[Closed] And this is why i hate politicians.

So, basically they've now turned into power crazed tories.

They are admitting that they cannot keep to pledges they made should they get into power because, well, they are not in power. They are in a coalition.

Seems a reasonable admission of the facts to me.

I think it's the end of em after this condem nonsense, I think they've managed to piss off every one who voted for em,
I hope they enjoy what little power they've got cos they will never see it again for a loooooooong time

yes it is a pathetic reason for a complete capitualation on a matter of principle. they said no to tuition fees - now they are in the government I really hope they get a proper kicking at the by election in sadleworth.
Very disappointing hopefully their own MP's will MTFU and rebel

they are not in power

That is a fair fair statement khani.

But for them I think it was a case of damned of you do, damned if you don't.

Reading Cable's statement (if its quoted verbatim) and cant see anything wrong with it. They were never voted in.

Numerous compromises re policy on both sides when drafting the coaloition agreement...and the was discussed for days pior to it happening at the time.

If your damned anyway at least retain your principles and be damned,
True colours showing now, they are on the gravy train and be damned to everyone else

Perhaps they shouldn't have gone into coalition with a party who you would think had the opposite views on pretty much everything.

How the hell can you have a liberal conservative government?

you think this is a compromise ? Reversing your stated position and the pledge you signed and then doing the complete opposite is a compromise?
As a politician you should not compromise on your principles or why are you in politics and why should anyone vote for you ?- whatever party /views you hold this must hold true or why bother with votes if they will do the opposite?

if they can't keep their pledges because "they're not in power", just why the hell did they even enter into the coalition? oh wait, it's because they ARE in power! who's the deputy prime minister? a lib-dem! 😮

As a politician you should not compromise on your principles

Politicians who stick to their principals are as rare as rocking horse poo. Politics by its very nature has to be a compromise otherwise you get a dictatorship.

It's a coalition, and LibDems are minor partners.

[url= http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistry ]pure sophistry[/url]

what he is actually saying is that they have sold-out on their manifesto, but that's ok because they are honouring the deal they sold it out for - the coalition agreement.

anyway, how they justify it is not the issue, the issue is the fiscal vandalism that is going on that will change the nature of life in the uk for the next 20 years as an absolute minimum in ways that only 1 in 5 of us gave tacit permission for.

[b]There are 18 millionaires in the cabinet[/b] - these people are [u]not[/u] in touch with what life is like, or is going to be like, for you and me. their priority is the success of big business. and don't talk to me about trickle-down and big society, it's all rubbish.

as for the bonfire of the quangos - mark my words they will be setting up quangos to dismantle quangos within a year. governing a country requires non-elected administrative bodies. it has always been so and always will be. We have had quangos in the uk since there was any sort of centralised government and that would be roughly AD43 under Emperor Claudius.

The only bright spot on this murky horizon is the government is now obliged to publish its accounts, so for the first time we, the people, can actually see where the b'stards actually spend our money, and it's going to be quite a surprise I think.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/19/government-spending-files-live-blog?in ]Government spending analysis blog[/url]

OK then, seeing as most of you are missing or even ignoring the point - why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?

They're pretty much all useless and untrustworthy, in power or out of it.

OK then, seeing as most of you are missing or even ignoring the point - why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?

Trophy headlights? Money? Both? Did I mention money?

Money?

18 millionaires.

In the political prooving ground that is University elections the Lib-dem candidates are the one's too weak to be Tory or Labour. They are the also men and women of university politics.

Too hungry for the lime light to work behind a proper candidate, they walk a path in their political career destined to achieve nothing of any real significance.

Until now...

The naivety of forming a coalition; an attempt to be something just exposes their incompetence.

Actually they are usually closet tories who know they will never get anywhere as a tory candidate in a university election. there is a lot less distance between lib dem and conservatives than most people think. in fact they are quite suitable for a coalition - oh wait - that seems to be what happened, what a surprise.

the concept of a lib/lab coalition was always laughable and any show they made of considering it was just for the cameras.

Politicians in 'lying to the voters' shocker.

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-being-honest-is-no-longer-official-policy-2135933.html ]Entertaining piece about it here[/url]

on the nail khani 😥

Hia pitduck 😀

Politics by its very nature has to be a compromise otherwise you get a dictatorship.

the Tories could not achieve a great deal of what they have done so far... with a minority govt

I think that you've just missed the most worthy opportunity to use the phrase 'end of thread' that I've ever seen.

Its a clear breach of a manifesto promise and a stupid attempt to excuse it. Being honest would have been much better.

I think entering the coalition will prove to be a huge mistake for the lib dems and will finish them as a political force. I believe they should have negotiated a queens speech they could support ( moderate the Tories worst excesses and a vote on PR) and then vote it thru whilst leaving the Tories as a minority government and then everything else is dealt with on a case by case basis.

I really doubt they will be able to hold the coalition together. There is simply too much distance between the Tory right and the Liberal left. Some issue will crop up that both sides cannot be reconciled on.

Why did they join with the conservatives then?
A union with labour would still get them in power and allow them to hold onto their policies.
No?

I'm still confused as to how we managed to get into this position of getting properley screwed.

The maths did not allow for a coalition with labour.

I see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.

Democratic politics is about finding a way forward between conflicting interests and opinions that involves manipulation, changes of position and opinion dictated by changing circumstances, reacting to or trying to control media scrutiny, playing various vested interests off against each other, juggling the finances in the light of the free market conditions pertaining at the time, and much else besides.

The alternative, as Woody has said, is a dictatorship.

North Korea, anyone?

A hung parliament would have been a far better choice than this crud though.

A hung parliament would have been a far better

Would it have been better for international confidence in the UK financial position?

Would any possible reduction in international confidence in the uk's financial position have had worse effects than the effects of the current crud we are faced with?

How the hell can you have a liberal conservative government?

Financial liberalism and the Conservatives go pretty well together.

More specifically, Clegg was / is a key proponent of so-called [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism ]'orange book' liberalism[/url]:

In the book the group offers liberal solutions – often stressing the role of the free market – to several societal issues, such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government, the European Union and prisons. It is usually seen as the most economically liberal publication that the Liberal Democrats have produced in recent times. As such, along with its impact upon the party, it has helped cause the dividing line within the party: those who advocate a social market economy observing social liberal values such as the Beveridge Group and those (such as authors, contributors and supporters of the Orange Book) who advocate a free market economy.

The harder fit to argue for would have been the Liberal Democrats with the authoritarian Labour Party.

Would any possible reduction in international confidence in the uk's financial position have had worse effects than the effects of the current crud we are faced with?

Which is what? The effect of taking spending back to the levels of the mid-noughties (definitely for want of a better phrase!)?

In Scotland, we've already had terms of coalition and minority government. Both seem to have worked reasonably well. One issue with the latter is that the non-governing parties are forever crowing about broken manifesto promises despite having voted against the legislation designed to introduce them.

In 2008 Nick Clegg went on the record to tell us they wanted to scrap tuition fees (official LibDem video):

Now the Tory puppet named Vince Cable says "a promise isn't really a promise when you're a politician". In any normal job they would be disciplined, sacked or even deported.

Two-faced, U-turning, lying scum.

As Druidh asys

A couple of interesting points with the current minority SNP government - the tories with a very few seats have used their influence to get a few things they wanted, labour have adopted a dog in manger attitude and have been made to look petty and small minded and have got nothing.

salmond has had to make compromises and some stupid but popular things have been done However on the whole it has produced decent government when policies have to stand on their merit - not just on dogma and rely on whipping to get them thru

when policies have to stand on their merit - not just on dogma and rely on whipping to get them thru

Good point in support of minority government, cause pretty much I guess it's what we all want, regardless of who is in power.

'[url= http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dog2.htm ]dog in manger attitude[/url]'... hadn't heard that before!

Dog in manger is perhaps not quite right. A bit of " its my ball and unless I win I am going home and taking it with me"

Scottish Labour will just oppose anything the SNP put forward - even when its sensible or even when its stolen london labour policy.

They have managed to make Salmond look like3 a statesman

Compromise is often required but the Tories could not achieve a great deal of what they have done so far

this I [u]have[/u] to hear....please elaborate

I see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.

Woppit they have sold up the river, in a barbed wire canoe, without a paddle, the chances of you/your kids finishing higher education less than £40,000 in debt [u]each[/u]. is this glorious non-statement all you have to say about it?

With a minority government the tories could not have relied upon getting policies voted thru without the support of other parties. so some of the more extreme and / or stupid things would have not have got a majority so would not have been passed. Every policy is done on a case by case basis

With a coalition the minor partner is obliged to support teh whole package or the coalition falls - thus the stupid / extreme nonsense has got passed.

Teh proposed reorganisation of the NHS is one such. Totally against Lib Dem policy, clearly a stalking horse for privatisation, no one wants it not even the GPs. There is no way this would get past the house as every one bar the tories would vote against it.

trailertrash - Member

I see nothing in Cable's statement that conflicts with the realities.

Woppit they have sold up the river, in a barbed wire canoe, without a paddle, the chances of you/your kids finishing higher education less than £40,000 in debt each. is this glorious non-statement all you have to say about it?

Erm, yeah. Pretty much.

As for fees, I think the Daily Mash nailed in the last thread on that subject.

Glad to see you've reduced your central heating bill by the steam coming out of your ears.

What a horrible government we have now. Much worse than the last one. At least the last one din't want to dismantle the NHS and education system to sell them off, and want to rip the guts oout of the very poor and most vulnerable peope in our society.

Regardless of all the Left/Right political nonsense; this government will only ultimately damage this nation. It's not even about Tory V Labour any more, it's about the people of the UK V greedy self-serving scum who want to sell our country out from under us.

Thing is, we'll probbly let them, too. 😥

why did the Lib Dems go into coalition with the tories if it wasnt sheer power lust?

The current situation is our fault - we caused this situation with our confused voting. What were the options:

1. form an unworkable minority government with discredited, leaderless Labour leading to another election in months
2. another election

In both cases, the Conservatives would have increased their vote. So the least worst case is to support the Conservatives and hang on, for the good of the country. The LibDems know they will get caned for this, but did it anyway.

So the least worst case is to support the Conservatives and hang on, for the good of the country.

It's not for the 'good of the country' though, is it? It's for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the many.

[i]Never before, in the field of British society, will so much be done, by so many, to serve so few.[/i]

I'm sorry but dont buy this Lidems not having any power crap, they have plenty, if they say no the government falls. They dont have to bend over and take it unless they want to.

I never understood the logic behind the Milk-Snatching disaster of the early 70s: cut free school milk to save money and appease the voters, appear to be delivering on promises to cut spending. So, cut something which had been proven to have a clear and significant benefit to children's health.

Fast forward 30-40 years. People with rotten teeth and poorer health = increased burden to NHS.

POLICY FAIL.

Short-term gain. Line yer pockets while there's still something in't coffers.

Close the mines: Yeah, ok, necessary maybe because they're uneconomic (hmmm). But where are the jobs for all these unemployed people? How will they survive? Oh on benefits. And how will you pay for these benefits? Oh, with the proceeds from North Sea Oil and Gas....

Marvellous.

What a horrible government we have now

nicely put.

Oh god. Not another historical political rant thread.....

Is there any thing worth writing which hasn't already been gone over 50 million times on STW already??

What a horrible government we have now. Much worse than the last one. At least the last one din't want to dismantle the NHS and education system to sell them off, and want to rip the guts oout of the very poor and most vulnerable peope in our society.

A horrible government, much worse than the last one? Just repeating it won't make it true.

The reform of the education system is following [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review ]the Browne Review[/url], as commissioned by Labour. Of course, that it was commissioned by Labour doesn't mean they would have followed it, but it does show that politicians across the spectrum see the need for reform.

Likewise the benefits system. Labour [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11714997 ]recognize the need[/url] for a simpler benefits system and for changes to the work / benefits relationship... and a number of the Coalition proposals are seen as extensions (if not outright copies) of labour plans.

As for short termism - Labour's love of PFIs and Brown's asset price bubble surely merit mentions?

If you are really interested in this Surrounded By Zulus, then take a couple of minutes to read this :

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20090202/mainchamberdebates/part004.html

It is Vince Cable (and other LibDems) speaking in the House of Commons in Feb 2009. They are arguing 100% for the complete opposite to what they are saying now. And it was on [u]that[/u] basis that they they received 22% of the vote last May.

For example Vince Cable states :

[b][i]"We are dealing with rapidly rising unemployment, much of it centred on the construction industry, and the situation is bitter and divisive. We shall try to suggest a positive approach to the problem through fiscal stimulus from capital spending"[/i]

[i]"like most western Governments, we believe in the need for a fiscal stimulus. Despite the severe financial constraints on the public sector, we believe that such a stimulus is right and necessary"[/i][/b]

So Vince Cable fully supported the government's fiscal stimulus through [u]capital spending[/u] in 2009. In fact he only criticised the New Labour government because he thought their spending didn't go far enough. For example, he said that they were wrong to cut taxes in the form of a cut in VAT and they should instead have used the money as part of government spending.

He also castigates the government for cuts in the college building programmes in his constituency - he is now responsible in part for the complete [u]scrapping[/u] of the Building Schools for the Future programme.

He then castigates the government for insufficient funding of social/affordable housing arguing that there should be no cap of council house building - it was all dependant on 'need'. This is what he said :

[b][i]"There are particular problems with social housing. In the past year, my colleagues and I have asked the Government about the obvious things they can do in the face of the collapsing housing market, such as investing in social housing,[/i]" [/b]

He is now responsible in part for a 60% [u]cut[/u] in government funding for social/affordable housing.

And so it goes on, with Vince Cable passionately arguing that the last New Labour government should have spent more on, quote : [b][i]"a series of public investment measures aimed at, for example, home insulation, social housing projects and public transport"[/i][/b] adding, [b][i]"We remain of the view that that would have been the correct way forward"[/i].[/b]

Furthermore, Vince Cable was fully aware that the fiscal stimulus was likely to cause a budget deficit, quote : [b][i]"we have growing budget deficits and growing public debt"[/i][/b], his only concern was that it [b][i]"may have the effect of squeezing out any future public investment, which will be crucial in providing a continued fiscal stimulus"[/i][/b] So more tax to pay for the fiscal stimulus then.

And Vince Cable [u]played down[/u] the size of the fiscal stimulus, quote :

[b][i]" Although £12 billion is a lot of money, the Government’s fiscal stimulus is not large in terms of the British economy. It is less than 1 per cent. of the economy, which is a much smaller proportion than in the United States."[/i][/b]

.

Now of course Vince Cable is perfectly entitled to completely change his mind concerning which economic policies he how supports.

But if he wants to do that, then he should resign his seat and stand again whilst arguing in favour of his new, completely different, policies.

The LibDems have no mandate. And they have made New Labour appear to be complete amateurs when it comes to lying to the British people.

The current situation is our fault - we caused this situation with our confused voting. What were the options:

1. form an unworkable minority government with discredited, leaderless Labour leading to another election in months
2. another election

this means no ministerial cars for the Lib Dems but they get to keep some integrity and stop the worst of the nonsense

Oh god. Not another historical political rant thread.....

Is there any thing worth writing which hasn't already been gone over 50 million times on STW already??

That would mean no more "Trail centre or natural trails" threads, or no more "I really love my rigid SS 29er and anyone with a FS bike is a knob and crap at riding" threads. AND neither are those things ar likely to happen so why not have a politial argument every day or so?

For the record which tyres for dropping off the fun box at Glentress on a rigid SS 29er right onto Michael Gove's left testicle? Generic Chinless greedy self-serving Tory **** ruining peoples lives at a stroke of his pen without skipping a beat...

[i].For the record which tyres for dropping off the fun box at Glentress on a rigid SS 29er right onto Michael Gove's left testicle? Generic Chinless greedy self-serving Tory **** ruining peoples lives at a stroke of his pen without skipping a beat...[/i]
These
[IMG] [/IMG]

'kinell - [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/stephen-s-delight-at-great-honour-1.1069675 ]This Is one of the reason why I hate politics[/url] and he happens to be a Scottish Lib Dem.

He was always a smug, self-serving, little git - perfect attributes for a politician. More annoying is I can't recall him doing anything I could sell to the press (unlike all my other mates of that era). Bloody career politicians 👿

The alternative, as Woody has said, is a dictatorship.

North Korea, anyone?

There is something about Gove that just repels me.

There is something about Gove that just repels me.

BTW - didn't we have a dictatorship not so long ago and look how that turned out

[img] [/img]

The Condemned coalition..... I break wind in their general direction, their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelled of elderberries! (with apologies to M Python.)

[img] [/img] Nuff said.

Don't start me on the reptile Gove.

Sums it up pretty much - government spending deficit:

[img] [/img]

@elfinsafety - you're talking rubbish!

I never understood the logic behind the Milk-Snatching disaster of the early 70s: cut free school milk to save money and appease the voters, appear to be delivering on promises to cut spending. So, cut something which had been proven to have a clear and significant benefit to children's health.

Fast forward 30-40 years. People with rotten teeth and poorer health = increased burden to NHS.

I was a 'victim' of this - I was 5 when it happened. I hated the yukky free school milk. I could not have been happier when it stopped arriving.

No fillings. Even today. Probably due to my mother's insistence on fluoride tablets.

So Zulu - what does that have to do with the fact that the Lib dems promised not to vote for increased university fees and now they will do so?

@elfinsafety - you're talking rubbish!

Please have a bit of a read of history, and the reasons and benefits of free school milk before you insult me.

I'm talking rubbish am I?

Milk is proven to be of tremendous nutritional benefit in the physical development of the young. The School Milk Act of 1946 had a significant impact on the health of young children. The act was brought in to benefit the very poor, who often suffered from malnutrition.

Of course, scientists, doctors and nutritional experts are wrong, and greedy self serving politicians are right. Of course. Because that's been proven, right?

Seriously, did you really think about what you posted, or are you more concerned with scoring points? I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but please don't tell me I'm 'talking rubbish', when I'm not.

I suggest doing a bit of research on this matter might educate and enlighten you.

It's a wonderful thing, education.

OT but Zulu here are some factors that will have led to that high deficit in 2009.

•Cyclical factors. In a recession tax revenues fall. People earn less so income tax receipts. People spend less so VAT revenues fall.
•Falling house prices particularly affect stamp duty.
•Income tax receipts have been hard hit by the fact the recession has hit the financial sector hardest. It is high paying city financers who pay a disproportionate amount of income tax.
•Bank bailouts are costing the government more than originally anticipated.

(Tax reciepts at one point were 25% down)

The condems are about to give us..

•As unemployment rises the government is forced to spend more on unemployment benefits.

I know it's OT but after a while people banging on about what a terrible state of affairs the 2009 deficit was, saying it's all to do with spending. It's pure BS.

Of course, scientists, doctors and nutritional experts are wrong, and greedy self serving politicians are right. Of course. Because that's been proven, right?

Like this lot??
http://news.scotsman.com/alcoholandbingedrinking/Minimum-pricing-rejected-as-MSPs.6620914.jp

Politics is just smoke and mirrors, wake up and stop analysing nonsense!

I keep saying this, but you don't listen? having returds (retarded turds) in charge of our resources, who have no ability to manage and govern resources can only have one outcome.

Fools in charge of the world, get used to the global sh1temare!

The Southern Yeti - Member

•Bank bailouts are costing the government more than originally anticipated.

Once again - absolute drivel. The bank bailouts are costing a lot less than was anticipated. In fact, the UK government (the previous one) even got the EU bigwigs to retract one of their more preposterous projections.

Sorry Druidh that was a copy and paste from an article written at the beginning of 2009. The fact is...

In a normal year there are [b]no[/b] bank bailouts!

As unemployment rises the government is forced to spend more on unemployment benefits.

Sorry, but lets get UK unemployment in perspective:

[img] [/img]

We've got more than a little room to play with!

There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.

The Lib Dems are a proper political party (no laughing at the back!), they do not exist solely for the purpose of providing auxiliary top-up votes for under-performing Labour administrations.

To be quite honest, the Lib Dems would be far better off if all of the tribal Labour supporting pseudo-Liberals ****ed off out of the party for good.

A Lib/Lab coalition simply wasn't an issue. Labour didn't want it and the Liberals did not want to prop up the dreadful and utterly discredited Labour government.

I'm old enough to remember getting school milk, it was very welcome at the time as we weren't well off, and as home life was [i]Challenging[/i] due to family health issues we didn't get much else during the day, so for more disadvantaged kids school milk was not to be sniffed at, stopping it was short sighted imo

Z11 😆

Let's hope you don't sit in that couple of %, eh?

The Lib Dems are a proper political party

So are the BNP and UKIP. Still no good reason to vote for them though....

I like Zulu-11's graphs. They are meaningless, but I like the colours. 🙂

31.
Elfinsafety - Member

The Lib Dems are a proper political party

So are the BNP and UKIP. Still no good reason to vote for them though....

You've invoked Godwin's Law by proxy.

THREAD CLOSED.

bravohotel9er - Member
There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.

The Lib Dems are a proper political party (no laughing at the back!), they do not exist solely for the purpose of providing auxiliary top-up votes for under-performing Labour administrations.

To be quite honest, the Lib Dems would be far better off if all of the tribal Labour supporting pseudo-Liberals **** off out of the party for good.

A Lib/Lab coalition simply wasn't an issue. Labour didn't want it and the Liberals did not want to prop up the dreadful and utterly discredited Labour government.

Good post. However, they could have gone with supporting a minority government on a case-by-case basis (as TJ has already alluded to in this thread). That would have mitigated the worst of any Tory policies and, with a bit of negotiation, they would have been in a stronger position to get some of their policies in too.

You've invoked Godwin's Law by proxy.

Do what?

How d'you work that out then? Do you know what 'Godwin's Law' actually means?

Yes, although you appear not to!

The BNP are utterly irrelevant in all of this, introducing them to the debate serves absolutely no purpose, defies all logic (okay...so far, so STW!) is tantamount to comparison with the (neo)Nazis and generally just a hop, skip and a jump away from Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Oh right. So you [i]can[/i] use Google. 😉

I just used the BNP and UKIP as examples of parties run by lying self serving scum. I'm sure there are others. IE, parties with no real policies that would benefit Britain as a whole, just a bunch of scum who want things to favour themselves and stuff everyone else.

As the LibDems have proven themselves to be.

So your reference to Godwin is incorrect, in this particular case. Stick around though, 'cos I'm sure it'll come in handy at some stage in this thread...

The good thing is that the LibDems have now lost all political credibility, and have invalidated their position in British politics. Having betrayed all those who voted for them.

There's nothing funnier than Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in order to deny the Tories a seat stamping up and down with indignant rage.

Actually that didn't happen, ie, Labour supporters didn't switch to the LibDems last May. That's why the LibDem vote in 2010 was basically the same as the LibDem vote on 2005.

I think you'll find that it was [i]"LibDem supporters"[/i] who voted LibDem last general election. Although I would hazard to guess that many no longer consider themselves to be LibDem supporters.

Ernie; do you like the colours in Z-11's graphs?

I'd like a graph with all the colours from both graphs in it.
Sort of like a Paul Smith stripey version of Europe... I'd have the pictures as cuff links. Thanks.