Intersting little tool for identifying which party matches your personal beliefs

[Sammy Chung was King]

Miliband for me is potentially the best leader, he does seem to be learning as he goes, but he is trying not to make promises he can't keep.
Clegg seems a decent man who made a promise without looking into whether it was possible he could deliver on it, sometimes politicians can't keep promises because things just aren't possible, other promise anything to get in, i think Clegg is the former, a decent man who made a mistake.

[hoolahoop]

Miliband for me is potentially the best leader, he does seem to be learning as he goes, but he is trying not to make promises he can't keep.
Clegg seems a decent man who made a promise without looking into whether it was possible he could deliver on it, sometimes politicians can't keep promises because things just aren't possible, other promise anything to get in, i think Clegg is the former, a decent man who made a mistake.

I couldn't agree more Sammy, why would Clegg deliberately decide as a career politician to harm both his own reputation and that of his Party.
Just one question, has any other manifesto from the past, carried any broken promises in it .....I bet you EVERY one did and for various reasons. This broken promise was not caused by a party that was completely in control of government agenda am I missing summat here ?

[IC1967]

Clegg is mainly reviled for his broken 'promise' on tuition fees. I think Labour would do well to remember who introduced them. I don't recall it being in their manifesto.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola/Sammy

Fascinating interview with Clegg in The Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21647826-full-transcript-our-interview-lib-dem-leader-which-he-discussed-his-partys-strategy?zid=462&ah=238e34b86abdcc232cbff7e3eaa9f972

A combination of brutally honest insights and some mendacity.

He gets it as to why the LDs have their existential crisis. He admits that they had decades of being ideologically "vague" and that they've been through a process of "hardening" their ideology. Trouble is, that is EXACTLY their problem. He thinks that will pay dividends eventually. In reality, it's lost them the one attraction that they used to have.

He's clearly given up on ever getting back the voters he has lost. He spends the first few paragraphs vitriolically slagging them off.

But the self-justifying mendacity that gets my goat is his justification of the coalition because "we could have ended up like Greece". That was his excuse in 2010. There was some reason for him to believe that then because there was still a debate about how the bond markets worked. But if there has been one economic certainty to come out of the last 5 years, it is that countries with their own currency were NEVER in danger of losing the confidence of the bond markets and "ending up like Greece."

For Clegg to repeat that now means he is either ignorant of the facts, a barefaced liar or simply in denial about the monumental decision he took in 2010 and trying to justify it to himself.

[Sprotyrover]

Sproty scored 58% UKIP 49% Tort 46 % Lib Dem 45 % Labour!

[BobG]

Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.

Cheers

BobG

[hoolahoop]

Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.

Cheers

BobG

I will give you an in depth reply separated by paragraphs in due course Bob.

Fact is that you and your "leftie " mates never looked at this from a historical point of view ever. You were inclined to 'put the boot on' even prior to the GE  of 2010

Basically we needed to form a government. "Cobbled together" somewhat I agree but nevertheless we needed one to chart a course out of the mess this country found itself in during that period.

I admit that the fault did not lay totally at Labour's door but many mistakes were made then as we know. 13 yes 13 years of a Socialist government did nothing for the poor and I don't have to remind you of the WMD fiasco that led to the deaths of many of our servicemen or the weaknesses in our fiscal policy or the lost nay reneged promises of that Blair governance do I Bob ?

I understand that you want to see the demise of the Coalition, Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party but don't try for one minute to pretend that you are doing that solely from a historical perspective.

That pretence does not and has not covered up your natural bias from the start. They say you should never discuss politics as it leads to rancour and your post certainly doesn't seek to disguise that notion.

I am fed up of folk sticking the boot in to a politician who does nothing different to his colleagues who sport the colours of every other political persuasion.

Academic "lefties" piss me off, we see them every year at NUT conferences and their ilk. I don't want to fall out with you Bob and I will leave you with that old Monty Python saying ....." What 'ave the Socialists ever done for us ? "

Little if nothing for me fella OK  ?

[hoolahoop]

BTW to answer your question , I came up with LD  and my constituency came up with Labour .....no surprise there eh being Thorne ; where a baboon with a red rosette could be elected.

If you are looking for a total LD collapse then I think you will be greatly disappointed. However should that happen then I suspect there will be an overall Tory governance for the next 5 years . Sad days for Labour its all going wrong in Scotland and England. Wales next perhaps ?

Just interested from a historical perspective of course.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola mate. I'll repeat. What Clegg and the LDs did in 2010 is NOT what "every" politician and party does.

There are some things that are core to your beliefs. One of the biggest is your opinion on the role of the State in the modern world.

What Clegg did on that score was to campaign on one idea then TOTALLY reject it after the Election. Say that everything he'd campaigned on, on that theme, was wrong.

No other politician this side of WWII has done that. Others have made slow conversions on big issues (Blair on foreign intervention) and paid a very big price. Or they have reneged on more minor issues (Cameron on VAT).  But NOBODY jettisons a core belief over the space of 1 week. 

Don't you see the problem there?

[Filo]

Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.

Cheers

BobG

I will give you an in depth reply separated by paragraphs in due course Bob.

Fact is that you and your "leftie " mates never looked at this from a historical point of view ever. You were inclined to 'put the boot on' even prior to the GE  of 2010

Basically we needed to form a government. "Cobbled together" somewhat I agree but nevertheless we needed one to chart a course out of the mess this country found itself in during that period.

I admit that the fault did not lay totally at Labour's door but many mistakes were made then as we know. 13 yes 13 years of a Socialist government did nothing for the poor and I don't have to remind you of the WMD fiasco that led to the deaths of many of our servicemen or the weaknesses in our fiscal policy or the lost nay reneged promises of that Blair governance do I Bob ?

I understand that you want to see the demise of the Coalition, Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party but don't try for one minute to pretend that you are doing that solely from a historical perspective.

That pretence does not and has not covered up your natural bias from the start. They say you should never discuss politics as it leads to rancour and your post certainly doesn't seek to disguise that notion.

I am fed up of folk sticking the boot in to a politician who does nothing different to his colleagues who sport the colours of every other political persuasion.

Academic "lefties" piss me off, we see them every year at NUT conferences and their ilk. I don't want to fall out with you Bob and I will leave you with that old Monty Python saying ....." What 'ave the Socialists ever done for us ? "

Little if nothing for me fella OK  ?

NHS?

Despite the sorry state the NHS is in today, many people wouldn't be here today if it weren't for the NHS. Only the wealthy could have afforded essential treatment, whilst the poor would have been discarded to die

[wilts rover]

Whatever your political beliefs the 2010 GE was a historic occassion as it was the first time since 1919 we came out of it with three major parties. Which is why this election will be just as interesting, and historic. Will we have gone back to two major parties? Will there be four? As Bob has asked, what will happen to the 2010 Liberal vote? Will there be another Strange Death of Liberal England?

[Filo]

This is Clegg for you, 5 years we've hade of the Lib Dems supporting Gideons fiscal plans and now he tells us he's a very dangerous man!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/06/nick-clegg-george-osborne-is-a-very-dangerous-man

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo

That article sums up what I've been saying about Clegg and the LDs for 5 years.

"Osborne's dangerous. Balls is dangerous. I don't like either of them. But after the Election I will sign up to one if their plans. And I won't tell you which one until after the Election."

 

[hoolahoop]

This is Clegg for you, 5 years we've hade of the Lib Dems supporting Gideons fiscal plans and now he tells us he's a very dangerous man!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/06/nick-clegg-george-osborne-is-a-very-dangerous-man

Filo , don't you realise that he and the LDs are fighting their OWN campaign . It was not their fault that 1) They held the balance of power. 2) They didn't find an interested party over with the Labour lot . 3) They were forced to ''abandon'' some of the main planks of their election promises. 4) There was no fecking money in the pot !

Being the 'minor' partner of any Coalition means you HAVE to temporarily abandon some of your objectives/promises to implement others that you can get through. What was the alternative a weak and ineffectual Government to deal with major problems ?

As a final thought , just why do you think that Labour was and is the only party looking to have and maintain a proper and effective National Health Service ? The old Liberal party had tried to implement such a system years before the Labour party even existed. Most of the major social reforms of the last 150 years were brought about by the Whigs / Liberals. All of the parties seek to improve the current NHS as well don't they ?

Bob , I'm sorry fella it was the phrase in your OP that pissed me off ''the Liberals with a whopping 7%'' that told me that you were having a sly tee hee moment rather than assessing the LDs from a neutrally historically political perspective.
 Now if you were being totally objective then I wouldn't have taken umbrage.

As a final thought , Labour supporters be careful for what you wish for... a LD collapse has a potentially enormous effect on Labour's ambitions. Piss off the 23% or part of it at least and your a dead duck, you better pray that the LD vote holds up otherwise many of their key marginals will potentially tumble to the Conservatives. Then Labour will be squeezed in all the home countries !

[IC1967]

It boils my piss that those on this forum that like to brag about their education look down their noses at other people and think their opinions are the only valid ones. I've lost count of the number of times I've battered a leftie into submission. I can't ever remember having lost a debate to one.

Just goes to show that a university education is no good to you you when you go up against me. So stop bragging about it. It only makes you look pompous and out of touch.

Hoola is right. You lefties despise Nick because he put the country first and kicked your lot out of government. Labour are the party that is in meltdown not the Lib Dems. Just look at how fast they've lost support in Scotland. The same will happen in Wales and England.

The Lib Dems will get around 30 seats and rebuild from there. The Tories will get an overall majority. Worst case is that they don't and form another government with Nick. Whichever way you look at it Labour will not be forming the next government.

Get in.

[hoolahoop]

Filo

That article sums up what I've been saying about Clegg and the LDs for 5 years.

"Osborne's dangerous. Balls is dangerous. I don't like either of them. But after the Election I will sign up to one if their plans. And I won't tell you which one until after the Election."

 

Of course he doesn't Billy , he has his own objectives and policies . Why the feck do you think he would make the same mistake that most politicians have made i.e. drop himself in the shite  ? Should he once again hold the balance of power then over committing himself would be ridiculous. He would have to once again make compromises. surely

Btw please don't try telling me that Clegg is the ''only'' one that has broken an election pledge because we both know that's nonsense. There are countless politicians that change or are forced to go in different directions both on policies they espouse and even political parties they choose to swap too. Clegg , despite what you say, is no different from 100's of politicians that have governed this country. Churchill, one of our most notable politicians did change parties and changed his core beliefs did he not ?

[Filo]

It boils my piss that those on this forum that like to brag about their education look down their noses at other people and think their opinions are the only valid ones. I've lost count of the number of times I've battered a leftie into submission. I can't ever remember having lost a debate to one.

Just goes to show that a university education is no good to you you when you go up against me. So stop bragging about it. It only makes you look pompous and out of touch.

Hoola is right. You lefties despise Nick because he put the country first and kicked your lot out of government. Labour are the party that is in meltdown not the Lib Dems. Just look at how fast they've lost support in Scotland. The same will happen in Wales and England.

The Lib Dems will get around 30 seats and rebuild from there. The Tories will get an overall majority. Worst case is that they don't and form another government with Nick. Whichever way you look at it Labour will not be forming the next government.

Get in.

Thats rubish

I've comprhensivley battered you again

Sort out that abject apology!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

Your point 4.

That is the nub. The "there's no money, we HAVE to cut the deficit" meme was NOT a fact. It was a political judgement.

Clegg campaigned on a very different plan. He then, within a week of the Election, effectively said that everything he'd campaigned on on that topic was wrong, and There Was No Alternative to deficit reduction.

Now, if he'd been honest, he would have said "We DON'T agree with deficit reduction at the pace that Osborne wants. We've just spent 3 months campaigning on that score. BUT, the way the Election has panned out, we have no option but to support this."

But he DIDNT say that. He said that Osborne was right all along in THE only issue of importance. And that if we didn't do what Osborne wanted, we'd go the same way as Greece.

I am genuinely astonished how anyone can take him seriously as a credible politician after that. No one has ever pulled a stunt remotely like that in 3 generations. This is qualitatively utterly different from the usual broken promise issue. This is a broken political philosophy. Clegg admitted as much in that interview I posted yesterday. That is why he lost 2/3rds of their support within 4-6 months of May 2010 and why it has never come back. What he did is political suicide.

[hoolahoop]

Hoola

Your point 4.

That is the nub. The "there's no money, we HAVE to cut the deficit" meme was NOT a fact. It was a political judgement.

Clegg campaigned on a very different plan. He then, within a week of the Election, effectively said that everything he'd campaigned on on that topic was wrong, and There Was No Alternative to deficit reduction.

Now, if he'd been honest, he would have said "We DON'T agree with deficit reduction at the pace that Osborne wants. We've just spent 3 months campaigning on that score. BUT, the way the Election has panned out, we have no option but to support this."

But he DIDNT say that. He said that Osborne was right all along in THE only issue of importance. And that if we didn't do what Osborne wanted, we'd go the same way as Greece.

I am genuinely astonished how anyone can take him seriously as a credible politician after that. No one has ever pulled a stunt remotely like that in 3 generations. This is qualitatively utterly different from the usual broken promise issue. This is a broken political philosophy. Clegg admitted as much in that interview I posted yesterday. That is why he lost 2/3rds of their support within 4-6 months of May 2010 and why it has never come back. What he did is political suicide.

Well we will soon see if it was political suicide Billy , personally I don't think so and if he has committed political suicide then God help the Labour Party now. Basically it's being squeezed from all sides especially if the ''disaffected'' millions that you think will desert don't go to the Labour Party if they go to the Tories then politically this country could be in  a right mess with once again a hastily cobbled together arrangement passing for an organised method of government.

Tell me what would you have done in the same position Billy , Filo , Bob et al ? You were up against an intransigent Labour Party and a diametrically different political party in the Tories . Take your hats off just for a moment and tell me what you all would have done given the same scenario, resources etc ?

For five long years you lot have perpetuated the myth that Clegg and the LDs were the only individuals or political parties that have ever had to abandon core planks of their election pledges once in power. Frankly you were pissed off with the resulting Coalition that deprived Labour of yet more haunting years that historians would have pored over had thirteen ineffectual years turned into eighteen years of more of Socialist madness, of over spending, of  yet more ''nannying'' .........jeez is that what you all wanted ? God forbid !!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

I've told you times many what I would have done. Called Osborne's bluff. Gone for C&S instead of coalition. Insisted on FAR slower spending cuts.

He didn't. He signed up to the lot. The generous interpretation is that Osborne and Mervyn King put the frighteners on him and he shit it. The harsh interpretation is that he never believed in what he had campaigned for anyway.

So he was either an amateur, or a charlatan. There genuinely is no other interpretation.

And this is not a trivial issue. This was a decision of historic importance. The OBR calculate that the fiscal tightening of 2010-12 cost us 5-6% of GDP. That's £100bn for the country. £6000 per family. Gone. Forever. Because of Clegg's support for Osborne's Austerity.

No politician in living memory has EVER made a u-turn like that.

[hoolahoop]

Hoola

I've told you times many what I would have done. Called Osborne's bluff. Gone for C&S instead of coalition. Insisted on FAR slower spending cuts.

He didn't. He signed up to the lot. The generous interpretation is that Osborne and Mervyn King put the frighteners on him and he shit it. The harsh interpretation is that he never believed in what he had campaigned for anyway.

So he was either an amateur, or a charlatan. There genuinely is no other interpretation.

And this is not a trivial issue. This was a decision of historic importance. The OBR calculate that the fiscal tightening of 2010-12 cost us 5-6% of GDP. That's £100bn for the country. £6000 per family. Gone. Forever. Because of Clegg's support for Osborne's Austerity.

No politician in living memory has EVER made a u-turn like that.

Billy I genuinely think he was out-manoeuvred and yes you are probably right inexperienced so to speak but unlike you I don't believe in the ridiculous assertion that he might have been a charlatan. Where is this coming from ? Are you suggesting that he deliberately tried to wreck his own career and the future of his party deliberately.

Presumably you are also suggesting that Osborne and the Tories were also as  hellbent in self-destruction too ?
Definitely a need for an election then if the country has gone downhill since 2010. Strange these reports you get seem to be diametrically opposed to the generous consensus that economically this country is recovering quite well rather than  rolling downhill faster than a man in an avalanche.

The OBR report compiled in March 2015 re. the economic outlook for 2015/2016 makes far more comfortable reading and I'm not surprised that you haven't made reference to it. As they say there are statistics and damn statistics with respect you have a penchant for using only the information that suits your arguments. I hah hoped that you might present me with a more balanced and less biased point of view . If I told you that red was red ,  you would find me a report or two compiled elsewhere that red was in fact a strange hue of red called ''blue''. Everyone either involved or interested in politics can twist every and any situation to suit their argument. Indeed that is exactly how and why you have singled out Clegg for vilification. He messed up the GE of 2010 for you and didn't kowtow to Brown and the other kingpins of the Labour Party. They were found wanting and on the back foot or perhaps they wanted to get out of the kitchen when things got too hot. The legacy of those 13 years was what Billy ?

As for 'u turns' by politicians, just how many instances have their been when 1) Coalitions have been formed between political parties in this country where their policies generally weren't convergent ? 2) Where the national finances were a fairly unknown quantity to the 3rd party ? and 3) Where the party holding power seemed by all accounts to be disinterested in holding onto power albeit as a minority party ? 4) Where there seemed to be little or no possibility of that 3rd party wielding any major influence after the election itself.

Believe me Billy there have been massive u-turns by sitting ''stand alone'' governments notably the Blair governments. I'm sure if you care to dig just a little deeper you will find almost every politician has reneged partly or even fully on promises either when in power or more importantly if there appeared to be little chance of that power. This LD party under it's leader have had to trade off some of their election promises  in much the same way as they would of had to had they shared power with the Labour Party. However that fact has NEVER  got in the way of your mirth and vitriol.
Believe me the defeat in the last election would have been so much heavier on the Labour Party had the LDs not 'diluted' the number of seats won by the Conservatives. As it is they (the Labour Party) find themselves fighting on every front ; The Conservatives, Lib/Dems , UKIP and the Greens in England, The SNP and Lib/Dems in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales.........I hope they have the resources .

[BobG]

I think the only politician in ANY memory who did make a U turn like that was Robert Peel. About 180 years ago. And he split his party in half by doing so.

Hools mate. You've got this all wrong I truly am not interested any more in the outcome of this election. The Tories are going to win and that's that. But what I AM interested in is what is happening to the existance of the political party with the oldest roots of all in this country.  This is seminal stuff. This is life changing - for all of us. It is quite possible that nothing, nothing, will ever be the same again after this election. And all I am trying to do is to plot how that is panning out. So please. Do me a favour. Stop putting words, actions and thoughts in my mouth. They are none of them, not one, true. I repeat: all I am interested in now is plotting the development of what could turn out to be a revolution. Stop telling me what i'm thinking eh? I am telling you. I am way beyond debating a foregone conclusion.

BobG

PS You haven't understood Billys point. Every political party changes its views and actions in operational matters. They do not do so in philosophical ones. Clegg did. And he's f**ked as a result. Like I said, it has been done - once before. And that didn't end well for the guy that did it. Try to see the difference between operations and policy mate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

I'm looking for plausible reasons why Clegg campaigned hard on an anti-Austerity ticket in April 2010, then signed up for full-blown Osborne Austerity in May 2010 AND insisted that this had to be done to save the country.

There are only three possible explanations
1) He was genuinely converted by fear of what had happened to Greece.

2) He never believed what he was campaigning on in April 2010 and was happy to come clean in May 2010.

3) He never believed in what he signed up for in May 2010 but did it because...well, who knows.

There ARE no other alternative explanations.

If 1) is correct, then he is an intellectual and political lightweight and is economically ignorant, and should never have been remotely close to being in a position to take such an important decision.

If 2) or 3) are correct, then he is a liar and a charlatan.

If you can think of an alternative explanation that fits the turnabout in Clegg between April 10 and May 10, then te me what it is. I genuinely have been unable to think of any alternative in these last 5 years.

And I'll repeat. This is NOT some relatively minor policy detail. This is by far and away the greatest political, philosophical and economic decision of my adult lifetime. The mistake Clegg made in 2010 will leave us permanently poorer. There was a way out of the situation we were in in 2010. Clegg campaigned on that way out. And then he spent 5 years supporting the mirror opposite policy. It's cost us £100bn in lost wealth. AND, it's put Osborne in a position to shrink the State to a level we've not seen since 1939.

And you wonder why I despise Clegg?

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way Hoola. You keep saying that ALL parties make U-turns. Give me ANY example in the past 80 years of a party in Govt that has voluntarily abandoned a truly fundamental core principle that it stood on at the previous Election.

Not a relative minor issue like which tax you raise and lower. A really fundamental one like what the basic principle by which you manage the economy is.

I can think of only one that comes remotely close. That was Callaghan's Govt in 1976 going monetarist and massively reducing state spending.

But that one wasn't voluntary. The money truly HAD run out (at least according to the Treasury numbers) and the policies Callaghan u-turned on were imposed on him by the IMF. The result was 15 years of civil war in the Labour Party and 23 years without getting close to power.

Clegg's decision in 2010 is FAR less defensible. He claims to have dropped the core policy because of what he THOUGHT might happen. Not because he had no choice. It was a conscious decision to do so. And THAT is why I say that he has ruined the LDs as a major vote-winning party for a generation.

[hoolahoop]

Sproty scored 58% UKIP 49% Tort 46 % Lib Dem 45 % Labour!

I think the only politician in ANY memory who did make a U turn like that was Robert Peel. About 180 years ago. And he split his party in half by doing so.

Hools mate. You've got this all wrong I truly am not interested any more in the outcome of this election. The Tories are going to win and that's that. But what I AM interested in is what is happening to the existance of the political party with the oldest roots of all in this country.  This is seminal stuff. This is life changing - for all of us. It is quite possible that nothing, nothing, will ever be the same again after this election. And all I am trying to do is to plot how that is panning out. So please. Do me a favour. Stop putting words, actions and thoughts in my mouth. They are none of them, not one, true. I repeat: all I am interested in now is plotting the development of what could turn out to be a revolution. Stop telling me what i'm thinking eh? I am telling you. I am way beyond debating a foregone conclusion.

BobG

PS You haven't understood Billys point. Every political party changes its views and actions in operational matters. They do not do so in philosophical ones. Clegg did. And he's f***ed as a result. Like I said, it has been done - once before. And that didn't end well for the guy that did it. Try to see the difference between operations and policy mate.

Bob first of all I did understand Billy's point and the point you are making too.
Secondly , like you , I would hate to see the demise of a political party that has fought  so much for the rights and conditions of working people long before the Labour party was in existence let alone in power.
I have watched how over my lifetime it has been gradually destroyed internally  by scandals and a lack of cohesive policies and externally by the strength and financial clout of the  Labour party and of the Conservatives. Unfortunately the centre left ground that this once proud party occupied neither had the means nor the press coverage that it once occupied. Basically the party that produced Walpole, Pitt, Asquith , Lloyd -George, Melbourne , Gladstone etc. faced extinction. These are the political heavyweights of a once great party that are the forerunners of today's LD party. A party that pushed for an NHS long before the modern Labour party even existed.
 BTW I'm not trying to educate those on here that are posting but perhaps those that are reading this and wondering wtf we are all getting in a tizz about.
IMO we DO need a 3rd party to prevent the lurching from left to right and as a counterweight against the more extreme ideologies that we have so often seen over the last 100 years.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your OP and found it to be mischievous ; I now realise from this post that it was not your intention.
As someone that shares your interest in politics   you must understand that it did read that way and BTW there has and continues to be plenty of gloating on here . Perhaps there won't be quite so much come the election results in May!!

Please excuse the brevity of my post , I will come back to you both later but I'm shattered

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

Between 2010 and 2012 we had the most rapid reduction in state spending since the end of WWII. That policy was a bizarre right-wing experiment that had no grounding in economic theory or practice. It was done under the pretext of a handful of highly influential right-wing policy makers saying that we needed to do it to "restore confidence". The real reason was always to use the crisis as a way of reducing the size of the State.

Neither you nor I have ever experienced such an extreme, ideologically driven political policy in this country. That experiment has permanently lost us £100bn.

How the hell did the presence of a third party help avoid that outcome?

[jucyberry]

At the end of the day Clegg has proved himself to be a monumental disappointment. Many, many people myself included believed he would be a breath of fresh air. I still believe he, like Ed is a decent man but he has also been proven to be a weak one. He would have us believe that without the Libdems the tory cuts would have been worse but from where I'm standing I would say he didn't exactly put up much of a fight.

Talking big at his conferences and then doing the opposite back in Westminster doesn't show a party of strength.
It is so fashionable to kick those at the bottom at the moment, the Tory propaganda machine has done sterling work to convince those with no experience of how living below the breadline really is. He could have done so much more to stop this poison but he hasn't.
Cuts to the disabled are deep and it seems the only couple that coped with disability in this country we are supposed to feel sorry for is the Camerons.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You want to know how far to the Right Clegg has gone?

Maynard Keynes was THE Liberal intellectual of the 20th century. A towering intellect who made it his life's work to determine how to make Capitalism work in a way that aided all sections of society. He was the heart and brains of centre-left politics of the 20th Century. And he was a lifelong Liberal, who despised Socialism.

Keynes taught the world how to manage recessions and get Capitalism back to recovery after its bouts of sickness.

We were following Keynes's prescription to the letter up to May 2010. We had had a horrific recession, but we were recovering in precisely the way that Keynes said we should. Another triumph for the great Liberal intellectual. Just like every single post-War recovery from recession had been.

And then Clegg decided that if we didn't support Osborne to the letter, everything would go tits up. Look at the effect. The Coalition started at month 27 on this graph. Austerity was eased off to produce a pre-Election boom at around month 54.



That graph is the ultimate vindication of the brilliance of Keynes. And Clegg has spent the last 5 years calling people who support Keynesianism fantasists, idiots, radicals and dangerous spendthrifts.

Clegg has totally disowned Liberal tradition and signed up to economics that Thatcher never dared countenance. That's another reason why he has destroyed his party's base.

[jucyberry]

This is the devastation Clegg and his spineless band has enabled.

http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2015-04-07-Opinion-Will-anyone-house-people-on-benefits-from-8-May

[hoolahoop]

Hoola

Between 2010 and 2012 we had the most rapid reduction in state spending since the end of WWII. That policy was a bizarre right-wing experiment that had no grounding in economic theory or practice. It was done under the pretext of a handful of highly influential right-wing policy makers saying that we needed to do it to "restore confidence". The real reason was always to use the crisis as a way of reducing the size of the State.

Neither you nor I have ever experienced such an extreme, ideologically driven political policy in this country. That experiment has permanently lost us £100bn.

How the hell did the presence of a third party help avoid that outcome?

You still haven't told me how Clegg caused thus ''supposed'' loss of wealth that the nation has suffered from or explained to me what would have happened in  your view had he tried 'to call Osborne's bluff,''. In my view we would have been stuck in an economic and political mire had we not have a sustained and consistent Government.

This 'blame Clegg' nonsense has to stop , even the Labour Party and 'Ed' don't follow this line ! Another intellectual lightweight perhaps  ? Does he strike you as Prime Ministerial material , because I'm struggling to see his attributes apart from the fact that he can keep saying ''we were wrong''....I always value humbleness.

 13 years to implement the core values of the Labour party, you will be telling me next that they were successful terms of office . Perhaps a time when the Socialist left had the opportunity to implement their wider ranging and bloated public sector for the good of the working man ? No it didn't happen like that and we both know it . The Labour party moved further and further into the centre ground didn't it ? It made multitudinous miscalculations didn't it ?
Basically it didn't govern the country in a Socialist way when the opportunity was there Massive opportunities presented themselves, with large majorities but it ended up in tears and with little success. Yes they inched themselves away from core socialist policies because generally they were no longer current or 'eye catching ' for the modern voter in this country.