Lib Dems

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I don't mind people holding the opinion that the coalition didn't spend enough on flood spending, it's a perfectly reasonably position to take, but it is factually incorrect to say that they cut flood spending. As I always say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

"David Cameron’s coalition cut flood defence spending sharply in 2010, meaning planned defences in Leeds, Kendal and elsewhere were not built. Spending rose after the heavy floods in the winter of 2013-14 but a series of authorities - including the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, and the National Audit Office, warned ministers that spending was too low to stop flood risk from rising, as climate change increases the likelihood of severe weather.

 

Greenpeace’s Hannah Martin said: “These testimonies show flood-hit people are tired of ministers springing into action only when disaster strikes. The vast majority of the UK public want them to do more about preventing future floods. For far too long, ministers have disregarded scientists’ warnings that climate change would drive up flood risk across the country.”

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I don't mind people holding the opinion that the coalition didn't spend enough on flood spending, it's a perfectly reasonably position to take, but it is factually incorrect to say that they cut flood spending. As I always say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

The Government’s spin machine is good at glossing over such inconvenient truths. But its smoke and mirror policymaking is putting homes, lives and livelihoods at risk and must be laid bare. 

Investment in flood defences plummeted under the Tories. In 2007, the Labour Government announced a target of £800m per year in flood defence spending by 2011. Spending actually increased from £500m in 2007/8 to £633 in 2009/10 and we had budgeted £766m in 2010/11.

Upon taking office in 2010, the Coalition government immediately cut the figure by £96m.  Ever since then they have been playing catch up.  The impacts of climate change – along with the Government’s willingness to build new homes on flood plains without protective measures – mean that simply maintaining defences at their current levels is not good enough. And the Government isn’t even doing that.

[Bjornebye]

Facts. Shall I go on? 

[Strontium]

You can write what you like so long as you acknowledge that the coalition government spent more on flood planning than the Labour government before them.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

You can write what you like so long as you acknowledge that the coalition government spent more on flood planning than the Labour government before them.

No no no you wriggly little worm. You said it is factually incorrect to say that the coalition cut spending. It is factually correct for me to say that they did regardless of reacting to floods later on (something any government in place would have done) 

[Strontium]

They spent more than the previous government, if you're going to characterise that in any way as cutting spending, then that's ridiculous.

 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

They spent more than the previous government, if you're going to characterise that in any way as cutting spending, then that's ridiculous.

 

When the coalition took over in 2010 did they cut spending ? Yes or no? Simple yes or no. Are you capable? Cant you just admit that they did? 

 

In-fact don't bother. You are incapable of the truth when it goes against something you have got wrong. 

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

When the coalition took over in 2010 did they cut spending ? Yes or no? Simple yes or no. Are you capable? Cant you just admit that they did? 

 

In-fact don't bother. You are incapable of the truth when it goes against something you have got wrong. 

 

The original tweet said "Her party cut spending for flood planning". The only meaningful way of measuring that is over the full five year period of government. Over the five years 2005-10, average annual flood spending was £671.3 million. Over the five years 2010-15 under the coalition, average annual flood spending was £727.2m.

 

Spin it how you want. The Lib Dems spent more on flood defence than Labour. The end.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The original tweet said "Her party cut spending for flood planning". The only meaningful way of measuring that is over the full five year period of government. Over the five years 2005-10, average annual flood spending was £671.3 million. Over the five years 2010-15 under the coalition, average annual flood spending was £727.2m.

 

Spin it how you want. The Lib Dems spent more on flood defence than Labour. The end.

Load of rubbish and you know it. Spending was cut by the coalition. That is the fact here. 

 

Simple as that. 

[Strontium]

All I will say is that you must be using a strange definition of cutting spending given that they spent more.

[PestiRed]

Flood spending equals flood planning plus post-flood fixing spending. It can therefore be correct to say that flood planning was cut whilst also be accurate to say that flood spending increased.

 

Have a sweetie each

 

 

[Bjornebye]

3 hours ago, PestiRed said:

Flood spending equals flood planning plus post-flood fixing spending. It can therefore be correct to say that flood planning was cut whilst also be accurate to say that flood spending increased.

 

Have a sweetie each

 

 

Thats normrelevant to the point though. Spending was cut. They only HAD to amend it because of floods.

 

Anyone agreeing with SD on this is a divvy 

[Mudface]

Presumably a government that spent nothing on flood defence maintenance and £10 billion on repairing the flood damage their negligence caused would be seen favourably under those criteria.

[Denny Crane]

Lib Dems fighting their own candidates harder than they fought the tories. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

Lib Dems fighting their own candidates harder than they fought the tories. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s really not a good look. I feel for him. Full statement below:

 

 

 

[Dr Nowt]

That guy’s an idiot. A yellow Tory idiot. I reckon the best way to stop Johnson is if both parties and their supporters keep going at each other hammer and tong until one wipes the other out.

 

The clever bit is that afterwards all the same people can spend the next decade reheating arguments about which side’s sole fault it all was.

[Captain Turdseye]

19 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Hahahahahaha. 

 

"I've won the WBC Super-Middleweight Championship of the World" 

 

"I've never won the ...... " See where I'm going? 

 

Sounds like you’ve lost a fair bit of weight, mate. Good for you. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, viRdjil said:

That’s really not a good look. I feel for him. Full statement below:

 

 

 

"The sooner the majority of policymaking becomes delegated to citizens' assemblies, the better."

 

Bloody anarchist.

[Bjornebye]

41 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

 

Sounds like you’ve lost a fair bit of weight, mate. Good for you. 

Haha randomly weight myself this morning and I'm 12.8 so I'm just light heavyweight. Heaviest I have been in 3 and a half years that. 

 

Are you still struggling to make Bantamweight? 

[Captain Turdseye]

44 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Haha randomly weight myself this morning and I'm 12.8 so I'm just light heavyweight. Heaviest I have been in 3 and a half years that. 

 

Are you still struggling to make Bantamweight? 

 

I’m hovering around middleweight. And most of that weight is hovering around my middle. 

[Anubis]

Take it to the Jo Swinson’s Boxing Thread.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

When Ian Austin, a former Labour MP whose hated the party for ages and is largely buzzed off by a large proportion of the party membership, called for voters to vote Conservative over Labour the media went OTT with rhetoric like "bombshell" and "this is massive" etc. 

 

I haven't checked, but has the reaction been the same to today's news of an actual Lib Dem parliamentary candidate telling the electorate to vote Labour over his own party, that he was actually standing for?

 

Wow. That's embarrassing for the Lib Dems. 

[cloggypop]

New evidence that LibDems sold voter data for £100,000 held back till after election

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/new-evidence-that-libdems-sold-voter-data-for-100000-held-back-till-after-election/

[Bjornebye]

11 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

New evidence that LibDems sold voter data for £100,000 held back till after election

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/new-evidence-that-libdems-sold-voter-data-for-100000-held-back-till-after-election/

I'd be less surprised if Santa was real. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Classy... 

 

 

 

Guy Kiddey

 

@GuyKiddey

·

1h

 

I have heard that the #LibDems are looking for a new candidate for #HighPeak. They might have told me directly rather than leave it to unsuspecting journalists to break the news. No contrition, no apologies. A great disappointment.