hands up who voted lib dem then

fkn larious

The liberal democrats


are never going to get into power ........it will always be a tory v's labour war .

Paddy pantsdown.......then the ginger scot charlie something who was a drunk .......now Nick Clegg ...... who promised that if you voted for him he would cap universty fees bunch of wanna runs

The minute you ask them them to put their money where their mouth is they roll over and play dead .


the helped the tories into power then buckled when push came to shove

It's not a colation it's the tories taking advantage (and i do in a way respect them for that)

dawnbreak wrote:
I respect them in the same way I respect asbestos.

dawnbreak wrote:
Maybe so, where is the change? who is going to make it happen, we see so much condemnation and criticism but not much in the way of action and solution.... Come on Dawny, what do you suggest?

silvershine wrote:

mikey mikey wrote:
I have pretty much the same 'respect' for all politicians.

mikey mikey wrote:
Tis the same with all politicians, to be fair. As long as you don't agitate them in any way, they won't get all up in your throat and ting.

Best just to ignore the lot of 'em, I say.

Don't be sorry Nicky. Politicians are known to tell the odd porky. We've kinda got used to it.
Just get back to happily shafting us... being honest about it is cool though.

[quote="
hands up who voted lib dem then[/quote]

You won't catch me voting for anybody parliament is just full of self serving individuals who pass laws to in favour of big business then get payed by these business's when the mp leaves parliament.

Anybody who isn't mega rich and who votes i regard as slightly unstable/delusional

I am not politically 'motivated' at all...I am with you guys when it comes to this...but hey ho they are the 'enemy' per se and following in Henry VII philosophy of "keep your friends close, but your enemy even closer" we have to watch these buggers...much to my chagrin.
The worst thing the Libs did was go into coalition with the conservatives imo. As to Charles Kennedy....I lived up in Aberdeen for 10 years when Charles Kennedy was just starting out on his political career, I said then, there at last is a future PM who really tells it like it is. It was because of him I voted for the first time. I have only voted once since then. The reason Kennedy was got rid of was because he was the voice of the people and 'they' couldn't have that.
I am only posting this as a passing comment.


Jane

True Jane ..........I liked Charles Kennedy (as far as you could like a poltician so to speak)

I know everyone hates politics and I haven't voted or on been on the electoral roll in a decade or so. But I'm going back on it now and will vote in the next election

My reasons being

a) if you don't vote the tories get in and destroy the country

b )if you don't vote the tories get in and destroy the country


I'll be voting SNP or Solidardity (if Tommy Sheridon decides to run again)

The hard facts of life is, there is a government,, we can't change that, but whilst I was having my silent protest (like many) by not voting the worst case scenario slips in unchallenged

Charles Kennedy was pretty good by my ratings.

He used to like his booze though.

silvershine wrote:
It is an example of double think that is so prevelant amongst snobs that Scottish state school educated Kennedy was a plonky but Harrow educated Churchill was a lovable alcoholic.

I have some time for Charles Kennedy.
His eventual admission of alcoholism actually endeared him more to me tbh.
I like politicians who can admit to being human.
Too many believe it to be a flaw.

Can anyone point me in the direction where Charlie boy actually admits he was an alcoholic? By my recolection on a documentary I watched, he only ever admitted to have had one too many at certain functions and that the media had decided this qualified him as an alcoholic. Just the excuse they wanted to 'get shot', excuse the poor pun. I remember when they started on this Kennedygate thinking...and what of Churchill? A self declared 'black dog' sufferer who admitted to enjoying a little too much of the old brandy...his preffered tipple of choice I believe.


Jane

Kennedy admits battling alcohol

He said:
"Over the past 18 months I've been coming to terms with and seeking to cope with a drink problem, and I've come to learn through that process that a drink problem is a serious problem indeed.

"It's serious for yourself and it's serious for those around you. I've sought professional help and I believe today that this issue is essentially resolved."
He added: "People close to me know that this has been a struggle and that for extended periods I've consumed no alcohol at all.
"As a matter of fact I've not had a drink for the past two months and I don't intend to in the future.
"I learned the hard way of the need to face up to this medical problem, one that is dealt with successfully by many others on a daily basis.
"I chose not to acknowledge it publicly before in this way because, if at all possible, I wanted to overcome it privately."

I've been watching 'Lie to Me', and am pretty sure, he's not sorry.

feather wrote:
Thanks feather, but as it's the BBC....plus not actual film footage...I still sit on the fence.
Anyway back to Dawneys OP....as to THAT man.....I have absolutely nothing to say...how can I when to all intents and purpose, he is indeed NOTHING


Jane

It's more apologetics than apology.

What is conspicuous in its ambiguity is the reason he gives for going back on his promise: "we shouldn't have made a promise that we weren't absolutely sure that we were able to deliver."

Not, note, that she should have kept that promise but that they shouldn't have made it in the first place. This is not an apology for raising tuition fees. That is not the mistake he is claiming to be learning from. He is saying that the mistake is actually to have promised not to raise them. That is what he is "apologising" for and it places the blame partly on those that had insisted that the Liberal Democrats made the promise in the first place: i.e. his critics within the party.

He is also not accepting the blame for this by claiming he and his party were unable to keep their promises. He does not say why he was unable. This leaves us with two possibilities: either he was economically unable i.e. there is not enough money to keep fees as they were; or he was politically unable i.e. the Tories forced it through despite their coalition partners.

If it is the former, then the claim can come under scrutiny. This would mean that he would have to justify spending money elsewhere.

If it is the latter, then he is talking about a split in the coalition and placing the blame squarely onto his coalition partners.

So he has had speech writers carefully leave this ambiguous.

This is not sincere and it is certainly cowardly.