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.

Correct!

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.

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?

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.

UKIP?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

All parties can be accused of that.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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 .

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

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.

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

ADMIN - can we have a 'LIKE' button?

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?

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...

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

Yes; and?

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.

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.

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!

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

He never told us that!!!!

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

I stand corrected

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?

Agree


That was not discussed, quite the opposite.

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

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.

'Twas a question , and aimed at RG

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.

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