Printable View
No. It's just the Scottish legal system doing it's job and carrying out an investigation (politically unhindered). Imagine which faces would be pulled up in court south of the border if their own system wasn't plagued with political interference and corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornadoes70
There's also the question of the pay gap. My company come under fire last year because there is a horrendous gap between that what the average man in the company earns compared to that what the average woman earns. The problem is that I work for an airline where most of the pilots are men and earn around €135 000 a year, cabin crew are are mostly women and there's twice as many of them than there are pilots earn around €40 000 give or take a few thousand depending on rank. Now if you average out the total pay and then divide it amongst all employees then compare the average to that what our male employees earn to that of our female employees then the guys are gonna come out on top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Now we are trying to employ more female pilots but with only marginal success, mainly because the interest is not there. The way these gender pay statistics are calculated is warped, we need to compare apples with apples and men and women will always be interested in different occupations simply because of the differences between the two sexes. Of course when they both do the same work/job/occupation they should get equal pay, but you can't expect everyone to be paid the same when the effort/qualifications required to carry out the job are different.
Oh **** off, how to drag what was a decent exchange of opinion down into the gutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornadoes70
Couldn't agree more. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Not sure if you missed my post Tornadoes in amongst your other replies on the thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
My oh my. Things turned a bit on this thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
I thought I would repost the OP and hopefully it doesn’t descend into the mudslinging that took place, let alone the barely concealed chauvinism. Someone might even try and answer the OP’s final question?
My answer is yes. If Labour under Corbyn can’t go all guns for Remain then Swinson has an open goal fronting all out for Remain. She will retain Lib Dems, drag in soft Tory Remains, pull in Labour voters who are concerned about Corbyn and definitely pull in Labour voters who want to stay in the EU.
Seamas, on the slight chance you glance at .net, that’s more of the Party than voted for Jeremy. Accept it, deal with it and respect the will of the membership.
As for Swinson more generally, there is a bit of the echo chamber going on again on here. She will boost her party share and vote if she is up against Corbyn and BoJo. If she faces Yvette Cooper representing a Remain ticket then she is stuffed.
You really can't help yourself eh 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
" The barely concealed chauvinism"
You are Michael Winner, and I claim my £10
Michael Winner? Really? You will have to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
You could also explain your #metoo comment.
I think there is a lack of class on your part, but also a lack of being able to explain your actual point.
You are welcome to explain, in your own words and thoughts, why you think Jo Swinson is a good or bad leader for the Lib Dem’s but I think all you have posted is that she has a ‘nippy voice’.
If that doesn’t sound chauvinistic then I don’t know what does. Perhaps try owning it.
You are correct, I really can’t help myself. I’m quite happy to post against, and challenge nonsense and if you are guilty in this regard or want to debate it then it’s not my fault I’m calling you out about it.
And another thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
I made tons of points in the post you quoted and you only picked up on an indirect accusation of chauvinism.
I never mentioned you specifically but you responded to that, and that alone.
Ringing true, hon?
It has nothing to do with her "nippy voice" and everything to do with her political record for anybody who actually bothers to take the time to look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I would hazard a bet that the vast majority of people jumping on the Jo Swinson bandwagon are utterly oblivious to her record. Just like those who think Boris is worth voting for because he's a "good laugh".
You need to read more biology and neirology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Try Testosterone Rex by Cordelia Fine. It won the Royal Society award so has has scientific approval.
Also, there’s 9% of the current vote going to the Greens. If they can work together to harness that (which they have been) they will effectively be leading in the polls with 31%. Seems to have gone under the radar a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I saw the hook and bait but if you want to catch a specific fish then you really should cast towards the fish you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Edit: Apologies if I lost the plot a bit last night but that troll just ruined any chance of a decent debate.
I have not a clue why I mentioned Mr Winner 😁😁Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
We must have different perspectives as to what chauvinism is, I certainly don't think saying a woman has a nippy voice is.
The #metoo comment was because I thought you went ott over it.
As for what I think of the lady, I could make something up about her but if the truth be told I don't really know much about her, nor do I care too.
I don’t think it’s being chauvinist to point out her annoying voice either. No one complained when William Hague was getting slagged for the way he talked or Jacob Rees Mogg for the way he looks. Admittedly it’s quite shallow, but that’s all it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing but starting your sentence with ‘Imagine being her husband’ has possibly added unintended nuance to your remark. Fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
My god what did I miss last night?
Regarding Jo Swinson’s voting record I’m not sure how relevant that is as it may just reflect the fact that she attends Parliament conscientiously and is following the party whip.
i would prefer to judge her on the content of the Lib Dem manifesto for the forthcoming General Election. So I’m open minded.
To call her a Tory just sounds like a lazy soundbite straight out of SNP central office.
Or to disregard it just sounds like someone who can't be bothered to actually look at her voting record over the years. She is a tory. Her record makes that very clear. Not only is she a tory, she's more of a tory than the likes of Rory Stewart and Michael Gove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
Well Rory Stewart is clearly in the wrong party I’ll give you that. Gove though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
i was just trying to make the point that in a whip system it may not be an entirely accurate representation of her own views and that maybe the next Lib Dem manifesto will be a more accurate reflection on where she stands.
if she was a Tory why would she just not join the Conservative Party?
Possibly, but it wasn’t intended to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Is she was anywhere near as principled as she's trying to present herself, then she would have stood up to the whip, instead of putting her own career first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
True but probably applies to 90% of MPs. Particularly difficult given the fact that her party was in a coalition with the Tory’s for much of her time as an MP and she was Nick Clegg’s PPS I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Or maybe the whips had something really damning on her and she didn’t dare defy the whip.
This voting record stuff is cringeable. She was part of a junior partner in coalition govt and voted along with that govt like all the rest of her party. Exactly the same as almost all other MPs apart from the odd headbanger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
You’re quite right except more like 99%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
Well it would need to be something pretty damn damning. All the more reason not to trust her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
Because then she couldn’t spend her life working towards being an agent provocateur of the highest order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonewall
Seriously you clearly have no idea how a long game works and just how well versed the Tories are in the game of sleeper agents (hard lessons from the Cold War). It’s obvious to all (well at least one person) that Jo is just a particularly well played pawn in the big bad Tories game of political espionage...[emoji6]
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Aye, very good. Remain ignorant all you want. Her voting record speaks for itself. If she actually had a soul, she never would have followed the tory whip, just to keep her own personal career intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
If you think another careerist politician who will always put the interests of her career above and beyond everything else, including the livelihoods of the people she's suppost to represent is the answer against the tories, then you bash on.
Just watching her speech to conference.
I've got a fair bit of good feeling towards the LibDem cause (if I were a Unionist that would be my party and post-independence I would like to see Scotland as a centrist country and would happily vote for a Scottish version) but I just cannot take to her at all.
She absolutely reeks of insincerity.
It takes a bit of doing but of all the cretins in the political arena right now, she's the one that annoys me the most.
Yes, this is the word. You just could not trust her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I also hate the way she continually says "well you know" when asked a challenging question.
It's a shame because you get the feeling that the stage is set for the LibDems here, with the big 2 parties being in crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, Vince Cable, Shirley Williams - it would have been great to think that we might have one of this lot as a potential PM at as difficult a time as this. Good, genuine, trustworthy and competent people.
I just don't get that feeling with Swinson at all.
If I lived in England she would get my vote before Johnson or Corbyn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That goes without saying, but I'd probably wait to hear what the Monster Raving Looney Party had to say before making up my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Why not just vote for Johnson directly? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I know you have strong opinions about the LibDems and their statements regarding who they would and would not potentially go into coalition with, but for all the world it looks to me like they have set their stall out early to be direct opposition to the Tories with their clear and concise position on Brexit. It could appeal to the more moderate sides of both the Labour and Conservative parties (who no longer appear to have a home) as well as their own traditional voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
The centre ground is theirs for the taking and the only thing stopping them might be Swinson herself.
Except, they don't have a clear and concise position on Brexit at all. They're just wording things in a clever way to make it seem like they do. Things such as "we'll reverse brexit", but only if they win a majority, which of course, is utterly impossible under the current political climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
They're saying things, but attaching conditions to them that they know will never be met and people are actually falling for it.
I think any political party can only promise what he thinks he can deliver if they get a majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
So even Corbyn’s promise to negotiate a Labour brexit before having a people’s vote and campaigning against their own deal can only be delivered if he wins a majority.
That’s how it works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True. But there's a difference between parties that mean what they say and parties that just say the 'right things' at any given time to increase their vote share. The Lib Dems have a long running history of doing this. They make promises that they know they'll never have to adhere to within a coalition. A Lib Dem majority would be a complete nightmare for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m pretty sure they would happily deliver on revoking article 50 which is their number 1 policy going into this election and will be the main reason they will gain many voters in the upcoming election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Being pro-Europe is central to everything they are about and will be very popular with their core support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
These are slightly different times to normal where they'd be expected to play 3rd fiddle to the other 2 and only ever hope to be the makeweight in a coalition.
Sticking the "revoke article 50" message out there might be popular and there are a lot of disillusioned Labour and Conservative voters out there - in both the Leave and Remain camps.
I think they'll be quietly thinking they can sneak in and get a majority, and it might be that Labour and the Tories end up splitting the "Leave" vote.
Maybe the SNP will hold the balance of power?
They won't gain anywhere near enough seats to be in a position where they can single handedly revoke article 50. If they thought there was any chance whatsoever of that occuring, they wouldn't have made such a pledge. They're hardly going to allow themselves to be in a position where they would have to carry this out, as it would lead to full scale riots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's their "number 1 policy" for 3 reasons:
1) It wins votes
2) Not enough votes that they'll ever be in a position where they can carry it out.
3) It distracts people from their more sinister policies which they'd waste no time enacting should they enter another coalition with the Conservative Party.
I believe Tim Farren and Vince Cable were both remainers and the Lib Dems on a whole are as well. However, I do not believe for one moment that Jo Swinson is a remainer as she's making herself out to be. Back in 2008, she was demanding an in/out referendum on european membership at Westminster. Yet we're supposed to believe that she would really be willing to reverse the outcome of the referendum now without another vote? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
If they’re genuinely thinking that, quietly or not, then they’re not on this planet. There’s absolutely no chance the Lib Dems are going from a dozen or so seats to 300 odds in one go. Or ever!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
As for Swinson, I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something sinister about her. I think she’s a Tory who realised that to get into parliament in Scotland (at that time) you couldn’t be a Tory, so she became a Lib Dem.
I think that Brexit has blown everything we've ever known out of the water.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
We've not really resolved the Leave/Remain issue and it is the dominant issue for the vast majority of people in England. This is likely to be the primary motivational factor when it comes to voting intentions of about 90% of the UK.
The LibDems have been consistent throughout and they have got in there early with their intention regards remaining in the EU. Their message could be very appealing to the disillusioned, disaffected retainers within especially the conservative but also the Labour Party. Corbyn isn't popular amongst those folk and they won't need all that much convincing to potentially look elsewhere.
Who would have thought 10 years ago that the SNP would have had the electoral success they have had? Constitutional issues such as this are very emotive and can lead to the rule book being ripped up.
Someone mentioned on here that the odds on a LibDem/ SNP coalition were very high. I'm starting to think it could be a shrewd bet.
It will be very interesting to see how any election pans out as it may see more tactical voting than ever before.
I think it is very hard to call at this stage and I wouldn't rule out something really bizarre happening.
You really do manipulate facts to portray a false position don’t you? Aren’t you ever embarrassed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Swinson was backing party policy in 2008. The Lib Dems were calling for an in/out referendum in which they would back staying in. And let’s not forget this was under Nick Clegg, who may be many things but is as Europhile as they come.
She criticised Cameron for calling a referendum that was all about managing dissent within the Tories, which everyone agrees with.
And even if her personal view was to leave in 2008, which I’ve not seen any proof of - it is possible to change ones mind. Unfortunately there are a few too many swivel heads who want to direct anger against those who voted the other way in both referenda, rather than seeking to understand why they did and how to persuade them otherwise.
Seems to me that Swinson on here attracts disproportionate vitriol and insults, usually of a personal nature (her accent etc). That suggests to me that she may be more of a threat to those posters than they care to admit. I suspect some of the ladies on here doth protest too much :-)
Horrific.
Looked like we could have a proper remain alliance to take it to the Tories and avoid a no deal by sticking together, leading to the Tories being out of government. Power gone to her head within a fortnight and putting that in jeapordy.
If she ****s this up and causes a no deal I will be even angrier at her than anyone else.
There is no sign of any kind of remain alliance yet? Her job is to get as many votes as possible for the Lib Dem’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
There needs to be a deal between labour and the Lib Dem’s for there to be any type of remain alliance, and so far there is no sign of that. I don’t see how it’s jo Swindon’s fault though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Corbyn keeps rambling on about securing a good Brexit deal to put to the public when the overwhelming majority of his party want to Remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It’s like he is on a different planet to the membership, although in reality it is the likes of Seamas Milne manipulating a well-intended but not very bright man for their ideological purposes.
[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
She'll flip back to her trend of voting with the Tories faster than you can say Nick Clegg.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
You've absolutely nailed it about her.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
I made the mistake of voting for the Lib Dems in 2010 and will never repeat that mistake again. I'd honestly rather vote Tory.
I'm a massive remainer but their policy of simply revoking article 50 is total undemocratic nonsense that they are only going with as they know they don't have a chance in hell of getting a majority. They might as well promise everyone a unicorn.
Good pic of them all walking along the Sands at Bournemouth.
Typical Lib Dems. All style and no substance.
Bang on. She's a more attractve version of Ruthie, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
Every man is a more attractive version of Ruthie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renfrew_Hibby
Swinton = watered down Tory.
That's an incredible level of mental gymnastics you pulled off there. Good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
There's "changing your mind" and there's "changing your mind because it suits your political career in that particular moment".
So what's to stop her "changing her mind" again if a tory coalition opportunity arises?
Manipulation again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Who said she changed her mind, other than you?
You really are at it, but people aren’t so stupid not to see it, despite your previous posts calling voters stupid.
I think we can add another lie to the list you are accumulating.
You said "it is possible to change ones mind."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I agree with you. Although some politicians seem to change their mind back and forth to suit their own political career ambitions.
My question to you is. What's to stop her changing her mind again?
You've already been pulled up for calling me a liar. Lets not go down that route again.
Pulled up by a poster who agrees with you, yeah, alright then :top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I said I hadn’t seen any proof her personal view in 2008 was to leave, which is what you are suggesting. Put up some proof and we can move this on.
I then said that even if she did, why wouldn’t it be possible to change her mind?
So, I’m speculating on a hypothetical that I don’t believe to be true anyway.
You are twisting the hypothetical and making it out to be fact.
To say you you lack subtlety is underegging it to a huge degree.
i mean, what's not to like about the leader of the tory lites
Attachment 22534
You're wasting your time. Some people value soundbites over actions. Even if the actions completely contradict the soundbites.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Posted without comment [emoji16]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6d8ae82f90.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Renfrew_Hibby
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
saw a few of them earlier i honestly thought they were photoshops...........apparently not :lips seal
:bitchy:
They'll be posting pictures of Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich next.
Instead of comment can we get some Jeremy Corbyn creepy music to go with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Only if the BBC are prepared to broadcast it. Perhaps they'll get round to it when the fall out of love with her like they did with Ruth Davidson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Why would you post that? See my earlier post about desperate tactics by some folk who are a wee bit more unnerved about Swinson than their ego lets them admit. Otherwise they would make it about policy not personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Unnerved? We're laughing at her and those who can't see through her. I'm pretty sure you said we were "unnerved" by Ruth Davidson as well. Where is she now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Its not really debate when you copy and paste tawdry memes or the like, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
I am not a member of her party but I know her voting record on gay rights is solid. I know she voted against hereditary peers and I know she voted against making it harder to seek asylum in this country and she was anti-Trident, which should please a few folk on here.
I also know she voted for things I would disagree with but then she is a Lib Dem with the emphasis on Lib so what else should one expect? I don’t criticise Ken Clarke for wanting lower corporation tax, it is where he comes from politically. I can still be prepared to listen to and respect his views, even if I disagree.
Bit too much polarisation of views on here, it is all about put downs rather than actually engaging with different opinions, which is disappointing. Is that the best we can do?
Keep posting like that FH, it says all that needs to be said about you. No debate from you, just personal attacks and unsubstantiated or false accusations against people. It is poor, poor stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
She backed policies that drove people to suicide. If that's ok in your book, then thats your business. Don't expect everybody else on here to feel the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
These voting record things are beyond tedious. Minister in coalition government votes with the government is really not a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
As I said on the other thread, I think the new ultra remain thing is overreaching but she’s getting them noticed in a way Farron & Cable singularly failed to.
As an aside, she’s a tactical boon for the SNP for any Westminster election because the Unionist vote that more or less coalesced around Ruth will split again.
Yes and agree with you about the They Vote For You stuff, it doesn’t contextualise the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That's pretty low. I've said it about Sturgeon and I'll now say it about Swinson, once the opposition start attacking someone for the way they look then you know they've exhausted their reasoned argumentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
The appearance stuff is mostly aimed at femae politicians. It’s sexist ****. Sad stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I'd agree with "mostly" but it's certainly not exclusively, Salmond and Miliband got ripped apart for their appearance. To be fair I have had a go at Gove in the past, but that's more to do with his practiced look of sincerity and less to do with his appearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Correct. I'm seeing a photo of a woman laughing. I'm not quite sure why people find this worthy of comment, never mind ridicule.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Because Boris Johnson is never compared to a baboon?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Why do people only ever get angry when it's aimed at female politicians, but nobody seems to bat an eyelid when it's aimed at male politicians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Yes, regardless of political persuasion, attacking on looks is low and it is massively biased against women.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It says a lot lot more about those who post such trash than those who they are posting about.
Some folk don’t really care what politicians look like either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think anybody really cares what politicians look like. But people are always going to laugh and make fun on unflattering pictures of people in the public eye. It's not "sexist". It happens to people regardless of their gender. There just seems to be a bigger song and dance about it when it happens to females these days. Real sexism comes from treating women like delicate flowers who we can't laugh at the expense of like we do with men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I challenged you earlier about your view on female politicians. Don’t think you responded. This post just sees you digging further into the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I don’t actually think you believe your second paragraph, I think you are just looking for a reaction. I don’t know your motivation but enough people read these threads without posting and some might actually accept what you state at face value. That is almost but not quite as sad as you posting it in the first place.
I do believe my second paragraph, because it's true. Do you think it's fair to treat women as the weaker sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
No I don’t. I am also sentient enough to know that discrimination and inequality is rooted in power and power relations. And by any measure or metric, women face a harder time, as do people from a black or minority background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
You really are looking for a reaction. One minute you are the Corbynist, one minute the nationalist, one minute the Express reader railing against Jo Swinson and claiming female politicians get it easy compared to Boris.
You should maybe find an identity that isn’t journeyman troll. I am sure you would gain a deeper sense of personal wellbeing.
Someone posted an unflattering image of Jo Swinson for a laugh and you're throwing a childrens temper tantrum over it. Does Jo Swinson frequent the Holy Ground of Hibs.Net? Is she going to stumble across this thread tomorrow, then go cry in a corner about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I suggest that it's people like you who are looking for reactions. Always looking for a reason to be offended and upset over trivial things that have no direct effect on anything.
I'm a little more upset over tory policies (backed by Jo Swinson) that have ultimately contributed to the death of thousands of people across the UK. You're upset over a picture posted on here that she'll never see. Just let that sink in for a moment before constructing your next response.
You cannot be taken seriously as a poster, but I will happily respond to any of your posts which I consider ridiculous and say why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
”Children’s temper tantrum” :greengrin. You are a card.
Did you ever come back with proof of Swinson backing Leave in 2008 or are you going to delete the misleading posts where you suggested she was Out then and In now? Because you and I both know you were being untrue.
"Death of thousands of people." Do we have a source to verify this before I go repeating it to any refugees I might stumble upon.
I was being lenient when I said "thousands of people".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8057306.html
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2017/nov/...deaths-england
https://welfareweekly.com/study-link...120000-deaths/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...urder-11529388
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ned-been-lost/
https://evolvepolitics.com/horrific-...hs-since-2010/
A direct link to the study: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722
I heard she was pushing her children in a buggy at the Glasgow climate strike yesterday.
A wee bit of hypocrisy, apologies for the link, but the story is she accepted money from a fracking company.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ubbed-16483979
Claims to be pro-climate...... accepts bribes from fracking companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Claims to be pro-EU......... campaigned for an EU referendum 10 years ago.
Claims to be a 'progressive'..... despite her regressive voting record.
It's almost as if..... what she claims to be, doesn't match up to what she actually does. :hmmm:
She tells her laddie off for kicking a football indoors. How could anyone support her???? :-)
Have to say, the Lib Dems are becoming really irritating.
Boris needs punted pronto, and yet the Lib Dems are still f@nnying around refusing to back Corbyn as a caretaker PM. This move has 1 purpose; to remove Boris from power and preventing a no deal Brexit before an election. What's the problem?
The problem is that it allows Corbyn to fight the next election as the incumbent and also as the man who postponed brexit. If I was running the Lib Dem’s I would want something in return, probably a non compete agreement in the top 20 libdem/Tory marginals at least. That helps keep the Tories out of power as well so would be in Labours interest to give it. I certainly would not do it for free.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can only think she wants her 5 minutes, surely her party members will overrule her.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
So, was it the same image consultant that told her to wear red lipstick, that told her to start speaking with an English accent?
I suspect this girl is not the sharpest tool in the box, and is starting to see herself as potential PM.
Another Angry Voice isnt mincing his words today:
"The Lib-Dems really are a **** political party aren't they?
After the Lib-Dems have spent the last two years endlessly banging on about how much they oppose Brexit, and repeatedly calling for another EU referendum, all the other opposition parties have come to them seeking support for their cross-party plan to stop Tory No Deal Brexit chaos, and call another general election, with all of them proposing a final say referendum in their manifestos.
The Lib-Dems have been handed the blueprint to stop what they say they oppose on a silver platter, but instead of grasping it with both hands they've slapped it to the floor.
On the face of it their decision to keep the threat of Tory No Deal chaos alive makes no sense at all, because it completely contradicts their "bollocks to Brexit" posturing, but the mistake you'd be making would be trusting the Lib-Dems that they say what they mean (a painful lesson that students, electoral reformers, Anyone But Tory voters, and the anti-war demographic all learned the brutally hard way back in 2010).
There are many reasons the Lib-Dems are seeking to keep the threat of Tory No Deal chaos alive, and they all essentially come down to "party before country" self-interest:
Brexit chaos has been the single biggest recruiting tool the Lib-Dems have ever come across, so why would they help the other opposition parties disarm it, when the threat of it is driving thousands upon thousands of gullible dupes into their arms?
Almost all of the Lib-Dems main target seats are Tory marginals. If the Lib-Dems make Corbyn temporary Prime Minister in order to stop Tory No Deal Brexit, this will wreck their election strategy.
They're prioritising a couple of dozen parliamentary seats at the next election above the best interests of the entire nation (which is exactly the same kind of short-term party political gamble David Cameron took by promising the EU election in the first place, purely to nick a few thousand votes off UKIP).
Lib-Dem leader Jo Swinson loves to arrogantly strut around demanding that she gets to pick the leader of other parties, but she's actually representing a tight Lib-Dem/SNP marginal that the SNP took off her in 2015.
Labour and the SNP are keen for another General Election because they believe they have the policies to win more seats, but Swinson is actually terrified the SNP will take her seat again, especially given her Brazen hypocrisy of demanding another EU referendum because she didn't like the result, whilst vehemently opposing another Scottish independence referendum because she did like the result.
She's terrified of another election because she's afraid of losing her seat as a sitting party leader, which would eclipse the humiliation of Portillo in 1997, and Balls in 2015.
Another factor to consider is the ideological hatred the Lib-Dems have towards genuine democratic socialism. They're dyed in the wool neoliberals who strongly believe that vital national infrastructure and services should be run as private money-spinning operations for the benefit of the mega-rich, not as not-for-profit public services for the benefit of the British people and the British economy.
The idea of nationalising the railways, water supply, Royal Mail and national grid fills them with fear and ideological revulsion.
As far as they're concerned these things are, and should always remain the playthings of the rich.
If they allow Corbyn to serve as temporary Prime Minister to quickly and efficiently rule out Tory No Deal chaos and then deliver a general election, they know it'll help create the public impression that Corbyn could also deliver on his manifesto commitments to undo the most disastrous privatisation scams of the last four decades.
And the big money corporate donations that are pouring into Lib-Dem coffers would soon dry up if they did anything whatever to jeopardise the corporate money-printing scams of privatised utilities, privately-administered public services, PFI economic alchemy, and ludicrously one-sided corporate outsourcing contracts.
But worse even that the "party above country" posturing of the Lib-Dem leadership is the vile attack dog mentality of their tribalist supporters, who won't just perform extraordinary acts of mental contortionism to defend their party's efforts to keep the threat of Tory No Deal Brexit alive purely for their own party political advantage, they'll spew insults and mental health abuse at anyone who dares point out what a bunch of duplicitous self-serving charlatans the leaders of their political tribe are.
The outlandish gullibility it takes to actually believe the Lib-Dem leadership after their shocking track record of deception and betrayal in combination with extraordinarily vitriolic Lib-Dem outpourings of "how dare you criticise us" arrogance aimed at anyone who dares try to hold their beloved leaders to account makes Lib-Dem tribalists a particularly stubborn and nasty group to deal with.
The whole idea of keeping the threat of a catastrophic Tory No Deal meltdown alive, purely for their own party political advantage, whilst simultaneously trying to occupy the moral and political high ground should be absolutely repulsive to anyone with even a shred of decency."
Which is all very well, who doesn’t like slagging off the Lib Dem’s but the reality is they are right. The numbers are not there for Corbyn because the expelled Tories won’t vote for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalianwanda
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it's a time limited government then I'm not so sure. What's worse, one month of Corbyn or a lifetime of the repercussions of no deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m deliberately not following all this stuff closely as it’s far too depressing but is the answer not as simple as Corbyn standing aside and letting a unity PM lead a unity government for a month?Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
I think she has been given the nod by some Tories that they'll support her if she comes across more Thatcherlike, and shes been daft enough to believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Just by the law of averages, sooner or later The Genius And The Oaf are going to get something right. And their banking on the opposition parties being unable to unify might well turn out to be that thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
:halowitch: