Scottish Liberal Democrats' folly

[David Bean]

The other night I was watching an interesting Scottish panelist programme, where the Liberal Democrat representative, Elspeth Attwooll, made perhaps the most bizarre comment ever made by any politician in the world. The Labour member asked her, to paraphrase,

"Why did you vote in favour of VAT on postal services, when it will clearly damage provision in outlying rural areas?"

To which she responded, roughly again,

"Somebody told me that for some convoluted reason I didn't quite understand, the VAT could be reclaimed, and so the measure would actually lead to cheaper postal services. I didn't believe them, but I voted for it anyway - though not all the Lib Dems were fooled."

Can you say 'halfwit', children? This was Elspeth Attwool, currently the only Scottish Liberal Democrat MEP; she had been present in St. Andrews for the European Question Time a few weeks ago, but whilst she came across well enough there, I didn't realise she was quite this silly.

The moral of the story? If you're in Scotland, DON'T VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in these Euro-elections!

[hr]"And all the people rejoiced, and said: 'God save the King! Long live the King! ...May the King live forever!'" - Handel, 'Zadok the Priest'

[exnihilo]

Erm? Because one liberal democrat said something stupid? Who wants to start the list of stupid things Tories have said? Or Labourites? Hmm?


[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

[Setsuna]

You know,

Im kind of sick of people on the Sinner trying to influence the votes of others.

We can make our own decisions.

[iohannes]

I am from a family of lifetime Labour supporters. Especially amongst the men. I guess it has something to do with them growing up in coal mining areas of South Wales. Hell, my great grandfather voted for the first Labour MP, Keir Hardie, in Merthyr Tydfil. I however, will think twice about voting Labour ever again.

Tony Benn had it right when he recently said: "I'm a Labour man. I joined the Labour party on my 16th birthday and I've seen Labour swing from left to right many times in my life. The important thing is the recovery of the Labour party. New Labour has nothing to do with the Labour party. New Labour is a Thatcherite programme, best friends of Bush, Berlusconi and Murdoch. New Labour has reached its sell-by date."

Yes, by all means make your mind up. If you're a Tory (and given that everything wrong with this country from the arrogant Police to the bad railways and the destroyed industry is down to Thatcherite policies, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever vote Tory) then vote Tory. If you're a Lib Dem, vote Lib Dem. But if you have one iota of a left-wing conscience in you, ignore Ben Reilly and DO NOT vote Labour. It'll only encourage those fascist New Labour types into thinking that you actually support them rather than what the party USED to stand for.

Ok, rather drunken rant over.

[Guest]

[s]iohannes wrote on 02:38, 10th Jun 2004:
and given that everything wrong with this country from the arrogant Police to the bad railways and the destroyed industry is down to Thatcherite policies, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever vote Tory


That is completely untrue. What do they teach in school nowadays? Certainly not politics or recent history it would seem.

[amac]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 08:36, 10th Jun 2004:
[s]iohannes wrote on 02:38, 10th Jun 2004:[i]
and given that everything wrong with this country from the arrogant Police to the bad railways and the destroyed industry is down to Thatcherite policies, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever vote Tory


That is completely untrue. What do they teach in school nowadays? Certainly not politics or recent history it would seem.
[/i]
Clearly not. He forgot to mention greatly increasing the gap between rich and poor, and the poll tax.

[hr]Look left! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said left you retard

[Zombie Sheep]

[s]Setsuna wrote on 02:03, 10th Jun 2004:
You know,

Im kind of sick of people on the Sinner trying to influence the votes of others.

We can make our own decisions.


I don't have a problem with people trying to influence voting - and in this case it wasn't telling you to vote for someone, just not vote for one party. If you are unintelligent enough to change your vote based on one strangers comments, then you shouldn't be able to vote at all!

[hr]
http://www.savetheworld.co.uk - help stuff, win stuff.

[iohannes]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 08:36, 10th Jun 2004:
[s]iohannes wrote on 02:38, 10th Jun 2004:[i]
and given that everything wrong with this country from the arrogant Police to the bad railways and the destroyed industry is down to Thatcherite policies, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever vote Tory


That is completely untrue. What do they teach in school nowadays? Certainly not politics or recent history it would seem.
[/i]

How is that untrue? Did Thatcher and Major criminally underfund the railways in order to weaken an industry with a strong union presence, or did they not? They did.
Did they instead encourage road freight by giving tax breaks to that industry which completely fails to take into account the level of damage and the actual costs that large lorries do to the roads and the environment? They did.
Did Thatcherite policies lead to the almost virtual destruction of British manufacturing industry? They did.

[hr]
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[iohannes]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 08:36, 10th Jun 2004:
[s]iohannes wrote on 02:38, 10th Jun 2004:[i]
and given that everything wrong with this country from the arrogant Police to the bad railways and the destroyed industry is down to Thatcherite policies, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would ever vote Tory


That is completely untrue. What do they teach in school nowadays? Certainly not politics or recent history it would seem.
[/i]

How is that untrue? Did Thatcher and Major criminally underfund the railways in order to weaken an industry with a strong union presence, or did they not? They did.
Did they instead encourage road freight by giving tax breaks to that industry which completely fails to take into account the level of damage and the actual costs that large lorries do to the roads and the environment? They did.
Did Thatcherite policies lead to the almost virtual destruction of British manufacturing industry? They did.

Have Labour undone the damage, they have not. Nor have they even shown any interest in doing so. Which just highlights New Labour's unholy alliance with Thatcherite policies. When will people realise that the seeds for today's problems were sown by Thatcher and her callousness?

[hr]
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[Guest]

[s]iohannes wrote on 23:59, 10th Jun 2004:
When will people realise that the seeds for today's problems were sown by Thatcher and her callousness?


They won't because that would be a lie. If it hadn't been for Thatcher then the country would be a complete mess by now. She might not have been popular but thats because she did what she had to. It takes more balls to do that than try to keep up with what the public wants right now rather than thinking about the future. Most political analysts would agree with that. Sometimes you have to do bad things to secure the future of the country. The UK is in a fairly good place now economically, despite Blair and Brown.

The Lib Dems are getting a little big for their boots. Crowing about how there are now 3 main parties in the country is jumping the gun. I suspect the one of the main reasons they got more votes this time around is because of past labour voters jumping ship.

The Conservatives however have made a step in the right direction, if they build on this then things could be looking up. But Labour are fooling themselves if they think the war in Iraq is the only reason they have lost so much.

[David Bean]

[s]Setsuna wrote on 02:03, 10th Jun 2004:
You know,

Im kind of sick of people on the Sinner trying to influence the votes of others.

We can make our own decisions.


Sounds to me like an argument for abolishing all political campaigning, then. I thought it needed to be brought up because in spite of this nonsense the offending MEP remains at the top of her party's list, so a vote for the Lib Dems was effectively a vote for her. Not that it makes much difference since she was pretty much guaranteed to hold her seat anyway, but one assumes that an electorate is always better off with more information than with less.

[hr]
"And all the people rejoiced, and said: 'God save the King! Long live the King! ...May the King live forever!'" - Handel, 'Zadok the Priest'

[nova]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 11:39, 11th Jun 2004:




The Lib Dems are getting a little big for their boots. Crowing about how there are now 3 main parties in the country is jumping the gun. I suspect the one of the main reasons they got more votes this time around is because of past labour voters jumping ship.
[/i]

Just a small comment on this point unregistered user; Don't you think given that one of the traditional problems of the Lib Dems is their so called 'unelectability' that it might be a good move for them to crow a little about their recent successes? It seems like a logical step in trying to make themselves seem more like a viable alternative regardless of where their votes may have come from.

[hr]
"I slopped at the corner on cold chow mein and shot billiards with a midget until the rain stopped."

Tom Waits.

[Guest]

[s]iohannes wrote on 23:59, 10th Jun 2004:
Did Thatcher and Major criminally underfund the railways in order to weaken an industry with a strong union presence, or did they not? They did.

The flogging off of the railways has resulted in more money being invested in them with record levels of passenger numbers and record lows of pasenger deaths. I'm not saying that the privatisation could not have been done better - the rail companies should have owned the track as well - but they are in a better state than they used to be.
As for the rail unions, there are still too many hard left elements within some parts of them which need to be delt with.

Did Thatcherite policies lead to the almost virtual destruction of British manufacturing industry? They did.

British manufacturing was uncompetative. Why should the tax-payer have propped it up?



[hr]
Lucrum Gaudium

[Guest]

[s]nova wrote on 10:17, 12th Jun 2004:
Don't you think given that one of the traditional problems of the Lib Dems is their so called 'unelectability' that it might be a good move for them to crow a little about their recent successes? It seems like a logical step in trying to make themselves seem more like a viable alternative regardless of where their votes may have come from.


Perhaps if I actually thought they were any good as a main party but I don't.

[iohannes]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 00:33, 12th Jun 2004:
The flogging off of the railways has resulted in more money being invested in them with record levels of passenger numbers and record lows of pasenger deaths. I'm not saying that the privatisation could not have been done better - the rail companies should have owned the track as well - but they are in a better state than they used to be.
As for the rail unions, there are still too many hard left elements within some parts of them which need to be delt with.

British manufacturing was uncompetative. Why should the tax-payer have propped it up?

What absolute rot. The railways are in a worse state now then they were before privitisation. Private railways are private monopolies (which even the most rampant believer in free markets should disapprove of). They receive more public funding and subsidy then British Rail did with less joined up management. Safety on the railways has gone down, not because less passengers have been killed, but because there is no longer a tradition of safety or responsibility within that industry. Just look at the incompetence of Jarvis. Agreed prior-privitisation the rail industry had to deal with stop-go funding because governments dictated rail spending. However, privitisation has not resulted in a change to this because private companies are far too concerned with short-term profits because they have no promise of continued profits since their francises could be taken away. Fares have gone up, standards have gone down. If the government took away the subsidy (which, after all, with them being private companies shouldn't they live and die on their ability to perform in the market on their own?) then they would go bust.

Oh, and why shouldn't the tax payer prop up British industry since they provide jobs? After all the taxpayer props up farming, etc.

Oh, and I would take issue with the notion that this country is doing well despite Blair and Brown. While I detest Blair for so much, Brown is one of the best chancellors we've ever had. While America and most of Europe is in recession, we have ridden that out reasonably well.

[hr]
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[Midget]

I agree with what iohannes said.

Plus on the Lib Dem point. The lib Dems have every right to crow about coming second, well done to them, it shows how many people are annoyed at the war and top-up fees (and more).

As for the Conservatives "a step in the right direction". No where near, in fact they got exactly the same result as William Hague in 2000 and was that a step in the right direction? The Conservatives did pretty poorly considering how much everyone hates Tony and that this was such a minor election that a lot of people would use it to make a protest vote. I think failing to criticise the government on the way they have handled Iraq etc has been their downfall, they're a crap opposition.

Well done to the Lib Dems, they are a real opposition, actively against the war, top-up fees etc.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Yeah, iohannes is right - the Tory privatisation really screwed over the railways, it was very badly done and adversely affected rail travel for the vast majority of people. The only people it benefitted were the rail fat cats.

Privitisation *could* have been a good thing but the Tories did the whole thing in such a stupid fashion that I think most people were glad for the backdoor nationalisation. In terms of safety at least, I think that we can all rest a little easier.

[hr]Ah, I hate how nothing changes. Such a peaceful Earth should just collapse...

[Guest]

[s]Midget wrote on 19:06, 12th Jun 2004:
Plus on the Lib Dem point. The lib Dems have every right to crow about coming second, well done to them, it shows how many people are annoyed at the war and top-up fees (and more).

People being annoyed with everyone else does not a good party make. It just makes them a protest party. In fact it's a little embarrasing that that's the only reaons they got extra votes - that they were the ones saying the right things at the right time, "oh we don't like top up fees" - I'm sure they'l get rid of those just as well as they got rid of fees up here in Scotland, ie not very well. Mind you that's nothing new the lib dems change direction whenever they can to get more votes but they certainly aren't challenging the main two yet. The Lib Dems are good as individuals (eg Menzies Campbell) but nowhere near strong enough as a party as a whole.

As for the Conservatives "a step in the right direction". No where near, in fact they got exactly the same result as William Hague in 2000 and was that a step in the right direction?

It is a step in the right direction in that they have generated good publicity and established a foothold on which to build their campaign. Now they have to focus on challenging Labour's policies and cock ups. And when Hague got that result in 2000 I don't believe the other party slid back by quite so much at the same time. Labour bombed and that makes it a good thing for the Conservatives as they have the experience to build on it. Unfortunatly for the Lib dems not enough people will ever take them seriously enough for them to be a main contender. the will always be relegated to being a distant third party.

[s]iohannes wrote on 18:47, 12th Jun 2004:
Oh, and I would take issue with the notion that this country is doing well despite Blair and Brown. While I detest Blair for so much, Brown is one of the best chancellors we've ever had. While America and most of Europe is in recession, we have ridden that out reasonably well.


Correction, Brown used to be a good chancellor but now it is a different story. Borrow borrow borrow, how long can that go on for? As Gordon Brown has said himself, there are only two types of chancellor - those that are good and those that get out in time. Whether or not the rumours of him becoming the next party leader are true or a load of rubbish, he won't be wabting to stay as chancellor for much longer. He can muck up now and get away with it as long as he isn't around when hell breaks loose.


Overall the results have been good, I am in favour of anything that puts the pressure on Blair and shows him that he can't keep doing things that the public are vehemently opposed to. Unfortunately for the rest of the party his obsession with being in the history books will most likely stop him from stepping down and may well cost Labour the next election.

[Guest]

[s]iohannes wrote on 18:47, 12th Jun 2004:

Safety on the railways has gone down, not because less passengers have been killed, but because there is no longer a tradition of safety or responsibility within that industry.

??? I'm sorry but the levels of death and injury on the railways ARE what define levels of safety, not any notions of a 'safety ethos'. Levels of passenger death and injury HAVE FALLEN since privatisation.


Oh, and why shouldn't the tax payer prop up British industry since they provide jobs? After all the taxpayer props up farming, etc.

And I agree we should abolish all such subsidies. The mere fact that a company provides jobs it not a reason to stuff it with tax-payers' cash - the fact that the company can not survive on its own means its inefficient and should go. If you become fixated with defending a failed industry, particularly ones which dominate their local economies, you will never be able to nurture growth in new sectors.

[tordenskjold]

The Lib Dems "an effective opposition"? Not likely. they went into an unholy alliance with Mr.Tony when he came to power and help prop up Lib/Lab councils. Also when watching the Parliament it always seems that the Lib Dems (esp.Mr.Kennedy) are largely ignored. Probably cos they are the "two-way" party, oppurtunistic in tone and, to my mind at least, lacking in any fundamental backbone or policy. I would NEVER EVER vote for them. This is jst my opinion of course.
Also why do so many people seem to have some sort of defeciency of memory which insists that the Tories will forever be evil and are the root of all that is wrong? I think New Labour has been in power long enough to make their own mistakes which so many of us are happy to place elsewhere or forget. I don't see the point in bringing up the Poll Tax etc etc when it was such a long time ago and this lot have brought in their own taxes which are worse but just sugar coated better. It is a severe case of 'double think' when people say New Labour are doing a great job when they so clearly are not.