Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:26 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I'm thinking of starting a Vacillation, Ignorance and Total Capitulation Party.
The Manifesto will be comprised of iron-clad, red-line, unshakeable promises (for broader appeal and to save time these won't be written down and will be invented on the doorstep for whatever the voter fancies at the time).
These will, of course, be gaily jettisoned after the election in favour of meaningless ministerial titles all round.

Vince Cable will be the first to join.
Although he is capable of changing his mind three times in the same sentence, it's been a while since he actually changed parties, so it's due.
That's the Vacillation bit sorted.
Cleggster will handle the Total Capitulation brief and the other two or three members can be responsible for Ignorance, appearances on Question Time and claiming expenses.


STOP PRESS
Vince has changed his mind, he won't be joining.
Oh, hang on, ...

If we dig Cyril up he can be the Minister for child welfare.
Experience is key in such matters.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:42 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: OY! I've voted MRLP for a few elections now. Only they have proper policies, and you could really on them to carry thse out of elected. http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/ For example, Can't understand why we failed to win Barking. Now that's something I could vote for

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: OY! I've voted MRLP for a few elections now. Only they have proper policies, and you could really on them to carry thse out of elected. http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/ For example, Can't understand why we failed to win Barking. Now that's something I could vote for

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:08 pm  

From Nick Clegg's lips yesterday (have you heard this anywhere before ?) ...

"We will go into the next election in favour of more fair taxes and will not follow George Osborne's plan, since it makes further savings only out of spending cuts ... of course we are not going to do that, that's not Liberal Democrat. It won't happen on my watch.".

and, in a party email ...

"In these difficult times, it is important that everyone makes their contribution. It is right that we ask the broadest shoulders to bear their fair share: it is unrealistic to cut more money from welfare spending without increasing taxes on Britain's richest".

However, that email was mistakenly sent to the press as well and Cable dissed it as having "no official status whatsoever, <etc etc>. Our platform is essentially about cutting income tax for those on low incomes and the mansion tax".

Cleggster then defeated a motion seeking to reinstate the 50p tax rate.

So, that's it ... a mansion tax and no more cuts.

Keeping the reneging list a bit shorter this time it seems.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:51 pm  

But are the rich those earning more than £50,000 or not and will the mansion tax apply to them and, if so, how?

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:37 pm  

Dally wrote:

But are the rich those earning more than £50,000 or not and will the mansion tax apply to them and, if so, how?

If the rich can't afford the mansion tax then they should give up fags & booze, flog the widesceen TV and simply learn to live within their means. After all it's that simple for the millions worse off

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:32 pm  

I am not a big fan of all this criticising Clegg for sacrificing the tuition fees policy to join a Coalition.

The Lib Dems did not win the election. They were the third party. Therefore they have to act appropriately in order to form a coalition.

The problem is if everyone gives a third party leader stick over compromising on parts of their manifesto, we will end up with someone stonewalling when there's a hung parliament, and holding the largest party over a barrel "we'll only join you if we can have OUR way on everything". That isn't democracy, thats just bullying the third party in to power.

Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems had to give things up from their manifesto in order to form an agreement. The Conservatives had pledged to reduce inheritance tax in fact that was a big part of debate in the last leaders' debate where Brown was giving Cameron a hard time and he was making a robust defence that it was the most natural thing in the world to want to leave things for your children and the government shouldn't take it off you....and yet that policy got dropped a week later.

If a party gets an overall majority and then backtracks on its pledges then thats out of order, but when there's a Coalition, by necessity there needs to be some kind of compromise and agreement. There are plenty of people in Northern Ireland that said David Trimble and Gerry Adams were sell outs but if they had stuck to all their core demands we would still have a terrorist war...

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:36 pm  

I don't quite agree with the argument that the Lib Dems HAD to join the Tories in Coalition. They didnt have to join anyone if it meant compromising their principles.
The Tories could have had a go at minority government or we could have had another election. Which may have turned out differently if no agreement had been reached and any of the parties had been seen to be unreasonable in their demands.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:51 pm  

What I have never understood is why it was in the national interest for a Tory - LibDem coaltion. If a national-interest coalition was the thing to do why weren't Labour involved in it (or is there something in the constitution I'm missing)? The vote was split Tory-Labour so why didn't those two reflect voters wishes?

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 pm  

Him wrote:

I don't quite agree with the argument that the Lib Dems HAD to join the Tories in Coalition. They didnt have to join anyone if it meant compromising their principles.
The Tories could have had a go at minority government or we could have had another election. Which may have turned out differently if no agreement had been reached and any of the parties had been seen to be unreasonable in their demands.

I thought it was a 50:50 decision whether the Lib Dems should form a coalition with the Tories or let them go it alone. If they done the latter they'd have had a hard sell at the subsequent election. What's the point of a third party that isn't prepared to form a coalition? To be honest I thought they negotiated a very good deal with the Tories.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:20 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I thought it was a 50:50 decision whether the Lib Dems should form a coalition with the Tories or let them go it alone. If they done the latter they'd have had a hard sell at the subsequent election. What's the point of a third party that isn't prepared to form a coalition? To be honest I thought they negotiated a very good deal with the Tories.

I don't think they got a good deal really. Forced to cave on certain principles like tuition fees and didnt get a major ministerial position.

But even if it was a good deal, it wasn't a deal that HAD to be done. The country wasn't going to fall apart if the Tories had gone it alone or if we'd had another election.
I think the Tories might have had a hard sell too, as the Lib Dems could easily say the Tories tried to railroad them into accepting Tory policies. Plus it wouldn't have taken much of a swing away from the Tories to enable Labour and the Lib Dems to form a coalition.