Lib Dems

[AtW]

You're wrong on so many levels it's untrue. None of the "good" things were Lib Dem ideas, a lot of the good things were scuppered by them.

Yes, that's what Tory propaganda was saying at the time and I very sadly bought into it, one such thing was that LibDems were preventing good Tories from restoring 40% tax band... now where did it all go after they got reelected in 2015? Not only they did not reduce level of income tax, they actually hiked massively dividend tax which was related to levels of income tax - there are heavy hints that will go up again, so much for pro-business Tory.

And let's not forget IR35 - didn't Tory Scum said they would reverse it whilst they were in opposition? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind.

[vetran]

House of Commons Bars are much cheaper....

Yes but so Few Lib dems are allowed in, you have to be an MP.

[SueEllen]

Yes but so Few Lib dems are allowed in, you have to be an MP.

Or invited in by one of the 9 MPs.

[Waldorf]

Yes, that's what Tory propaganda was saying at the time and I very sadly bought into it, one such thing was that LibDems were preventing good Tories from restoring 40% tax band... now where did it all go after they got reelected in 2015? Not only they did not reduce level of income tax, they actually hiked massively dividend tax which was related to levels of income tax - there are heavy hints that will go up again, so much for pro-business Tory.

And let's not forget IR35 - didn't Tory Scum said they would reverse it whilst they were in opposition? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" springs to mind.

I'm sure you recall that the reform of dividend taxation was promised by the LibDems in their 2015 manifesto, so carry on wasting your money, assuming you have actually made a contribution.

[d000hg]

You're wrong on so many levels it's untrue. None of the "good" things were Lib Dem ideas, a lot of the good things were scuppered by them. They were only there on a back of a bravura TV performance by Clegg that impressed the snowflakes and one that he utterly failed to turn into any sort of leadership.

As for single party dominance, the economic reality since about 1970 is that we go forward when the Tories are driving and backward when Labour are.

It seems you're far too partisan for genuine debate, but how do you claim the last 7-8 years as "going forward"? And what good things did the LibDems prevent? "Going to s***" seems closer to the mark... the only problem being I think it could've been even worse under anyone else! Although I don't think we'd have had Brexit under anyone else.

[malvolio]

It seems you're far too partisan for genuine debate, but how do you claim the last 7-8 years as "going forward"? And what good things did the LibDems prevent? "Going to s***" seems closer to the mark... the only problem being I think it could've been even worse under anyone else! Although I don't think we'd have had Brexit under anyone else.

Tuition fees. Electoral boundary reform to remove Labour's unfair advantage. Regulation of the "green" energy market (which is nothing of the sort). None of the Lib Dem main policies were implemented, incidentally. And most importantly, the multiple wounds inflicted by Brown and Blair before hoim were largely reversed. It may not be Utopia now but it's a damned sight better than anything Millipede or Clegg could have delivered.

And if I'm biased it's because I was working and surviving in the 70s under the previous Labour regime and experienced first hand what a union-led socialist government was like. There is absolutely no way I want to repeat the experience.

[d000hg]

Someone was arguing the other day that proportionally for their number of seats in a coalition, the LibDems actually got more of their policies in. I haven't seen any stats for that but it is fairly obvious they wouldn't get major things in.

To be clear are you saying tuition fee hikes - which are set to continue - are a good thing?

[malvolio]

Someone was arguing the other day that proportionally for their number of seats in a coalition, the LibDems actually got more of their policies in. I haven't seen any stats for that but it is fairly obvious they wouldn't get major things in.

To be clear are you saying tuition fee hikes - which are set to continue - are a good thing?

No, I'm saying Clegg dropped his promises to remove them. He also reneged on other stuff - boundary reform being the most damaging - to support the pretence that he was a force to be reckoned with. He wasn't, and Fallon isn't.

[BlasterBates]

If the Libs hadn't been in the government the UK would already be languishing outside the EU, in a perma recession.

The Conservatives on their own aren't really fit to govern, the Thatcher years showed that with deep recessions and "civil wars", not to mention the Falklands debacle as a re-election gag.

[SueEllen]

Tuition fees. Electoral boundary reform to remove Labour's unfair advantage. Regulation of the "green" energy market (which is nothing of the sort). None of the Lib Dem main policies were implemented, incidentally. And most importantly, the multiple wounds inflicted by Brown and Blair before hoim were largely reversed. It may not be Utopia now but it's a damned sight better than anything Millipede or Clegg could have delivered.

And if I'm biased it's because I was working and surviving in the 70s under the previous Labour regime and experienced first hand what a union-led socialist government was like. There is absolutely no way I want to repeat the experience.

The last Labour regime was in 1997 not the 1970s. Just because that regime was more centralist than on the left doesn't mean they weren't Labour.

This means all your other comments e.g. about Blair and Brown make no sense.