LibDem Councillor says party faces being wiped out by Labour

[andyofborg]

Who to exactly?

 

whoever we owe it too

[Guest sibon]

the absolute scale of the debt is very relevant

 

it has to be serviced - and the bigger the debt the bigger the payment

 

and at some point it has to be repaid.

 

The absolute size of my mortgage in 1988 was £22 000. The absolute size of my salary was about £11 000. Both are considerably bigger now and I find my mortgage much easier to pay.

 

Mind you, my mortgage rate was 11% back then, after the Tories had slashed and burnt the economy. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself there.

[Wildcat]

And why is that? Playing Devil's advocate, could it be that:

 

a) because middle earners were taxed until they bled? or

 

b) because McBroon sold off our gold reserves? or

 

c) the pre-crisis public finance figures you refer to are false

 

A) middle earners did pretty well out of the last Govt. The problem was the increase in income inequality between rich and poor.

 

B) Even the Telegraph only costs that up to £4billion loss. There were good reasons for it, and the money was not lost anyway because it was invested in the economy and so contibuted to growth elsewhere. The £4billion figure is only half the picture. However in comparison with the public debt we are talking tiny fractions. It had no significant impact on the figures I have given, whether it was a net loss\profit or neutral.

 

C) The figures have been shown to be accurate by the OBR.

[Tony]

The more I look at this the more I think something freakish happened in the Lib Dem party, something almost like a Trojan horse. The electorate were softened up by a succession of left-ish Lib Dem leaders. It seemed pretty clear what the party stood for. Then comes along Nick Clegg, a new younger face for a progressive party the electorate seemed to understand. He talked the talk. He walked the walk. In the leader debates he positioned himself and his party in the same space, even to the left of Labour in some areas. So far so good, that's what the Lib Dems are all about isn't it.

 

Wrong! That is not what Nick Clegg is about. He sees the state as a problem, he spoke very clearly about his views going back to 2007-8. Many of his views are completely compatible with Cameron's. David Laws is very much in the same space. Clegg and Laws would not be out of place in the Tory party.

 

The electorate have not got the Nick Clegg they thought they were getting. There is none of the tempering of Tory policies many people who support the coalition thought they would get. The reason is that Clegg grees with a huge amount of what the Tories are doing. He may as well join them. Cameron is working on that apparently.

 

You seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that liberals believe in the importance of the state (or collective) over the individual.

 

The continuing mistake of the left is that they believe that it is and that other people agree with them.

[Wildcat]

Ask them, but don't be under the illusion that there are hoards of Labour voters voting tactically for Clegg.

 

 

I never said there were?

 

My Mum for one isn't she voted LibDem because the Tories under Michael Howard had become too right wing for her and her local Tory candidate now is a nutter... only to find the LibDems are as bad.

[Wildcat]

You seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that liberals believe in the importance of the state (or collective) over the individual.

 

The continuing mistake of the left is that they believe that it is and that other people agree with them.

 

It has long been a traditional Tory view as well that the collective is more important than the individual. The fact of numerical advantage pretty much makes it a no-brainer.

[Tony]

You'd better explain that post because I don't understand it, how it relates to my earlier post, or to the point of the thread.

[ben280489]

I think you've missed Rupert's point somewhat...

 

 

Probably... Im young

[I1L2T3]

You seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that liberals believe in the importance of the state (or collective) over the individual.

 

Some lib dems do. Some lib dems don't. At the moment the lib dem leadership is somewhat to the right. That is not really representative of the Lib Dem party as a whole. Which brings us kind of back to the point of this thread. There is a very clear disconnect between key figures within the Lib Dem leadership and the party at large.

 

The party is going to completely tear itself apart and I find that quite saddening. Clegg and Laws won't care. They're going over to the Tories anyway IMO.

[Tony]

At the moment the lib dem leadership is somewhat to the right. That is not really representative of the Lib Dem party as a whole.

 

Says who ?