The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

The reason they got those 'few seats' was because people voted for them. They got a large part of the student vote precisely for the reason they said they opposed top up fees. They get in as part of the coalition and immediately soften their stance on all of their key pledges. I think you underestimate the power they have. The Tories can't pass anything on their own, they need the support of the Lib Dems. Of course the direction and the leadership was always going to be Tory, and rightly so, but the Lib Dems do have a say, otherwise what is the point of even being in the coalition. The reason many attack Clegg is because after arguing for years they should have the right to have a say, to have a platform, they are now being incredibly weak about doing anything with it.

And? They're not in government... derrrr. The people that voted for them are getting something, which is better than the nothing that they deserve given that they got their arses kicked out of town in the general election. The student vote accounts for what? feck all. That's like counting on the teacher training college vote, all of which goes to Labour, but so what?

But....they are in government. Last time I checked, the Deputy PM was a Liberal Democrat, The Secretary of State for Business Industry and Skills, The Secretary of State for energy and Climate change, The Secretary of State for Scotland, The Chief Secretary for the Treasury. The Tories cannot pass a single bill on their own. They need the Lib Dems, and as such the Lib Dems do have some power. It's not a Prime Ministerial election. Those Lib Dem MPs are each worth one, just like any other MP, and they owe that to the folk who voted them in. Many of their key promises have also been reneged on. Many are left wondering what the point of them being in the coalition is. If the Lib Dems weren't in the coaliton, and we had a Tory Minority government, and the Tories proposed raising student loans, the Lib Dems would vote against it. Now they are in the coalition, Clegg has said he'd advise his MPs to abstain, which would then take the Tory vote to a majority of the votes cast. The Lib Dem election position is weakened by their being in the coalition.

Shall we go back to your hair-brained communinst ideals of yore? Are you actually saying anything that I haven't? They're not in governmennt. They carry no weight, that's that.

[Prufrock]

Presumably, and as they didn't have access to the exact figures, they'd quite understandably underestimated just how much of an absolute midden your mates have left us in. Why else? Because they feel like it?

actually - quite the opposite chum.

the figures revealed by the independant body the tories set up showed that borrowing would actually be LESS (not massively so - but less all the same) than the Tories and Lib Dems were predicting over the next 3 years

and.. this week it was revealed that Economic Growth since the start of this calendar year was GREATER than the tories and lib dems were predicting.

so - actually - whilst the economy is in poor shape - it is absolutely NOT in a worse state than they expected - it is in slightly BETTER shape - so they did NOT underestimate any middens...

so - nail not hit on head - rather a glancing blow that bent the nail and bruised your thumb....


as for you "why" question - because they were always lying! duh!

So we're not more in debt than we've ever been aren't we, Bernice?

Doesn't change the fact that they have gone back on a shiteload of things they 'promised'. If you aren't sure you can deliver it, you can't promise it, or rather if you do, you can't expect a lot of folk to be fecking livid when you do. I know a lot of older folk round here who always been labour, and changed to Tory on the back of the cancer drugs promise.

Added to that things where in a better position than they'd expected. They thought they would have £xbillion debt, and made a load of promises on cost cuts, but STILL promised these cancer drugs, saying they wont raise the bus pass age. Now it turns out the debt is less than they thought, but they're going back on them. They look pretty stitched up to me there on the charge of, you know, lying to the electorate. I'm not suggesting their the first, nor will they be the last, but it's pretty brazen, especially when they talked about change and honesty and openness.

Yeah, let's go down the stealth route, eh? The rise in the price of Passports under the previous government, anyone?

That'll be the previous government then, the one who were kicked out. When you have 'won' an election by promising a change in politics, so much so you called for change more than your average Big Issue seller, when you have stressed that the electorate were tired of broken promises and when you have spent the last five years as the head of your party constantly attacking the previous government for their own broken promises and failed targets, to turn round weeks after gaining power and say 'the last lot did it' is just not good enough.

[Bruce Rioja]

actually - quite the opposite chum.

the figures revealed by the independant body the tories set up showed that borrowing would actually be LESS (not massively so - but less all the same) than the Tories and Lib Dems were predicting over the next 3 years

and.. this week it was revealed that Economic Growth since the start of this calendar year was GREATER than the tories and lib dems were predicting.

so - actually - whilst the economy is in poor shape - it is absolutely NOT in a worse state than they expected - it is in slightly BETTER shape - so they did NOT underestimate any middens...

so - nail not hit on head - rather a glancing blow that bent the nail and bruised your thumb....


as for you "why" question - because they were always lying! duh!

So we're not more in debt than we've ever been aren't we, Bernice?

Doesn't change the fact that they have gone back on a shiteload of things they 'promised'. If you aren't sure you can deliver it, you can't promise it, or rather if you do, you can't expect a lot of folk to be fecking livid when you do. I know a lot of older folk round here who always been labour, and changed to Tory on the back of the cancer drugs promise.

Added to that things where in a better position than they'd expected. They thought they would have £xbillion debt, and made a load of promises on cost cuts, but STILL promised these cancer drugs, saying they wont raise the bus pass age. Now it turns out the debt is less than they thought, but they're going back on them. They look pretty stitched up to me there on the charge of, you know, lying to the electorate. I'm not suggesting their the first, nor will they be the last, but it's pretty brazen, especially when they talked about change and honesty and openness.

Yeah, let's go down the stealth route, eh? The rise in the price of Passports under the previous government, anyone?

That'll be the previous government then, the one who were kicked out. When you have 'won' an election by promising a change in politics, so much so you called for change more than your average Big Issue seller, when you have stressed that the electorate were tired of broken promises and when you have spent the last five years as the head of your party constantly attacking the previous government for their own broken promises and failed targets, to turn round weeks after gaining power and say 'the last lot did it' is just not good enough.

Yeah. the previous government that New Labour spent however may years banging on about. Did you miss that bit?
Are you still a Communist or have you grown up yet?

[Prufrock]

The reason they got those 'few seats' was because people voted for them. They got a large part of the student vote precisely for the reason they said they opposed top up fees. They get in as part of the coalition and immediately soften their stance on all of their key pledges. I think you underestimate the power they have. The Tories can't pass anything on their own, they need the support of the Lib Dems. Of course the direction and the leadership was always going to be Tory, and rightly so, but the Lib Dems do have a say, otherwise what is the point of even being in the coalition. The reason many attack Clegg is because after arguing for years they should have the right to have a say, to have a platform, they are now being incredibly weak about doing anything with it.

And? They're not in government... derrrr. The people that voted for them are getting something, which is better than the nothing that they deserve given that they got their arses kicked out of town in the general election. The student vote accounts for what? feck all. That's like counting on the teacher training college vote, all of which goes to Labour, but so what?

But....they are in government. Last time I checked, the Deputy PM was a Liberal Democrat, The Secretary of State for Business Industry and Skills, The Secretary of State for energy and Climate change, The Secretary of State for Scotland, The Chief Secretary for the Treasury. The Tories cannot pass a single bill on their own. They need the Lib Dems, and as such the Lib Dems do have some power. It's not a Prime Ministerial election. Those Lib Dem MPs are each worth one, just like any other MP, and they owe that to the folk who voted them in. Many of their key promises have also been reneged on. Many are left wondering what the point of them being in the coalition is. If the Lib Dems weren't in the coaliton, and we had a Tory Minority government, and the Tories proposed raising student loans, the Lib Dems would vote against it. Now they are in the coalition, Clegg has said he'd advise his MPs to abstain, which would then take the Tory vote to a majority of the votes cast. The Lib Dem election position is weakened by their being in the coalition.

Shall we go back to your hair-brained communinst ideals of yore? Are you actually saying anything that I haven't? They're not in governmennt. They carry no weight, that's that.

What are we defining as government? Because they have places in the Cabinet, they are presented as part of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government, and they have seats in the House of Commons. The only other way I can think of defining government is to have a one-party majority, and no-one has that. The Tories need the Lib Dems. Without the Lib Dems, the Conservatives can't realistically pass anything without Labour help, and let's be honest, after the last however many years that just isn't going to happen. So the idea the Lib Dems carry no weight is nonsense. The Tories need them, and as such the Lib Dems do have a say. Does this mean that there are going to be any Lib Dem driven policies enacted? Probably not. It does mean they have the power to stop anything the fundamentally disagree with and to alter others. This is indisputable. The Tories have 307, they need 326. They can't do it without help, and in this set up it is the Lib Dems who hold that power. They essentially have a 'veto'. Is that ridiculous, that the party with 57 seats have immeasurably more power than that with 258, and not much less than the party with 307? Yes again, but it's true. it's also true that the the fact they only have 57 seats is a joke as well, but that's my opinion, and a different debate.

As for my own views. I haven't described myself as a communist for a long time. I still thing the basic principles are truly noble things, but I have never even argued that they are a realistic objective. I'd describe myself as a socialist. I'm not an anti-capitalist, but I am anti-free market. I'm not sure of the relevance of all this but...

[Prufrock]

So we're not more in debt than we've ever been aren't we, Bernice?

Doesn't change the fact that they have gone back on a shiteload of things they 'promised'. If you aren't sure you can deliver it, you can't promise it, or rather if you do, you can't expect a lot of folk to be fecking livid when you do. I know a lot of older folk round here who always been labour, and changed to Tory on the back of the cancer drugs promise.

Added to that things where in a better position than they'd expected. They thought they would have £xbillion debt, and made a load of promises on cost cuts, but STILL promised these cancer drugs, saying they wont raise the bus pass age. Now it turns out the debt is less than they thought, but they're going back on them. They look pretty stitched up to me there on the charge of, you know, lying to the electorate. I'm not suggesting their the first, nor will they be the last, but it's pretty brazen, especially when they talked about change and honesty and openness.

Yeah, let's go down the stealth route, eh? The rise in the price of Passports under the previous government, anyone?

That'll be the previous government then, the one who were kicked out. When you have 'won' an election by promising a change in politics, so much so you called for change more than your average Big Issue seller, when you have stressed that the electorate were tired of broken promises and when you have spent the last five years as the head of your party constantly attacking the previous government for their own broken promises and failed targets, to turn round weeks after gaining power and say 'the last lot did it' is just not good enough.

Yeah. the previous government that New Labour spent however may years banging on about. Did you miss that bit?
Are you still a Communist or have you grown up yet?

It's not about sides though. I'm not on Labour's team. Certainly not on New Labour's team. I didn't want a government with a crass disregard for civil liberties, a government which decided it was in charge of the people and not the other way around, a government that installed CCTV cameras everywhere, wanted to introduce ID cards, decided that people needed a piece of legislation to dictate every single aspect of everyday life. I support for instance the basic principle of Cameron's Big Society, although my own belief is it is a badly disguised, half thought through quick way to save money, and he lacks the conviction behind the principle. I may be wrong on that, but the reneging on election promises this early doesn't look promising.

I am not 'Team Labour', but even if I were, the idea that 'the last lot did it' isn't good enough. It isn't acceptable to campaign criticising a lack of honesty and transparency, whilst being dishonest and opaque. I am not suggesting that this government are the first to do so, nor will they be the last, but they are doing it, and it is a justifiable complaint.

[Bruce Rioja]

As for my own views. I haven't described myself as a communist for a long time. I still thing the basic principles are truly noble things, but I have never even argued that they are a realistic objective. I'd describe myself as a socialist. I'm not an anti-capitalist, but I am anti-free market. I'm not sure of the relevance of all this but...

Ah. right. So you just bend with todays wind then?! You know full well that you rucked up on here announcing yourself as some dyed-in-the-wool communist. Obviously you've now realised what a cock you were making of yourself!

[Lord Kangana]

And yet you criticise the government who spent all our money saving capitalism? I'm confused now.

[Prufrock]

As for my own views. I haven't described myself as a communist for a long time. I still thing the basic principles are truly noble things, but I have never even argued that they are a realistic objective. I'd describe myself as a socialist. I'm not an anti-capitalist, but I am anti-free market. I'm not sure of the relevance of all this but...

Ah. right. So you just bend with todays wind then?! You know full well that you rucked up on here announcing yourself as some dyed-in-the-wool communist. Obviously you've now realised what a cock you were making of yourself!

I was 19. Our views shift, sometimes to the right sometimes to the left, sometimes from the idealistic to the realistic. I'm not sure a dose of realism added to idealism when you leave home, and live on your own is 'bending with today's wind' And I didn't rock up announcing myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Commie. You aren't technically a proper Communist anyway unless you've ever owned a Che Guevara t-shirt, and I haven't so...I rocked up here with a long and meant defence of the communist ideals. I still believe that, it just seems pointless to mention them because the actual fiscal system of communism is never going to happen, and the ideas are covered in socialism. I stressed even then I wasn't suggesting they would ever work in the real world. I'd only just left home, the lines between what was communism/socialism were blurred, and no doubt at times I contradicted myself and got things wrong. It happens, especially when you're 19 . I'd have to say making a cock out of myself feels a little harsh . In the real world, I believe in socialism, I believe in higher taxes, higher spending on public services. I believe that's the best way forward. That still seems to me to be a pragmatic interpretation of 'from each according to his means, to each depending on his needs'? So in truth, all that has changed is I don't even talk about ideals anymore.

At the end of all that, attacking the idealistic posts of a young man from two and a half years ago, and accusations of bending in the wind and looking like a cock seems a bit disingenuous from someone who has just tried to argue that the Lib Dems are 'not in government. They carry no weight. That's that.'

Especially if we're doing cheap shots as well, from someone who grew up a punk and now works in business travelling round Europe and eating posh food

[thebish]

Presumably, and as they didn't have access to the exact figures, they'd quite understandably underestimated just how much of an absolute midden your mates have left us in. Why else? Because they feel like it?

actually - quite the opposite chum.

the figures revealed by the independant body the tories set up showed that borrowing would actually be LESS (not massively so - but less all the same) than the Tories and Lib Dems were predicting over the next 3 years

and.. this week it was revealed that Economic Growth since the start of this calendar year was GREATER than the tories and lib dems were predicting.

so - actually - whilst the economy is in poor shape - it is absolutely NOT in a worse state than they expected - it is in slightly BETTER shape - so they did NOT underestimate any middens...

so - nail not hit on head - rather a glancing blow that bent the nail and bruised your thumb....


as for you "why" question - because they were always lying! duh!

So we're not more in debt than we've ever been aren't we, Bernice?

that wasn't your point Brucie... your point was that the economy was WORSE than they expected, so they had to change their plans. A point you have failed to back up with any evidence - reason being, that you were wrong just, plainly and simply, wrong.

You are clever enough to realise this now - and have opted for smoke, mirrors and obfuscation - which is fine - but it is all a little obvious...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I thought I had Pru's current outlook nailed in my sig...

[thebish]

I thought I had Pru's current outlook nailed in my sig...

some of us have sigs turned off!

[Bruce Rioja]

Especially if we're doing cheap shots as well, from someone who grew up a punk and now works in business travelling round Europe and eating posh food

Aye, but you want to hear the tunes in my iPhone. It was I cheap shot and for that I apologise.

[Bruce Rioja]

that wasn't your point Brucie... your point was that the economy was WORSE than they expected, so they had to change their plans. A point you have failed to back up with any evidence - reason being, that you were wrong just, plainly and simply, wrong.

I haven't seen you back your claim up with any evidence either. Where is it?

[2399]

[TANGODANCER]

Someday, maybe someone will realise that a four-year term in power isn't anywhere near long enough to re-organise and right all the demolition left behind by the last four.

[Worthy4England]

Labour has accused David Cameron of committing a gaffe by mistakenly claiming Iran has a nuclear weapon. Asked why he was backing Turkey to join the EU he said it could help solve the world's problems, "like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a nuclear weapon".

British Prime Minister David Cameron has warned Pakistan not to have any relationship with groups that "promote the export of terror". He said that he would be raising the issue with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh when they held talks in Delhi on Thursday.

David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.

Where angels fear to tread. Clueless fecker.

[CAPSLOCK]

Worthy, forgetting number 1 (as I think that's best ) I don't see your problem with number 2 and re 3 in whose view was he mistaken?

[Worthy4England]

Worthy, forgetting number 1 (as I think that's best ) I don't see your problem with number 2 and re 3 in whose view was he mistaken?

Well on number 2 - there's other ways of going about it. Alienation, I don't believe will work, not sure what in a diplomatic sense he was trying to achive? India are diplomatically closer to us than Pakistan anyhow. And Pakistan know there's a problem...

Number 3 - let's be honest, we might not have won it without them - but second fiddle - fcuk off - they only bother their arses because of Pearl Harbour.

He's a fcukwit at the minute diplomatically.

[BWFC_Insane]

Worthy, forgetting number 1 (as I think that's best ) I don't see your problem with number 2 and re 3 in whose view was he mistaken?

One of the big problems with number three is that the Americans to whom he refers were not anyones partner in 1940!

[CAPSLOCK]

Without seeing the original quote, I'm not sure Cameron mentioned 1940...maybe he did, maybe he didn't


To be honest I don't think Worthy or I took great issue with the 40 bit, it was the 'junior partner' reference