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.


Sugar Ape
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

I mean, it's the poverty of the argument that irritates me more than anything, as if it's somehow shocking that someone might have used Labour Party talking points when they were in the Labour Party.

 

Like criticising your girlfriend for shagging other guys before she met you, or moaning that your new signing scored go*ls against your side before you bought him.

Why did you neg a post that literally had tweets from someone else? Are you that sad?

 

Yes. yes you are. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Nothing wrong with him saying 'we'. He is a Lib Dem. Be wrong if he didn't say 'we'. 

 

However that bit in bold isn't entirely true. 

Well fair enough they haven't been called that for generations. Used to be Liberal, now Lib Dem, soon to be whatever Chuka calls it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

I'm a Lib Dem, so "we" is entirely appropriate when I'm referring to the Lib Dems. Not sure what the objection is? Labour members here do the same when referring to Labour.

I don't. Can't imagine many others would have either, especially regarding the parliamentary party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Chuka obviously just thinks it's the best way for him to keep his seat.

But what's in it for the Libs?  Half decent chance at another MP at the next GE?

 

I think he has a valuable contribution to make. He's a very capable man, an impressiver performer and not evil. A staunch Remainer, supporter of proportional representation, and just this week wrote an article in the Independent on drug law reform. People may well end up surprised by how well he fits in.

 

I think it's great if we can attract people like Chuka from the left and, if the rumours are true, Allen and Wollaston from the right. I have always wanted us to be a bigger tent liberal party like our sister party in Canada. Labour and the Tories both seem to be trying to appeal to ever narrower churches, if liberal-minded social democrats and liberal conservatives see us as a viable home, then great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I think he has a valuable contribution to make. He's a very capable man, an impressiver performer and not evil. A staunch Remainer, supporter of proportional representation, and just this week wrote an article in the Independent on drug law reform. People may well end up surprised by how well he fits in.

 

I think it's great if we can attract people like Chuka from the left and, if the rumours are true, Allen and Wollaston from the right. I have always wanted us to be a bigger tent liberal party like our sister party in Canada. Labour and the Tories both seem to be trying to appeal to ever narrower churches, if liberal-minded social democrats and liberal conservatives see us as a viable home, then great.

Riiiiight.

But he's obviously only fallen back on the Lib Dems after his own Chuk party was a massive sad failure.  Would have been a bit different if he'd jumped from Labour straight to the Lib Dems.  Now it just looks like a rather desperate marriage of convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't knock marriages of convenience. Sometimes they can be the longest lasting.

 

He founded TIG because he thought the country needed a new centre party, but it turns out the country didn't. Whether people liked it or not, it took guts to quit an easy life on the Labour backbenches, and there's no shame in honourable failure.

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...