Lib Dems

[Strontium]

You kill me!

 

Which of those things hasn't he done?

 

The recession is over. Unemployment is down. The deficit is down. Income inequality is at its lowest level since the mid 80s. The Tory NHS proposals have been drastically improved by the Lib Dems. The BNP is dead as a political force. Renewable energy capacity has doubled since 2010.

 

There's a bit of the Karl Roves here, attacking someone's achievements rather than their failures.

[Strontium]

How would you change it ?

 

Exactly what we've been arguing for for more than 100 years. Single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

[General Dryness]

Dog - I'm enjoying reading the debate, but nobody has got personal with you as far as I can see so quit it with the "moron" shit. No need.

[Anny Road]

I do actually have some sympathy, well maybe sympathy is a poor choice of word, for Clegg. The Lib dems were given an opportunity in government and he would have been slaughtered had he declined it and the country went from shambles to shambles with a minority government.

Where I feel he has monumental dropped a bollock is the way he has handled the coalition and been used as a recepticle for the Tories to dump a huge portion of the ill feeling upon.

He had to chance it though even if it has been a catastrophic disaster.

[Gnasher]

How would you change it ?

I think he'd like a system where the loser still wins, a sort of David Moyes outlook applied to running the country. This philosophy is appealing for politicians you poll 6% of the vote and face total whipeout

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/nick-clegg-and-lib-dems-face-battle-for-survival

 

It's got nothing to do with principle, political ideology or trying to impose any fresh idea's on improving the country, as proved by Clegg and his chums doing anything the far right of the tory party tell them to do for a seat at the power and privilege table.

[Section_31]

I do actually have some sympathy, well maybe sympathy is a poor choice of word, for Clegg. The Lib dems were given an opportunity in government and he would have been slaughtered had he declined it and the country went from shambles to shambles with a minority government.

Where I feel he has monumental dropped a bollock is the way he has handled the coalition and been used as a recepticle for the Tories to dump a huge portion of the ill feeling upon.

He had to chance it though even if it has been a catastrophic disaster.

I agree with that. By all accounts initial discussions with Labour about forming a coalition were very negative, Labour were obviously not up for it by all accounts and wanted to clean house.

 

That being said, save for a few olive branches offered to Clegg for the sake of public face, the Lib Dems have offered no resistance to anything, they've been enblers pure and simple. The tuition fees hike was a bad sign of things to come.

 

The problem has always been Clegg IMO, he's a snake disguised as a shepherd and the Lib dems are his sheep. He wouldn't look out of place as a Tory.

[Strontium]

Dog - I'm enjoying reading the debate, but nobody has got personal with you as far as I can see so quit it with the "moron" shit. No need.

 

Because history begins and ends with today's posts, doesn't it:

 

He can't, because his head is so firmly up his fucking arse, he could barely type.

 

I wonder why you even bother inventing a flimsy excuse to neg me.

[General Dryness]

Because history begins and ends with today's posts, doesn't it.

 

Nobody is whiter than white, but this thread has kept on track and you're the only one slinging insults. If someone called you names in another thread, call them names back in the same thread. Or wish them and everyone they know dead like you did to me.

 

This thread doesn't need it though.

[Strontium]

Because someone calling my party a joke isn't getting personal, are they.

[General Dryness]

Not in my opinion, no.

[Dougie Do'ins]

Because someone calling my party a joke isn't getting personal, are they.

Am I reading this wrong or are you getting all touchy over the Lib Dem party ?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Which of those things hasn't he done?

 

The recession is over. Unemployment is down. The deficit is down. Income inequality is at its lowest level since the mid 80s. The Tory NHS proposals have been drastically improved by the Lib Dems. The BNP is dead as a political force. Renewable energy capacity has doubled since 2010.

 

There's a bit of the Karl Roves here, attacking someone's achievements rather than their failures.

OK, I'll bite.

 

The Tories austerity measures brought us "the slowest post-recession recovery in output in the past 100 years." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9849449/How-this-recovery-from-recession-compares-with-those-of-the-past.html 

 

Total unemployment is in the region of 5 million. http://www.tuc.org.uk/economic-issues/economic-analysis/labour-market/%E2%80%98total-unemployment-uk-nearly-five-million-%E2%80%93-almost

 

Considering deficit reduction is supposed to be the be-all-and-end-all of the Government's economic plans, the reduction has been nothing to write home about.  It's still more than twice the level it was when the previous Government, as we are told, were running up ridiculous debts on public spending. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

 

The UK is still the third most unequal country in Europe. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/scale-and-trends

 

The privatisation of the NHS continues apace.  This is only possible because the Tories have Coalition partners to facilitate it. http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2014/jan/08/nhs-extinct-government-policy-privatisation

 

I'm intrigued to see if you've got the brass neck to claim that Clegg played any part at all in the demise of the BNP.  Meanwhile, I don't know if you noticed this, but an extreme right-wing party did rather well in the European elections.  (Honestly, it was on the news and everything.)

 

The UK is one of the EU's worst countries for generating such a small proportion of energy from renewables.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union  So, if you increase a tiny amount by a tiny amount, you can boast that you've doubled it.

 

As many economists have been saying since before 2010, austerity is exactly the wrong approach to the recession.  A Green New Deal, to grow out of recession, to protect jobs and to make meaningful investment in the future would've been a start.  Instead, Clegg chose to prop up a Tory programme of cuts and privatisation, which prolonged the recession, to the benefit of nobody except the very rich and the far right.

 

Other than that, bravo Cleggy lad, you're doing a bang-up job.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Because someone calling my party a joke isn't getting personal, are they.

That only works if you are Nick Clegg.

 

You're not are you?

[xerxes]

Your statement was that the "economic tide" had turned by any measure. It hasn't on many measures.

 

It has on London property though. And that's as solid a measure for future prosperity as you'll find.

We agree that the uk economy has much to improve upon.

 

The London housing market is an unique international phenomena which transcends national policy.

 

The uk economy is in recovery, economic fact.

[xerxes]

The Tories austerity measures brought us "the slowest post-recession recovery in output in the past 100 years." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9849449/How-this-recovery-from-recession-compares-with-those-of-the-past.html

 

Total unemployment is in the region of 5 million. http://www.tuc.org.uk/economic-issues/economic-analysis/labour-market/‘total-unemployment-uk-nearly-five-million-–-almost

 

Considering deficit reduction is supposed to be the be-all-and-end-all of the Government's economic plans, the reduction has been nothing to write home about.  It's still more than twice the level it was when the previous Government, as we are told, were running up ridiculous debts on public spending. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

 

The UK is still the third most unequal country in Europe. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/scale-and-trends

 

The privatisation of the NHS continues apace.  This is only possible because the Tories have Coalition partners to facilitate it. http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2014/jan/08/nhs-extinct-government-policy-privatisation

 

I'm intrigued to see if you've got the brass neck to claim that Clegg played any part at all in the demise of the BNP.  Meanwhile, I don't know if you noticed this, but an extreme right-wing party did rather well in the European elections.  (Honestly, it was on the news and everything.)

 

The UK is one of the EU's worst countries for generating such a small proportion of energy from renewables.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union  So, if you increase a tiny amount by a tiny amount, you can boast that you've doubled it.

 

As many economists have been saying since before 2010, austerity is exactly the wrong approach to the recession.  A Green New Deal, to grow out of recession, to protect jobs and to make meaningful investment in the future would've been a start.  Instead, Clegg chose to prop up a Tory programme of cuts and privatisation, which prolonged the recession, to the benefit of nobody except the very rich and the far right.

Recovery?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24799507

 

Unemployment?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27046681

 

Inequality?

Then why are we the most popular immigration choice in Europe?

 

The NHS?

Is unsustainable as envisaged by Beveridge in 1942, seventy years ago. Privatisation is as unpalatable as the grotesque mismanagement of Labour driven horrors like Stafford hospital.

 

The rise of the right?

Clegg was the only one to try to tackle the rise head-on, by debate.

 

Renewables?

Currently grossly inefficient and dependent upon traditional power resources as a back up.

 

I am no Clegg fan, but the cod criticism you offered just begged for a kicking.

[Jairzinho]

Less people earning a living wage.

 

More people on zero hour contracts.

 

More people "self" employed.

 

More people employed? More people underemployed.

 

Why would you celebrate the, in isolation, utterly meaningless individual statistic of how many people are considered "employed"?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Xerxes has pissed all over this thread.

[dennis tooth]

Not to worry Numero, Labour, as you predicted will sweep to victory at the next general election and violent crime is rising, its all gonna be ok like you promised.

[Jairzinho]

Xerxes has pissed all over this thread.

 

I wish he'd have the decency to clean it up.

[Strontium]

Nah, it's the Lib Dems who get to clean up other people's mess. And cop dog's abuse for it.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Will Clegg be getting replaced with a robot?

[Stu Monty]

Which of those things hasn't he done?

 

The recession is over. Unemployment is down. The deficit is down. Income inequality is at its lowest level since the mid 80s. The Tory NHS proposals have been drastically improved by the Lib Dems. The BNP is dead as a political force. Renewable energy capacity has doubled since 2010.

 

There's a bit of the Karl Roves here, attacking someone's achievements rather than their failures.

 

It's funny, every time you use income inequality to prove a point I have to ask you where Phillip Green and Paul Dacre's income fit into these figures; and every time I get radio silence. 

 

Wealth inequality is still rising. The super-rich have done miles better from this austerity than the poor. 

 

By equating criticism of the Lib Dems as personal you're losing any credibility as an objective commentator. You're also making a lie of your previous claims not to be partizan and not to have anything invested in the success of the party because "it's only a few minutes knocking on some doors".

[Strontium]

It's funny, every time you use income inequality to prove a point I have to ask you where Phillip Green and Paul Dacre's income fit into these figures; and every time I get radio silence.

 

 

No, if you'd ever asked, you'd get the same response every time: those are statistical outliers. You can't cherry pick two individuals like that as if it somehow disproves statistics based on tens of millions of people.

 

Wealth inequality is still rising. The super-rich have done miles better from this austerity than the poor.

 

Wealth is partly a function of income over time. Income inequality has reduced under this government - not my figures, the official Gini coefficient - but it would take more than four years for that to be reflected in terms of wealth inequality.

 

I'd also suggest it takes more than just fiddling with incomes to address wealth inequality, particularly as so much wealth, especially in this country, is bound up in property. Land taxes. Higher taxes on expensive properties. Amending inheritance tax so it's paid by the recipient, not the estate (because £1m left to one person attracts as much tax as £1m split between 20). If only there was a party which would do those things.

 

By equating criticism of the Lib Dems as personal you're losing any credibility as an objective commentator. You're also making a lie of your previous claims not to be partizan and not to have anything invested in the success of the party because "it's only a few minutes knocking on some doors".

Just because I'm biased in favour of this country's only major force for liberty does not mean I'm incapable of viewing things objectively.

 

When so much of the criticism of the Lib Dems is unfair, disproportionate and downright subjective, then it naturally follows that being objective will involve defending the Lib Dems. Reality, as they say, has a well-known liberal bias.

 

Also, what you've suggested in the past is that I invest a lot of time in the party, which isn't the case.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

No, if you'd ever asked, you'd get the same response every time: those are statistical outliers. You can't cherry pick two individuals like that as if it somehow disproves statistics based on tens of millions of people.

 

 

 

Wealth is partly a function of income over time. Income inequality has reduced under this government - not my figures, the official Gini coefficient - but it would take more than four years for that to be reflected in terms of wealth inequality.

 

I'd also suggest it takes more than just fiddling with incomes to address wealth inequality, particularly as so much wealth, especially in this country, is bound up in property. Land taxes. Higher taxes on expensive properties. Amending inheritance tax so it's paid by the recipient, not the estate (because £1m left to one person attracts as much tax as £1m split between 20). If only there was a party which would do those things.

 

 

Just because I'm biased in favour of this country's only major force for liberty does not mean I'm incapable of viewing things objectively.

 

When so much of the criticism of the Lib Dems is unfair, disproportionate and downright subjective, then it naturally follows that being objective will involve defending the Lib Dems. Reality, as they say, has a well-known liberal bias.

 

Also, what you've suggested in the past is that I invest a lot of time in the party, which isn't the case.

This country's only force for liberty?

 

ROFL.

[Strontium]

 

This country's only force for liberty?

 

ROFL.

 

Please don't misquote me. I wrote only major force. I am sure there are other liberal and libertarian groupings, none of which hold any major sway.