Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Will you vote for Alternative Vote?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you vote for Alternative Vote?

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

A better democracy - or any sort of democracy - would be one in which politicians make promises before the election then, once in power, try to deliver them. Clegg has done nothing but lead his shower of cunts in propping up an illegitimate Tory Government who are pushing through the kind of shite that Lib Dems used to argue against.

 

If you vote for the Quisling cocksuckers on the 5th, that's one more vote than they deserve.

 

 

And I thought I overused hyperbole. Quislings, really?

 

You really think politicians make promises just to break them? When will you realise that if you don't win the fucking election, chances are you're not going to be able to do everything you wanted to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Numero Veinticinco
There wouldn't even be a referendum if it wasn't for Nick Clegg.

 

That's true for oh so many things.

 

There isn't a Tory government. There would be, though, if there was no coalition.

 

This is a Tory government. I rarely get a chance to quote Shakespeare, but this calls for some serious Romeo and Juliet shit if you're going to keep on with that bollocks.

 

 

And any cuts were going to happen whichever party got in. Labour's cuts amount to 1% a year less annually in unprotected deparments. Big whoop.

 

Ah, fuck me.

 

Don't blame me when you wake up on May 8th 2015 with a bona fide Tory government, and no liberal counterweight to rein back their excesses.

 

We are so fucking thankful, oh protectors of the realm. Again, you seem to neglect the fact that without your support they'd not be able to do any of this. And, as you've said, you're not actually reining back their excesses, you support most of what the government are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you seem to neglect the fact that without your support they'd not be able to do any of this.

 

 

It's not a fact, it's your assertion. The other belief, accepted by many, including me, is that the Tories would have gone back to the country 6 months later and won a majority in their own right against a bankrupt and rudderless Labour Party, and a Liberal Democrat party too gutless to seize the opportunity of power when it finally presented itself.

 

And, as you've said, you're not actually reining back their excesses, you support most of what the government are doing.

 

 

Oh well, in that case, let's punish the Lib Dems for being toothless in government by voting to retain the system that ensures they're toothless. Brilliant sodding plan. Let's fuck ourselves in the arse because clearly the electoral system isn't fucking us enough already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
It's not a fact, it's your assertion.

 

Nope, it's a fact. They wouldn't have had any power to make these changes with their result in 2010. What happens down the line has nothing to do with my statement.

 

The other belief, accepted by many, including me, is that the Tories would have gone back to the country 6 months later and won a majority in their own right against a bankrupt and rudderless Labour Party, and a Liberal Democrat party too gutless to seize the opportunity of power when it finally presented itself.

 

Certainly not accepted by me. It's a questionable, lazy prediction at best. There's way too many variables to come up with such a definite conclusion. For somebody who only relies on facts, you don't half talk some nonsense.

 

Oh well, in that case, let's punish the Lib Dems for being toothless in government by voting to retain the system that ensures they're toothless. Brilliant sodding plan. Let's fuck ourselves in the arse because clearly the electoral system isn't fucking us enough already.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. By saying 'I'm voting for AV', what I really mean is 'punish the Lib Dems'.

 

Nick Clegg was right about AV, though. It really is a miserable little compromise. It's so boring to see politicians try to make out like there some massive, once in a lifetime revolution under way with AV. It's not all that different, so they're just trying to create some sort of difference.

 

The sooner this coalition splits up, the better for the country. I can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it's a fact. They wouldn't have had any power to make these changes with their result in 2010. What happens down the line has nothing to do with my statement.

 

 

What happens down the line is completely relevant though. When you say "they'd not be able to do any of this", really it's "they'd not be able to do any of this for another 6 months or so". For all the difference that makes.

 

Certainly not accepted by me. It's a questionable, lazy prediction at best. There's way too many variables to come up with such a definite conclusion. For somebody who only relies on facts, you don't half talk some nonsense.

 

 

How is it nonsense? There is a strong possibility that that would have happened. What other possible scenarios would you have envisaged?

 

Nick Clegg was right about AV, though. It really is a miserable little compromise.

 

 

I'm sick of seeing this quotemine all over the place, it's becoming one of those myths which are repeated so often that people believe it to be true.

 

Let's see the line in context:

 

AV is a baby step in the right direction – only because nothing can be worse than the status quo. If we want to change British politics once and for all, we have got to have a quite simple system in which everyone’s votes count. We think AV-plus is a feasible way to proceed. At least it is proportional – and it retains a constituency link.

 

The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party.

 

Labour's manifesto promised AV, the Lib Dem manifesto STV. In that context, between STV and AV, then AV would be a poor compromise in any coalition deal, because the party offering AV hasn't moved from their manifesto position.

 

If you're going to accuse me of making lazy predictions, then you need to stop using lazy quotemines.

 

It's so boring to see politicians try to make out like there some massive, once in a lifetime revolution under way with AV. It's not all that different, so they're just trying to create some sort of difference.

 

 

The effective elimination of tactical voting would make a huge difference, even if you think it wouldn't.

 

The sooner this coalition splits up, the better for the country. I can't wait.

 

 

Wait you will have to, because 2015 is still 4 years away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
What happens down the line is completely relevant though. When you say "they'd not be able to do any of this", really it's "they'd not be able to do any of this for another 6 months or so". For all the difference that makes.

 

No, it's not that at all. You have absolutely no idea how the British public would have reacted to a minority government continually trying, but failing, to get ridiculously unfair measures through.

 

 

How is it nonsense? There is a strong possibility that that would have happened. What other possible scenarios would you have envisaged?

 

Like I said, there's way too many variables. Personally, I don't think the British public would have liked to see Conservatives trying to raise tuition fees, make harsh cuts etc., etc. The reason I think this is because it's being played out now. Public opinion has turned in just a matter of months.

 

 

I'm sick of seeing this quotemine all over the place, it's becoming one of those myths which are repeated so often that people believe it to be true.

 

Let's see the line in context:

 

AV is a baby step in the right direction – only because nothing can be worse than the status quo. If we want to change British politics once and for all, we have got to have a quite simple system in which everyone’s votes count. We think AV-plus is a feasible way to proceed. At least it is proportional – and it retains a constituency link.

 

The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party.

 

Labour's manifesto promised AV, the Lib Dem manifesto STV. In that context, between STV and AV, then AV would be a poor compromise in any coalition deal, because the party offering AV hasn't moved from their manifesto position.

 

If you're going to accuse me of making lazy predictions, then you need to stop using lazy quotemines.

 

You're such a massive cunt. I'm agreeing, in context and out, with everything that Clegg says there. It is a baby step. It is a miserable little compromise - whether it's with Labour or the Conservatives. Just because the Conservatives didn't have it in their manifesto, it doesn't make it any less of a compromise on the Liberal Democrat policy. Clegg is still making a compromise on something that's any good. It's still a miserable little compromise, and I stand by my statement.

 

More telling, and maybe more damning, is his first line in that. It is a baby step and only because nothing is worse than what we've got. It's hardly high praise, is it? He's now trying to sell it as a once in a lifetime opportunity.

 

The effective elimination of tactical voting would make a huge difference, even if you think it wouldn't.

 

It doesn't eliminate tactical voting. It doesn't make a huge difference.

 

Wait you will have to, because 2015 is still 4 years away.

 

It's going to be fucking hilarious digging this up. That reminds me, I might go back and dig up some of your comments about how only a few Unis will be able to charge 9k. I'll probably leave it for one big blow out, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not that at all. You have absolutely no idea how the British public would have reacted to a minority government continually trying, but failing, to get ridiculously unfair measures through.

 

 

 

 

Like I said, there's way too many variables. Personally, I don't think the British public would have liked to see Conservatives trying to raise tuition fees, make harsh cuts etc., etc. The reason I think this is because it's being played out now. Public opinion has turned in just a matter of months.

 

 

 

You're such a massive cunt. I'm agreeing, in context and out, with everything that Clegg says there. It is a baby step. It is a miserable little compromise - whether it's with Labour or the Conservatives. Just because the Conservatives didn't have it in their manifesto, it doesn't make it any less of a compromise on the Liberal Democrat policy. Clegg is still making a compromise on something that's any good. It's still a miserable little compromise, and I stand by my statement.

 

More telling, and maybe more damning, is his first line in that. It is a baby step and only because nothing is worse than what we've got. It's hardly high praise, is it? He's now trying to sell it as a once in a lifetime opportunity.

 

 

 

It doesn't eliminate tactical voting. It doesn't make a huge difference.

 

 

 

It's going to be fucking hilarious digging this up. That reminds me, I might go back and dig up some of your comments about how only a few Unis will be able to charge 9k. I'll probably leave it for one big blow out, to be honest.

 

Superb mate, absolutely superb post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not that at all. You have absolutely no idea how the British public would have reacted to a minority government continually trying, but failing, to get ridiculously unfair measures through.

 

 

You make a few assumptions yourself here (1) that a Tory minority government would have attempted to do exactly the same things as the coalition government and (2) that a sufficient number of people see the deficit reduction measures as ridiculously unfair. #2 I will address shortly.

 

Like I said, there's way too many variables. Personally, I don't think the British public would have liked to see Conservatives trying to raise tuition fees, make harsh cuts etc., etc. The reason I think this is because it's being played out now. Public opinion has turned in just a matter of months.

 

 

Again, I think you assume too much about public opinion, this poll is from last month:

 

Voters back cuts but cool on coalition – poll | Politics | The Guardian

 

Guardian/ICM poll finds 57% support for current or deeper cuts, despite a fall in economic confidence.

 

Voters have given this week's budget a cautious welcome despite plunging consumer confidence, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. It suggests most still tolerate the government's plan for spending cuts – or think they should go further.

 

Despite Saturday's protest march in London, public tolerance of cuts seems to be sustained. Only 35% think the plans go too far – a 10-point drop since ICM asked the question in November. Meanwhile 28% think the government has found the right balance and 29% say the cuts are not severe enough. That amounts to 57% support for current cuts or more.

 

I think sometimes we all commit the cardinal sin of believing that the left wing echo chamber of The Liverpool Way forums is representative of the world at large, I hope you will at least accept the Guardian/ICM poll as perhaps reasonably indicative of wider public feeling on the spending cuts.

 

You're such a massive cunt. I'm agreeing, in context and out, with everything that Clegg says there. It is a baby step. It is a miserable little compromise - whether it's with Labour or the Conservatives. Just because the Conservatives didn't have it in their manifesto, it doesn't make it any less of a compromise on the Liberal Democrat policy. Clegg is still making a compromise on something that's any good. It's still a miserable little compromise, and I stand by my statement.

 

 

Fine, I just think it's a bit more nuanced than that.

 

More telling, and maybe more damning, is his first line in that. It is a baby step and only because nothing is worse than what we've got. It's hardly high praise, is it? He's now trying to sell it as a once in a lifetime opportunity.

 

 

Actually, I don't think he is trying to sell it at all right now!

 

It doesn't eliminate tactical voting. It doesn't make a huge difference.

 

 

I think it goes a long way to eliminating tactical voting, people can now vote for the person they want as number 1, rather than the lesser evil they think has a chance of winning.

 

It's going to be fucking hilarious digging this up. That reminds me, I might go back and dig up some of your comments about how only a few Unis will be able to charge 9k. I'll probably leave it for one big blow out, to be honest.

 

 

I couldn't find those specific comments, perchance I overlooked it, but these were the nearest to it, which seem a little more non-committal to me:

 

Everyone seems to be assuming that universities will ask to go above the £6,000 cap and charge the full £9,000. I wonder what this is based on, because it sure as hell doesn't seem to be based on a rational examination of anything factual.

 

They'll have to seriously expand access for the poorest students if they want to charge £9,000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day NV and SD will become trapped in a Phantom Zone version of the New Statesman magazine where they will be at each other's throats until the end of time, about a whole range of subjects ranging from the Middle East to council policy on replacement wheelie bins.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsH-BOTfOIiP-Y2lSN-7-fMwpCXiE83iQNFMEcEdCv293OULNO2Q&t=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, it's quite simple, do you want more coalitions then vote for AV. If like me you think it makes for less accountability and the 'make it up as you go along' indecisive policies mostly following the driving corporate forces directly against the public will then say no, or better still ignore this attempt to divert revolution and reject the first offer in favour of something even better. SD may call you a cunt rather than remove the tory strap-on dildo on his head and pause for a second to see who is fucking his precious party over behind the scenes. Its not the cunting public, its your lot and them lot fighting it out in the press and the public shrugging and passing by as you would it you saw two homeless pissartists fighting. This cunting public, the passing, shrugging public are too busy paying tax while the homeless and the tax haven power brokers avoid it by feigning homelessness by virtue of offshore off licences and we'll all get pissed and ask the public for a lift.

Meanwhile don't forget who you enabled, to whom you load the gun and passed it.

David-Cameron.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've read all 5 pages (111 posts) , given careful consideration to all points of view, weighed up the pros and cons of AV compared to other voting processes and conclude that the only response fitting this truly monumental decision is indeed to wipe my fucking arse with it.

My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
You make a few assumptions yourself here (1) that a Tory minority government would have attempted to do exactly the same things as the coalition government and (2) that a sufficient number of people see the deficit reduction measures as ridiculously unfair. #2 I will address shortly.

 

1. I thought the Lib Dems were holding them back? Are you suggesting, counter to your previous line of argument, that your party are making it worse?

 

2. I'll come on to that.

 

 

Again, I think you assume too much about public opinion, this poll is from last month:

 

Voters back cuts but cool on coalition – poll | Politics | The Guardian

 

Guardian/ICM poll finds 57% support for current or deeper cuts, despite a fall in economic confidence.

 

Voters have given this week's budget a cautious welcome despite plunging consumer confidence, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. It suggests most still tolerate the government's plan for spending cuts – or think they should go further.

 

Despite Saturday's protest march in London, public tolerance of cuts seems to be sustained. Only 35% think the plans go too far – a 10-point drop since ICM asked the question in November. Meanwhile 28% think the government has found the right balance and 29% say the cuts are not severe enough. That amounts to 57% support for current cuts or more.

 

I think sometimes we all commit the cardinal sin of believing that the left wing echo chamber of The Liverpool Way forums is representative of the world at large, I hope you will at least accept the Guardian/ICM poll as perhaps reasonably indicative of wider public feeling on the spending cuts.

 

The same way you accept opinion polls as an indication of how people feel about your party? It's the same poll that put the Conservatives 1pt ahead of Labour and LDs on 16%. There's pretty much out on their own with those predictions last month.

Like others from this month that are clearly not so flattering. Actually, the average is Labour 6pts ahead of Cons, not a pt behind, and LDs on 9%. Government approval is -22%. That's, um, well, you know... pretty bad.

 

couldn't find those specific comments, perchance I overlooked it, but these were the nearest to it, which seem a little more non-committal to me:

 

You might want to check out this post where you assert that ''Fees are capped at £6,000 (up to £9,000 with exceptional justification)''. It's not exceptional justification, nor is it ''specific circumstances", it's most and whenever they like.

 

I think you know full well your position was that it's going to be well against the norm for 9k. I think it's just as clear to see that you were wrong on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, this just shows how out of his depth Clegg is. I mean, come on, expecting the Conservatives to be honourable.....

 

Nick Clegg: Deputy PM rages against Cameron 'lies' - Profiles, People - The Independent

 

 

Nick Clegg: Deputy PM rages against Cameron 'lies'

 

Exclusive: After weeks as the target in the bitter AV referendum battle, the Lib Dem leader pulls no punches in his most outspoken comments yet

 

By Matt Chorley, Political Correspondent

 

Sunday, 24 April 2011

 

 

Nick Clegg is spoiling for a fight with just about everyone – David Cameron, Andrew Lansley, all Tories, Ed Miliband, John Reid, universities, the Daily Mail, Germany, even his own MPs.

 

Rivals will dismiss this as mere pre-election posturing: creating false dividing lines in a desperate attempt to avert a bloodbath in town halls the length of the country.

 

But it seems to go deeper than that. After he has attacked in all but name by every Tory from the PM down, the rules of engagement have changed. Aides say Clegg has woken up to pleas from his party to make clear the Liberal Democrat influence in government, even if that means rocking the coalition boat. As a final effort to save his own skin, it could be too late. But he is going down fighting.

 

The main battleground is over his attempt to ditch first past the post for the alternative vote in 5 May's referendum. The stakes are high, which explains the escalation of tensions at the heart of government. The Prime Minister, in particular, gets both barrels: accused of telling "lies", using big Tory money to fund "the very nastiest reactionary politics".

 

Clegg's remarks on the conduct of Cameron and opponents of AV are extraordinary, condemning the "death rattle of a right-wing elite, a right-wing clique who want to keep things the way they are". Does he mean the Prime Minister specifically? "Look, I include all those, and of course it includes the Conservative Party, who like this nice little racket. They get a job for life and they waft into power and they don't even need to bother try to get a majority of people onside."

 

After emerging victorious from the TV debates last year, Clegg has been imagining a leaders' broadcast on the referendum. "So, on one side of the stage, pro-AV, you'd have me, Ed Miliband, (Green) Caroline Lucas, (Ukip) Nigel Farage, (SNP) Alex Salmond and (Plaid Cymru) Ieuan Wyn Jones. The other side, you'd have David Cameron, (BNP) Nick Griffin and whoever leads the Communist Party. Now that tells you volumes about the very reactionary interests that are defending the indefensible."

 

He is furious about the way he has been targeted personally by the No campaign and believes the PM has reneged on a deal that both men would keep a low profile in the AV debate. Reflecting on Cameron's surprise decision to share a platform with a former Labour home secretary last week, Clegg remarks: "When Conservatives team up with a man as reactionary and backward-looking as John Reid, you know that the old establishment, the old elite, are just thrashing around."

 

Both sides of the coalition will "respect" the decision of the British public. Will he resign if the first-past-the-posters win? "Of course not. The referendum is a decision by the British people."

 

The Yes campaign has struggled "against a headwind of lies, misinformation and deceit", including claims made by Cameron himself that AV will require expensive counting machines and will favour extremists. Clegg believes AV can yet win the day. "People have still got, after the expenses scandal, a residual longing for something better."

 

This is a familiar riff from the general election trail, casting himself as the interloper disrupting the red-blue "pendulum" of British politics. "I will get opprobrium heaped on me from left and right; a vituperative attack from people who wish that life was different. Well, I'm sorry but it ain't."

 

The bonhomie of the Rose Garden seems a long time ago. While he and Cameron talk on a daily basis, the power-sharing deal is an "unsentimental... transaction". "I see all this stuff about how we are somehow mates. We are not. We are not there to become friends. I didn't come into this coalition government to look for friends."

 

Which is probably just as well. Poll ratings tumbling, the dream of electoral reform slipping through his fingers and the faintest outline of rivals positioning for the party leadership – few would swap places with Nicholas William Peter Clegg. Yet he seems never happier than when being attacked from all sides.

 

It has been a terrible first year in power for the Lib Dem leader, reneging on promises yet delivering others and committing military forces to Libya, the last marking a major step in his party's adjustment to the responsibilities of being in government.

 

"Liberal Democrats wouldn't support this if I thought what we were embarking on was some sort of slippery-slope engagement that would lead to some kind of Afghanistan or Iraq. It is utterly, utterly different." This is, he says, an example of multilateral liberal interventionism. With China and Russia not vetoing the move, he says it amounts to a "turning of the page on a long period of time after the Iraq war when I think a lot of people like me were frankly pretty pessimistic that the UN system of multilateralism could survive the battering it had received at the hands of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair."

 

He says he understands those concerned about Britain's involvement but asks them to imagine "the slaughter of the lawyers, the students, the architects, the doctors, the nurses in Benghazi who Gaddafi said he was going to massacre. We would have been condemned for standing on the sidelines while this bloodbath continued." However, he claims European allies like Germany made a "mistake" in deciding "very prematurely to stand aside from what was an international multilateral effort demanded by the Arab community itself". It will remain a challenge for the EU for decades. More immediately, the pitch last week for a 4.9 per cent increase in the EU budget the former MEP dismisses as "posturing". There is "no way that's going to happen".

 

It is the coalition's more constructive relationship with Brussels that has angered many on the Tory right. But this is not the only area where the Lib Dems are said to be steering HMS Coalition.

 

Having laid claim to an office at the left-leaning IPPR think tank, moments after giving a hastily arranged speech on AV Clegg is keen to "spell out in words of one syllable" that the Lib Dems are wielding influence in government – so much so that the Tory blogosphere is "frothing at the mouth". "If you were a political expert from Mars and you didn't take your cue from the Daily Mail, you would conclude that this is, objectively speaking, a quintessentially Liberal government."

 

But measures like raising the income tax threshold, taxing North Sea oil firms and increasing pensions have been "completely obscured" by the political behemoth of tuition fees, which, having promised to abolish, he voted to treble. He was, he says, "stuffed politically" during the coalition talks because Cameron knew Labour would not give an inch on fees either.

 

He could have put off reform for a couple of years, and allowed pressure to build from the higher education institutions. "Behind closed doors and slightly behind their hands lots of vice-chancellors have said: 'ooh, very good, go and do this that and the other'. Most vice-chancellors have been frankly not the bravest souls in being straightforward with the public about the pressures that they themselves are under."

 

It emerged that 46 of the 70 universities that had published figures by the end of last week will demand £9,000 a year. "It won't end up like that. It really won't." The average price will fall once scholarships and increased access for poorer students are taken into account, Clegg says. Universities that want to charge "top whack" will have to "pay the consequences".

 

Having learnt the hard way the perils of being stuck with a politically suicidal policy, he now claims to be laying down the law to Tory MPs. "We are not going to just sign up to stuff that falls outside the coalition agreement. I am probably harder line than anybody... about making sure that Liberal Democrats don't get rolled over."

 

On the NHS reforms in particular, he claims "a lot of the stuff that Andrew Lansley has sought to propose, where it doesn't fall squarely within the coalition agreement, has to be subject to a lot of public debate and scrutiny". There will be "substantive changes" as a result, likely to include delaying plans to force GP consortia to take over commissioning healthcare from 2013. Despite the rumour mill claiming Lansley is on his way out, there will be no major reshuffle after the local elections. "The idea that you change the political weather by playing musical chairs in Whitehall is something I have never believed myself."

 

There are whispers in Westminster that some want to oust him from his seat at the top table. The veteran Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders accused Clegg of being an "opportunistic careerist" who had "irrevocably damaged" his party's image. The Lib Dem leader doesn't hesitate in slapping him down. "When things are tough in politics, you don't start turning on yourself. A lot of Lib Dems will be pretty angry that someone spends all his time blogging about us rather than the things we offer. What you don't do in the middle of a difficult task is bail out."

 

So he's not going anywhere. Apart from a weekend break at the seaside, with a little bit of AV campaigning which will please the troops (and, presumably, annoy wife Miriam).

 

"Right, I am going to pick up the kids," and off he strides. A bit of sea air and sand between his toes could help to calm some of this anger. But don't bank on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

Chris Huhne making noise earlier on. I've got to say, Stronts, I'm loving this new, mature, grown-up politics you were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coalition will turn to shit if the Lib Dems don't get their way with AV because they've got literally nothing else to play for, they've been sitting on their hands in the hopes that they get what they want, but they won't, and I tell you another thing, they will get annihilated at the locals, especially in the North, absolutely obliterated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
The coalition will turn to shit if the Lib Dems don't get their way with AV because they've got literally nothing else to play for, they've been sitting on their hands in the hopes that they get what they want, but they won't, and I tell you another thing, they will get annihilated at the locals, especially in the North, absolutely obliterated.

 

I don't think they've got anything else to play for, no matter how AV goes. It's downhill from here when the cuts start to really bite. What's the point, politically speaking, in staying in coalition with such a bunch of cunts.

 

I think you're right about the locals, though. They're going to take a smashing, I think. The end of Clegg is nigh, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Huhne making noise earlier on. I've got to say, Stronts, I'm loving this new, mature, grown-up politics you were talking about.

 

 

What, you don't think people who have such major disagreements working together is a sign of maturity?

 

The coalition will turn to shit if the Lib Dems don't get their way with AV because they've got literally nothing else to play for

 

 

That's complete shit, we have another 4 years of government in which we can have a serious influence on policy to play for.

 

The end of Clegg is nigh, I believe.

 

 

What total rot.

 

And what are people like you going to do when the cuts don't have the catastropihic effect you expect/want them to have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
What, you don't think people who have such major disagreements working together is a sign of maturity?

 

Aww, bless. You still think that reframing the argument into a question is going to work outside the playground. If you think that calling each other liars and threatening legal recourse is a sign of the new politics you've been championing, you're even more of an oaf than I thought.

 

 

What total rot.

 

And what are people like you going to do when the cuts don't have the catastropihic effect you expect/want them to have?

 

Firstly, let me clear up some of your ignorance. i don't want them to happen, and I've never said anything that suggests or implies that I want them to have catastrophic ramifications. Secondly, a fair amount of my predictions are already coming true, just a year into government. Thirdly, why do you keep terming your half-arsed predictions as if they're facts? It doesn't make them any more real. Finally, I think a more relevant question is, what are people like you, who are desperate for these ideologically driven cuts to be enforced, going to do if my predictions are carried out to their fullest extent?

 

To answer your prediction, I'd do nothing if my expectations don't come any more true than they already are. It's not my ideology being put to the test here, it's yours.

Edited by Numero Veinticinco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

As for 'serious influence', that's a slight change from the 'we've only got 57 MPs' stance you took over the tuition fees. I'd be shocked if you got more than the odd bone thrown your way over the remainder of the coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's complete shit, we have another 4 years of government in which we can have a serious influence on policy to play for.

 

 

Like what? Drug policy reform? Nuclear weapons? Tuition fees? Banking reform (all went a bit tits-up after the Torygraph's hatchet job on Cable didn't it?) So what else?

 

Your party has been steamrollered at every single turn. This isn't a coalition, it's slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...