• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Liberal Democrats - where next for them?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
None of which is actually relevant to my post that you quoted, which was in response to a suggestion that the LibDems were reactionary and authoritarian. The question of whether those measures are democratic and legitimate is entirely separate from whether they are reactionary and authoritarian.

Are you sure about the first bit? Perhaps you should have given some examples of policies that were more clearly reactionary and authoritarian rather than some where individual perceptions are far more important.

Changing the constitution to clarify the relationship between Parliament and the Judiciary on a matter such as prorogation seems to me to be an excellent example of implementing political progress and/or reform rather than opposition to it. It is the kind of constitutional reform Blair would have been proud of. I also fail to see what freedoms are impinged if a body itself democratically decides to make alterations to the way in which it can temporarily be discontinued from sitting.

On the other hand, the LibDems seeking to cancel the outcome of a democratic process and block the political reform that Brexit represents... well I can see where mmh was coming from on that point.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
(About Layla Moran)
Doesn't excuse what she did and not fit to be party leader just the same as if it were a bloke.

OK, doing a bit of Googling, it seems that she slapped her then boyfriend once, the police were called but no action was taken - from which we can infer that someone in either the police or the legal service with knowledge of what happened concluded it wasn't serious enough to be worth taking any action over it.

Obviously, violence against a partner is in principle wrong, but slapping a person once on one occasion in - what appears to be a one-off in the heat of some kind of argument - and subsequently regretting and apologising for it - basically says that a person is a human being.

If Layla Moran had a current ongoing history of systematically violently abusing a partner, then you'd have a point, and I'd be inclined to agree that she wouldn't be fit to be a leader (or even an MP), at least until she'd sought treatment, reformed, and put that past behind her. But what we are talking about is basically her losing her temper on one occasion. If losing your temper once in your life makes you not fit to be a leader, then I would imagine there's scarcely a person on the planet who would pass the 'fit to be a leader' test.

And the fact that you're making such a mountain of a one-off incident in the past seems to me to confirm my impression that for some reason you have an irrational vendetta against the LibDems, and you're determined to spin just about everything they do in such a way as to find fault with them. Off the top of my head, I don't recall you ever commenting in any remotely comparable terms about this incident involving the current Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservatives which appears to have possibly been just as serious (although in this case we don't know what happened). Would that by any chance be because the person involved was a Conservative, not a LibDem?

By the way, I don't know anything else about Layla Moran, so I have no idea of her suitability in any other respect as a possible LibDem leader. I simply don't think this particular incident by itself has any significant bearing on her suitability.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Have you been paying attention to the pasting they just got at the ballot box? Are you actually going to try and defend the party's performance? :rolleyes:

Ah yes. This would be the pasting where they increased their share of the vote by 4.2%. Yeah, clearly some pasting that.

Revoke article 50

Yes, I'd agree, the LibDems would probably have done better if they hadn't made that their key policy.

Swinson's track record
Swinson herself

And once again you're reverting to such vague stuff that it's virtually meaningless.

Last time I tried to band mouth?? Oh you mean lies she told

Ah yes, those would be those non-existent lies that you kept claiming she'd told, but when you were challenged about it, it turned out that you couldn't produce even one single example of a lie that she had told.

I realise this might be a difficult concept to grasp, but the thing is... the definition of a liar is a person who (habitually) tells lies. If a person has not actually told any lies then they are not a liar. Since you have been unable when challenged to identify a single lie that Jo Swinson has told, then you have no grounds for claiming that she is a liar.

and her bad track record where the evidence was posted for all to see. Why can't you see what's directly in front of you? Why do you consistently try and defend a women who is guilty of causing harm to huge numbers of the general public?

What I see is a person who goes by the forum name of 'GrimShady' and who keeps posting claims that are either unsubstantiated or appear to be demonstrably false, and who persists in repeating those claims even after it is demonstrated that they are (probably) false.
 
Last edited:

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
(About Layla Moran)

OK, doing a bit of Googling, it seems that she slapped her then boyfriend once, the police were called but no action was taken

Action was taken, she was initially charged under the zero tolerance policy which was then dropped. Once is once two many. I've never hit any of my girlfriends especially after something as trivial as a computer cable.

Obviously, violence against a partner is in principle wrong, but slapping a person once on one occasion in - what appears to be a one-off in the heat of some kind of argument - and subsequently regretting and apologising for it - basically says that a person is a human being.

No excuse for domestic violence, none. Would you be defending it the other way round? I suspect not. This only came out before she was considering standing for the leadership last year. Sounds more like a calculated political move before it was exposed....six years down the line. We can all assault of partners as long as its just once? - Disgraceful!

If Layla Moran had a current ongoing history of systematically violently abusing a partner, then you'd have a point, and I'd be inclined to agree that she wouldn't be fit to be a leader (or even an MP), at least until she'd sought treatment, reformed, and put that past behind her. But what we are talking about is basically her losing her temper on one occasion. If losing your temper once in your life makes you not fit to be a leader, then I would imagine there's scarcely a person on the planet who would pass the 'fit to be a leader' test.

She wasn't arrested for losing her temper, she was arrested for physical assault, more spin.

And the fact that you're making such a mountain of a one-off incident in the past seems to me to confirm my impression that for some reason you have an irrational vendetta against the LibDems, and you're determined to spin just about everything they do in such a way as to find fault with them. Off the top of my head, I don't recall you ever commenting in any remotely comparable terms about this incident involving the current Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservatives which appears to have possibly been just as serious (although in this case we don't know what happened). Would that by any chance be because the person involved was a Conservative, not a LibDem?

Other than a domestic disturbance taking place and police being called there is no correlation. Also I posted a statement, of two sentences, in which I deemed her to be unsuitable vs your mountainous post. This thread is about the Lib Dems not the Conservatives, what is it with you and Conservatives (of which I'm not)?

By the way, I don't know anything else about Layla Moran, so I have no idea of her suitability in any other respect as a possible LibDem leader. I simply don't think this particular incident by itself has any significant bearing on her suitability.

This incident alone would be enough to rule out most male candidates or at least have certain segments of society gunning for them. Double standards should not be tolerated regardless of how liberal one classes themselves. The posts on the twitter feed aren't so forgiving.
 
Last edited:

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Ah yes. This would be the pasting where they increased their share of the vote by 4.2%. Yeah, clearly some pasting that.

Pasting.......

general-election-graphic-3.png


The nation clearly has rejected the Lib Dems politics and their undemocratic stance on Brexit. Not only that but they've lost their leader, of which I'm proud to played my part in voting her out.
Do you accept this a nothing but ultimate defeat, Labour has?

And once again you're reverting to such vague stuff that it's virtually meaningless.

"Stuff" that's in the public realm and common knowledge. If you've been paying attention to the last few years. Do you require a detailed analysis? Go and have a look at how popular she was polling before the election and how it got worse and worse. Have a look at her track record where she's voted in line with the Tory Government over 849 times, many of those votes were on deeply unpopular cuts to welfare. Maybe telling us all she could have been PM was a mistake?

Ah yes, those would be those non-existent lies that you kept claiming she'd told, but when you were challenged about it, it turned out that you couldn't produce even one single example of a lie that she had told.

I realise this might be a difficult concept to grasp, but the thing is... the definition of a liar is a person who (habitually) tells lies. If a person has not actually told any lies then they are not a liar. Since you have been unable when challenged to identify a single lie that Jo Swinson has told, then you have no grounds for claiming that she is a liar.

What I see is a person who goes by the forum name of 'GrimShady' and who keeps posting claims that are either unsubstantiated or appear to be demonstrably false, and who persists in repeating those claims even after it is demonstrated that they are (probably) false.

Here we go again..... ok for the second time

From our very own forum, note the date, here's just one example

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...re-you-voting-for.191053/page-31#post-4318551

Here's some more for you regarding the lies she told about Corbyn. Do you need other sources or will this be enough for you?

In one made up story Jo Swinson shows the Lib Dems are still the same old power hungry chancers

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...are-still-the-same-old-power-hungry-chancers/

Jo Swinson probably wishes she hadn’t posted that latest lie about Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...t-posted-that-latest-lie-about-jeremy-corbyn/

All politicians are liars are they not? :lol:


So DynamicSpin........now is where you kindly retract your statements.

 
Last edited:

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Pasting.......

general-election-graphic-3.png


The nation clearly has rejected the Lib Dems politics and their undemocratic stance on Brexit. Not only that but they've lost their leader, of which I'm proud to played my part in voting her out.
Do you accept this a nothing but ultimate defeat, Labour has?
Two different measures are being used. You're using numbers of seats while @DynamicSpirit is using percentage of the vote. Here's both:
Conservative: 365 - 43.6%
Labour: 202 - 32.2%
SNP: 48 - 3.9%
Liberal Democrat: 11 - 11.6%
DUP: 8 - 0.8%
Sinn Fein: 67 - 0.6%
Plaid Cymru: 4 - 0.6%
SDLP: 2 - 0.4%
Alliance: 1 - 0.4%
Green: 1 - 2.7%
Brexit: 0 - 2.0%

The LibDem vote share increased from 7.4% (2017).

To say 'clearly' misses all nuances. What Dynamic Spirit said was not factually incorrect. They should not be told to retract statements that are true.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Two different measures are being used. You're using numbers of seats while @DynamicSpirit is using percentage of the vote. Here's both:
Conservative: 365 - 43.6%
Labour: 202 - 32.2%
SNP: 48 - 3.9%
Liberal Democrat: 11 - 11.6%
DUP: 8 - 0.8%
Sinn Fein: 67 - 0.6%
Plaid Cymru: 4 - 0.6%
SDLP: 2 - 0.4%
Alliance: 1 - 0.4%
Green: 1 - 2.7%
Brexit: 0 - 2.0%

The LibDem vote share increased from 7.4% (2017).

To say 'clearly' misses all nuances. What Dynamic Spirit said was not factually incorrect. They should not be told to retract statements that are true.


The retraction was not in reference to that Felix. I'm aware they managed a small increase but completely lost the war and it's leader in the battle. The whole campaign was dreadful, they pretty much handed victory to the Conservatives by splitting the remain vote. Swinson couldn't define what a woman was due to some twisted virtue signalling rubbish, confessed she would push the big red button, convinced herself she was going to be PM, turned the whole thing into an anti Corbyn/Johnson pantomime, then there's all the sexist and misogyny rubbish which Sturgeon doesn't seem to complain about, the dodgy and misleading leaflet campaign.

The whole thing was a complete disaster for them. That small increase of votes cost them dearly, absolutely insane.

The Liberal Democrats clock has been well and truly cleaned.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
The retraction was not in reference to that Felix. I'm aware they managed a small increase but completely lost the war and it's leader in the battle. The whole campaign was dreadful, they pretty much handed victory to the Conservatives by splitting the remain vote. Swinson couldn't define what a woman was due to some twisted virtue signalling rubbish, confessed she would push the big red button, convinced herself she was going to be PM, turned the whole thing into an anti Corbyn/Johnson pantomime, then there's all the sexist and misogyny rubbish which Sturgeon doesn't seem to complain about, the dodgy and misleading leaflet campaign.

The whole thing was a complete disaster for them. That small increase of votes cost them dearly, absolutely insane.

The Liberal Democrats clock has been well and truly cleaned.
+4% is more than the Conservatives managed, and such an increased for the latter gave them a 'huge mandate'.

I don't disagree with a lot of that analysis though.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Changing the constitution to clarify the relationship between Parliament and the Judiciary on a matter such as prorogation seems to me to be an excellent example of implementing political progress and/or reform rather than opposition to it. It is the kind of constitutional reform Blair would have been proud of. I also fail to see what freedoms are impinged if a body itself democratically decides to make alterations to the way in which it can temporarily be discontinued from sitting.
It depends how it is changed, which clearly we don't know yet due to the vagueness of the Tory manifesto. But given what Boris and cronies said at the time of the court judgment, it's reasonable to expect a more authoritarian approach to restricting the freedom of elected representatives to influence policy. At present there is probably a majority in Parliament for those measures, but a properly run democratic society should include some sort of check and balance to add a "do you really want to do this" if a government which is by nature temporary and doesn't command 50% of popular support wants to make profound constitutional changes. We have now seen that the monarch is essentially powerless to do this, the Lords being a non-elected body is unlikely to oppose a manifesto commitment, and intervention by the courts is controversial. This indicates that our constitution currently lacks effective checks and balances, but to erode what little exists is moving further in the direction of authoritarianism.
On the other hand, the LibDems seeking to cancel the outcome of a democratic process and block the political reform that Brexit represents... well I can see where mmh was coming from on that point.
They were going to do that if they won a majority. Under our flawed political system a manifesto commitment of a government that wins a majority in the Commons is considered to be the will of the people, and exactly the route the Tories will use to implement constitutional reform. The difference is that revocation was a headline LibDem policy which few people considering voting for them would have been ignorant of, whereas the constitutional changes are vaguely described on page 48 of the Tory manifesto and only a small part of a much larger bundle of policies offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

You can argue, and I would agree, that revocation was a bad idea politically. But it's a bit rich to say it was undemocratic in the same post as you support use of the same mandate for other purposes you happen to agree with. I would also disagree strongly that Brexit is a progressive and anti-authoritarian measure, as it removes more of the remaining checks and balances on the actions of an elective dictatorship in Westminster.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Some centrist fragments of both parties joined the LibDems. Not that it did anyone involved much good!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
their point is if you are right of Labour and left of Tory you have a home.

With this politically polarized start to the second decade of the 21st century plus their stance on Brexit now nullified, irrelevance beckons. The LDs need to find a popular policy position on -something- within the next four years else they're toast. That's the deal.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It isn’t in the Lib Dems. They aren’t centrists by my book.

They are to the right when they are trying to attract Conservative voters, and to the left when trying to attract Labour voters, when they’re not on some bandwagon issue. I think people have started to see through this lack of clarity.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
The non-Brexit Lib Dem policy best known to the public is the legalisation of Cannabis which is supported by virtually every Home Secretary as soon as they leave office! Given the way USA states and Canada have gone I'm sure it wont be long before it happens here.

It is interesting to see from the polling data that the Lib Dems have firmly become the party of the metropolitan liberal elite (predominantly university educated, city based) and have lost quite a bit of the old celtic fringe (eg SW England). Paradoxically the Tories are very much the party of those with limited educational qualifications (mainly due to its huge support amongst over 60s who didnt get the chance of much formal post 16 education).

The talk about the Tories dying out however seems not be true - people still seem to move to the right as they get older.

Some of the comments about Jo Swinson made here seem to be judging here on a different basis than the other political leaders. Most commentators seem to agree that Johnson and Corbyn ran terrible campaigns, probably worse than Swinson.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
The talk about the Tories dying out however seems not be true - people still seem to move to the right as they get older.

yep seems to be a fairly good general truth. My parents were ecstatic when Harold Wilson won in 1964. They voted Conservative in 1979. I could cite many more examples. I have certainly become more right wing the older I get. I have seen with my own eyes for a long time. I have no doubt I will now NEVER vote Labour in my lifetime. I think I could still vote Liberal Democrat with the right leader and policies.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Paradoxically the Tories are very much the party of those with limited educational qualifications (mainly due to its huge support amongst over 60s who didnt get the chance of much formal post 16 education).

Which leads to the thesis proposed by Noam Chomsky and others as to whether it is in the interests of right wing governments to educate the populace ... the current poor state education system (whatever happened to the aspiration of competing with the private school system ? ) certainly seems to have reaped great benefits for them, so why bother trying to improve it ?

The modern feudalism that we seem to be heading for (those in their castles and those driving them around in uber taxis) certainly requires little commitment to education of the masses.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
yep seems to be a fairly good general truth. My parents were ecstatic when Harold Wilson won in 1964. They voted Conservative in 1979. I could cite many more examples. I have certainly become more right wing the older I get. I have seen with my own eyes for a long time. I have no doubt I will now NEVER vote Labour in my lifetime. I think I could still vote Liberal Democrat with the right leader and policies.
My father was treasurer of the local Conservative Association for years, in a constituency next to that of then P.M. Harold Macmillan. He resigned on a point of principle and thereafter became a Labour supporter until his dying day. He loathed Enoch Powell and couldn't stand Ted Heath either, whereas Harold Wilson could do no wrong! So not everyone gets more right wing. I'd call myself a centre leftist still now, as I would have done forty years ago. The fact that I find the Labour Party as unelectable as the others is a reflection on how no political party closely represents y point of view.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Oh of course you are correct and it is not wise to over generalize. But in general people tend to get more conservative the older they get. But it is easy to produce examples from either side of the argument. I still maintain that the LDs are not down and out just yet. We live in a turbulent era.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Obviously not ScotRail. Two Jags used to make a point of it. The issue here is being leader and being involved in physical harm of her partner. It would not be tolerated if the roles were reversed.

I'm unsure if you follow football (generally), but Duncan Ferguson was recently caretaker manager at Everton.

This is the same Duncan Ferguson who famously gave Dundee United's Jock McStay a Glasgow kiss (headbut) on the field of play. He later got convicted and sent to jail.

Should Duncan Ferguson have had any future role in football management after his conviction?

The difference is that Layla Moran had no further action taken against her and was not convicted, nor had to spend time as a house guest of Lizzie Windsor.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Which leads to the thesis proposed by Noam Chomsky and others as to whether it is in the interests of right wing governments to educate the populace ... the current poor state education system (whatever happened to the aspiration of competing with the private school system ? ) certainly seems to have reaped great benefits for them, so why bother trying to improve it ?

The modern feudalism that we seem to be heading for (those in their castles and those driving them around in uber taxis) certainly requires little commitment to education of the masses.
Not sure I agree the state education system is poor compared to any other time. The education system has generally failed those who are not academically minded and has done so for generations.

There seems little consensus as to what education is for. A good Lib Dem policy which got limited publicity was its skills wallet. Continuing lifelong training and education is vital in an age which is destroying old jobs and creating new ones faster and faster.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I'm unsure if you follow football (generally), but Duncan Ferguson was recently caretaker manager at Everton.

This is the same Duncan Ferguson who famously gave Dundee United's Jock McStay a Glasgow kiss (headbut) on the field of play. He later got convicted and sent to jail.

Should Duncan Ferguson have had any future role in football management after his conviction?

The difference is that Layla Moran had no further action taken against her and was not convicted, nor had to spend time as a house guest of Lizzie Windsor.

Good question adrock1976. That decision would be very much up to the future employer should it not? It would be no different of you or I had a scrap and work, sacked and then sent down down for it.

The position in discussion is one of Public Office which people expect leaders to be beyond reproach. Look at the hassle Trump get for lessor crimes. Again we have to look at the gender roles here if it were reversed. If I was was Bojo would everyone be so forgiving?
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
Many people will never forgive the Lib Dems for putting the Tories in Downing Street in 2010 - which led to 10 years of austerity and the Brexit debacle of the past 3 years. They went back on their word on student fees, and waved through Tory cuts to benefits that have so badly affected the lives of the poorest and weakest in society. Nick Clegg has so much to answer for. The party's demise cannot come soon enough.

If Labour won in 2010, austerity would of still have happened, and with UKIP becoming the 3rd party by 2015, then the Tories would offer an EU referendum by 2020 leading to a later Brexit.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Many people will never forgive the Lib Dems for putting the Tories in Downing Street in 2010 - which led to 10 years of austerity and the Brexit debacle of the past 3 years. They went back on their word on student fees, and waved through Tory cuts to benefits that have so badly affected the lives of the poorest and weakest in society. Nick Clegg has so much to answer for. The party's demise cannot come soon enough.

I missed this. I would say the bit I've bolded is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the post-2010 election situation. A Tory Government was basically inevitable after the 2010 election result, no matter what the LibDems did. The Tories didn't quite have a majority in the Commons, but they were so close as to make it virtually impossible to form a Government that wasn't Tory-lead. It was a choice between a minority Government and a coalition Government. And the LibDems evidently took the decision that a stable majority coalition Government, in which they could hopefully nullify some of the worst excesses of the Tory right, was a better option than a minority Tory-only Government. You can agree or disagree about whether that was the right decision - but it's wrong to blame the LibDems for putting the Tories in Downing Street. It was a combination of the voters and our distorted electoral system that did that.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Action was taken, she was initially charged under the zero tolerance policy which was then dropped. Once is once two many. I've never hit any of my girlfriends especially after something as trivial as a computer cable.

Doesn't change my point. The charges were dropped - which clearly implies that someone in authority with knowledge of the case decided that it either wasn't serious enough or there wasn't enough evidence to warrant taking any action. And given that she had admitted slapping him, I think we can rule out 'not enough evidence' as an explanation, which just leaves, not serious enough.

FWIW as far as I can recall, I've also never hit a girlfriend. Although on one occasion I did forcibly restrain a girlfriend who was trying to throw things around the room. And on another occasion I was hit a couple of times by a girlfriend (she was drunk and you wouldn't believe how apologetic she was after she'd sobered up the next morning). On both occasions, no harm done in the end (apart from some smashed crockery). But I guess in the perfect GrimShady world in which noone ever does anything remotely violent, you'd have everyone arrested and charged and declared completely unfit to hold any kind of office, eh? Because that is the standard that you appear to be applying.

Except that...

Other than a domestic disturbance taking place and police being called there is no correlation.

It was a domestic disturbance in which there were widely reported sounds of crashing and banging - which very likely implies some kind of violence going on - albeit probably directed at property rather than any person. Yet, as far as I can tell from your posts, you seem to be completely OK with it and happy to brush it off when it's a Tory, not a LibDem, involved?
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Pasting.......

general-election-graphic-3.png

Yes it's a very pretty map. But pretty irrelevant for assessing how popular the LibDems are - because, as I'm sure you're aware, the proportion of seats in our electoral system bears very little resemblance to how many people voted for each party. The important thing in this context is that the LibDem share of the vote increased - and by at lot more than the Tory share of the vote increased.

"Stuff" that's in the public realm and common knowledge. If you've been paying attention to the last few years. Do you require a detailed analysis?

Well yes, if other people are not party to specific information that you are by implication claiming to know about a politician's record, then the polite thing would normally be to share that information, rather than just making vague statements like 'that's common knowledge' that don't actually help anyone who doesn't have that information.

Go and have a look at how popular she was polling before the election and how it got worse and worse. Have a look at her track record where she's voted in line with the Tory Government over 849 times,

Yes, she may well have done, but so what? It might possibly have escaped your attention that in 2010, the public voted in a Parliament in which the Tories were just short of a majority, and which there was therefore no reasonable way to avoi a Tory Government. Personally I don't agree a lot of the policies that Government enacted - especially on welfare cuts - but I also have to be realistic that the Tories (almost) won the election, and so their policies were going to be enacted. The LibDems evidently decided to compromise to some extent in order to get a stable Government for 5 years, rather than stay ideologically pure and risk a worse outcome. In that context, I would say that voting with the Tories is pretty understandable.

many of those votes were on deeply unpopular cuts to welfare.

Much as I disagree with many of those cuts, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that they are unpopular with the wider electorate, given that the Tories won the subsequent general election outright.

Here we go again..... ok for the second time
From our very own forum, note the date, here's just one example

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...re-you-voting-for.191053/page-31#post-4318551

You are being disingenuous. In that post, you linked to something that it turned out wasn't a lie at all. And then, with that example having been demonstrated as not being a lie, you persisted in (incorrectly) asserting that it was.


Here's some more for you regarding the lies she told about Corbyn. Do you need other sources or will this be enough for you?

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...are-still-the-same-old-power-hungry-chancers/

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...t-posted-that-latest-lie-about-jeremy-corbyn/

All politicians are liars are they not? :lol:

So DynamicSpin........now is where you kindly retract your statements.

Ah, at last! Something specific! It's a shame you've chosen to link - not to a trustworthy news site, but to a left-wing propaganda blog that has a long record of pretty dubious accuracy. Not a site that I would trust without checking if I can find the same information elsewhere.

But having said that. Yes, I looked at the Tweet about Corbyn - I even dug up the direct link for you, and I'll give you that is pretty bad. I would concede that saying "Jeremy Corbyn didn’t fight to remain in 2016" is not true - and since Swinson ought to know it's not true, that does look like a lie. So yes, based on that, we do (finally) have one example of what appears to be a lie that Swinson has told. I would say that seeing that tweet does lower my opinion of Swinson somewhat, although at the same time, it's one isolated thing, so it doesn't by itself justify all the over-the-top hyperbole you've been posting.

(And btw, couldn't you have just linked to that Twitter post when this discussion first came up, instead of continually making vague comments about her 'record' that just leave other people non the wiser?)
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I missed this. I would say the bit I've bolded is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the post-2010 election situation. A Tory Government was basically inevitable after the 2010 election result, no matter what the LibDems did. The Tories didn't quite have a majority in the Commons, but they were so close as to make it virtually impossible to form a Government that wasn't Tory-lead. It was a choice between a minority Government and a coalition Government. And the LibDems evidently took the decision that a stable majority coalition Government, in which they could hopefully nullify some of the worst excesses of the Tory right, was a better option than a minority Tory-only Government. You can agree or disagree about whether that was the right decision - but it's wrong to blame the LibDems for putting the Tories in Downing Street. It was a combination of the voters and our distorted electoral system that did that.
I'm not getting into a long argument on this, but in my constituency the LibDems had won each election from 1997 to 2010 inc, from the Tories, but have never won one since, despite having the same person as MP/candidate all that time. The only LibDem MP of the 2010 class who didn't publically back their joining the coalition was their ex-leader Charles Kennedy. He had never been a Liberal, but was first elected as a Social Democrat and that, to me, is an indication of where the party should head in the future, IF it is to have a future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top