Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2012, 11:57 AM

Reading the Community Radio thread, it was pretty obvious Richard G had been in deep and meaningful discussion with senior LibDems before his proposition hit the public. That could have been put down to straightforward enthusiasm to get support for a cherished idea.

This weeks' NWN reveals that those discussions went far deeper and seem to be implying that approaches came from LibDems themselves. This was the astounding proposition that Richard, an avowed Socialist should drop his principles and stand as a LibDem at the next general election. This, of course, is the self same party that felt its principles could be stretched to keep the Tories in power for five years! To me, this means that LibDems have no principles, no degree of honour, no policy they would not willingly sacrifice simply for power.

Press report suggests that the bate wasn't taken - but as far as I'm concerned, the damage is done. Trust in politicians is at an all time low - but as far as I'm concerned, don't think I'd ever trust a LibDem again.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 19 2012, 12:07 PM

Correct!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2012, 12:17 PM

Judging someone's integrity according to their affiliation to one of the main parties seems irrational. Just as the assertion that the Lib Dems are uniquely only in it for the power.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2012, 01:37 PM

If, as their publicity and web site suggests, they are a party of principle and conviction, why on earth would they solicit someone in another party, with its own principles and convictions to stand as their candidate. Suggests the convictions and principles they hold are very shallow indeed. As our local LibDems promote these very heavily, it really does detract from their integrity. Do you trust people who do that?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 19 2012, 05:15 PM

Just look at the record of our local authorities? There is legislation against companies that mislead the public when selling goods etc. Why is there not legislation to cover politicians and political parties who promise the earth in their manifesto and before the elections and of course have no intention of carrying out what they have promised.

Dave said there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS and we end up with the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS.

Nick promises that there would be no tuition fees for students and what do we get?

It is about time they were held to account. Lib Liars will be wiped out in the next election if there is any justice in the world and Dave should lose his deposit if he stands.

Biggest problem is who is there left to vote for? Every politician is held in disrepute and are held in a nearly as much contempt as our bankers and financiers.

Posted by: Penelope Oct 19 2012, 05:35 PM

UKIP?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2012, 05:50 PM

I'm not sure they have done anything wrong in thins case. Perhaps RG realises something about Newbury that he didn't appreciate before.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2012, 05:53 PM

The Lib Dem tuition fees fiasco wasn't about keeping the commitment (THEY DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION), it was that is wasn't costed, but they never thought for a moment they would have to keep to it. What I think they have done though, is put in a progressive alternative.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 19 2012, 06:19 PM

Exactly so they misled the electorate? Politicians and parties can promise anything they think the electorate want to hear before the election and then completely ignore what they have promised when they get in power. How can this be right? Business has to comply with legislation such as the trades description act. Something as important as governing a country or running a large local authority should be treated with more respect than the same actions as a crooked second hand car salesman?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2012, 07:29 PM

What? That we were once taken in big time by a bunch of unprincipled third raters? Look at their behaviour in the coalition, going gets a bit tough and they start tweeting the opposition! Integrity? Not as I know it. All they are after is power, but without responsibility and we all know who's prerogative that is.

Posted by: GMR Oct 19 2012, 07:54 PM

A couple of points here; the Lib Dems stand for PR, which means forming coalitions with parties like either the Tories or the Labour party. They've never wavered from that. Secondly; by joining forces with the Tories they managed to get a lot of Liberal policies through. PR means compromise.

Concerning Richard; if he joined the Lib Dems then the onus would have been on him to shift his believes and policies. Vince Cable was a Labour Party member and jumped ship. He had to shift his socialist views to accommodate the Lib Dems. None of this means that the LIb Dems haven't got "no principles, no degree of honour" or no policy that they wouldn't willingly sacrifice. It means that the Lib Dems are doing what they've been preaching for years; PR and compromising.





Through history policitians have jumped ship. Look at Churchill who had done it twice. As he famously said "Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat."

I can't see any damage being done here other than an age old jumping of ships.

Posted by: GMR Oct 19 2012, 07:58 PM

They didn't mislead the electorate. The electorate were/ are too thick to understand politics.

The Lib Dems said that if they win the election no tuition frees would go up. They came third thus making their manifesto null and void. Therefore they had to barter their policies with another party; which is PR.

The problem here is that you don't know how politics works.

Posted by: GMR Oct 19 2012, 07:59 PM

All parties can be accused of that.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 19 2012, 08:59 PM

Not exactly what it says on their web site! If it did, then fine - they are acting to their beliefs. From the local web site, here's what Tony Vickers says:-

I've been a Lib Dem party member since school in the 60s, when my father left the Army with thoughts of Parliament. I too 'entered politics' after a career with Military Survey, which brought me to the Newbury area in 1980.

It is the principle of social and economic justice combined with 'small government' and free markets operating for 'the small man' that attracted me to Liberalism. We offer a healthy 'green' alternative to the politics of greed and envy represented by Toryism and Socialism respectively. As David Steel said: "If Liberalism didn't exist, we would need to invent it."

and

My father was a Liberal and mutualism is what kept him voting Liberal all is his life," commented District Councillor Tony Vickers "It's easy to do and sends a message to the other banks - Labour should be ashamed of the way they let the banks act so recklessly." If you wish to switch your bank and support worker-owned enterprise call into the Newbury Branch of Britannia Co-op.

Which all tends to suggest he wants us to believe he is a man of principle and not wanting to sacrifice them for cheap political gain - i.e. compromise.If he feels that strongly about his political beliefs, why should he think a leader in another should not feel the same way about his and indeed why the electorate should as well.

Yes, Churchill ratted, twice, both times so as not to compromise his beliefs. Subtle difference was that the receiving party didn't make the overtures!

Posted by: GMR Oct 19 2012, 09:36 PM

Whatever he does or doesn't say is irrelevant; the the Lib Dems have always stood for PR and PR means compromise. In fact they have tried to change the law for PR and failed but it is still a target. It is always in their manifesto. And as I said; PR means compromise. Tony Vickers should know that being a Lib Dem. It it printed in their beliefs and is at the heart of Lib Dems philosophy. As for quoting David Steel; he was and is a Liberal; as opposed to a Lib Dem.

Some historians have argued that Churchill was an opportunist and went where he would or could politically gain.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 19 2012, 10:03 PM

Coalitions and compromise can be a good thing. Selling out your red line items is not a good thing and just promotes distrust. This seems to be what's happened to the Lib Dems and they will loose most of their protest voters who won't see them as a safe bet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2012, 10:06 PM

GMR ... I stand up an applaud your posts. Bang on. And I say this without being your biggest fan nor a devotee of the Lib Dems. If what is said is true about RG, then he is making a common sense decision taking into account of the conditions before him.


Saying all that, I will never vote for any councillor that hung Simon Kirby like the Newbury Council did. All parties.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 19 2012, 10:50 PM

But that isn't what happened. They didn't completely ignore what they promised. They also didn't get in to power; it is a coalition.


Correct; it isn't.


Running a country and running a car dealership? yeah right ... the problem with democracy ... yes, the Lib Dems made a commitment they wouldn't have been able to fulfil, for that they don't deserve government as they appear to be incompetent, but when in opposition, sometimes, it helps to make similar commitments to help mitigate the ideas of more aggressive parties like the Tories would make. There is more than one way to affect politics than being in power.

To call the Lib Dems liars simply for the student fees fiasco is absurd. Naive, yes, but liars ... how can you lie about something that hasn't happened?

Posted by: Penelope Oct 19 2012, 10:59 PM

And call me Dave promised us a referendum on Europe, I'm still waiting. Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a liar.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 20 2012, 07:01 AM

Wasn't it also UKIP policy to support the AV vote?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 20 2012, 07:08 AM

Totally agree with your comment about Simon Kirby. That just about put the final on my view of the LibDems.

However, if its right what you say about RG - we might as well forget any political debate, forget any principles or visions, on election day, just go with the biggest gob. Locally, it would eventually mean party politics are ended and so just a society of friends run the show. I suppose that's the European way; look at Italy. One way to run a country; not sure I'd like it .

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2012, 09:49 AM

I'm not sure that party politics has any meaning at local level. Indeed, at national level they are all very close.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 20 2012, 10:24 AM

Certainly that's exactly how it seems today - which is why the posturing is so time wasting and pointless. That being so, why does anyone these days stand for election? What is their motivation? Regrettably in most cases it's the personal pursuit of power - simply I know best and I want to be in charge.

The system to get you there is simply to appeal to enough voters at a point in time - so of course, I'll be whatever you want. That's it for five years, and we go round again. Truly an elected dictatorship.

At local level, its not even elected. The paid officials run the Council against criteria set by central government. No room for any other input whatsoever. In reality, we don't elect councillors, rather amateur social workers.

Sad its come to this, but not really surprising.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 20 2012, 10:38 AM

I totally agree. The only power they seem to have is to persecute individuals that stand up for themselves.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 20 2012, 01:14 PM

ADMIN - can we have a 'LIKE' button?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 20 2012, 07:06 PM

Well I do realise that politics is not for the ordinary pleb only for the likes of your good self who understand it. But that is the problem! Why should politicians promise the earth just before an election and then completely renege on it after the election. What is the point of having a manifesto and millions spent on party conferences and then just doing the opposite when they get into power? Even you must have a niggling feeling this is not quite right?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 21 2012, 09:27 AM

Agree. Shameful.

As for RG playing the politics and releasing the story, perhaps it would be good to remind him that in the last council elections he approached the Greens and others and asked them not to stand in Labour target areas. Go democracy go...

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 03:32 PM

Thank you; I do have my moments occasionally..... but don't expect too much of me

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 03:33 PM

Yes; and?

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 03:44 PM

A manifesto is what any party would do if they were elected torun the country on their own. The Tories failed, along with the other partiesso the next step is either call another election or try to form a coalitiongovernment with another party. When the Lib Dems agreed to work together is waspretty bloody obvious that they both couldn't use everything they said in theirmanifestos so they had to compromise. Most if not all European countries have aform of PR and therefore have to form coalitions with one or more parties. Thatmeans compromise.

I don't have a "niggling feeling" because I know how politics works.I agree I don't like PR and I see the difficulties of coalitions but if thatwas agreed then compromise is the order of the day.

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 03:49 PM

How can it be "shameful" when it has always been that way; it is the same throughout the world. If you've got no out right winner then there is only the option of another election or coalition. Another election might not create a clear majority and would cost a lot of money. That is how it has always been throughout history.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 21 2012, 04:28 PM

That also means that politicians can act exactly like dodgy second hand car dealers and get away with anything they promise before the election as they know they will not have to abide by anything after the election if they form coalitions.

it also makes it very difficult for voters who, as I think this may apply to the majority of voters, vote not for who they want but vote for who they want to keep out? Voters like me who have no party they want to govern as there is no party that has policies that represent what I stand for. I am sure I am not alone in my thinking especially living in Newbury!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 21 2012, 04:51 PM

As said previously, it's the red line items that must not be compromised. This is what you stand for and believe in.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 21 2012, 06:21 PM

He never told us that!!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 21 2012, 06:28 PM

No such thing as a 'red line' item. The manifesto is always constructed that a party can say afterwards it cannot be done because of what they found when they took over.......
Most should be cut into 6" squares, but those printed on gloss paper can slip when used

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 21 2012, 06:30 PM

Looks as if he will make good politician material then?

But there again what would I know I don't understand politics perhaps Exhausted would to to explain it to us poor Plebs?

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 07:21 PM

But that is up to the people. If they vote for a certain party and give them a majority then the manifesto will be carried out... If not then you've got compromise.




But that is our system. The only other system is PR which means we can only have compromise.

Posted by: GMR Oct 21 2012, 07:24 PM

Actually you should read back to what I said. I didn't say it is what I believe in but the nature of our political system. Actually I am against PR as it causes the problems that have been highlighted. Coalition is just another form of PR (created by circumstances).

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2012, 02:36 AM

Not quite true Adrian. I appoached all the independents and smaller parties to try and work together to avoid competing for same seats. I suppose you should maybe go and read the emails we exchanged at the time and correct your post.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 22 2012, 05:40 AM

I see no difference in the Hollister claim and the Garvie denial.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2012, 08:31 AM

He claims he was asked to not stand candidates in labour target wards. What actually was suggested is that labour didn't stand candidates against people like the greens and independents so we weren't competing in the same wards. There are forum posts on this subject too.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 22 2012, 08:35 AM

Ok, it's worse, you suggested that you wouldn't stand in other parties key areas either.

Such is the desperation of some to force themselves on other people.

The goal of 'power' does seem to flirt immortality at all levels.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 22 2012, 08:37 AM

I stand corrected

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 22 2012, 08:58 AM

Any 'agreement' about where to put forward candidates is corrupting.

Part of the reason for your suggestion is you had too few candidates to go round?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 22 2012, 09:08 AM

Agree


That was not discussed, quite the opposite.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Oct 22 2012, 10:47 AM

Are there no rules to prevent this? It sounds very dodgy.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 22 2012, 04:18 PM

Party politics is dodgy full stop. If you think about it, the idea of like minded people agreeing not to compete for a seat is what political parties are all about.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 22 2012, 06:53 PM

'Twas a question , and aimed at RG

Posted by: Jo Pepper Oct 23 2012, 08:50 PM

Looks like RG has retreated, perhaps embarassed by his dodgy politics. Lib Dems seem desperate around here, so I'm sure they will be happy to take on damaged goods.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 24 2012, 01:29 PM

Far from it. Just been busy the last few days, and observing the posts.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Oct 24 2012, 01:53 PM

What would make anyone think this?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 24 2012, 06:21 PM

Not only round here but nationally - by getting into bed with the Conservatives and enabling the decimation of our NHS and reneging on most of their manifesto policies I would like to think they will be decimated in any future elections.
The only problem is the average voter has no other party to vote for. All politicians are now held in such low esteem I seriously worry for our future unless there is a rapid change of thinking on the political front.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2012, 07:44 PM

Err last week's NWN - apparently in discussion with arch socialist Richard G to change his spots and stand in their interest at next general election?

Dave R saying he's stepping down as candidate because he couldn't stand for both Council and Parliament. Presumably, couldn't be spared from Council if by some miracle he was elected MP again. So little talent locally he can't be spared then!

In a bit of a pickle aren't they, no satisfactory parliamentary candidate and no adequate succession plan for Mr R, - who is now touching retirement age. Then nationally, coalition clearly ain't going well and not worth repeating. As ably demonstrated by dear old Vince making up to the young Milliband.

Yesterday's party!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 27 2012, 06:57 PM

Have just read this weeks NWN. Loved the whitewash! Apparently there wasn't a plot to unseat Dave - everyone had that wrong. Plot? what plot - no one had mentioned a plot up 'till now. Anyway, they couldn't have made Richard G the candidate because its against the rules. So that's all right then. Such nice people - Garvey is better off on his own!

Posted by: Jo Pepper Oct 28 2012, 02:35 PM

Sounds like RG has been playing the politics and is desperate for attention. First off corruption putting forward candidates and trying to rig an election and now he looks like he involved flirting with another political party.

Who know's what on earth he is standing for or about (oh hang on - it's all about himself and raw power).

Labour in West Berks is a tiny party but they all must be very embarrased. This is the sort of dodgy stuff that gives politics a bad name.

Posted by: Spider Oct 28 2012, 04:57 PM

I have thought about voting Lib Dem's but I am not too sure now. Living in Newbury you've only got the Lib Dems and the Tories.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2012, 05:25 PM

The press reports suggest it was the LibDems who made the overtures in the first place. Granted, they may have the story wrong. That he didn't play and made it all public does seem to have embarrassed the loveable LibDems and their erstwhile MP!

Dodgy politics, interesting one that, they often forget some of us have very long memories.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 28 2012, 05:27 PM

Exactly! As I have stated before people only vote to keep the worst one out of power not because they want the other one necessarily?

It's a case of do you want to be shafted by A or B really!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 28 2012, 06:30 PM

Don't bet on it - the Greens are as large if not larger in Berkshire than New Labour. If your fed up with the blue and yellow Tories then just vote green!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2012, 06:37 PM

Is that a sound reason to vote for a political party?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 28 2012, 06:41 PM

It's about as sound as voting for any other political party at the moment - the lesser of the evils?

Posted by: Penelope Oct 28 2012, 06:42 PM

Or, in this case 'the lesser of two weasels'.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Oct 28 2012, 06:46 PM

Bait loaded and right wing nut job secured.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2012, 06:52 PM

Sure?
We only find out after what we have really voted in........

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 28 2012, 06:56 PM

What like a Con Liar Coalition you mean?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2012, 07:07 PM

Political parties do not always lie, but rarely tell the truth

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 28 2012, 07:26 PM

So call me Dave's "There will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS" is not a lie then?

Cleggie's "We will not abolish tuition fees" was not a lie then?

No? If not then you are correct politicians are incapable of lying then?

Previous posters must be correct - I do not understand politics!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2012, 07:53 PM

Trouble is Cognosco you do - but too well!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2012, 08:18 PM

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 28 2012, 08:42 PM

Strategic Health Authorities are top of the NHS food chain and Primary care Trusts are second regarding the NHS both are being disbanded how is this not a top down reorganisation?

Strategic Health Authorities are being replaced by a new Commissioning Board. So much for handing over to GP's To make the decisions it is mostly being staffed by bureaucrats as far as anyone can tell at the moment.

Therefore I have to disagree it is definitely a top down reorganisation!

Posted by: Jo Pepper Oct 28 2012, 08:54 PM

But they should. So locally we have Tories, Lib Dems, New Labour or Greens? Three of which have proven to be as dodgy as **** (as RG has proven). I guess we've not seen enough of the Greens in West Berkshire to know if they stick to their word, but if Rob White and the other Green Councilors in Reading are anything to go by, then they are a better bunch than the old boy networks of the other three.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2012, 10:20 PM

The party line is that it is not a top down re-organisation. I am not saying what it is, just what it seems the rationale for having not lied is...... In political terms 'The Top is the Ministry of Health or whatever they are called this week.....

And I suggest any party in Government would do the same things (more or less) just dress it differently

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2012, 10:45 PM

An organic re-organisation perhaps? That would be a new one and just as meaningless!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2012, 10:49 PM

[quote name='Jo Pepper' date='Oct 28 2012, 09:54 PM' post='72459']
But they should. So locally we have Tories, Lib Dems, New Labour or Greens? Three of which have proven to be as dodgy as **** (as RG has proven). I guess we've not seen enough of the Greens in West Berkshire to know if they stick to their word, but if Rob White and the other Green Councilors in Reading are anyte

Certainly time for a change the 'big three' seem to be exactly the same nationally as well as locally. Like three jam doughnuts - only difference the flavour - strawberry, strawberry or strawberry.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2012, 06:12 PM

I think you will agree the impression given before the election by call me Dave was that there would be no reorganisation of the NHS. There has hardly been any Government recently that have not tinkered with the NHS and the problem is that there has been no time between the tinkering to see if any of it is actually working.
Lansley tried to give the impression that it would be doctors running the NHS after the Health & Social Care bill comes into force it would appear the doctors are not too keen with this idea so it is now going to be run by bureaucrats and a lot of them will be American. Not a lot is going to be carried out by GP's or hospital doctors.
The top of the NHS is The Department of Health. Of course can't touch those as most are politicians.
So the bottom rungs of the NHS are not being reorganised so definitely not a bottom up reorganisation?

And I suggest this type of political speak should be banned, plain English only should be used.

This Government are reorganising and making financial cuts to nearly every service and establishment they can lay their hands on - except of course Tax Evasion for the large companies and high earners.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2012, 06:38 PM

We can argue the toss over the technical merits of the phrase, but the implication was most defiantly that they wouldn't make any fundamental changes to the NHS. In my view he (they, the Tory party) has deceived the electorate, just like the Labour Party did when they said they would not raise tuition fees before doing so.

What perhaps what we should be asking is, why do politicians have to lie? Perhaps the problem is the electorate; they are not grown up enough to accept the truth.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 29 2012, 07:06 PM

The old school tie...

Even the Torygraph has had to take notice..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9545434/50-NHS-chiefs-paid-more-than-David-Cameron-after-health-shake-up.html

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2012, 07:39 PM

The problem is the electorate are sick to the back teeth of being deceived by politicians. There will have to come a time when there is a major backlash. With all the problems with the expenses scandal, and it still appears to be going on, and the deceptive promises from all parties regarding policies it is no wonder that the electorate hold all politicians in such low esteem.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2012, 08:11 PM

That is true, but what is also true, is people don't like being told that their tax is going up, or allowances are being removed.

Posted by: Spider Oct 29 2012, 08:16 PM

Isn't that why people prefer voting for the Tories and they usually put the taxes down. At least in good times. I have found that Labour are a tax raising party. The Liberal Dems seem to shadow the Labour party.

Posted by: Criddleback Nov 1 2012, 04:02 PM

To be an approved Liberal Democrat candidate requires a year of intensive training and scrutiny at national level. To be selected at local level you have to go through a process which takes numerous months - there is national advertising of the position, then there is a short listing process and then a members meeting after a campaign - all supervised by an independent returning officer. For those familiar with the process and the wealth of talent available in the Liberal Democrats, like myself, it is very funny indeed that some people have fallen for the complete BS that Richard Garvie is even fit to polish David Rendel's shoes, let alone be a shoe-in to replace him. Very amusing!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 1 2012, 04:38 PM

I agree I don't think RG will be able to renege on his policies fast enough to qualify to be a LibLiar?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 1 2012, 04:45 PM

Interesting that the perception on Tax is driven by head line rates.

For example, tories generally reduce tax for the richest and for big business and rely upon people aspiring to be like them. No idea what Lib Dem's stand for, depends on the direction of power I guess. Labour took the stance that by increasing the wealth of everyone, there would be bigger tax income and a generally lower burden.

Labour failed by gambling with the riches they created and by forgetting to create a fair and sustainable economy. Sustainable has to be one we can afford, removes the casino effect and allows everyone to prosper. Fair is just that - honestly doing the best for the country as a whole, not political donors or social/geographical stereotypes.

I wonder how many middle class tories and lib dems feel richer at the moment despite tax cuts for the richest?

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 1 2012, 04:52 PM

Don't have the figures but can anyone remember how much council tax went up by in West Berkshire when the LibDems were in power?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 1 2012, 05:00 PM

We'll also need to know what average household incomes were during those years. (in order to make a fair assessment)

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 1 2012, 05:02 PM

As I say, I can't recall the figures but remember it was way above the rate of inflation.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2012, 05:37 PM

Given the problems that have overtaken some of the more prominent members of the party in this government its pretty clear that this cumbersome and time consuming process doesn't exactly throw up the best candidates.

Reading again the reports about the local goings on the collective noun for the people who have fallen for the BS is reporter. It would seem that the story emanated from your own local party representatives! Of course, it may well be that Richard Garvey misunderstood what was on offer; albeit as even your leader admits, par for the course with key policy you lot propose.

Where is this talent pool? Not too much evidence locally is there? Glad David Rendel has shoes - are they lace up now?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2012, 05:43 PM

AND to make it even fairer, you would need to know what the local settlement was for the council (how much the government - Labour Party - gave to the council towards the bill).

My recollection was that the council tax increase was steep under the Lib Dems.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 1 2012, 06:13 PM

If you can't trust a PPC who can you trust


Politics in West Berks has been killed by the general apathy between Lib Dems and Conservatives. Interest has been declining for years. The baby boomers are to blame here, too little interest in the welfare of the next generation and too much interest in self.

RG is attempting to break into the baby boomers by any means possible and sounds like the thought of power got to his head. He blabbed without thinking and has ended up looking like a fool.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 1 2012, 06:24 PM

He should do well in Newbury politics then if the standards remain the same as in the past?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 1 2012, 06:55 PM

This is just so true. So many people I have spoken too just don't vote because the media (especially local) tell them that it's a two horse race. Neither Tories or Lib Dems have been voted into Parliament with the majority of people in their constituency voting for them. But that's what you get for our current type of electoral system and that's a whole other story!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2012, 07:46 PM

Actually agree with this, even though I'm a baby boomer! We've also bogged up much more than just politics, very much down to the over indulgence by our war weary parents.

I'll doubtless be shot down for saying so, but there is hope in the attitudes that are coming through from the next generations. Where in spite of the lack of decent work opportunities or the possibility of securing a property, they do seem to have some regard for others and see the value in community or again dare I say society, in general.

And even more agreement as in my view, how you suggest RG has ended up looking makes him the ideal replacement for Dave Rendel

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 10:46 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Both Richard Benyon and David Rendel have secured over 50% of all votes at least once, and both the Tories and the Libs have done so many times before.

The problem is Adrian, none of the other parties have given the seat much thought since it became a Tory / Lib Dem marginal. After 2010, Newbury effectively became the least winnable seat for Labour. According to research, it is one of the fastest growing seats for the party in terms of support and suddenly people are listening to what we have to say again for the first time in decades.

The problem for the Green Party is that you do relatively little work in the Community. Where were you when the day centres closed? When the CCTV wasn't working? When Parkway was cracking up? When parents couldn't get a child return ticket for their children before 9am? I could quote many more examples, but the fact is that nobody will vote Green if the Greens do not represent the community on local issues. How many candidates did you stand in 2011?

It's nothing to do with the voting system, if you cannot get enough local support, you do not deserve to represent anyone in public office.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 10:53 AM

Politics is alive and kicking. The problem is that the Lib Dems are naive and sometime lethargic, and everybody else is playing catch up. No party can demand respect and credability from the public, it has to be earned. This is where parties like UKIP and the Greens are falling down. If they actually got out and did more work for the community, they would earn more respect and trust.

As for the talks with the Fib Dems, they took place at the end of 2011 / start of 2012 and were mainly around local issues. The offer to join the Lib Dems did come up many times and various "opportunities" were discussed, but I never joined them as nationally they have no principles and locally they have their own issues to think about. The problem with the story coming out was more due to unrest that the Fibs were parachuting in a TV producer from London, finally confirmed last night apparently.

I meet councillors and representatives from all parties who wish to meet in order to try and resolve local issues. The Lib Dems made me a number of offers, and I turned them down. That isn't really a story, the fact that some of their councillors and members were going round telling anyone who would listen that David would not be selected to fight another election is.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 11:04 AM

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. I just find it funny that the Lib Dems said one thing the week the story broke, and something completely different the next week. What's the difference between the local and national parties?

Example.

Nationally, the Lib Dems allow the Tories to increase VAT and reduce the top rate of tax. Just a couple of months later, Nick Clegg says the rich should pay more (conveniently forgetting about his previous actions in Government). What happened to a new kind of politics?

Locally, when the Rendel plot story broke, David Rendel said he was "stunned" and that he would call for an investigation. The next week he claimed he knew everything that went on!!! Also when the story broke, Tony Vickers (Lib Dem chair) confirmed the talks took place and that I was "an honest person". The next week, the Libs call me a fantasist. Just like Nick Clegg, they are trying to spin their way back into favour with their membership after being caught out.

The big thing about the Rendel story is that people within their party were desperate to stop Rendel from standing again. He lost twice, surely he knew the writing was on the wall?? According to Tony Vickers, David withdrew from the current selection contest at the last possibl minute. I just find it odd that he didn't refuse "to let his name go forward" until four candidates were put on a shortlist*.

*Supposedly. The names of two candidates were published in the Newbury News, what kind of fair election would allow two candidates to recieve PR and the other candidates not to get any?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2012, 11:25 AM

So despite all the rhetoric and the expenses scandal Etc. It appears as if it is politics as usual - especially in Newbury?

I can understand why the electorate have given up on the politicians - bang your head against the wall you learn it only hurts you it does not change anything - apathy rules as nothing will change!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 11:55 AM

It can change and it will... if we let it!!! At least that's what I hope and I believe, and if I work hard enough I hope I can convince people that Labour are worth a shot - we can't do any worse than what we have already!!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2012, 11:56 AM

If the Lib Dems were the biggest party, perhaps they could call the shots, but in a coalition this is not always possible. Labour have historically not been clean on promises either, even with a huge majority and a benign economy.

People like me immediately turn off when you here on politician slag another party off party. None have the moral high ground and are all guilty of lying by omission as they are promoting their success.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2012, 11:57 AM

In the same week we hear that one had stole over $7k from the public purse!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 12:18 PM

MacShane should go to jail, as should anyone who breaks the rules including people like David Laws.

I was talking about locally anyway, Labour have never been given a chance here.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2012, 12:22 PM

And of course this is only the ones that have managed to be brought to light!
It makes you wonder just what checks are in place when expenses are handed in? What is the Audit committee being paid for if no checks and balances are in place - or is it just a case of they are politicians of course they don't need any supervision?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2012, 12:41 PM

The point is you are pointing out individual's anomalies, but all parties can play that game. Few Lib Dems supporters wholly support the coalition, so to tar the party with the decisions of a few is not right.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 12:46 PM

Ah, is there an election on the horizon?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 12:48 PM

Err, because the electorate ( you know the people ) want it that way.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 09:01 PM

Not until 2015!!!

Posted by: Penelope Nov 3 2012, 09:39 PM

Personally I Would vote for labour or the Devil before I would vote for the Greens.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 09:40 PM

good for you.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2012, 10:01 PM

Really? The LibDems have it in the bag then don't they!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 4 2012, 01:27 AM

Ahh, always best to answer another statement I see... I seem to recall "with the majority of people in their constituency voting for them" statistics show that about a third of the electorate in West Berkshire create the first past the post winner. Not exactly fair nor a majority.

I'm guessing New Labour spin is your thing. First the election fixing, then the Lib Dem story, where will it stop? It just sounds like lies all the time when you spin too far and is something most people relate to modern labour. Best try another approach.

One other note, there is more to West Berkshire than items in the press. Might be best understanding and supporting the community as a whole, not just the headlines in the papers.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 4 2012, 01:29 AM

Always happy to debate and discuss things. Perhaps I can buy you a cup of tea and we can discuss the great left right political divide.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2012, 04:55 AM

I understand that there are many issues in the area, give me some examples of where the Greens have made a difference??

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 01:19 PM

They have made about as much difference as Labour.......

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 4 2012, 01:34 PM

I'll match your deflection with another deflection.


Wonder if this New Labour spin hand book is available online?

Posted by: Penelope Nov 4 2012, 02:41 PM

Thanks for that, but I will pass if that's ok.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 4 2012, 03:52 PM

Your welcome. Always good to keep your mind open.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2012, 04:13 PM

Ironically, this is quite refreshing - some new and real politicking locally!!

Appreciate that the original question has the potential for an arm wrestling contest - why don't both stay positive and tell us, albeit at high level, what you'd do locally if you had a majority after the next election?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2012, 04:40 PM

Sorry On the edge!

Would that be "What they would do before the election" or "What they actually would do after the election" ?

Going on politicians past performance there is a whole world of difference in the two?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2012, 08:01 PM

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 8 2012, 07:27 AM

I suspect that no one will answer this directly as it would allow the other parties to start to campaign against them on those issues or make them irrelevant through thorough research/media work/etc.

For my 2p worth though, headline priorities include:

1. Sustainable local economy
2. Prioritise the community
3. Integration of transport
4. Sustainable building
5. Honesty & openness

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 8 2012, 08:47 AM

So.... What would you do?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 8 2012, 09:17 AM

Take planning for example:

When development takes place ensure that it has as little negative impact on the environment as possible. Overall plans should therefore:

-minimise the encroachment onto undeveloped "greenfield" sites, by re-using previously developed sites which have fallen into disuse wherever possible;
-reduce the need for people to travel excessively, by ensuring that the necessary facilities are provided at a local level wherever possible;
-encourage the use of ecologically sustainable building practices (including micro-generation, highest levels of sound/heat insulation, local products, people etc).

Perhaps this is obvious, but by re-introducing conservation practices in the design and construction and use of buildings we will get buildings which are durable, energy efficient, and adaptable for more than one specific purpose.

I would prioritise town planning to enable a greater degree of self-sufficiency to be achieved within the living areas than at present (this may require co-operation between various national assets previously sold off).

I would also seek to remove planning zoning. Strict segregation of residential, industrial and commercial areas kills the natural growth of a community. Provided that there is no excessive nuisance all types of building can mix as they have done in the most vigorous communities in the past (walking to work is a good idea, walking to shops is a good idea - we shouldn't have to drive miles to an out of town industrial estate or retail park).

This could be a long reply, so for brevity I would also seek to ensure that residential developments are designed as 'home zones', where pedestrians have priority over other forms of transport - allowing kids and adults alike to be less afraid of their local roads.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 8 2012, 09:50 AM

All very green no doubt - but you would need to be part of the majority party in the Commons in order to achieve half of this. What would/could you do as one of 2 Green Party MPs? Hope for a major party that needs 2 votes to ensure its majority?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2012, 11:00 AM

I tend to think that most of this is already done.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 8 2012, 11:01 AM

exactly.... Fine words, but contrary to the current planning guidelines, so a developer would take you to appeal and cost the Council megabucks in costs.

Next?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2012, 01:01 PM

Or simply hold the balance in a hung parliament!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2012, 01:07 PM

That's the usual political stance in Newbury, just roll over! That's the root cause of much that is wrong round here, no active leadership in either of the main parties.

Agreed, there may need to be other legislative changes, but at least give it a go. We have an unnecessary and massive great headquarters campus in Newbury, simply because of gutless local politicians.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2012, 01:08 PM

You mean the place that provides employment to a great number of local people?!?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 8 2012, 01:46 PM

Well let's all give up then. Perhaps we need just two parties so that it's not too difficult for the electorate? Perhaps it would be easier with just one party?

Pathetic.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 8 2012, 01:52 PM

Always best to do nothing when it seems a little difficult eh [facepalm]


I doubt the other political parties will officially reply, so what's your big ideas? what would you like to see?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2012, 02:22 PM

Just like Killingworth Main...

HQ is now in Paddington...

Doesn't Newbury house the UK's premier communications company...

What's wrong with offices spread around as they were? I seem to remember lead members of the then ruling party heavily promoting that alternative! At least it proves the LibDems are at least consistent, say one thing when they want your vote and do the exact opposite when they've got it!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2012, 07:01 PM

I wonder what the world would be like without politicians, Financiers and bankers?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 8 2012, 09:05 PM

I am not saying 'don't bother', not in the slightest. What I am saying - in terms of local council matters - is a strategy that cannot succeed because of a known constraint is not practical.
By all means have an aspiration to change planning guidelines, but the policy for today has to work with the laws and procedures of today. Proposing to open the floodgates to expensive appeals will either cost the taxpayers a fortune or lead to a reverse in strategy.

What planning strategy do you propose for West Berks that can actually be delivered?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 9 2012, 09:48 PM

No more pathetic than pretending that your election will allow you to change the government's course.

If you want my vote I need to hear how you would represent the Newbury constituency and in which way you would do this differently than the other candidates?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 9 2012, 10:59 PM

Adrian, instead of rhetoric and bluster, give us some specific local examples of what you stand for and would like to achieve.

Also, what are your achievements to date on local issues?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 10 2012, 09:36 AM

"I suspect that no one will answer this directly as it would allow the other parties to start to campaign against them on those issues or make them irrelevant through thorough research/media work/etc."


Do you stand for anything other than power at any cost?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 10 2012, 03:58 PM

Adrian, anyone can log on to my website to see what I stand for and what I am doing on local issues. You have a pop at me for fighting certain issues, but we only see or hear from you at election time. Being elected isn't that important to me, I am working hard for local people all year round anyway, elected or not.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 10 2012, 04:04 PM

I have to admit that out of the two of you you are the one out there pitching in. Fair play.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 10 2012, 05:09 PM

Agree.

The only problem is politicians have not endeared themselves to the electorate over the past couple of decades.
With the expenses scandal and recently the complete u turn on on what was in their manifestos after election people are reluctant to engage with any of them. Voters have to try now to second guess and read between the lines any words that fall from a politicians mouth and try to elucidate what is the politician going to gain from this.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 10 2012, 05:13 PM

But some local politicians are more deserving of scorn than others.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Nov 10 2012, 05:25 PM

I for one have always tried to do that (and not always from politicians)

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 10 2012, 06:01 PM

Perhaps it would be useful to have a scornarometer displayed at local elections to help the electorate indicate just what is being thought of the local politicians.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 06:04 PM

ROFL - you were caught with your pants down selling your soul to the papers whilst trying to grab a cheap swipe at the Lib Dems. Don't suppose you've put that on your web site. I've never seen you or just about any other politician. I've seen Adrian doing charity work around and about, but free doesn't sound like your bag.

As far as New Labour, Lib Dems or Tory's have gone, none of you have ever kept your word - you are all go weak at the knees when you find a hint of power and become corrupted by it's needs.

Cudos for Adrian for actually posting something he would aspire too, I don't see any one else doing the same.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 10 2012, 07:03 PM

Hey, Adrian! That vote you said you had? I think we just found it!

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 07:51 PM

and I think we have found BNP's supporter in Newbury.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 10 2012, 08:02 PM

Silly child.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 10 2012, 09:05 PM

You are absolutely right. Some politicians (all parties) have abused the expenses system and should have all been prosecuted. For whatever reason, that didn't happen and I actually believe that the only way fot that issue to be fully resolved is to ensure that all are dealt with accordingly.

As for manifesto promises, you are right again. The Lib Dems recently revealed that even if they were the majority party, getting rid of tuition fees would never have been viable. This is the same party that talked about "a new kind of politics" and recalling MP's who lied. I think it's a shame that those recall powers have yet to be introduced, and I have to say I'd be surprised if they were adopted at all.

What is clear is that when it comes to selecting a prime minister, it's now a choice between Miliband and Cameron. In terms of local candidates, only myself (if selected) and Richard Benyon can claim to have been active since the last election, and although others will turn up trying to get your vote like Adrian and UKIP etc. I hope the electorate will judge Richard Benyon and myself (if selected) on our actions since the election, what we have stood for on local and national issues and who would have represented their views in Westminster.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 10 2012, 09:16 PM

The Lib Dems approached me nine months ago, and it was pne of their members who started the rumours as they were unhappy at a London politician being parachuted in to represent them at the next election and the fact that David Rendel had been stitched up by his own party. I refused to join them, I'm not really the story at all - it's more about the integrity of their party and it's councillors / senior members.

As for the bit about doing things for free, are you serious? What have I ever recieved for the work that I put into the community? I suggest you retract that statement.



This is the same statement Adrian made earlier, you're not connected are you? What power do Labour have locally? When have we ever broken our promises locally? Our manifesto is published online and clear for all to see. I believe that even now, we are the only party who actually posted a full and comprehensive manifesto for West Berkshire, and we still use that to respond to local issues when deciding our position.



The problem is Jo Pepper, when I look at your past posts, everything you say is about supporting and defending Adrian Hollister, to the point you make the same statements. The fact that you have called somebody a BNP supporter for apparently having differing views to Adrian is apalling. Does Adrian share this view?

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 09:19 PM

It's is all a big conspiracy against you. Nothing at all to do with your actions.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 09:21 PM

Oh, your presumption about my vote was not silly?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 10 2012, 09:26 PM

But in all of the previous threads that "Jo Pepper" has commented, it's very rare that I have posted!!! I might set up an account called Po Jepper where it only comments to support me on threads where I am mentioned!!!

Adrian, do you think it's right to call a forum user a BNP supporter because they don't support you?

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 10:26 PM

Poor you, having to make things up to detract from your own problems. I support who I like when I like and I'm certainly not going to be bullied into supporting you or your views.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Nov 10 2012, 10:59 PM

Touch of 1979 about you pepper

Posted by: Penelope Nov 10 2012, 11:08 PM

Not far from the truth methinks.

Posted by: Jo Pepper Nov 10 2012, 11:47 PM

Ironcially, I only joined the forum to enter the debate and add another point of view. The thread was about the same old people rounding on one or two who dared to give a different point of view. Now it appears that I dared to give that point of view and I have dared to ask questions that still don't have answers.

Penelope largely comments against anything I say, but I'm a leftie and she is clearly a righty (or pretends to be eh Richard). Richard seems paranoid and obsessed with deflecting from his problems and the other political people hiding in the wings are just there to support what appears to be a largely staged forum.

What I vote is what I want to vote - it is all up to me. You should not assume what I want to vote for but the big three seem to have it all wrong.

It seems this may be what the forum will be about whilst the politicos ramp up their campaigns for fame and power.

Posted by: user23 Nov 11 2012, 10:09 AM

What happened to your promised petition for an elected Mayor?

Anyone can set this up, you don't need to be a politician to do it.

Without any sort of mandate from the people this is about the only thing you could have delivered on and yet you haven't. Why?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 12 2012, 08:02 AM

That's not a bad idea. Would certainly enliven local debate.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 12 2012, 09:53 AM

Interesting point - wasn't it all ready to go?

However, most places offered a chance to change to a elected mayor have rejected the idea. Sadly we weren't offered a referendum about whether we wanted a political police tsar - that is being forced upon us.

Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2012, 08:56 PM

I think it was, Richard who could answer this seems to have disappeared though.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 13 2012, 11:34 AM

This isue is currently on hold, mainly because of the high workload that we have at present. Personally, I feel quite strongly that the people of West Berkshire should have the decision on which model they would like to run the district. The only downside to a mayoral referendum is that it is only a yes on no question, and not a wider vote on the other available options.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 13 2012, 11:35 AM

Whats the latest on the radio station Richard?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 13 2012, 06:45 PM

Oh dear now you gone and done it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 13 2012, 07:50 PM

I've stepped back from that now to be honest, I believe Julian Swift Hook is the best person to speak to about it but it's now doing online shows at kennetradio.com. The plan was always for 'the community' to take ownership of the project and there was much more interest than I ever imagined. I'm sure it's going to be a huge success.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 13 2012, 07:54 PM

Cheers, thanks for coming back on that one.

Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2012, 09:27 PM

Shouldn't you concentrate on the only issue in your manifesto you could actually deliver?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2012, 10:13 PM

Why don't you change your name to Dr Spock?

Posted by: Penelope Nov 13 2012, 10:15 PM

Why? Has he got pointy ears then?

Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2012, 10:16 PM

Probably because I'm not an expert on children.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2012, 11:05 PM

Posted by: blackdog Nov 14 2012, 10:57 AM

Let me get this right.

You collected enough signatures to force the referendum?

Having done so you have decided to deny the signators the referendum they sought - because you are too busy to bother?

Very democratic of you.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 14 2012, 10:58 AM

I wonder how it is going in Milton Keynes.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 14 2012, 12:19 PM

Not quite as much. Almost. We had to put the petition on hold to fight other issues that the Lib Dems wouldn't, and as we don't get and funding for political officers like you do, we had to prioritise resources unfortunately.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2012, 01:10 PM

He'll fit in well locally then won't he!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 14 2012, 03:23 PM

He tried that - they say they don't want him.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 15 2012, 09:42 AM

I can get funding for a political officer? Brilliant! My wife has said she is prepared to take the job - where do we apply for the pay? Do I have to be a political party? Is one enough to constitute a party? Does it matter that she disagrees with some of my political views - she is prepared to overlook this if the pay is good enough? Can we fiddle get expenses too?

Posted by: Spider Nov 15 2012, 08:34 PM

The main thrust of this thread is about the Lib-Dems and what they stand for. They stand for Europe, coalition and working together. And yes that means compromise, cooperation, negotiation and listening to everybody’s views.

I wasn’t happy that Lib-Dem manifesto had been altered but I accept that is the only way we are going to get our policies forced through. If we didn’t join forces with the Tories then it would have been the Labour party. Either way we’ve become a prominent force within British politics. I can’t see, in the next election, there being a clear cut winner. Consequently one of the other parties will have to bring us in. That means they will have to accept a large chunk of our policies. The days have gone when single parties can rule alone and the Lib-Dems are in a powerful position.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2012, 09:16 PM

In this post you have answered the OP's question and title of this thread.
The answer is YES!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2012, 10:24 PM

To compromise you need a start position. What is that?

Compromise, appeasement, surrender - has never worked too well in the past! Wholly agree that the state of UK politics at the moment says they'll keep the balance of power. Minority rule then - what a great idea - I'll book my ticket out!

So then, 'They stand for Europe, coalition and working together'; to what end?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 16 2012, 05:49 PM

No point in voting any more you just won't be able to know what you are voting for. Not only outright lies were told before the election by the Con's and the Libliars but everything they promised they would not do they seem to have done anyway. Politics has gone down the sewer now and as for listening to everybody's view if that was the case we would have had another election by now.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 19 2012, 08:08 AM

Just caught up with the thread, I suspect Richard was on the Chablis/shrooms or something. The Greens continue to be active despite his hope that we are not. This self promotion and desperation for head lines from RG should show the electorate how self serving New Labour is. You should be ashamed and embarrassed. Lib Dem's seem to have heads and shoulders above you in morality - perhaps you should grow a pair and apologise to various forum members you've attacked?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 19 2012, 10:26 AM

Dream on!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 19 2012, 11:01 AM

I am glad that you are active Adrian, can you please give us some examples of the work that you are doing for the local community??

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 19 2012, 11:04 AM

Really?? The Lib Dem vote collapsed in every polling district in the Thames Valley last week, and pretty much nationally. They even had to ask for two recounts in the hope they would save their deposit in the Corby by-election, and then begged the returning officer to let them have it back anyway!! Doesnn't sound like a "powerful" position to me!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 19 2012, 11:11 AM

Rather than try & score points by rubbishing the others, could you give us a any examples of your party's local work?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 19 2012, 12:25 PM

I go around finding the headlines and doing what I can to get myself in the paper. Oh hang on...

Loads of stuff going on, so your welcome to http://www.adrianhollister.com for my updates or just follow other Green activists or councillors as appropriate.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 19 2012, 12:26 PM

I wonder if RG will ever apologise? Perhaps humility is not a New Labour trait either.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 19 2012, 12:50 PM

I'm not trying to score points against him, I just asked if he could share details of some of the work that the Green Party is doing in West Berkshire.

Some details on my community work are available here: www.richardgarvie.org

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 19 2012, 12:56 PM

Come on Adrian, apologise for what? Asking for you to give us some details? It surely can't be that hard to think of some issues that you have campaigned on? Let's just restrict it to the last month if that helps?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 19 2012, 12:58 PM

He did the same as you - provided a link.

Posted by: HJD Nov 19 2012, 02:35 PM

If the childish bickering by AH & RG is anything to go by i totally agree with you.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 19 2012, 05:15 PM

It's not really bickering. I just asked him to give some examples of what his party has done locally and he refuses to answer, instead doing the whole teflon / deflect mechanism by those who wish to be career politicians. The problem with politics locally is that those who are politically minded are great at asking questions of others, but shy away from giving answers themselves. We need something different, and that's what I am trying to do with my approach. Doesn't always work in my favour, but at least I try to be open and honest.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 19 2012, 05:56 PM

Oh dear, I don't think you were listening to HJD.

Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2012, 08:02 PM

Let us start with the first question first. Think of a parasite (a crude term, but fitting). The Lib-Dems can’t win an election on their own so the only way we can achieve our goals is through coalition with other parties. I know many other Lib-Dems won’t agree with my jargon but it is just another way to describe PR. That is the future. I can’t see any party winning the election on their own so if they want power it will be through negotiating and exchange (and it will have to be with the Lib-Dems). So that is the start of our position.

Whether it has worked in the past well or not it is working well now. We are the smaller party in a coalition but have managed to get 75% of our policies through. Coalition always means minority rule or having a larger slice of the cake than they normally would get.

To what end? To a united Europe that has one single government and will be a force in the world. Remember. LD’s are a party of Europe. It is in our blood.

Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2012, 08:06 PM

Why dream on? Where do you think the Lib-Dems are now? We came fthird with less votes but we have equal power. Even if the coalition loses the next election I am sure that either the Labour party or the Tories will come knocking on our door. Whatever way you look at it the Lib-Dems we will be in power the next time around. You mark my words.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 19 2012, 08:13 PM

Oh dear....
Oh dear oh dear.....
Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear.
I must go and file down my eyeballs

Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2012, 08:19 PM

You may mock but who is in power at the moment? Cynics have been mocking the Lib-Dems for far too long. Now we are in power it seems ridicule is the flavour of the day. PR or coalition it is our future and wherever that is Lib-Dems won't be close to the seat of power.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 19 2012, 08:37 PM

With a change of leadership I predict Labour to win the general election with Tory in first place in Newbury.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 19 2012, 08:43 PM

Looking at the recent elections involving LibLiars I think the party may be joining the Dodo at the next election - unless of course they pull out of this coalition before the next due date!

Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2012, 08:59 PM

If Labour win and form the next government then I predict it will be with the Lib-Dems.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 19 2012, 09:03 PM

He answered as well as you did.

following your link & we see that you were 'instrumental' in bringing Nando's to Newbury.

( I'm sure that is only part of that story )

Adrian has asked for a cycle rack at the job centre.

about equal I'd say.

Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2012, 09:03 PM

Rubbish. Just a mid term crisis. This sort of thing happens between elections. Whatever position the Lib-Dems finish in the next election you can be sure no government can be formed without the Lib-Dems being part of it. Either that or a Tory/ Labour coalition. And I can't see that. I think people should start getting real concerning the position of the Lib-Dems and their future part in any government plans.

And where have the Lib-Dems lied?

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 19 2012, 09:14 PM

“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” - signed by EVERY Lib Dem candidate.

27 Lib-Dems, including Clegg and Cable broke that pledge and 8 abstained. (Thus not voting against).

Remember?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2012, 09:17 PM

I think one could argue that they pressured for a fairer alternative, albeit they didn't vote against an increase.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 19 2012, 09:21 PM

We can speculate all night long and get nowhere pretty rapidly with this but if the LibLiars do not get massacred, like losing their deposits as recently, then I will be very surprised.

And where have the LibLiars lied? It is a case of where haven't they? Only reneged on the majority of their manifesto to hang on to call me Dave's coattails!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2012, 09:23 PM

As they never say anything that makes much sense correct answer is never!

Posted by: John C Nov 19 2012, 09:25 PM

That surely would depend on how many seats the major parties won and how many seats short of a majority they were as to which party or parties they formed a coalition with

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 20 2012, 12:33 AM

I am not, in any sense, mocking. I simply hold my head in horror at the scenario you seem to see as an Eldorado we should rush towards. I fervently disagree.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 20 2012, 07:06 AM

If the Lib Dems want a European super state, god help us.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 20 2012, 07:10 AM

When have they told the truth??

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 20 2012, 08:42 AM

Looking at ALL your replies Spider I am drawn even closer to the answer to the OP's question
"What do the LibDems actually stand for? Is it simply power at any cost?"
The answer is a most definite "YES".
You are prepared to side with ANY political party no matter what their views and policies simply to gain some form of power which you obviously cannot gain on your own merits.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 20 2012, 09:16 AM

[hitting nail on head]

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 20 2012, 10:17 AM

Lloyd George must be spinning in his grave.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2012, 11:57 AM

Think you probably mean Gladstone!

Lloyd-George in political terms was probably a true LibDem, clinging on to power at all costs. He famously said he wasn't worried about being Prime Minister, just want to be in charge. Didn't have any particular principals either.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2012, 12:32 PM

There's no point in being politically veracious if no-one votes you in to power.


I am not a Lib Dem supporter, but people hammering of them is absurd. They made a bad judgement call on tuition fees and have had to compromise other deals, but any party would have had to do the same (I understand some Tories are upset that the government is leaning too much to the left at the moment). The country really needed rid of the Labour Party at the time, but that couldn't have happened without the Lib Dems.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 20 2012, 12:43 PM

Yup, I'll go with that. Mind you, he could teach Paddy Pantsdown a thing or two!!! It seems history is a subject worth referring to when politicians crave power (they actually never have that) as opposed to commit themselves to the common good....

Plus, Gladstone had solid Newbury connections, so must've been a good egg.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 20 2012, 01:06 PM

I reckon the answer to the OP would be the same for any party, and the answer has consistently been 'yes' for 40-odd years - if not more.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2012, 02:58 PM

Such short memories; that's where they went first. Remember the forgotten man of modern politics, good old Gordon Brown? In spite of everything, at least he had some principals!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2012, 04:03 PM

Who knows what went on behind closed doors. I think the Labour party knew it was time to go. If so, then that might explain a lack of enthusiasm for a coalition.

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2012, 08:09 PM

Hang on, you've put the only issue you can actually deliver in your manifesto and that you got a load of people to sign a petition for on hold, to do a load of stuff that you can't deliver on?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 21 2012, 09:38 AM

I think it was more a case of 'you can have AV and some Lords reform but that's your lot'. The Lib Dems thought they would get more from the Tories, but ended up with nothing!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 21 2012, 11:00 AM

Nah, I see it more like Labour knew they had fluffed it and were eager to scarper: "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck!"

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:03 PM

Of course it doesn't. We are half way through a Parliament. No party does well at this time. The people like to give a shot across the bows. It is all part and parcel of Politics. But come the next election we will be back where we belong.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:07 PM

Of course and Clegg apologised for that. We didn't expect to win so making groundless promises didn't mean anything. But now we are in power we will have to rethink very carefully what we say.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:10 PM

What the Lib-Dems have played politics. Don't forget we've never been in power and didn't expect to win. Now things are different. We are a party of coalition. I can't see any party in future forming a government without coming and begging to us.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 21 2012, 08:13 PM

Sooo, you applaud the concept of making false promises to the electorate and then renaging on them?

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:16 PM

This is from Wilkipedia.

"The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC), formed by the Inner Six countries in 1951 and 1958 respectively. In the intervening years the community and its successors have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the addition of policy areas to its remit. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union under its current name in 1993.[16] The latest amendment to the constitutional basis of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon, came into force in 2009."

We joined late. In the 70s Heath took us in and under Wilson we voted to stay in a Common market. Since then the constitution or rules has changed. We've moved closer to a European Superstate. So why do you say "God help us"? We been moving to that under your noses. The German chancellor is talking about a political union. What do you think the European countries have been working to? Get real. That is the road we are traveling on. And who do you think took us there? Not the Lib-Dems but the Tories and the Labour party.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:18 PM

So you can't answer? A typical Labour member. You should have joined us when you were asked. Then your light would have shined. Labour has no chance of making any political gains in Newbury.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:21 PM

Lloyd George was a Liberal who headed the break up of his party. He then led the Tories in a national government. Anyway we are a Lib-Dem party, not exactly the same as the Liberal party under Lloyd George.

Posted by: GMR Nov 21 2012, 08:27 PM

I will say one thing about you Spider, you are honest. Not many pro-European will admit to a Super-Euro state. I hear echoes of Hitler in your diatribe. What you've been saying the British having been fearing.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:32 PM

Why have they been fearing? It has often been talked out loud. The trouble is people don’t listen. You talk about Hitler, but you can also mention Napoleon, Stalin and others. They tried to form a United Europe by force. Europe will achieve the same goals through diplomacy, not war. Britain may resist but eventually they will fall into line and take the single currency and be part of a powerful structure that will have no equal. After that anything is possible.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 21 2012, 08:34 PM

Oh, purlease, what colour is the sky in your world?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 21 2012, 08:44 PM

I just can't see it I'm afraid.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:44 PM

The same as it is in Europe. And we must make sure it stays that way. And the only way to achieving that is being closely and fully integrated.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 21 2012, 08:45 PM

But that's even worse. Let me just clarify this, you are saying the Lib Dems intentionally lied because they knew that they wouldn't win??

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:46 PM

Of course you can't. But if you know anything about people you will know how fickle they are. I am telling you that when the next election comes along one of the main parties will be begging us to join them.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 21 2012, 08:46 PM

Which is why you will suffer terribly in the next G E.

Posted by: GMR Nov 21 2012, 08:49 PM

Even if they suffer terribly they might have enough MPs to help one of the parties to form a coalition. That is why people must make sure they vote wisely. Any party that supports closer European ties but be ignored.

Posted by: Spider Nov 21 2012, 08:51 PM

I think you are being fickle if you think that will happen. The Tories and Labour won't pull out of Europe and that only leaves UKIP and what idiot is going to waste their vote on them?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 21 2012, 08:51 PM

I can agree to most of what you say except for the highlighted text. I don't see that at all. I don't see Britain's joining the Euro as the only thing stopping Europe becoming unequalled.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 21 2012, 08:54 PM

Tuition fees. EMA. The NHS reforms. Wealth tax. McNulty report. Need I go on??

As for joining the Lib Dems, it would have made it easier for me to get elected with the resources your party has. Sometimes principles come first, and no matter what was discussed, I would never have been able to justify joining a party that sold out on almost everything they believed in for the perks of Government. Also, no matter what resources you have locally, you have very little vision, no positivity and no future. Whether I ever get elected or not, I can sleep at night knowing I made the right decision.

Posted by: GMR Nov 21 2012, 08:55 PM

Labour started from nothing. UKIP are growing and finished third in the European elections. In the Corby by-election they also finished third (in front of the Lib-Dems). Don't underestimate them. If the Tories and Labour, as you say, won't listen to the people then UKIP could be that party the people turn to.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 21 2012, 08:57 PM

Farage has almost as much credability as Clegg, who has none. Did you see him get ripped apart on Sunday??

Posted by: GMR Nov 21 2012, 09:04 PM

No I didn't. But there are many different interpretations of being "ripped apart"; more so when you don't like somebody and you support a party that doesn't agree with is views.

Posted by: user23 Nov 21 2012, 09:15 PM

UKIP actually http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm.

Posted by: GMR Nov 21 2012, 09:25 PM

You are correct and that is even better.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 21 2012, 10:53 PM

So there we have it; at last, what the LibDems are all about. Total and unquestioning absorption into Europe. I was in Germany a few months back and talking to a very pro European German engineer, bemoaning Scottish independence. He showed me a map which had come from EU, which blurred the national boundaries. UK in effect being Scotland, Wales and the English regions. Implication being they consider Scotland 'independent' already, but in a federated Europe. All fine an dandy - but please start telling us the truth! Similarly, a lot needs putting right - my German friend freely admitted. He saw an Anglo / Saxon type alliance as the only means to drive efficiency!

Posted by: Squelchy Nov 21 2012, 11:00 PM

http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/farage-fails-on-sunday-politics.html

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 21 2012, 11:08 PM

He was ripped apart in as much he was unable to fully cost his manifesto, which rings true of all political parties.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 08:39 AM

What's clear is that on this forum, there are people that are pro-Lib Dems and people that are not. There has been a lot of 'look at me' statements but not much else.

Only the Lib Dems can answer what they stand for and only they can be accountable for their decisions to date. If we could hear from their PPC, councillors etc it would help, but I suspect they won't as they are expecting a 'look at me' ambush instead.

The growth of the smaller political parties has been a trend - people mainly disillusioned by the similarities between the Conservatives and New Labour. Traditionally they would have used their 'protest' vote to go for the Lib Dems, but now it appears that people are unsure if they are a safe bet. So they are taking that vote to the closest match to their opinions. UKIP benefiting from the right wing/Conservative defectors, Green's benefiting from left wing/New Labour defectors.

So the question for me is not quite, 'what do the lib dems stand for?' but 'is their strategy to be part of a coalition or to win a general election out right?'. Greens, for example, prefer inclusive consensus politics.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 22 2012, 09:05 AM

But where is the evidence that people are leaving Labour and supporting the greens? With all due respect, you stood in 2010 and got the lowest Green Party vote in Newbury Constituency in history (excluding the By-Election where there was many more candidates). You stood no candidates in the locals or the PCC elections, I just struggle to see where you get the whole "people look towards the greens" statement that you keep coming out with. Where is the evidence?

As for Labour, we have done nothing but increase our support locally, far beyond the national trends. If the PCC elections are anything to go by, our position as the 650th ranked CLP would improve to around 430th. That shows the progress we are making and the support we are gaining locally. In West Berkshire district, we have over 200 Labour Party members. How many members do the Green Party have?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 22 2012, 09:07 AM

I can't believe that the Lib Dems still want to join the Euro. The whole idea of a single currency is flawed without a Euro Super State whict the Lib Dems aso favour. Can anyone see us signing up for that as a nation? I don't think so.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 22 2012, 10:49 AM

Certainly hope not, but then we did vote John Major a second term!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 11:22 AM

Spider seems to be saying: it is happening anyway, so lets be honest about it. Everyone from the centre-right to the left want to merge into Europe, in my view.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 11:50 AM

"If we could hear from their PPC, councillors etc it would help, but I suspect they won't as they are expecting a 'look at me' ambush instead." - your type of reply is the reason other political people out there don't put their real name to answers.

But, apologies forgot for a moment that this thread was all about you. Unlike New Labour in Newbury, I am not everything Green in West Berkshire. I am not the centre of attention, I'm just one of the team speaking out.

Just for info, 110 and counting in Newbury with Berkshire and Reading (our region) growing massively - and our Reading councillors are excellent and very respected.

PCC was a waste of tax payers money - how or why anyone would want to politicise the police I've no idea - it's just madness. Showing your continued support just shows how out of touch New Labour is - how many voted for the PCC system? I'm betting if you took off hard core party activists you would find no one voted and no one wants it.

Nice evasion from the points about the Lib Dems though. Way to get some more attention eh.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 11:54 AM

A fundamental principle of Green politics is that decisions should be taken at the lowest practicable level: sometimes things dealt with at national level might better be decided regionally or more locally. However there are matters – safeguarding basic rights, peace and security achieved through mutual understanding, environmental protection, the spread of culture and ideas, regulation of the financial system – where I think that being part of the EU is appropriate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 12:18 PM

That's fine, but would you give examples?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 12:50 PM

Good examples:

Finance: Greens don't support the UK joining the Euro; but we do think that creating an arrangement of co-operative fair trade is better than the current lopsided 'free' trade system.

Nationalism: Greens think that co-operation builds peace, as it has done in Europe. Our geography means that we are part of Europe. We believe in Europe, but not in a European superstate.

Immigration: Don't blame the migrants - look to understand why they are migrating. Our international policies must seek to reduce the economic, political and environmental factors that force people to migrate. Emigration should be a positive choice, not the outcome of desperation. In particular, free movement within the EU is a fact and we should press for EU policies that make all parts of the EU an attractive place to live.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 22 2012, 04:08 PM

That's almost the same amount of votes you got in 2010 isnt it?? ;-)



Come on Adrian, where have I showed support?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 22 2012, 04:11 PM

Finally some policy!! Good answers, quite similar to my own views actually...

Posted by: GMR Nov 22 2012, 04:32 PM

That is true.

Posted by: GMR Nov 22 2012, 04:33 PM

Thanks for that link.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 05:51 PM

How many votes did you get at the last election... 0?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 22 2012, 05:54 PM

I wasn't involved with politics in 2010...

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 06:09 PM

bingo.

Was the first time for me and a great learning experience, especially when you realise these 'professional' politicians we've seen here in Newbury are nothing more than people kept by large trust funds or wealthy spouses. One thing is for sure, in my short dabble in politics, I've never tried to rig an election, never pushed for personal headlines and never used politics to gain commercial or financial advantage.

Interesting to note http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/22/sarah-teather-labour-party_n_2175492.html?utm_hp_ref=uk. Seems to be a common theme with the Lib Dems denouncing links to Labour which would make a Lib-Lab coalition less likely.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 22 2012, 06:22 PM

Give him time, give him time.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 08:04 PM

Sorry Adrian, what I should have said was, please give examples of decisions that are currently made nationaly, that should be made more local?



So if you get into power, what will you do. Leave the EU?


Do you have any policies in mind?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 22 2012, 09:26 PM

My thoughts are that things run by a central government are things that are most practically shared by the whole country - rail networks, power distribution, roads, defence, strategic goals etc. The rest should be down to the region - this includes the creation of an English parliament and a reworking of the current UK parliament system. If, for example, West Berkshire wants to have the highest standard of housing in the country, we should be allowed to mandate it.



No. The EU has it's faults, but it has it's advantages too. Greens work throughout Europe to move to a consensus agenda, focused on sustainability, peace and community. I would not advocate the Euro though for the UK. At this time, I cannot see how it would benefit the country and would just move many of the decisions points from the UK to the EU.



Greens world wide believe that the people have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure sustainability, human rights and social justice. One policy that may open the debate a bit more is to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries - in the longer term, I would look to progressively reduce UK immigration controls and tackle the source of the problem directly (this is a simple statement with a lot behind it!)

Posted by: On the edge Nov 22 2012, 09:54 PM

Now lads, this is getting good. Some real proposals for a change.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 22 2012, 10:15 PM

Not that common - Labour's candidate for TVP police commisar was a Liberal before the coalition.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 22 2012, 10:54 PM

Ummm and given that the successful candidate is now intent on increasing spending without any real justification, suspect he is as well.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 22 2012, 11:16 PM

OK, I asked for examples, and you have given one. I see highest standard as more expensive. More expensive means fewer of them. I also believe that the government is or has removed legislation that moves towards a greater quantity of higher standard housing. Developers are usually eager to build 'high quality housing'. It is more lucrative.


I don't really see much here that is different to that which is currently in place.



Have you examples of the 'source of the problem'?

Posted by: Penelope Nov 22 2012, 11:34 PM

What immigration controls?

Posted by: Spider Nov 27 2012, 08:03 PM

At election political parties have manifestos. In those manifestos they lay out their plans if they are elected to govern this country. The Lib Dems came third, while the Tories didn't get a majority to govern on their own. As all Manifestos were rejected parties had to start afresh and work with other parties. This meant re-looking at what they wanted out of their manifestos. The Lib Dems didn't lie but had to renegotiate want they wanted, and so did the Tories. They then settled on a compromise. That is what happens when parties don't get a majority. So I say to you again; where did we lie?

To your second point. Principles are no good without power. In power we can do more good than we can outside.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 27 2012, 08:23 PM

I think therefore you have answered the original question then? They gave up all their principles to obtain power!

Posted by: Spider Nov 27 2012, 08:29 PM

Answer me a question. How is any party supposed to achieve change without power? What are principles but an empty cup? I am not one of those people that talk about principles and then stand on the side lines watching the world go by and moaning. Let us be honest. Those that have sacrificed principles for power have achieved more. Just look at Labour and the Tories.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 27 2012, 08:32 PM

Clegg has admitted that the Fib Dems lied about Tuition Fees. Remember the song??

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 27 2012, 08:33 PM

as often as any other political party. ie when is prudent for them to do so.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 27 2012, 08:50 PM

I do believe you have now confirmed what we have always suspected - never trust what a politician utters - they are only in it for one thing power! And to obtain it they will say, do or promise anything to get it and then completely renege on the deal when they obtain the power they crave.

Posted by: Spider Nov 27 2012, 08:53 PM

He actually said that we shouldn't have made the promise in the first place. Which is something totally different.

Posted by: Spider Nov 27 2012, 08:56 PM

I think you are being sweet and naive here. Politics is a ruthless game. Those that are more determined achieve more. Those that are sweet and nice vanish without trace. The Lib Dems learned an important lesson when they formed a coalition with the Tories. It is ok making sweet and nice promises when you've got no chance of power, but when you have then it is time to get real.

Posted by: GMR Nov 27 2012, 09:03 PM

I agree that politics is about being "ruthless" but you do talk some crap sometimes.

Posted by: Spider Nov 27 2012, 09:13 PM

And who are you Mr Popularity? I am not going to take any lessons from you. Don't you support UKIP? If so your days are numbered. Once we get a United European Union those that are subversive will have to think again. You are somebody who wants to go back to the dark ages when we had an Empire. Yes, I accept that we will have another Empire one day but that Empire we be a United European one. Not a single country.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 27 2012, 09:29 PM

double crickey - two things we agree on.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 27 2012, 09:35 PM

Last time I heard a rant like that it came from a certain Mr A Hitler. Scary stuff. If he's the kind of loony the Lib Dems are attracting there's trouble a brewin!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 27 2012, 09:43 PM

Nuremberg?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2012, 09:53 PM

Well that's the trouble with such a small party; very limited gene pool.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 27 2012, 09:57 PM

Ahhh! Webbed toe brigade!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 27 2012, 10:12 PM

... Because he knew getting rid of fees was never something that could be done by any Government due to cost. He admitted they lied, he apologised and so should all the other Lib Dems who said they would vote against any rise in fees.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 27 2012, 10:52 PM

Mr Spider.
Are your first names 'Brazilian Wandering'?

Are your pronouncing on official Liberal Democratic Party Policy, with authority, or just expressing a personal view that you hope the Party will adopt at some time in the future?

As for 'power', I suggest no party has power, just a granted authority limited by the length of time they retain the support of the electorate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 27 2012, 11:59 PM

Did Labour apologise when they lied about tuition fees? They even "legislated against it".

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 28 2012, 04:51 PM

Oi! Steady on you will ruin my reputation!

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 28 2012, 05:45 PM

Looks like we have succumbed to Godwin's law thanks to Penelope, the mistress of the one liner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 28 2012, 09:08 PM

Somehow I really do think hers was a literal post.