Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, given the choice of this shag sack of limp tories being in power on their own, or heaven forbid Labour getting their hands on the reigns of power again, I'll be sticking with them in a bid that they get to carry on annoying everyone and making life difficult for 'effective' govenrnment.

Less is more is never so true than of governments' need to be seen to be doing something

They would prefer a coalition with Labour, Ridgley, but the election results didn't permit that last time.

I would be very surprised if any Lib Dems have defected to UKIP - it's the Tories who are doing that which is why their backbenchers arranged that vote against the government the other day on the EU.

Lib dems will have been defecting to labour probably, but it is very early days yet. Don't write the Libs off just yet!.

The point is the Lib Dems changing every flipping five minutes you cant trust them and those who voted or them as a protest vote feel cheated. Vote Liberal Get Tory. It was the biggest Lie in British Politics. Sadly I doubt if the Protest voters will bother voting again having been so badly cheated.
The point is the Lib Dems changing every flipping five minutes you cant trust them and those who voted or them as a protest vote feel cheated. Vote Liberal Get Tory. It was the biggest Lie in British Politics. Sadly I doubt if the Protest voters will bother voting again having been so badly cheated. Just look at the swings against the Liberals in all the By Elections- For them its Bye Elections!

Reality check: they've got less than 60 seats in Parliament - out of 650.


What do you expect? Vince Cable as Prime Minister? Nick Clegg as King? Full policy implementation?



I think they've had just about as much influence as they're probably entitled to.. ie not much.


BLAME THE LIB DEMS! It's like shouting at a child for throwing a crisp packet in your front garden whilst somebody else empties a thousand tonnes of manure in your back garden.

The Liberal democrats aren't changing their policies they are in a coalition as a junior partner, they have to compromise, that's being in a coalition govt. Their raising of the lower tax threshold for low eraners is to my mind one of the key policies that they've got accepted. I'll probably vote for them again, I certainly won't be voting for any party that doesn't take a responsible attitude towards thr defeceit and public spending...and Labour look genetically incapable of taking any tough action in this area (plus half them are sponsored by unions that are on record of opposing cuts - go figure), I don't want a bankrupt country so will vote for parties who can convince me they don't....Labour have got a lot oif convincing to do (for me) as deep down I don't think most labourites supporters or party or MPs really get it. I'll even vote Tory if neccessary however rubbish thery've proved (and they have in many arenas) becuase they are ready to take responsible decisions and willing to look at reform to try anfg get our very neccessary public services working more efficiently, and n some areas are suceeding. Think the LDs will get slaughtered though as most people don't like reality much.

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the Limp Dems weren't propping up the Tories

> they wouldnt be in power! Simple!



If you want to see what would be happening if Labour had won just look accross the Channel - useless ineffective govt/debts rising/deeply unpopular. They (Labour) would have been decimated at the next election, If I was Ed M and Ed Balls I'd be absolutely delighted to be exactly where they are now.


RE Ed Milliband, personally I think he has grown into his role and is more convincing that last year when I thought he was a basket case for Labour.

The Tories would have won outright if the Scots MPs had not been counted in the last TWO elections. The Scots MPs have a vote on what goes on in England but the Scots determine their own policies independently of England. And now we discover that ?1,600 more per head per year was spent on Scots than English last year- why?

Re. Lib Dem defections, you'd have to be an ideological chimp to move your vote from the Lib Dems to UKIP. The two parties have virtually no beliefs in common.


You could be disappointed that the Lib Dems hadn't implemented all their manifesto, but to then vote for UKIP would entail supporting a party that shares absolutely none of your beliefs.


Cretinous.


On that note I should add that UKIP clearly don't believe in anything apart from a baseless attack on our closest and most important trading partners. A strategy that could only be justified on the basis of 'divide and conquer'.


So anyone wo really wants to have these witless pricks running our national economy needs to have their head examined.


Some of the views expressed on here about the Lib Dems are so poorly informed that it sounds more like the slack jawed chanting and goading of a football terrace.


Do some people really believe that this is a reasonable way to run a country?


I do think that a foundation tenet of electoral reform should be that an IQ over 70 is required to vote.

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In case you hadn't noticed, ted, the next election

> is due for 2015. That is forever in politics!

> Everything can change by then.



I guess it is entirely possible that if the cabinet minister, recently publicly backed by our prime minister and now accused of historic sexual abuse against children is outed, there might be an earlier election?


Just saying loike!

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am sure they will be hammered at the next election, quite a lot of Limp Dems voters have

> defected to UKIP I very surprised if they get back into a coalition with the Tories.


UKIP get their support from disaffected Tories. BNP from disaffected Labour working class. Green from disaffected Labour and Lib Dem sandal wearers. No one votes for the SWP.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...