Er, don't you think that's taking conspiracy a bit far?

As for coalition; I think Clegg did the right thing.
Yes, it was always going to be an unholy alliance. But stability at the time was all-important. I think it's important to remember just how dire things were back then.

What we need to remember is that the LibDems are as such a coalition.
We're talking of Liberals and Social Democrats. This is in itself an unholy alliance. The two wings have utterly different priorities.
I suggest their merger was a bad idea from the start.
Clegg I suppose came from the liberal wing, which meant that the Social Democrats will have called him a Tory right from the start.

View original

Incidentally, Gussie, when was Ashdown leader? Answer - 1988-1999. He came in when Kinnock hadn't finished reform of the Labour Party and disappeared once Blair was in Government and established. Look there. He is so close to Clegg it is like he is his uncle. There has to be a reason. Furthermore, it all goes back to what the Americans want but I will save that one for another day.

On your point, post WW2 social democrats and social liberals - eg Kennedy - are often almost identical. I believe David Laws who drew up the LD manifesto has been described as a liberal in the 19th Century tradition of Gladstone. I'd agree 19th Century liberals are not social democrats.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 8:19 PM BST

Incidentally, Gussie, when was Ashdown leader? Answer - 1988-1999. He came in when Kinnock hadn't finished reform of the Labour Party and disappeared once Blair was in Government and established. Look there. He is so close to Clegg it is like he is his uncle. There has to be a reason. Furthermore, it all goes back to what the Americans want but I will save that one for another day.

View original

Ashdown got old. It really was that simple. The idea that he was retired due to some and plan, once Blair was established is way, way out there, Horseradish.
And Ashdown praising Clegg is unusual?
Is it that much different as with other leaders sticking by their successors?
Did Kinnock savage Blair, Brown or Miliband? Nope. Sticking to the successor is part of the act. In that regard Ashdown is nothing unusual.

But yes, if there's one thing which made me smiled was that Clegg announced that liberalism is in trouble in this country in his resignation speech.
Who was the voice of liberalism, wondered aloud. Not Clegg, nor any of his party.

In that regard the LibDems have been a busted flush for years.
But not because of some conspiracy theory.
Simply because they concentrated on hoovering up the protest vote, instead of being interested in representing liberal policy.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 6:34 PM BST

Actually, I think that wasn't AV. It was some sort of retaliation, agreed.
But it was about the Tories having reneged on something, which led the LibDems to retaliate. Might have been Lords reform, but I'm not sure.

View original

No, it was AV! The gits.