Thoughts on Jo Swinson?

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hold on a minute, let's look at the record. Swinson was happy to serve in a coalition government with a Tory government which imposed unnecessary suffering on the poorest during years of austerity. She voted for those policies, yet she says she wouldn't do the same for Labour if required. She is one of those 'Orange Book' free marketeer Lib Dems who lean more towards the Tory view. Her claim she couldn't support a Labour government because Corbyn hasn't been tough enough on anti-Semitism is disingenuous. Charles Kennedy, for example, was on the more progressive wing of the party.

Racism and Islamophobia in the tory party has never been a problem for Jo Swinson. But we're supposed to believe that she cares so deeply about the Jewish community. She's quite clearly full of it. It's not even remotely subjective.

She could quite literally come out and say "i'm a tory" and there would be lib dem supporters still claiming that she isn't.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What any politician says about what they would and wouldn't do if they were in a hung parliament should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

No, I'm wrong, it should be totally ignored.

Every word they say is designed to make them more attractive to their target audience.

She'll deal with Labour in a hung parliament if it's expedient to do so. The reverse is also true, although Labour would currently deny that.

How can you be so sure that is the case? She could just say "let's wait and see what happens". But she is flat our refusing to work with a Corbyn Labour government, but hasn't shown nearly as much resentment towards Boris Johnson.... who, let's be honest, is the plonker of all plonkers.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hold on a minute, let's look at the record. Swinson was happy to serve in a coalition government with a Tory government which imposed unnecessary suffering on the poorest during years of austerity. She voted for those policies, yet she says she wouldn't do the same for Labour if required. She is one of those 'Orange Book' free marketeer Lib Dems who lean more towards the Tory view. Her claim she couldn't support a Labour government because Corbyn hasn't been tough enough on anti-Semitism is disingenuous. Charles Kennedy, for example, was on the more progressive wing of the party.

I find it a bit strange to be defending her here as I'm not a fan, and the most Tory thing that I can see about her is that she's an opportunist. She is savvy enough to spot that Corbyn is deeply unpopular with the public (especially moderates) and it would do her not favours whatsoever to be aligning herself with him, so she's not.

If the Labour party were in a slightly more moderate (or even popular) place then I think she'd be happy to work with them.

She's making decent political capital out of Boris' lack of popularity amongst moderate Tories and their lurch to the right.

Rather than an ideological position, I think she's just spotted an opportunity and gone for it. The centre ground has been there for the taking. It's not going to be popular with ideologues on either end of the political spectrum but there you go.

I don't like her voting record in government, but at the end of the day she was part of that government, the country's finances weren't in great shape and she did what she thought she had to do.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Racism and Islamophobia in the tory party has never been a problem for Jo Swinson. But we're supposed to believe that she cares so deeply about the Jewish community. She's quite clearly full of it. It's not even remotely subjective.

She could quite literally come out and say "i'm a tory" and there would be lib dem supporters still claiming that she isn't.

True.

Because as long as she's the leader of the Liberal Democrats she's not a Tory, irrespective of what she or anyone else says.

As soon as she leaves to join the Conservative Party, she's a Tory.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

True.

Because as long as she's the leader of the Liberal Democrats she's not a Tory, irrespective of what she or anyone else says.

As soon as she leaves to join the Conservative Party, she's a Tory.

As i've stated before. Toryism isn't a party, it's an ideology. What the party is actually named is utterly irrelevant. A tory leader of any party not called The Conservatives is still very much a tory party.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What any politician says about what they would and wouldn't do if they were in a hung parliament should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

No, I'm wrong, it should be totally ignored.

Every word they say is designed to make them more attractive to their target audience.

She'll deal with Labour in a hung parliament if it's expedient to do so. The reverse is also true, although Labour would currently deny that.

Her rhetoric about Corbyn is much more negative than anything she ever says about the Conservatives. I'm not convinced she would allow the Lib Dems to support Labour in any hung parliament. The fact is she voted for all of the Cameron government's austerity policies plus things like tripling university tuition fees. No party which calls itself progressive should have done that to the most vulnerable; it was unforgivable. Her record is there; her and her party have a lot of bridges to build.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As i've stated before. Toryism isn't a party, it's an ideology. What the party is actually named is utterly irrelevant. A tory leader of any party not called The Conservatives is still very much a tory party.

What about Liberalism?

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What about Liberalism?

Same. The clue isn't in the name of the party, it's in what the party actually does. What did the "Liberal" Democrats do in coalition with the tories that could be considered remotely "liberal"?

Would a party that's truly Liberal enter an unfavourable coalition with a party that is distinctly anti-liberal and vote in unity with that party for distinctly anti-liberal policies?

Again i'll make the point. The name of the party doesn't matter. It's just there to fool people who can't be bothered to follow a parties actual track record.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Inequality is subjective. Don’t just assume that your own personal take on the issue is the version everybody buys into. It’s not all anti-women, men can also be disadvantaged in certain situations. We’re just not as loud about it.

It makes no difference to me if a woman is paid less for either working less or doing a job where the demand for the Labour isn’t strong enough to pay well. It’s a Labour driven economy and business won’t pay anybody more than they need to.

I’m wasting my time here though, because these are concepts you just don’t grasp.

We're just not as loud about it? If ever a single sentence summed up your total inability to understand equality it's that one. Your constant attempts to redefine sexism to 'prove' it doesn't exist and to justify your own outlook on life fools nobody.
Here's what you posted on the BBC Bias thread before scuttling off the other day, as you do. The bits in bold are where you attack women specifically. That really doesn't look like the views of somebody who isn't a misogynist does it? ,

Just because a group whinges louder, doesn't mean they're subjected to a higher level of abuse compared to those who handle it in a more subtle manner. You assume women are subject to more abuse than men, because you hear about it more. The reason you hear about it more is because they make a louder spectacle over the criticism they receive. Even if that criticism doesn't even criticise them for being women at all.

Crying sexism whenever somebody is given a hard time who just so happens to be a women is the argument of someone who doesn't even have one.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We're just not as loud about it? If ever a single sentence summed up your total inability to understand equality it's that one. Your constant attempts to redefine sexism to 'prove' it doesn't exist and to justify your own outlook on life fools nobody.
Here's what you posted on the BBC Bias thread before scuttling off the other day, as you do. The bits in bold are where you attack women specifically. That really doesn't look like the views of somebody who isn't a misogynist does it? ,

I'm simply pointing out a fact. For example, a man is far less likely to come forward if he is receiving domestic abuse from a woman than vice versa. I'm not saying it's right that men are quieter about the abuse they recieve, i'm simply pointing out that it's the case that they are quieter about these types of inequalities. Your anger at me for pointing out the blatantly obvious is irrelevant to me to be quite honest.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I find it a bit strange to be defending her here as I'm not a fan, and the most Tory thing that I can see about her is that she's an opportunist. She is savvy enough to spot that Corbyn is deeply unpopular with the public (especially moderates) and it would do her not favours whatsoever to be aligning herself with him, so she's not.

If the Labour party were in a slightly more moderate (or even popular) place then I think she'd be happy to work with them.

She's making decent political capital out of Boris' lack of popularity amongst moderate Tories and their lurch to the right.

Rather than an ideological position, I think she's just spotted an opportunity and gone for it. The centre ground has been there for the taking. It's not going to be popular with ideologues on either end of the political spectrum but there you go.

I don't like her voting record in government, but at the end of the day she was part of that government, the country's finances weren't in great shape and she did what she thought she had to do.

And whose fault was it the finances weren't in great shape? The banks, who got a 180 billion pound bail out, which Swinson and her pals thought would be best re-paid by groups like the disabled and students. As soon as they had a sniff of ministerial posts their progressive claims were binned and the poorest paid the price. How moderate were those years of austerity? She had no issue with hardline policies then.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Her rhetoric about Corbyn is much more negative than anything she ever says about the Conservatives. I'm not convinced she would allow the Lib Dems to support Labour in any hung parliament. The fact is she voted for all of the Cameron government's austerity policies plus things like tripling university tuition fees. No party which calls itself progressive should have done that to the most vulnerable; it was unforgivable. Her record is there; her and her party have a lot of bridges to build.

I agree with your last line, but you have to remember that she was in coalition deal which required the Liberals to support David Cameron. It wasn't her decision to go into such a formal arrangement, but it was required of her at the time.

Past behaviour in politics is no barometer for the future. Boris Johnson voted against May's Brexit deal on 3 occasions for political expediency. Now he'd bite your hand off to get it done.

However, she's already shown that she's willing to work with other parties to stop Brexit.

The SNP have had the luxury of offering potential future support to Labour, "Just pick up the phone" etc, and I have no doubt that she would do the same if it came to it.

Obviously she'd be looking for concessions, but she would not side against Labour if it meant helping the Tories take us out of Europe.

Hopefully, we'll get the chance to find out I.e. I hope the Tories don't win a majority.

[Fife-Hibee]

What are peoples views on Jo Swinsons willingness to strike a deal with Plaid Cymru, but not the SNP?

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What are peoples views on Jo Swinsons willingness to strike a deal with Plaid Cymru, but not the SNP?

I find it peculiar and I’d like to hear a decent answer from her on it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree with your last line, but you have to remember that she was in coalition deal which required the Liberals to support David Cameron. It wasn't her decision to go into such a formal arrangement, but it was required of her at the time.

Past behaviour in politics is no barometer for the future. Boris Johnson voted against May's Brexit deal on 3 occasions for political expediency. Now he'd bite your hand off to get it done.

However, she's already shown that she's willing to work with other parties to stop Brexit.

The SNP have had the luxury of offering potential future support to Labour, "Just pick up the phone" etc, and I have no doubt that she would do the same if it came to it.

Obviously she'd be looking for concessions, but she would not side against Labour if it meant helping the Tories take us out of Europe.

Hopefully, we'll get the chance to find out I.e. I hope the Tories don't win a majority.

She told Andrew Neil in the video posted above that she wouldn't work with a Corbyn minority government, even if it means the Lib Dems don't get a second EU referendum. She also said she will work with Plaid Cymru but not the SNP. She's all over the place.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I find it peculiar and I’d like to hear a decent answer from her on it.

She attempted to answer it in the interview with Andrew Neil. I wouldn't grade her answer as decent though.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She told Andrew Neil in the video posted above that she wouldn't work with a Corbyn minority government, even if it means the Lib Dems don't get a second EU referendum. She also said she will work with Plaid Cymru but not the SNP. She's all over the place.

I don't believe any of that. If push comes to shove, she'll do deals. Edit: She's probably all over the place, right enough, but it seems to me that they all are!

The Liberals said in 2010 that student fees were a red line and that they wouldn't do deals.

The Liberals have a lot more to lose in Scotland than Wales and they see themselves picking up Scottish WM seats.

The SNP have said they'd help a Labour minority but we all know that if Indy2 wasn't granted, they wouldn't.

The DUP only supported May's government when it suited them etc etc etc.

Deals will be done if it comes to it.

I'm voting tactically and it'll be for Labour so I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this hypothetical discussion. Better than despairing over Hibs maybe.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The SNP have said they'd help a Labour minority but we all know that if Indy2 wasn't granted, they wouldn't.

Would Labour repeat the antics of 79, selling Scotland out at the cost of a tory government? People in Scotland are generally far more clued up these days and they would have no problem understanding why the SNP turned them down this time.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't believe any of that. If push comes to shove, she'll do deals. Edit: She's probably all over the place, right enough, but it seems to me that they all are!

The Liberals said in 2010 that student fees were a red line and that they wouldn't do deals.

The Liberals have a lot more to lose in Scotland than Wales and they see themselves picking up Scottish WM seats.

The SNP have said they'd help a Labour minority but we all know that if Indy2 wasn't granted, they wouldn't.

The DUP only supported May's government when it suited them etc etc etc.

Deals will be done if it comes to it.

I'm voting tactically and it'll be for Labour so I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this hypothetical discussion. Better than despairing over Hibs maybe.

Only time will tell. I fear a Tory majority, then, once out of the EU and its social protections, it's a race to the bottom. The wet dream of Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the hardline Brexiteers who remain in the Tory Party.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She attempted to answer it in the interview with Andrew Neil. I wouldn't grade her answer as decent though.

Her answer was all over the place.

The honest answer is that there are rich pickings there for the taking for her in middle England right now. The SNP are toxic there, Plaid less so (right now, we'll see what happens if Wales has an independence referendum) so it doesn't do her any favours to be in any way pro-SNP in the eyes of the people who are her biggest target.

The truth of the matter is that it is highly hypocritical for her deal with one but not the other.

The LibDems will have target seats North of the border as well, so by fudging on this issue she stands to lose ground.

It is negligent of the LibDem spin doctors to be rolling her out to the media without a well-rehearsed answer to this question. They should be working overtime right now thinking of a suitable answer (just because we don't agree with it doesn't mean that such an answer doesn't exist).

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Only time will tell. I fear a Tory majority, then, once out of the EU and its social protections, it's a race to the bottom. The wet dream of Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the hardline Brexiteers who remain in the Tory Party.

Yes, that's a very real worry and there seems very little prospect of Labour getting itself sorted as a credible opposition for 2024.

At least you've got the hope of independence to cling on to. I'm f*****.

Hopefully, I'll be able to come home sometime.

[CloudSquall]

Lib Dems will be hoping to pick up a few SNP seats, either where they are very close now like in North East Fife where the SNP has a majority of 2 or in other seats like Ross, Skye and Locharber where they will hope a bit of tactical voting will see them pip the SNP (Blackford's seat).


I imagine a lot of the vote they could pick up from the Tories would be the soft Tory type that Ruth Davidson picked up, voters who will want to see opposition to a new independence referendum and support for remaining in the EU.


Plaid Cyrmu and Welsh Independence are pretty much irrelevant currently so there's no issue there in forming an alliance.


Obviously Swinson can't come out and admit that so we'll probably see a few more dodgy interviews

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Her answer was all over the place.

The honest answer is that there are rich pickings there for the taking for her in middle England right now. The SNP are toxic there, Plaid less so (right now, we'll see what happens if Wales has an independence referendum) so it doesn't do her any favours to be in any way pro-SNP in the eyes of the people who are her biggest target.

The truth of the matter is that it is highly hypocritical for her deal with one but not the other.

The LibDems will have target seats North of the border as well, so by fudging on this issue she stands to lose ground.

It is negligent of the LibDem spin doctors to be rolling her out to the media without a well-rehearsed answer to this question. They should be working overtime right now thinking of a suitable answer (just because we don't agree with it doesn't mean that such an answer doesn't exist).

Honestly, I don't think they can give definitive answers to a lot of things without losing ground. Remaining ambiguous gives them plenty of wriggle room to do whatever they see fit regardless of the election outcome.

The only thing we know about the Lib Dems is that they'll continue to campaign against Brexit after Brexit. But aren't prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Brexit if an opportunity in this election opens up for them to do so. Which should be raising alarm bells right across the UK.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Past behaviour in politics is no barometer for the future. Boris Johnson voted against May's Brexit deal on 3 occasions for political expediency. Now he'd bite your hand off to get it done.

Can't agree with that. Past behaviour is all you really have to go on when voting for politicians, if what they say they're going to do has no relationship with what they've done in the past, then they have little or no credibility.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm simply pointing out a fact. For example, a man is far less likely to come forward if he is receiving domestic abuse from a woman than vice versa. I'm not saying it's right that men are quieter about the abuse they recieve, i'm simply pointing out that it's the case that they are quieter about these types of inequalities. Your anger at me for pointing out the blatantly obvious is irrelevant to me to be quite honest.

Who is angry?
You have hung yourself by your own words. Ignoring the words you posted the other day doesn't mean you didn't say them. They were cleary sexist, no ifs, buts or maybes.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't agree with that. Past behaviour is all you really have to go on when voting for politicians, if what they say they're going to do has no relationship with what they've done in the past, then they have little or no credibility.

It's like Boris Johnson and his "we're the party of the NHS" bull****. Anybody with sense will look at their previous records regarding the NHS and will come to the conclusion that they quite clearly are not the party of the NHS.

It should be no different with Jo Swinson.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Who is angry?
You have hung yourself by your own words. Ignoring the words you posted the other day doesn't mean you didn't say them. They were cleary sexist, no ifs, buts or maybes.

I haven't ignored anything. I just won't waste my time attempting to have grown up discussions with someone who throws false accusations around. I haven't said anything remotely sexist on here, even if that is your own personal perception.

I'm the one who believes women should be treated the same as men. It's you and your pal MA who are arguing against equality with your skewed perception of reality, not me.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't agree with that. Past behaviour is all you really have to go on when voting for politicians, if what they say they're going to do has no relationship with what they've done in the past, then they have little or no credibility.

In that case the relevant past behaviour is that politicians say one thing to get your vote, then frequently do the exact opposite.

Just the number of broken manifesto promises must number thousands.

Political parties drop commitments without compunction when it suits them. The Tories always promise to reduce the national debt, but it has risen every year since they won office.

If the Liberals dropped their anti-Brexit commitment, they really would be finished so they'll deal with Labour if the opportunity arises.

They might try to have another go at PR or whatever, but they won't sit back and let the Tories take us out of Europe.

I accept that there's also the possibility of her offering to prop up a minority Tory government in return for a second referendum, but that would be harder to achieve.

[Fife-Hibee]

As much as I dislike the tories, it wasn't the debt they commited to reducing, but the deficit. Which they have done by quite some margin. However, they've done so by flogging off public assets and services to private interests which will soon see the deficit sky rocket again. The tories biggest challenge isn't staying in government, it's trying to get out of government.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I haven't ignored anything. I just won't waste my time attempting to have grown up discussions with someone who throws false accusations around. I haven't said anything remotely sexist on here, even if that is your own personal perception.

I'm the one who believes women should be treated the same as men. It's you and your pal MA who are arguing against equality with your skewed perception of reality, not me.

My pal MA? I don't know him but I agree with some things he says and disagree with others.
Your own words have exposed your bigotry as they have done on several other topics in the past. You just don't get it so it really is pointless carrying on this conversation.