drat01 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Lib Dem president just on Sky news has probably done as much damage to the party as anyone with his interview (!) I know quite a few Lib Dem activists, or they were before Clegg sold them for his own pleasures, and I feel sorry for them being dumped on by the leadership like this. Basically years of good party political activity have been just chucked away by Clegg and his mob, just for their pandering to Cameron and the Tory party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) What's Charlie K done? Done? I'm not sure I catch your drift.I wondered (still do) what he had done to make your list above? Edited February 24, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 What's Charlie K done? Done? I'm not sure I catch your drift. I wondered what he had done to make your list above? I know, I was being flippant. Just one of many removed for bringing the party into disrepute. Given how few MPs they've had down the years, that's quite a lot. It's like a third of your class at school being banged up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2013 Just seen Clegg's statement, he admits to having known back in 2008 but claims he didn't know specifics and he was limited in terms of what he could do as a result. Is it just me or would the obvious thing for him to do to be to find out the specifics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I know, I was being flippant. Just one of many removed for bringing the party into disrepute.Ah, okay.Funnily enough, one of my best friends resigned his party membership over their treatment of Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Just seen Clegg's statement, he admits to having known back in 2008 but claims he didn't know specifics and he was limited in terms of what he could do as a result. Is it just me or would the obvious thing for him to do to be to find out the specifics? I know, I was being flippant. Just one of many removed for bringing the party into disrepute. Ah, okay. Funnily enough, one of my best friends resigned his party membership over their treatment of Kennedy. I liked him. Witty, sharp, good political antennae, broadly on the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Given how few MPs they've had down the years, that's quite a lot. It's like a third of your class at school being banged up. A few of the girls at our school were knocked up, but then again that's Grammar school's for you ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Just seen Clegg's statement, he admits to having known back in 2008 but claims he didn't know specifics and he was limited in terms of what he could do as a result. Is it just me or would the obvious thing for him to do to be to find out the specifics? Put it this way. If you were the CEO of a major company which relied heavily on public good will, if you received information that allegations had been made against a central figure in your organisation which, if true, would significantly damage your brand (especially if seen to be handled in a manner inconsistent with your expressed values, ie the worth of your brand), and if you really didn't want to get rid of the person in question if it turned out that they had done such a thing, what would you do? Would you a) launch a immediate investigation, granting the investigators all powers available to you and making it clear that any misconduct would be treated seriously, or b ) send Beaker to ask the subject of the allegations if there was any truth in them, and on receiving the inevitable "No, of course not" answer, announce sternly (in so far as Beaker does "sternly") that any such behaviour, if found out and publicly revealed beyond the party faithful, will be subject to the full rigour of Mr Clegg thinking it over for a few weeks and deciding what works for him politically. Common sense and integrity say a). Clegg says b ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2013 Well those are two things Clegg doesn't have in my view, those and credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2013 This makes interesting reading, Clegg is in trouble on this I think. http://www.channel4.com/news/questions-for-clegg-after-lord-rennard-statement Cathy Newman has seemingly been on the case with this story for 3 years, no way it is going to go away on the basis of Clegg's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm glad the horrible little snake has been caught out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2013 It seems that Clegg would have people believe that this has only raised its head now because of the local election, that it is simply being used as a political football. Yet it seems to have come out now because one of the women was annoyed that Rennard was taking a renewed active role in events, despite whatever these supposed health grounds that caused him to step down in the first place. Clegg really is full of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Clegg really is full of it.This is the man who has banged on relentlessly about public school education being corrosive for society and then sent his children to public school. Why? Because he couldn't let his politics get in the way of doing what was best for them..But other parents who can afford to do the same shouldn't.Aye, cheers for that. Conviction politics at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2013 Totally agree. That is why regardless of if I agree with the Conservatives or not on policy or ideology I at least have a little respect for them in that they at least have the courage of their convictions. Clegg and his lot on the other hand, they sold their souls for power and as you say are full contradictions and hypocrisy and have forgotten what they believed if they ever actually believed it. I've nothing but contempt for Clegg and his clan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It seems that Clegg would have people believe that this has only raised its head now because of the local election, that it is simply being used as a political football. Yet it seems to have come out now because one of the women was annoyed that Rennard was taking a renewed active role in events, despite whatever these supposed health grounds that caused him to step down in the first place. Clegg really is full of it. What's more, Clegg knows full well that the story has been around since January (the revived story, that is); that it was brought up again because of that point about Rennard becoming active again; that it was raised with senior Lib Dems three weeks ago; and that it takes several weeks for a tv programme to put it together. He doesn't believe it's connected to the by-election, and in saying so, he's lying. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Interesting investigation on 4 on how the disabled are going to be **** over by new changes to their allowances. It's looking like a much better deal for the private assessment firm than the recipients of the new Personal Independence Payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I wonder how many Torys have a part to play in these assessment firms? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Interesting investigation on 4 on how the disabled are going to be **** over by new changes to their allowances. It's looking like a much better deal for the private assessment firm than the recipients of the new Personal Independence Payment. I just watched this program and am appalled but not surprised given the antics of this current mob. The government have given the contract for the assessments to a private company called Atos and are paying them 390 million and they are then subcontracting out the assessments.On top of this it is costing 50 million pound a year in appeals as 40% of those deemed fit for work appeal and 40% are those are then over turned. That is a massive failure rate. 71% of claimants on the current system are getting the benefit for life but now they will be reassessed every few years. These are people that will not get any better so what is the point aside from wasting money reassessing them and lining the pockets of some private firm whilst putting these disabled people through unnecessary stress. There is no doubt some people are fraudulently claiming benefits but DWP's own figures say this is 0.5% of claimants. This attack on the most vulnerable in society is an absolute disgrace and indefensible. Edited February 25, 2013 by markavfc40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) This attack did not begin, however, with the Tory (coalition) government. These reforms started with the 'work' done by David Freud under appointment by Blair in 2006 (I think) and is continued even further under David Freud (now a Tory Lord). That might tell people much of what they need or want to know about 'differences' between New Labour and Cameron's Tories. Atos were firmly ensconced as the chosen provider under the previous government (the changes in the assessments began then) and the parallels between the US deny at all costs presumption (wink at Unum) and the change in the assessments that result in the overturning of decisions (when people are represented the chances of appeal increase even more) is pretty obvious. Edited February 25, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 yeah, my memory (I'm not doing any research) is that Labour had shifted people of unemployment to massage those figures, then declared people were taking the piss on disability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts