Questiontime

[Section_31]

that is a chilling prospect. Those of us around at the time will remember the vindictive manner she took on the unions. She destroyed communities not just a union in vengance at them having had the temerity to stand up to Ted Heath's government, and I dont use the word destroyed lightly. It was a malicious evil act from a government who betrayed the ideal that they are meant to seek the best for all citizens.

 

Is Nick really planning to sequester the banks? Will MI5 be be recruiting Bob Diamond and John Varley et al to spy for them? Is he going to instruct the police to provoke confrontation then beat the shit out of bank employees? That is the manner that she tackled the unions.

 

I haven't read Nick Cleggs comments SD but if you have accurately summarised them then it is a very disturbing parallel to make. There are many ways you can express your detemination to tackle a problem without suggesting you will ape the tactics of a vicious bully.

 

I don't thin the Tories have ever made that claim mate. Their belief in trickle down economics is absolute despite the decades of evidence that it doesn't work. Their attitude to 'society' is 'take care of the rich and the rich will take care of (exploit in exchange for moderate renumeration) the poor.'

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's not in their manifesto.

 

Oh, sorry, my mistake.

[Strontium]

Then why jump into bed with a group of people that want to concentrate power into a small group of people? What a genuinely bizarre thing to say.

 

 

Did you sleepwalk through the last 13 years or something? Did you miss the way in which the Labour Party systematically removed the democratic protections we all used to enjoy in order to further concentrate power in the hands of the state?

 

I think that if you have any evidence that the Tory party wants to concentrate power in the hands of anyone (I suspect "the rich" are going to feature quite highly on the list of suspects) then we ought to probably have it now.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Did you sleepwalk through the last 13 years or something?

 

No, and I'm not interested in deflections. The question isn't whether the Labour party 'removed the democratic protections', it was 'hen why jump into bed with a group of people that want to concentrate power into a small group of people''. That's what the Conservatives have always been about, just like the Republicans. It's very easily observed across history. The Labour party and the Democrats have both moves sickeningly towards their position, but you act as if everything you criticise the Labour party for wasn't likely to happen under the Conservatives.

 

Actually, I think you're whole view on power and freedom is warped. You view of what the Conservatives are about is certainly very muddled.

 

I think that if you have any evidence that the Tory party wants to concentrate power in the hands of anyone (I suspect "the rich" are going to feature quite highly on the list of suspects) then we ought to probably have it now.

 

No, you're right, they want to spread the wealth, the commie fuckers. They want power and wealth to be shared equally, that's what they're all about those Conservatives. Fuck me.

 

You're unreal at the moment. I thought this silliness would subside, so I've continually kept quite, but it's starting to grate a little bit, mate. Now, if you'll answer my question, that's be spiffing. Danke.

[Antynwa]

The Tories talk about big society, about giving power back to the people. Letting people help themselves. The most vulnerable people can't help themselves, children in poor schools can't help themselves because their isn't a school within driving distance to go to.

 

It's quite frankly, fucking ridiculous, the people with the most power out of this will be once more the middle and upper classes. The old age pensioner who depends on meals on wheels to survive doesn't need someone around the corner to step up, he or she needs the government to fund such a scheme.

 

The Tories are talking about turning top schools into academies out of council control, once more the division lines have been drawn and you'll either be destined to have a half decent shot at life, or destined to settle for second best.

 

It's an absolute travesty that in this day in age the child that grows up in Croxteth doesn't have the same chance as that brought up in a a more privileged background, and un-equality in this country has once more gotten worse with Tory-Lib Dem policy.

 

Liverpool is finally on the up, with private and public developments springing up around and about Merseyside. The Tories are yet to confirm whether they will scrapped the much needed 'Royal Hospital' construction amongst other schemes.

 

Places like Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow can't be doing with this whole 'We're in it together shite' because we aren't, Liverpool is still behind other cities financially and it needs more and more help to get it on a level playing field.

 

The Police budget has already been cut and in a place where there are fucking shootings and stabbings every fucking day it's ridiculous.

 

And if these gobshites increase tuition fees I will march to London, Manchester and wherever their is a rally. I got the equivalent of 3 A's at A Levels for the privilege of being £7k in debt a year. If tuition fees get increased, I just won't be able to do it.

 

I fucking hate England, and it's about time someone fucking stood up for the little man.

 

Once more, it's a class war.

[stringvest]

5 years from now atk and Dougie will have to go around to SDs house and ask him to stop hiding and trying to justify his decisions and ridiculous statements he made 5 years earlier, admit he made a huge mistake and speak out on behalf of the ordinary man.

 

Can someone let the Times know?

[torahboy]

Did you sleepwalk through the last 13 years or something? Did you miss the way in which the Labour Party systematically removed the democratic protections we all used to enjoy in order to further concentrate power in the hands of the state?

 

I think that if you have any evidence that the Tory party wants to concentrate power in the hands of anyone (I suspect "the rich" are going to feature quite highly on the list of suspects) then we ought to probably have it now.

 

 

 

Like having a mongrel government that the public didn't vote for imposing policies for which they have no mandate? Where the fuck is our 'democratic protection' right now?

 

Only an absolute fantasist would perceive this current 'government' as being created by anything that passes for democracy. The unprincipled and grubby wheeler dealing that produced this, hopefully short lived, coup would put to shame anything that was cobbled together in Tammany Hall in its heyday.

 

If this is what fucking Liberals accept as 'democracy' then it is to our city's credit that we kicked the fuckers out.

[stringvest]

No, and I'm not interested in deflections. The question isn't whether the Labour party 'removed the democratic protections', it was 'hen why jump into bed with a group of people that want to concentrate power into a small group of people''. That's what the Conservatives have always been about, just like the Republicans. It's very easily observed across history. The Labour party and the Democrats have both moves sickeningly towards their position, but you act as if everything you criticise the Labour party for wasn't likely to happen under the Conservatives.

 

Actually, I think you're whole view on power and freedom is warped. You view of what the Conservatives are about is certainly very muddled.

 

 

 

No, you're right, they want to spread the wealth, the commie fuckers. They want power and wealth to be shared equally, that's what they're all about those Conservatives. Fuck me.

 

You're unreal at the moment. I thought this silliness would subside, so I've continually kept quite, but it's starting to grate a little bit, mate. Now, if you'll answer my question, that's be spiffing. Danke.

 

I don't think there's any point in debating politics with SD at the moment. He's living through his own honeymoon period. Give it 4 years or so and let events play out.

[Strontium]

No, you're right, they want to spread the wealth, the commie fuckers. They want power and wealth to be shared equally, that's what they're all about those Conservatives. Fuck me.

 

You're unreal at the moment. I thought this silliness would subside, so I've continually kept quite, but it's starting to grate a little bit, mate. Now, if you'll answer my question, that's be spiffing. Danke.

 

 

You're not even going to try and present your case, then? Just pointing at history and shouting "See! See what the horrid Tories did in the 80s!" isn't much of an argument. In the 80s the Labour Party was in hock to the Soviet Union - relevance to today's Labour Party: zero

[Strontium]

Like having a mongrel government that the public didn't vote for imposing policies for which they have no mandate? Where the fuck is our 'democratic protection' right now?

 

Only an absolute fantasist would perceive this current 'government' as being created by anything that passes for democracy. The unprincipled and grubby wheeler dealing that produced this, hopefully short lived, coup would put to shame anything that was cobbled together in Tammany Hall in its heyday.

 

 

Coalitions are the norm in Europe, not sure what makes two parties working together an affront to democracy except in a truly diseased mind, but there you go.

 

Tenuous grip on reality notwithstanding, I enjoyed your little rant.

[dennis tooth]

Did you sleepwalk through the last 13 years or something? Did you miss the way in which the Labour Party systematically removed the democratic protections we all used to enjoy in order to further concentrate power in the hands of the state?

 

I think that if you have any evidence that the Tory party wants to concentrate power in the hands of anyone (I suspect "the rich" are going to feature quite highly on the list of suspects) then we ought to probably have it now.

 

So you support Mugabe then becuase he's not as bad as Hitler?

 

Is that how you view life?

 

Pointing out the shortcomings of another is not as way to let yourself off with something, it's a way to prove yourself as being weak and morally bankrupt.

 

I think the Tories actions and words so far prove their intentions, I don't think anyone needs to argue it given that the Tories barely hide it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You're not even going to try and present your case, then? Just pointing at history and shouting "See! See what the horrid Tories did in the 80s!" isn't much of an argument. In the 80s the Labour Party was in hock to the Soviet Union - relevance to today's Labour Party: zero

 

Can you please address my question? Why did you edit out over half of my post and ignore it?

 

And if all you're willing to accept is evidence from a coalition government that is a few days old, then I'm going to have a bit of a hard time, aren't I. Cameron, Thatcher fan, spreading the power and wealth? Breaking what the Conservative party have always been about?

 

Yeah, okay. I mean, are you actually refuting that the Conservatives like to have power concentrated in elite hands, or are you just annoyed that I called you up on the point you can't seem to answer?

[Strontium]

Can you please address my question? Why did you edit out over half of my post and ignore it?

 

 

What was there to address over what I've already said time and time again? We "jumped into bed with the Tories" because it was the best way forward for the country and we could help temper some of the worst Tory excesses and get a few of our own policies through. Why is this so hard for people here to accept?

 

And if all you're willing to accept is evidence from a coalition government that is a few days old, then I'm going to have a bit of a hard time, aren't I.

 

 

Since I don't believe in guilt by association, yes, you are. I'd like to judge this coalition on what it does, not on what the Tories did in 1979. I think that's the only rational stance to take.

 

Yeah, okay. I mean, are you actually refuting that the Conservatives like to have power concentrated in elite hands, or are you just annoyed that I called you up on the point you can't seem to answer?

 

 

I actually don't really know what Cameron is about, does anybody, but I'm encouraged by how keen he was to get us into his government in order that he could diminish the power of his right wing, and how much ground his party has given policywise. Oh, and his enthusiastic (and seemingly genuine) support for the NHS makes a welcome change for a Tory leader too.

[dennis tooth]

Experiences dictates you would go for the easy target who got dragged in by his own inexperience to a minefield he need not traverse.

 

And by the way it's clear what Cameron is about, continuing to privatise the rail, post, schools and NHS that the public built, remove safeguards for the poorest at the bottom and skew democracy in favour of the few elites, further Rupert Murdochs agenda, continue to bend while Obama thrusts, pay billions to banks and wars and blame the poor. Yes I think on the face of it it's clear what he is about and that the 3 parties do not support or represent the poorest majority of the nation.

[torahboy]

Coalitions are the norm in Europe, not sure what makes two parties working together an affront to democracy except in a truly diseased mind, but there you go.

 

Tenuous grip on reality notwithstanding, I enjoyed your little rant.

 

 

 

Coalitions may be the norm in the rest of Europe but we have a system in British electoral procedure that is designed to present a single party government. The 'affront' to democracy is that policies presented as electoral manifestos only weeks ago have been discarded by a group merely to grab a minor role in 'power'.

 

The twat Liberals may get away with calling such a move pragmatic, but it is only in the interest of their party and not in the interest of those who voted for their policies, nor in the interest of the majority of the electorate.

 

You, being a twat Liberal yourself, may feel that power at any cost is a laudable objective. Ask your fucking self, do we really need two parties "working together" to carry out entirely Conservative policy?

 

I suspect my view of the current state of Parliament is more rooted in reality than your own. I ain't deluded enough to believe that what the Liberals have done serves them, democracy or the nation any good.

 

The next election will demonstrate what the public think of the LibDems. Be fearful, Dog.

[dennis tooth]

Dog, what concessions did the Libs get again, can you remind me?

[Whelan]

Coalitions are the norm in Europe, not sure what makes two parties working together an affront to democracy except in a truly diseased mind, but there you go.

 

Tenuous grip on reality notwithstanding, I enjoyed your little rant.

 

Coalitions are not really the norm, they are just the norm in a few countries, but there also tends to be a higher number of relevant parties in those cases (for instance the far right and greens are far more prominant in Northern Europe).

As we have essentially a three party system, the Liberals would always be the party that holds some sort of power and lets be honest there is a good chance that yourselves and the Conservatives could very well enjoy a closed shop in those circumstances.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What was there to address over what I've already said time and time again? We "jumped into bed with the Tories" because it was the best way forward for the country and we could help temper some of the worst Tory excesses and get a few of our own policies through. Why is this so hard for people here to accept?

 

It's not hard for me to accept at all. It just has fuck all to do with what I've asked you. Which, for a third time, was why would you get into bed with a group who has policies that will result in power being shifted into smaller groups than it already is.

 

Let me save us both some time and I'll answer it for you, because you're not going to do it. It's because they are not real Liberals in the sense that they give a fuck about where the concentration of power lies. If they cared so much about it, they wouldn't have gone into a coalition with a group of people who will widen the gap between rich and poor and put more power in the hands of employers and less into the hands of those that will become subservient to them. Again, a strange way to display Liberal antipathy towards curtailment of freedoms and power concentration of power.

 

My main problem is that you attack the Labour party for having certain traits, when what they've become is Conservative lite, yet you're unwilling to hear a word said against Thather's 'biggest fan' and his group of right wing reactionaries.

 

Fucking hell! Do I need to give you a run down of their voting records and their previous history in parliament?

 

Since I don't believe in guilt by association, yes, you are.

 

It's got more to do with nothing having happened yet. Oh, and they are not associated to them. They are them.

 

So yeah, after thousands of years of Monday following Sunday, it might skip straight to Tuesday next week, but I'm just going to stick my money on Monday.

 

I'd like to judge this coalition on what it does, not on what the Tories did in 1979. I think that's the only rational stance to take.

 

So do I. Then again, I'm not judging the coalition, I'm judging the Conservative party.

 

I actually don't really know what Cameron is about, does anybody

 

Yes, they do. He's been leader of the Conservative party for five years and on the oppositions front bench for seven. It's no secret.

 

I'm encouraged by how keen he was to get us into his government in order that he could diminish the power of his right wing, and how much ground his party has given policywise. Oh, and his enthusiastic (and seemingly genuine) support for the NHS makes a welcome change for a Tory leader too.

 

It would be suicide to do anything other than support the NHS. There would be a revolution if they tried to take it away. And I actually mean that literally.

 

Were you encouraged when he said he would let the minimum wage 'fade away'? When he wanted to hit middle earners and give the richest tax cuts? Is that the sort of power equality we're after?

[Strontium]

Coalitions may be the norm in the rest of Europe but we have a system in British electoral procedure that is designed to present a single party government.

 

 

Can you find where it says that anywhere in the rules?

 

The 'affront' to democracy is that policies presented as electoral manifestos only weeks ago have been discarded by a group merely to grab a minor role in 'power'.

 

 

So you would prefer that we refused to participate and got zero of our manifesto through rather than some of it?

 

The twat Liberals may get away with calling such a move pragmatic, but it is only in the interest of their party and not in the interest of those who voted for their policies, nor in the interest of the majority of the electorate.

 

 

Congratulations on contradicting yourself entirely. Aren't the interests of our party exactly the same as those who voted for our policies? Those people should be pleased that some of those policies are now going to come to fruition.

 

So far as "the interest of the majority of the electorate" is concerned: did you somehow miss the fact that this is first time in decades that a majority of the electorate actually voted for one of the parties in power? That the majority have actually got what they voted for for the first time in living memory?

 

You, being a twat Liberal yourself, may feel that power at any cost is a laudable objective. Ask your fucking self, do we really need two parties "working together" to carry out entirely Conservative policy?

 

 

"Entirely Conservative policy" - that's a good one. Twat.

 

I suspect my view of the current state of Parliament is more rooted in reality than your own. I ain't deluded enough to believe that what the Liberals have done serves them, democracy or the nation any good.

 

 

Weren't you saying that we were acting in our interests before? And now we're not, according to you. Joined-up thinking there, I can see you were educated under New Labour.

 

The next election will demonstrate what the public think of the LibDems. Be fearful, Dog.

 

 

Fearful of what? So far, so good, and in the first test of the coalition - Thirsk & Malton - we leapfrogged Labour into 2nd place on an 11.6% swing from them.

 

Like I said earlier, not losing any sleep here.

[Whelan]

Thirsk & Malton mirrored the neighbouring election result, except the fact that their was a turn out of below 50% !

 

The swing was no different to what happened up and down the country, and you still never won.

[King Emlyn]

Admiring one thing that a person has done does not make them an admirer of that person. It's very deceptive of you, and the attempt to tie Pinochet to Clegg is laughable.

 

 

 

 

And a dig at his background too. Pathetic.

 

I don't think anyone is against unions protecting anyone's rights. What people were generally against was the country being held to ransom by a small minority of militant unionists.

 

Liberals are against concentrations of power, and the unions had too much power. Now they don't, and that is to Margaret Thatcher's credit. I don't think it is "wrong" to say that, and anyone who does should probably stop seeing the world in simplistic black and white terms. Sometimes bad people do good things.

Yes Union power needed to be restrained, anybody with common sense could see that, but she used legislation to SMASH them so that her rich buddies in industry had carte blanche to operative however they so choosed. You know it, i know it, we all know it.

[Stu Monty]

I find the criticism that the Liberals saw the chance for power and grabbed it with two hands quite silly. They are a political party who are there because they want to change policy and laws of the country; if they are given the chance to do that then they should take the opportunity. As I've said before, only twelve months ago I was bracing for a Tory majority (a majority they may well have achieved if the Lib Dems had forced another snap election) and so blunting the Tory spear with some Lib Dem was far from a terrible outcome.

 

Unfortunately, though they may be able to stop the gay-bashing and spic-hating from the blue team, they share a very similar ethos economically and it's one that leads to a bad place. Contrary to what the Dog says about concentrations of power, liberalisation of markets leads to exactly that. To say the miners had too much power when the ethos you support has led to a situation where investment banks declare your country (along with the US and Canada) a plutocracy, where the top 1% in the US has more combined net worth (power) than the bottom 95% and has the people who attempted to bankrupt the world running the treasury, is to ignore the reality of the situation and lose all sense of scale.

 

Democracy is irrelevant, as is law, they can be bought. Money is power and that is massively concentrated in the global system of free markets.

 

For anyone to claim you couldn't attack Labour becasue they didn't put anyone up is nonsense; it just means they aren't there to defend themselves. "Oooh, they might have a pop at us!"; fucking man-up, it's pathetic, the goverment won't go on telly because there's no-one from labour there? Bottled. Massive bottling. I voted for you to do battle, not to whimper under the fucking bed.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Stu Monty

[Whelan]

Yes Union power needed to be restrained, anybody with common sense could see that, but she used legislation to SMASH them so that her rich buddies in industry had carte blanch to operative however they so choosed. You know it, i know it, we all know it.

 

Exactly, used a sledghammer to open a Pistachio! She went to war with the Unions and picked on the biggest to prove a point, she used the state apparatus (No downsizing the 'State's Role' there though!) on her own people.

[mattyq]

I'm actually quite pleased that there is a coalition between the libs and tories. It'll be better than if it were just the tories, i think & hope.

It is fun to see SD squirm a bit. You should stop rising to the bait, SD, and remember that you're in the lib dem party, mate. There's no such thing s the lib-con party so you don't have to slavishly defend every anti-tory pop on here. Funny though it is

[torahboy]

"So far as "the interest of the majority of the electorate" is concerned: did you somehow miss the fact that this is first time in decades that a majority of the electorate actually voted for one of the parties in power? That the majority have actually got what they voted for for the first time in living memory?"

 

 

And 77% of the electorate DID NOT vote for the other party in 'power'. So that's how democracy works? Twattish.