This post makes literally no sense compared to the post it quoted.

 

'We've been over this about a million bloody times. A party going back on its most famous policy by far when it's run one of the most sodding pious election campaigns ever on 'no broken promises' and its leader has signed a contract saying he would oppose any rise in tuition fees is the very essence of betrayal. I somehow doubt the reaction would have been anywhere the same if Clegg had held out for a red line on tuition fees in exchange for letting a few other lesser manifesto commitments go.'

 

That isn't a 'HOW DARE THEY NOT STICK TO EVERY DOT AND COMMA OF THEIR MANIFESTO'. The last sentence quite literally implies the opposite. When you run a campaign based on 'no broken promises', sign a contract implying your most famous policy as a red line, and go back on that, that is a betrayal over and above standard coalition negotiations. It is a betrayal over and above any of those examples you named later - neither Labour nor the Tories made one of their big selling points (particularly to new voters) being whiter than white and restoring faith in politics by keeping to every single promise, nor did they sign a contract guaranteeing that they would vote against any attempts to do the opposite of those policies. That isn't to let them off the hook for those broken promises at all, but you have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did was another magnitude. It was the equivalent of the Good Samaritan stabbing the man in the back the second he'd helped him up.

 

1. The Lib Dems are NOT governing the country. Implicit in every manifesto, is "if we get to power". They didn't. How on earth can a party of a few dozen MP's run a country and be expected to achieve even SOME of it's policies when the other party has a different agenda . I mean, really.....!?

 

2. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/vote...es/3609602.html

 

3. 2001: pledges: Item 1: Labour Manifesto

 

Five pledges for the next five years

 

Economic pledge

1 Mortgages as low as possible, low inflation and sound public finances.

As we deliver economic stability not return the economy to Tory boom and bust

 

oops and OOOOPPPPSSSSS!

 

Not just a minor failure, there, a catastrophic failure! Though, so far it's half right, we have to return to Boom. Just bust and not quite so bust.

 

Use your quote above and replace "no broken promises" with item 1 above - and they had no coalition partner to deal with. I know which I regard to be the biggest betrayal for the British public. So do voters, why else do you think there is so much political fragmentation now?

 

 

For the part of the UK that is actually relevant to this thread, the LieDems tuition fee pledge didn't effect their credibility at all. It's the getting into bed with the Cuntservatives that's made them unelectable forever here.

1. The Lib Dems are NOT governing the country. Implicit in every manifesto, is "if we get to power". They didn't. How on earth can a party of a few dozen MP's run a country and be expected to achieve even SOME of it's policies when the other party has a different agenda . I mean, really.....!?

No. No. No.

 

http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/nick-clegg-pledge.jpg

 

Do you see anything in there about 'if we get to power'? And 'how on earth can a party of a few dozen MP's run a country and be expected to achieve even SOME of it's policies when the other party has a different agenda' - seriously? Didn't you lot trumpet about how you got about 80% of your manifesto into the coalition agreement? And you're legitimately saying you couldn't have had a red line on the one policy which you'd signed an oath on and which you were known for on?

 

I say again. You have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did in terms of betraying trust was another magnitude to any standard broken promise. Do you seriously think anybody would give the slightest damn about broken promises from the Lib Dems if they had sacrificed a quarter of their unmemorable manifesto for the sake of keeping their number one political promise? It's not how much you break - it's what you break.

For the part of the UK that is actually relevant to this thread, the LieDems tuition fee pledge didn't effect their credibility at all. It's the getting into bed with the Cuntservatives that's made them unelectable forever here.

That's obviously a huge part, but I think it's totally underegging it to say it didn't affect their credibility at all. In any case, given the policy had zero effects there it's not surprising it would have less of an effect.

No. No. No.

 

http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/nick-clegg-pledge.jpg

 

Do you see anything in there about 'if we get to power'? And 'how on earth can a party of a few dozen MP's run a country and be expected to achieve even SOME of it's policies when the other party has a different agenda' - seriously? Didn't you lot trumpet about how you got about 80% of your manifesto into the coalition agreement? And you're legitimately saying you couldn't have had a red line on the one policy which you'd signed an oath on and which you were known for on?

 

I say again. You have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did in terms of betraying trust was another magnitude to any standard broken promise. Do you seriously think anybody would give the slightest damn about broken promises from the Lib Dems if they had sacrificed a quarter of their unmemorable manifesto for the sake of keeping their number one political promise? It's not how much you break - it's what you break.

Which policy should the Lib Dems have dropped? As Lords reform was in all three manifestos then dropping that would have looked rather odd. So, should they have dropped - the increase in the basic allowance for income tax? The pupil premium?

 

I have already acknowledged that signing a pledge was a big mistake. However, if coalition talks had broken down because of tuition fees, how successful do you think the Lib Dems would have been in the subsequent election when they said "We turned down the chance to be in government on a matter of principle which affects almost nobody with a vote. Vote for us"?

Which policy should the Lib Dems have dropped? As Lords reform was in all three manifestos then dropping that would have looked rather odd. So, should they have dropped - the increase in the basic allowance for income tax? The pupil premium?

 

I have already acknowledged that signing a pledge was a big mistake. However, if coalition talks had broken down because of tuition fees, how successful do you think the Lib Dems would have been in the subsequent election when they said "We turned down the chance to be in government on a matter of principle which affects almost nobody with a vote. Vote for us"?

You aren't legitimately claiming the Lib Dems had just four policies, right? Or that David Cameron would have passed up government on the basis of the Lib Dems insisting on maintaining their most famous policy?

I expect Fife to be No.

I disagree, I'm very much expecting Fife to be 'Yes'.

No. No. No.

 

http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/nick-clegg-pledge.jpg

 

Do you see anything in there about 'if we get to power'? And 'how on earth can a party of a few dozen MP's run a country and be expected to achieve even SOME of it's policies when the other party has a different agenda' - seriously? Didn't you lot trumpet about how you got about 80% of your manifesto into the coalition agreement? And you're legitimately saying you couldn't have had a red line on the one policy which you'd signed an oath on and which you were known for on?

 

I say again. You have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did in terms of betraying trust was another magnitude to any standard broken promise. Do you seriously think anybody would give the slightest damn about broken promises from the Lib Dems if they had sacrificed a quarter of their unmemorable manifesto for the sake of keeping their number one political promise? It's not how much you break - it's what you break.

 

what's this "you lot"? I have never been a paid up member of any party (unless you count my UNISON fees which support the Labour Party) and I have never voted for any party that won an election and entered into government (Including the Lib Dems at the last election who I didn't vote for as I no longer have the decent Annette Brooks to vote for due to boundary changes). I say it's equally bias on your part comparing the devastation of the British economy with a bit of "oh they lied" whingeing. Please, EVERY party claims to be God and none of them ever are, how naive would any voter be to ever believe everything a party claims when the proof that they all do the same is in every manifesto. The Labour Party betrayed their number one issue in 2001, and then promised the same again in 2005. Lies. Getting back to the relevant thread, that's why the Labour Party are not currently popular in Scotland. The Economy. Ditto the other parties. The Tories and Lib Dems were NOT in control when it all went pear-shaped. If you wish to claim "oh that's not their fault outside circumstances" (which it was in some part, but not all by any means) then the same applies to the LibDem manifesto and the reality of the economic world they inherited ie a bust economy that the Labour Party weren't trusted to fix having had such a hand in it's downfall

 

As for getting into the bed with the Tories, how many times do I have to repeat THATS DEMOCRACY people, it's what the UK voted for! Just as the people of Scotland have a vote now to decide what they want and the half of Scotland that's pissed off next friday will just have to accept it. It's the best system available...

Edited September 13, 201410 yr by popchartfreak

No, democracy is the worst system available. Apart from all the others which have been tried from time to time.

No, democracy is the worst system available. Apart from all the others which have been tried from time to time.

:lol:

Back on topic, there have been three polls so far tonight. Two show a lead for No, the third a lead for Yes. There is at least one more due.

The final (expected) poll of the night has a narrow lead for No. Three of tonight's four polls can be called a statistical tie.

As for getting into the bed with the Tories, how many times do I have to repeat THATS DEMOCRACY people, it's what the UK voted for! Just as the people of Scotland have a vote now to decide what they want and the half of Scotland that's pissed off next friday will just have to accept it. It's the best system available...

Ironic that a Lib Dem SUPPORTER (there, is that better?) is so willing to take the electoral maths of FPTP as the honest manifestation of democracy given the party's historical support of electoral reform...

 

As much as you'd hate to admit it, the Lib Dem manifesto was miles closer to Labour's than to the Tories in 2010. So, as has been said before, it's impossible to claim that Clegg had any kind of democratic duty to jump into bed with Cameron when the public so clearly voted for a centre-left majority in all but the House of Commons.

Ironic that a Lib Dem SUPPORTER (there, is that better?) is so willing to take the electoral maths of FPTP as the honest manifestation of democracy given the party's historical support of electoral reform...

 

As much as you'd hate to admit it, the Lib Dem manifesto was miles closer to Labour's than to the Tories in 2010. So, as has been said before, it's impossible to claim that Clegg had any kind of democratic duty to jump into bed with Cameron when the public so clearly voted for a centre-left majority in all but the House of Commons.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure that's true. All 3 parties had virtually identical policies on the economy, and in quite a few other areas the Lib Dem manifesto was actually a bit closer to the Tories. The only leftwing things Clegg said were the kind of vague, platitudinous nonsense about "fairness" that the Blairites do, without really giving any concrete policies that were leftwing (tuition fees being an obvious exception). I mean, he'd spent most of the 2 years before the election talking about how the Lib Dems would be "the party of tax cuts", and said at his last party conference before the election that there would have to be "savage spending cuts".

 

That said, there were a LOT of individual Lib Dem candidates who pushed very left-wing messages and said they'd stand up for poor people more than Labour would, but I kind of think a lot of the blame lies with the Lib Dem voters themselves: the sizeable "Guardianista" contingent of the Lib Dem support just hadn't paid attention to how much more Tory-ish Clegg was than Charles Kennedy, despite the many signs.

Edited September 14, 201410 yr by Danny

I disagree, I'm very much expecting Fife to be 'Yes'.

I can't quite call the NE. The demographics make me feel like it'll go No but the Yes seem to be more prominent.

 

South and Central will vote No. They are far too Labour heartland to consider anything else. Half the people down your way would still vote Labour even if they were personally doused in petrol and set on fire by Gordon Brown.

To be fair, I'm not sure that's true. All 3 parties had virtually identical policies on the economy, and in quite a few other areas the Lib Dem manifesto was actually a bit closer to the Tories. The only leftwing things Clegg said were the kind of vague, platitudinous nonsense about "fairness" that the Blairites do, without really giving any concrete policies that were leftwing (tuition fees being an obvious exception). I mean, he'd spent most of the 2 years before the election talking about how the Lib Dems would be "the party of tax cuts", and said at his last party conference before the election that there would have to be "savage spending cuts".

 

That said, there were a LOT of individual Lib Dem candidates who pushed very left-wing messages and said they'd stand up for poor people more than Labour would, but I kind of think a lot of the blame lies with the Lib Dem voters themselves: the sizeable "Guardianista" contingent of the Lib Dem support just hadn't paid attention to how much more Tory-ish Clegg was than Charles Kennedy, despite the many signs.

The Lib Dems faced a difficult choice at the last leadership election. It was either Chris Huhne whose views were far more in line with the general membership but whop made Alistair Darling look dynamic or Clegg who was a far better performer on television but with economic views well to the right of the membership. If David Davis - also rather dull - had won the Tory leadership then Huhne may well have won. Of course the question would then have been whether he went on to have an affair and incur the wrath of his wife

I read something earlier which said that there can be only one recount in each region and that has to be requested immediately. Even if there is only a one vote difference in the final total, there cannot be a full recount. If there is a narrow Yes vote then I can see that being challenged in the courts. If it is a narrow No then I suspect Salmond will claim to be "doing the statesmanlike thing" by accepting the verdict but also making it clear that they would like another vote within five years.

To be fair, I'm not sure that's true. All 3 parties had virtually identical policies on the economy, and in quite a few other areas the Lib Dem manifesto was actually a bit closer to the Tories. The only leftwing things Clegg said were the kind of vague, platitudinous nonsense about "fairness" that the Blairites do, without really giving any concrete policies that were leftwing (tuition fees being an obvious exception). I mean, he'd spent most of the 2 years before the election talking about how the Lib Dems would be "the party of tax cuts", and said at his last party conference before the election that there would have to be "savage spending cuts".

 

That said, there were a LOT of individual Lib Dem candidates who pushed very left-wing messages and said they'd stand up for poor people more than Labour would, but I kind of think a lot of the blame lies with the Lib Dem voters themselves: the sizeable "Guardianista" contingent of the Lib Dem support just hadn't paid attention to how much more Tory-ish Clegg was than Charles Kennedy, despite the many signs.

Only in that they all wanted to cut the deficit in some way or other. The timing and depth of cuts in the Lib Dem manifesto was identical to Labour's.

I read something earlier which said that there can be only one recount in each region and that has to be requested immediately. Even if there is only a one vote difference in the final total, there cannot be a full recount. If there is a narrow Yes vote then I can see that being challenged in the courts. If it is a narrow No then I suspect Salmond will claim to be "doing the statesmanlike thing" by accepting the verdict but also making it clear that they would like another vote within five years.

Some regions could do about 20 counts before all the Highlands & Islands votes have even reached Inverness.

To be fair, I'm not sure that's true. All 3 parties had virtually identical policies on the economy, and in quite a few other areas the Lib Dem manifesto was actually a bit closer to the Tories. The only leftwing things Clegg said were the kind of vague, platitudinous nonsense about "fairness" that the Blairites do, without really giving any concrete policies that were leftwing (tuition fees being an obvious exception). I mean, he'd spent most of the 2 years before the election talking about how the Lib Dems would be "the party of tax cuts", and said at his last party conference before the election that there would have to be "savage spending cuts".

 

That said, there were a LOT of individual Lib Dem candidates who pushed very left-wing messages and said they'd stand up for poor people more than Labour would, but I kind of think a lot of the blame lies with the Lib Dem voters themselves: the sizeable "Guardianista" contingent of the Lib Dem support just hadn't paid attention to how much more Tory-ish Clegg was than Charles Kennedy, despite the many signs.

 

fair comment. I certainly had no impulse to vote for Clegg, whereas I admired Charles Kennedy greatly. For me, his ousting was a loss to British and Scottish politics. Same as John Smith's death. The course of the UK in an alternate universe might have been very different. Instead we got Tone and Gord and Nick and a succession of chinless Tory no-hopers after John Major, the last half-reasonable Conservative leader in 60 years or more.

 

IMHO.