EddardStark Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 An ex of mine thinks Clegg is handsome, a bit like Eddard. Ha ha prefer Vince myself :-)) , have you seen Clegg's wife.. :cheers3: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I'm all for gay, unionist rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 In reality Lib Dems have sacrificed a lot to be in government. For me, they have still to take the full electoral hit for doing what they did. If they get a drubbing at the General Election (not a foregone conclusion), then we can assess what sort of sacrifice they actually took. I thought one of the reasons they went into coalition was to secure a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity of a PR referendum (remember that?). Something so core to Lib Dem principles that it was worth doing a one-off deal with the Tories to secure - they could never have got that without a coalition deal. When they failed get PR, maybe they should have pulled out the Coalition, as they served no further purpose. The Tories could have run a minority government and Lib Dems voted with them only when they met their principles. Ditching the fees pledge, and clinging to power even though the PR referendum had been fought and lost, suggests they were only interested in power. Without them acting as restraint to some of the tory right wingers I think we would be in a worse place. Surely the best form of restraint against a tory right wing agenda would be had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition, and the Tories would need to pursue a moderate minority govt agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 For me, they have still to take the full electoral hit for doing what they did. If they get a drubbing at the General Election (not a foregone conclusion), then we can assess what sort of sacrifice they actually took. I thought one of the reasons they went into coalition was to secure a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity of a PR referendum (remember that?). Something so core to Lib Dem principles that it was worth doing a one-off deal with the Tories to secure - they could never have got that without a coalition deal. When they failed get PR, maybe they should have pulled out the Coalition, as they served no further purpose. The Tories could have run a minority government and Lib Dems voted with them only when they met their principles. Ditching the fees pledge, and clinging to power even though the PR referendum had been fought and lost, suggests they were only interested in power. Surely the best form of restraint against a tory right wing agenda would be had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition, and the Tories would need to pursue a moderate minority govt agenda? I think they were also trying to show that coalition governments can work, to normalise them in the eyes of the public. In which they've (sort of) succeeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I think they were also trying to show that coalition governments can work, to normalise them in the eyes of the public. In which they've (sort of) succeeded. Yes, the huge number of Lib Dem policies we've seen are a testament to that. They've essentially given the Tory bastards a majority in this parliament, something which the electorate refused to grant them at the ballot box, and for that they should be (figuratively) shot at dawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yes, the huge number of Lib Dem policies we've seen are a testament to that. They've essentially given the Tory bastards a majority in this parliament, something which the electorate refused to grant them at the ballot box, and for that they should be (figuratively) shot at dawn. I meant more in terms of showing that two parties can form a government that functions at least as well as a one-party government. Though indeed they've got very little out of it, policy-wise. I'd still rather have a coalition government (of most stripes) than a single-party Labour or Tory government ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_fadiator Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 They're a shower of opportunistic odd balls that change their policy position anywhere it suits them. Getting into govt's a life dream for their huge egos. Annoying thing is that in close elections they now think the default option is to be coalition partners. The party that can't be removed from power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I meant more in terms of showing that two parties can form a government that functions at least as well as a one-party government. Though indeed they've got very little out of it, policy-wise. I'd still rather have a coalition government (of most stripes) than a single-party Labour or Tory government ever again. Aye, fair enough. I never like to miss an opportunity to point out what they've done though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Along with Glasgow and Dundee, Inverness is a Yes city. Hopefully Danny Alexander gets his jotters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDange Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 How much longer will the LibDems be included in "the 3 main parties" line? They are soon to become even more of a political irrelevance. Heavy price to pay for a sniff of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one t in scotland Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I for one would have Alexander's declaration on a continuous loop if it meant the good people of Inverness booted out that utter Quisling cretin.That would be grand. However a big swing required of approx 30%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 How much longer will the LibDems be included in "the 3 main parties" line? They are soon to become even more of a political irrelevance. They've already got less members than the SNP, and there's a chance in a few months that they'll have less MPs than them too. If that happens it'd be difficult to justify that platform on a continuing basis... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Without them acting as restraint to some of the tory right wingers I think we would be in a worse place. Wow! You have posted some nonsense but this might just top the lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Lib Dems cheering at the Heywood & Middleton by-election, presumably as they saved their deposit. Even 5 years ago, it could have been the Lib Dems running the incumbent close with 10k votes - now they cheer to get over a thousand as they come a distant fourth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamrough Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Verona, Geneva, Glasgow... International playboy indeed. I was in the weej today. Fit a shower of ugly unionist bastards we voted YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 No quite sure why you've quoted me, Tam . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Nor me, Tam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Nor me, Tam.I'd hazard a guess it was something to do with calling Glaswegians "unionists" when Glasgow as a whole voted Yes. Edited October 10, 2014 by Charlie Endell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It was the ugly Fib dum English I was referring to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It was the ugly Fib dum English I was referring toRight - it wasn't very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 we voted YES You need to update your location in your profile . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 In reality Lib Dems have sacrificed a lot to be in government. Without them acting as restraint to some of the tory right wingers I think we would be in a worse place. I will be voting LD in the next election. Least surprising post in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.