Lib Dems

[PestiRed]

If you don't dump Clegg, major sway will become a thing of the past for you guys as well.

 

I'm surprised you're defending him, even if you believe he's right, you must surely realise that he is toxic for your election chances

[Stu Monty]

 

 

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.

 

The Guardian newspaper has been a much bigger force for personal liberty than the Lib Dems over the last 18 months. I haven't heard many Lib Dems screaming about Prism and secret courts.

[Stu Monty]

 

 

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.

 

 

Dog, you always use this weak-assed cherry picking defence when I give you examples of a norm. Like when we discuss corporate tax-avoidance or misbehaviour and you seem to desire to remain deliberately ignorant of industry-wide norms because challenging it required breaking a world-view. Banking: industry wide. Oil industry: terrible norms. Tax-avoidance: everywhere you look.  It's the sort of misguided clinging to faith you mock in any other thread.

 

You cannot use income as a guide for tiny upturns or downturns in inequality as income reporting is broken. Globally. End of story. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/26/thomas-piketty-economist-ft-attack-rising-inequality-bling

 

HMRC think the top 10% own 70% of the wealth. The ONS thinks it's 40%. Either way it shows not only how utterly broken society is but also how utterly broken the reporting of where the money is has become.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

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.

Major?

 

Now thats as farcical as using the word only.

Both words are completely untrue anyway. As is having the word Liberal in a Party who are involved in actually taking those liberties away.

Paranoid and Delusional too.

[Stu Monty]

Almost everything we've seen this term has been neo-liberalism. 

 

Under which you have as much liberty as your wallet allows. 

 

The core problem of Lib Dems is that they don't realise that freeing markets does not lead to freeing people.

[Tony Moanero]

Liberal Demoprats.

[xerxes]

The core problem of Lib Dems is that they don't realise that freeing markets does not lead to freeing people.

A shrewd point, well made.

[dennis tooth]

Now SD's someone who claims to be non religious, an atheist if you, however if you look up the word religion, take out the word God since its a largely individually defined concept that is not required for a religion as anyone who understands buddism will attest, we clearly see something interesting:

 

• a particular system of faith and worship.

  plural noun: religions

  "the world's great religions"
• a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

  "consumerism is the new religion" 

 

 

SD is a religious nut, like muslamic rayguns he castigates he is willing to watch people die as a direct result of his religious extremism while his religion is in government and supporting many hospital cuts and closures and withdrawing things like disability payments to disabled people as a point proving excerise in his religious zeal to prove the effiiency of his 'free market' religious beliefs, (ironically he is not free market when it comes to choice of religious beliefs of arabs and believes people should have their choice reduced to jew (if they will accept you into their genepool(unlikely unchosen goyim ones) or athiest.) he is willing to kill the disabled or hand them over to profit makers to make money off them.

 

This is his belief, he claims to be democratic but will put that aside if it means his religion gets to share power after doing a deal but he thinks no issue with the party who came third to have no respect for the public who asked them to be kindly be in third place and thinks its ok to decide government this way. How is that democatic? Its not its ok though as his religious beliefs require no scientific scrutiny, thats why he is an extreme religious nut. I await your neg sir, as its lear you wont have any other meaningful response before I even finish this sentence, there is nothing else you can do about this post, hey ho, get ye negs out for the libdem altar boys.

[Strontium]

If you don't dump Clegg, major sway will become a thing of the past for you guys as well.

 

I'm surprised you're defending him, even if you believe he's right, you must surely realise that he is toxic for your election chances

 

I do believe he's right. I also believe he needs to go. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

 

This is one of the best articles on Clegg in the past few days:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-editors-letter-does-mr-clegg-deserve-to-go-9434219.html

[PestiRed]

Personally I believe that he is the worst thing to happen to your party since it formed in the late 70's. However we are never going to agree on that.

 

However it's refreshing to see that you agree he should go.. It's important that we have a realistic third party and I'd like to see one that represents the true values of the SDP as they were formed.

 

I do have some doubts as to his successor though, seems ti be Cable or Alexander. As an insider, what do you think?

[Strontium]

 

The Guardian newspaper has been a much bigger force for personal liberty than the Lib Dems over the last 18 months. I haven't heard many Lib Dems screaming about Prism and secret courts.

 

http://andrewduff.eu/en/article/2013/698469/duff-europeans-must-be-protected-from-prism-snooping

 

Duff: Europeans must be protected from Prism snooping

June 18, 2013 10:30 AM

Lib Dem MEP for the East of England has backed calls from his colleague Sarah Ludford, the ALDE group shadow rapporteur on the update of EU data protection law, is demanding that an 'anti-FISA' clause be reintroduced in the text of the proposed new Regulation.

 

They want to ensure that EU customers are shielded from US National Security Agency data-mining authorised by the Patriot Act and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, such as the recently revealed 'PRISM' programme.

 

Andrew Duff said:

 

"MEPs have been pushing the European Commission for years about how the EU can safeguard Europeans against these intrusive powers, but have been given the brush-off."

 

"I was therefore shocked to learn that before the new draft EU privacy law was published, Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding and her colleagues caved in to American pressure. They dropped an 'anti-FISA' clause that would have ensured no snooping decision by a foreign tribunal could be recognised unless regulated by a treaty or agreement in force."

 

'MEPs on the European Parliament Civil Liberties committee will get the chance to question Mrs Reding tomorrow on this matter, including about why she was giving bland answers while tearing up real safeguards. But in the meantime I have backed my colleague Sarah Ludford, who has have told the Parliament's rapporteur on the Data Protection Regulation, Jan Albrecht MEP, that a protection clause should be reintroduced.'

 

"Telling data subjects that their data is being transferred abroad - or is in 'the cloud' - will not ensure protection against intelligence demands from foreign jurisdictions. Only a clause of the type that was dropped can achieve that. Since it corresponds with existing agreements, I would expect the Commission now to help secure this safeguard."

 

"Without these guarantees, it is difficult to see how negotiations on the Data Protection Regulation can be successfully concluded."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/07/digital-bill-rights-online-freedom-farron

 

Digital bill of rights needed to safeguard online freedoms, says Lib Dem chief

 

Tim Farron to call for public protection from 'overreach by the state' after its imposition of 'blanket surveillance' on UK

 

A digital bill of rights should be established in Britain to ensure that basic online freedoms are protected from the "untrammelled power of the state", the Liberal Democrat president Tim Farron will say on Sunday.

 

The bill is a central feature of a motion, expected to be passed at the Lib Dem spring conference, which says that people need greater protections from "overreach by the state".

 

In a debate on surveillance, Farron will say that the laws governing surveillance are "not for purpose" as he calls for the appointment of a commission of experts to review the powers held by the state which has imposed "blanket surveillance on us all".

 

The debate on Sunday follows the announcement earlier in the week by Nick Clegg that he has commissioned a review into the surveillance techniques of Britain's intelligence agencies and the legal framework underpinning their work. The independent review is to be led by the Royal United Services Institute after the deputy prime minister failed to persuade David Cameron to establish a government review.

 

Farron, who will criticise politicians for their "muted" response to the revelations in the NSA documents leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden, will make clear that he wants to go much further than Clegg. The Lib Dem president, who has tabled the motion with the campaigning MP Julian Huppert, will call for a modern version of the 1689 bill of rights.

 

Farron will tell the conference: "Our current system of regulation is insufficient to give us the protections that we need in this digital age. The time has come for us to establish a digital bill of rights.

 

"The 1689 bill of rights codified the basic freedoms which we still enjoy today. As we live more of our lives online, we deserve to know that we also enjoy a similar level of freedom in what we do in cyberspace."

 

The digital bill of rights would severely curb the work of GCHQ by blocking the "bulk collection of data" and ensuring that metadata or the content of communications could only be accessed if there were suspicions that an individual was involved in unlawful activity. Under the current rules, the intelligence agencies can harvest bulk data without approval. But the information inside the metadata can only be retrieved with the approval of the relevant secretary of state.

 

The Farron/Huppert motion also calls for the establishment of a committee of experts to review state surveillance, to review "all recent allegations" from the leaked NSA files and to scrutinise all the relevant legislation. This would include the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

 

The motion also calls for the annual release of government transparency reports which would publish the number of user data requests made by the authorities.

 

Farron will say in the debate: "The motion before you seeks to address the untrammelled power of the state to roam through your digital life. We need to establish a commission of experts to review the powers the state currently holds. America has already vastly outpaced us in their reaction to this information. The time has come for Britain to catch up."

 

The Lib Dem president will criticise "supine" politicians who have criticised the Guardian for publishing information from the leaked NSA files. Farron will say: "In the UK we have had to endure the sight of senior politicians attacking the Guardian for having the temerity to try and inform the public of what is done in our name. For a prime minister who pretends to be so concerned with ensuring the freedom of the press he has a funny way of showing it.

 

"Fellow media outlets have even lambasted the Guardian for their brave revelations. They should be ashamed of themselves. Don't they realise that even the most hysterical distortions of the Leveson proposals are nothing compared to these threats to our freedom?"

http://www.libdemvoice.org/lib-dem-conference-overwhelmingly-votes-to-oppose-secret-courts-again-33612.html

 

Lib Dem conference overwhelmingly votes to oppose ‘secret courts’. Again.By Stephen Tall | Sun 10th March 2013 - 10:40 am

 

You may be forgiven a sense of déjà vu: the Liberal Democrats have voted overwhelmingly to oppose secret courts legislation. Just as we did last September.

 

 

 

Here’s the text of the motion which was just passed:

 

Conference believes:

 

1. That the measures in Part II of the Justice and Security Bill will mean the courts system of the United Kingdom will provide neither justice nor security in cases involving allegations against the state of the most serious nature including torture, rendition, negligence of armed forces, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment;

2. That the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill are directly contradictory to the core values and stated purpose of the Liberal Democrat party as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, namely to “build and safeguard a fair, free and open society”;

3. That Part II of the Justice and Security Bill should be withdrawn immediately;

 

Conference repeats its call for:

 

1. Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to vote to delete Part II of the Justice and Security Bill

2. Party policy to remain that the Liberal Democrats will repeal Part II of the Justice and Security Act (if so enacted) as soon as we are in a position to do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/10/secret-court-laws-liberal-democrats

 

Secret court laws to lose backing of Liberal Democrats

 

Nick Clegg will abandon support after membership revolt over Justice and Security Act, says David Laws

 

Nick Clegg is preparing to abandon support for laws expanding the use of secret courts just six months after forcing the Liberal Democrats to vote for the controversial legislation.

 

David Laws, the education and Cabinet Office minister, said on Tuesday that the leadership had listened to members after two revolts at the party's conferences.

 

In March, Clegg asked Lib Dem MPs and peers to vote with the coalition in support of the Justice and Security Act, which allows some civil proceedings to be held in private over matters of national security. However, the issue split the party, with several high-profile figures tearing up their membership cards over accusations the laws are against liberal principles of open justice.

 

Acknowledging it had been a "very, very difficult" issue, Laws signalled that the Lib Dems could push to repeal the laws after the next election and replace them with a "better package".

[Gnasher]

Don't matter who's leader with that mob.

 

They tub thump about education then send their own kids to private schools.

 

They vote for an increase in Vat whilst slashing tax for the rich.

 

They talk about a fairer society and vote for cuts to the most vulnerable and our disabled.

 

They want to curb the excesses of big business and give away Royal Mail for peanuts.

 

They love Europe because its their only future personal income.

 

They get treated in bupa whilst turning a blind eye to the Nhs being sold off.

 

Sandal wearing bastards.

[Stu Monty]

 

 

http://andrewduff.eu/en/article/2013/698469/duff-europeans-must-be-protected-from-prism-snooping

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/07/digital-bill-rights-online-freedom-farron

 

 

http://www.libdemvoice.org/lib-dem-conference-overwhelmingly-votes-to-oppose-secret-courts-again-33612.html

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/10/secret-court-laws-liberal-democrats

 

 

I think we've got a different impression of what screaming about something is. It certainly isn't voting for the Justice and Security act and then saying "whoops, we promise to repeal the laws after the next election (after which we will have no influence at all) after only seven of your MPs vote against it. Wow, the MPs were screaming so hard about it that they forgot to vote against it.

 

It is central to the idea of what the Lib Dems stand for and it is something that they have made almost zero effort to push into the centre of the national debate. I accept they don't have the same ability to set the agenda but unfortunately Dog, the idea that the MPs were against it simply doesn't stand up to them not indicating that with their votes.

 

Have some principles and don't try and defend your party on something they didn't have the balls to vote against, despite it being supposedly core to what they stand for.

 

But I forget. You can't criticize them on a public forum. It would be ludicrous to expect it. So you'll sell this rubbish instead of being honest and saying you can't defend it.

[Section_31]

I've always thought of the Lib Dems simply as a party of 'nice people'. Hippies, academics, Ned Flanders, Gale Boetticher. Maybe that's part of the problem, there's no zeal, no underlying angst, just a few Sunday knitting club types who've been pounced upon by a ruthless careerist.  

[Strontium]

I think we've got a different impression of what screaming about something is. It certainly isn't voting for the Justice and Security act and then saying "whoops, we promise to repeal the laws after the next election (after which we will have no influence at all) after only seven of your MPs vote against it. Wow, the MPs were screaming so hard about it that they forgot to vote against it.

 

It is central to the idea of what the Lib Dems stand for and it is something that they have made almost zero effort to push into the centre of the national debate. I accept they don't have the same ability to set the agenda but unfortunately Dog, the idea that the MPs were against it simply doesn't stand up to them not indicating that with their votes.

 

Have some principles and don't try and defend your party on something they didn't have the balls to vote against, despite it being supposedly core to what they stand for.

 

But I forget. You can't criticize them on a public forum. It would be ludicrous to expect it. So you'll sell this rubbish instead of being honest and saying you can't defend it.

Please, shitcan this trolling nonsense, Stu.

 

Party policy isn't made by 56 MPs in Westminster, it's made by the membership, as befits a democratic party.

 

"My party" isn't 56 MPs in Westminster. My party are the hundreds of members who voted against secret courts, at party conference, on multiple occasions.

 

Criticising MPs is something I'm happy to do if the situation merits it. On face value, I think it was wrong of the 30-odd MPs who voted secret courts through, albeit without knowing what the quid pro quo was in return for them suppporting it.

 

I will not criticise my party on this issue, as my party twice voted against secret courts. I will happily criticise the MPs who voted against party policy, with the usual provisos.

 

I don't know how much more honest you want me to be. I don't know how more honest anyone can be.

[TheBitch]

I've always thought of the Lib Dems simply as a party of 'nice people'. Hippies, academics, Ned Flanders, Gale Boetticher. Maybe that's part of the problem, there's no zeal, no underlying angst, just a few Sunday knitting club types who've been pounced upon by a ruthless careerist.

 

I saw some article the other day showing Green Party members waiting for voting results, they were pictured knitting, obviously.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

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.

I'm not sure I'd consider your rehashing of the Government/Stronts spin as "a kicking".  I've heard it all before and I presented facts to counter it all.

[Guest davelfc]

Tony Blair backs Nick Clegg: "I don’t want to damage him by saying this, but he’s shown quite a lot of leadership."

 

Just when he thought it couldn't get any worse eh.

[stringvest]

I've always thought of the Lib Dems simply as a party of 'nice people'. Hippies, academics, Ned Flanders, Gale Boetticher. Maybe that's part of the problem, there's no zeal, no underlying angst, just a few Sunday knitting club types who've been pounced upon by a ruthless careerist.  

 

what about Strondiddly Dogidoo?

[stringvest]

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

 

[Jose Jones]

Please, shitcan this trolling nonsense, Stu.

 

Party policy isn't made by 56 MPs in Westminster, it's made by the membership, as befits a democratic party.

 

"My party" isn't 56 MPs in Westminster. My party are the hundreds of members who voted against secret courts, at party conference, on multiple occasions.

 

Criticising MPs is something I'm happy to do if the situation merits it. On face value, I think it was wrong of the 30-odd MPs who voted secret courts through, albeit without knowing what the quid pro quo was in return for them suppporting it.

 

I will not criticise my party on this issue, as my party twice voted against secret courts. I will happily criticise the MPs who voted against party policy, with the usual provisos.

 

I don't know how much more honest you want me to be. I don't know how more honest anyone can be.

 

Seriously?  This is the exact problem with the Lib Dems and has been since the coalition started.  Their one over-riding ambition from being in government has been to demonstrate that they are "sensible" and can "make compromises" to show that coalitions governments can really work, all in the vain hope that it would have lead to some electoral reform on PR.

 

Even after years of selling out their principles, getting shafted by the electorate for it and gladly fucking over the country, you are still singing the shit tune?

 

The immense stupidity of it as well is that it was clear as a fucking bell that the Tories would go out of their way to scupper any change, and also that Labour would be reluctant to support it.  I can't believe they are still playing this same position with the 3 and a half years of evidence that it hasn't bloody worked!  It was obvious at the start and it's even more massively obvious now.

 

The Lib Dems could have made a stand on pretty much any issue they wanted, and particularly the ones with huge public support, and either got them implemented or demonstrated their ability to stand up for their principles.  There was a big chance for the party to carve itself a proper place in 3 party politics and move into long term future electability.  Sadly they chose to lose everything.

 

Instead it's

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not sure I'd consider your rehashing of the Government/Stronts spin as "a kicking". I've heard it all before and I presented facts to counter it all.

That response by Xerxes, a poster I actually really like, is one of the worst posts I've ever seen on the GF.

[Stu Monty]

Please, shitcan this trolling nonsense, Stu.

 

Party policy isn't made by 56 MPs in Westminster, it's made by the membership, as befits a democratic party.

 

"My party" isn't 56 MPs in Westminster. My party are the hundreds of members who voted against secret courts, at party conference, on multiple occasions.

 

Criticising MPs is something I'm happy to do if the situation merits it. On face value, I think it was wrong of the 30-odd MPs who voted secret courts through, albeit without knowing what the quid pro quo was in return for them suppporting it.

 

I will not criticise my party on this issue, as my party twice voted against secret courts. I will happily criticise the MPs who voted against party policy, with the usual provisos.

 

I don't know how much more honest you want me to be. I don't know how more honest anyone can be.

 

It isn't trolling nonsense at all Dog. You were saying what a major force for liberty your party was so I pointed out that voting for secret courts is not very liberal at all, and that a paper trying to push the personal freedom agenda for the last 18 months has done more than the political party that voted into law secret courts.

 

How much more honest do I want you to be? Maybe honest enough that we can skip the weak-assed defence and go straight to the criticism of the MPs next time?

 

The situation where the LIb Dem MPs actual votes don't indicate the actions of "the party" is a queer one though.

[xerxes]

I'm not sure I'd consider your rehashing of the Government/Stronts spin as "a kicking".  I've heard it all before and I presented facts to counter it all.

My data, not the Government's.

 

You have not presented facts, just a position, which is fair enough.

 

Party politics can be just as tribal, and blind, as football support.

 

It is possible to believe in the benefits ,as well as acknowledge the dangers, of mass immigration. It is possible for the economy to in recovery, but still have much wrong. No-one is prepared to present a 21st Century vision of the NHS. Clegg is the only party leader to put a positive spin on Europe. There is no consensus on a 21st century energy policy for the UK.

 

Our country's problems do not fit into neat boxes, none of us should pretend they do.

[The Bugged Out]

Implosion time.