26 Jan 06
With last week's news that Mark Oaten has been paying a rent boy, and this week's news that Simon Hughes has had gay relationships, I can't help thinking that Simon Hughes could have either saved Oaten some money, or made a bit extra on the side for himself.
Although, he would of course have to enter it in the register of member's interests...
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by VargWho are all these people?
With last week's news that Mark Oaten has been paying a rent boy, and this week's news that Simon Hughes has had gay relationships, I can't help thinking that Simon Hughes could have either saved Oaten some money, or made a bit extra on the side for himself.
Although, he would of course have to enter it in the register of member's interests...
26 Jan 06
1 edit
The only party in fact that was against the war in Iraq.
As such they gained significant support at the last election
and were doing very well.
Unfortunatly their former leader (Charles Kennedy) confessed
to alcoholism and was forced down by his own cronies.
No doubt the party will fall into disarray and we will have some
closet crackhead in charge.
Somewhat akin to throwing out a perfectly good president for
getting a blowjob and hiring a sadistic warmonger.
edit. Charles Kennedy appealed to the masses for understanding
of his human condition. It didn't work, it never works.
The public are the original thought police, preferring to have
deceitful idols in place than human beings.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNot quite the only party which opposed the war....
The only party in fact that was against the war in Iraq.
As such they gained significant support at the last election
and were doing very well.
Unfortunatly their former leader (Charles Kennedy) confessed
to alcoholism and was forced down by his own cronies.
No doubt the party will fall into disarray and we will have some
closet crackhead in charge. ...[text shortened]... throwing out a perfectly good president for
getting a blowjob and hiring a sadistic warmonger.
Not quite significant electoral gains - they got more seats, but their percentage vote was pretty much the same as previous elections....
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by RedmikeOK then, the only anti-war party that had a chance of winning.
Not quite the only party which opposed the war....
Not quite significant electoral gains - they got more seats, but their percentage vote was pretty much the same as previous elections....
The votes don't neccesarily reflect the support. There's a great
deal of tactical voting that goes on and I think that if the people
thought that the Lib Dems had even an outside chance of winning
we'd be seeing a lot more votes going their way. I for one.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Thequ1ckReally?
The votes don't neccesarily reflect the support.
I think the number of votes is the only real measure we have.
Any tactical voting is just as likely to benefit the libdems as take votes from them. They are very adept at presenting themselves as leftwing in labour seats and cute/cuddly/harmless in tory seats. They stand for nothing but political opportunism.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by RedmikeJudging by their behaviour as reported in this thread, they conduct themselves like out-of-work actors.
Any tactical voting is just as likely to benefit the libdems as take votes from them. They are very adept at presenting themselves as leftwing in labour seats and cute/cuddly/harmless in tory seats. They stand for nothing but political opportunism.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not that bothered what they do with their dangly bits in private. I just object to this idea that the libdems are somehow above the normal political practise or that they are somehow more principled than everyone else, when in fact they are probably the most sneaky, duplicitous, opportunist party in the UK.
Judging by their behaviour as reported in this thread, they conduct themselves like out-of-work actors.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by RedmikeThat's because there's no real way of measuring a party's policies
Really?
I think the number of votes is the only real measure we have.
Any tactical voting is just as likely to benefit the libdems as take votes from them. They are very adept at presenting themselves as leftwing in labour seats and cute/cuddly/harmless in tory seats. They stand for nothing but political opportunism.
until they're in power.
It's much easier to measure by failures in politics.
They had a strong leader who stood for integrity and lived it,
they got rid of him. Now they stand for nothing.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWe're not talking about a parties policies. You claimed that the libdems had gained electoral support because of their supposed anti-war position.
That's because there's no real way of measuring a party's policies
until they're in power.
It's much easier to measure by failures in politics.
They had a strong leader who stood for integrity and lived it,
they got rid of him. Now they stand for nothing.
No such thing happened - they didn't gain any electoral support. Their share of the vote was pretty much the same as it has been for decades.
As for Kennedy, there's no way he was anything like a strong leader. He certainly didn't stand for integrity, or he wouldn't have lied to the public. He was a chancer when I knew him as a student, and he's been a chancer ever since. They stood for nothing before, and a new leader won't change that.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by RedmikeYou knew Charles Kennedy as a student?
We're not talking about a parties policies. You claimed that the libdems had gained electoral support because of their supposed anti-war position.
No such thing happened - they didn't gain any electoral support. Their share of the vote was pretty much the same as it has been for decades.
As for Kennedy, there's no way he was anything like a strong lead ...[text shortened]... a chancer ever since. They stood for nothing before, and a new leader won't change that.
Maybe that's why you have trouble recognising him as a great leader.
I agree that maybe the term 'gained support' might be a bit misleading
so I have tried to clear this up in my last post. Support in politics
tends to be judged more by others failure than a particular parties success.
Are you trying to tell me that Blair remained unaffected by his stance
on Iraq? Or that the Conservatives had offered a better solution?
The Lib Dems remained unrocked by these events and made stable
progress at the last election, and yes, I believe it was due at least
in part to their anti-war policies.
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYes - Kennedy was at Glasgow university in the early 1980s, as I was. I thought he was a tosser then, and I haven't changed my opinion since.
You knew Charles Kennedy as a student?
Maybe that's why you have trouble recognising him as a great leader.
I agree that maybe the term 'gained support' might be a bit misleading
so I have tried to clear this up in my last post. Support in politics
tends to be judged more by others failure than a particular parties success.
Are you trying to tell ...[text shortened]... he last election, and yes, I believe it was due at least
in part to their anti-war policies.
I'm not arguing that Blair didn't suffer electorally because of the war. I'm just saying there's no evidence the libdems gained electorally because of their stance. Primarily because the didn't really get any more votes than they normally would.
You may be right that some people felt more sympathy towards the libdems, I don't know. But that's no use if they still vote Labour or Tory.