Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

I accept what the two latest replies say as valid views. More than that even.

I do think though that the whole set up and perception is based a bit around the tribal two party politics and majority gov't thing we've had forever. That failed, but the media are still in thrall to that idea.

Neither of the two biggest are the answer to anything, and coalition might not be either, but I do think that the idea of "splits" and drama about various issues, such as this one, is over done. It's all too tribal. Me I don't care who is "it" or what the papers say about "them". But I know I don't like either the deception of people saying one thing and doing another, or the jumping on people for trying to do what they think is the right thing and maiking out like it's some terrible betrayal.

Just be honest - so though the LD's set themselves up and can be criticised for the subsequent volte face, they are, to me, actually meeting some obligations, and for that, with al the imperfections I feel out of line with the way they are getting slaughtered for doing what their leaders think is right, even though they don't naturally want to do it.

[tonyh29]

Just be honest - so though the LD's set themselves up and can be criticised for the subsequent volte face, they are, to me, actually meeting some obligations, and for that, with al the imperfections I feel out of line with the way they are getting slaughtered for doing what their leaders think is right, even though they don't naturally want to do it.

i'm no fan of the Libs but I agree more with that view than the previous posters view

It's a gamble the Libs had to take , they couldn't align with a dead Labour party (/ leader) and their best option was to go in with the Tories and hope that after 5 years they can say " That was us"

the debate is if that will be a good "that was us" or a bad one

I think there has been too much knee jerk ( kinda like the Villa threads lately :winkold:) some of the changes are quite radical and the damage previously done also requires time to put right .. lets see where we are a couple of years down track .. I suspect the overall picture will look that much clearer

[peterms]

I accept what the two latest replies say as valid views. More than that even.

I do think though that the whole set up and perception is based a bit around the tribal two party politics and majority gov't thing we've had forever. That failed, but the media are still in thrall to that idea.

It's true that the media are in thrall to the idea of two party politics, and they tend to revert to that even in times of one party rule, like 1987-90 and 1999-2005 (rough dates), seeking out opposition within a party if they can't find it being effective enough outside. Manichean.

However, the whole idea of the Libdems was to get away from that. Remember 1983 and "break the mould"? The overriding campaign slogan. They now seem to have gone along with the flow, as it gets them a small and very temporary advantage.

Neither of the two biggest are the answer to anything, and coalition might not be either, but I do think that the idea of "splits" and drama about various issues, such as this one, is over done. It's all too tribal. Me I don't care who is "it" or what the papers say about "them". But I know I don't like either the deception of people saying one thing and doing another, or the jumping on people for trying to do what they think is the right thing and maiking out like it's some terrible betrayal.

Just be honest - so though the LD's set themselves up and can be criticised for the subsequent volte face, they are, to me, actually meeting some obligations, and for that, with al the imperfections I feel out of line with the way they are getting slaughtered for doing what their leaders think is right, even though they don't naturally want to do it.

The idea about splits is not overdone. It's what will screw the Libs. But yes, it's entirely tribal.

Your views and standards do you credit, but if you wish to engage with politics as she is spoke, be prepared to lower your horizons and make some compromises which will leave you feeling dirty. As the Libs are doing right now.

[snowychap]

...

Just be honest - so though the LD's set themselves up and can be criticised for the subsequent volte face, they are, to me, actually meeting some obligations, and for that, with al the imperfections I feel out of line with the way they are getting slaughtered for doing what their leaders think is right, even though they don't naturally want to do it.

I'm sorry if I haven't quite understood that but are you saying that you believe it unfair to 'slaughter' a group of people who are going along with policy that they 'don't naturally want to do' but what their leaders believe is right?

That (assessment), to me, would seem like a much more damning slaughter of the position of Lib Dem MPs than anyone else has been able to muster.

[TrentVilla]

I see Cameron has gone back on his pre-election 'lock up those who carry knives' policy, not a great surprise really.

[avfc89]

Weak leadership.

[Awol]

I see Cameron has gone back on his pre-election 'lock up those who carry knives' policy, not a great surprise really.

Really? FFS..

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion Mr Cameron is more 'Dem' than 'Con' - which somewhat reinforces Blandy's point about the disproportionate influence Clegg and his band of hippies are having on the Government.

[TrentVilla]

I see Cameron has gone back on his pre-election 'lock up those who carry knives' policy, not a great surprise really.

Really? FFS..

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion Mr Cameron is more 'Dem' than 'Con' - which somewhat reinforces Blandy's point about the disproportionate influence Clegg and his band of hippies are having on the Government.

Actually I put it down to the fact he probably meant it when he said it and then saw how much it would cost.

Either way I it doesn't say much for him in my book and is sad because its one policy I thought he had made clear and which I supported.

[LondonLax]

They are slashing the prison budget so are having to release people early and use more community service orders instead of prison. The knife policy would not have worked with the current budget.

[TrentVilla]

They are slashing the prison budget so are having to release people early and use more community service orders instead of prison. The knife policy would not have worked with the current budget.

Indeed which is a whole debate in itself.

I does rather pose the question though if the policy was ever a real policy which was intended to be implemented or if it was just said because it would be popular.

[blandy]

Cameron is a shiny outer and a hollow inner, IMO.

Riding his bike with his car 100 yards behind sums him up.

He's another Blair with out the God rubbish. He'll believe and do whatever is needed to get and keep power. Power is the aim, not reform. Get power, help your mates, repeat.

[Jon]

They are slashing the prison budget so are having to release people early and use more community service orders instead of prison. The knife policy would not have worked with the current budget.

Indeed which is a whole debate in itself.

I does rather pose the question though if the policy was ever a real policy which was intended to be implemented or if it was just said because it would be popular.

exactermundo. They're all at it though these days. Just make up loads of 'popular' (or what they think will be popular) stuff in your manifesto and hope the suckers go for it.

See The Lib Dems pledges on tuition fees as another prime example. In fact, the Libs could really pledge what the feck they like, knowing that they'd never win an election outright.

Quite sad really. We need some more conviction politicans back, not the Blair/Cameron type as outlined by Pete above.

[tonyh29]

All lib dem Ministers will have to vote in favour of fee rises or resign ....

wonder who in the Lib Dems has a spine .......

[peterms]

All lib dem Ministers will have to vote in favour of fee rises or resign ....

wonder who in the Lib Dems has a spine .......

I think we'll see similar contortions in the tories over penal policy. Already Michael Howard has been wheeled out of his cave to undermine Clarke publicly.

Michael Howard. Did the word "oleaginous" exist before him, or was it coined especially to describe his entire personality in one word?

This coalition will tear itself apart. I thought it would be the two parties squabbling between each other, but it seems they're unable to stop internal divisions becoming public. That's what screwed the tories in the 90s, bitter divisions over Europe. I suppose Dave was in short trousers then, no folk memory of how utterly destructive that sort of thing can be. You'd think one of the grown-ups would have told him.

[tonyh29]

This coalition will tear itself apart

i still can't help but wonder if that is the plan ...

if another election was called tomorrow , would the UK really elect Ed ?

[peterms]

This coalition will tear itself apart

i still can't help but wonder if that is the plan ...

There is no plan, beyond gaining office and using the time before being thrown out to transfer as much loot and power as possible to your mates.

It's like a better spoken version of an opportunistic burglar. About as socially productive, too.

[avfc89]

This coalition will tear itself apart

i still can't help but wonder if that is the plan ...

if another election was called tomorrow , would the UK really elect Ed ?

What's wrong with little Eddy?

[snowychap]

Michael Howard. Did the word "oleaginous" exist before him, or was it coined especially to describe his entire personality in one word?

I don't know. Who came first Howard or Gerald Kaufman?

[Awol]

This coalition will tear itself apart

i still can't help but wonder if that is the plan ...

if another election was called tomorrow , would the UK really elect Ed ?

What's wrong with little Eddy?

Apart from being an utterly clueless tube? He makes Cameron look good which is no easy task.

[peterms]

Michael Howard. Did the word "oleaginous" exist before him, or was it coined especially to describe his entire personality in one word?

I don't know. Who came first Howard or Gerald Kaufman?

Good question.

Kaufman is smug, certainly. I don't think he can manage to take it to that extreme of preening, oily, self-satisfied smirking that Howard does, though.