Though misrepresenting the views of members of those parties seems to not garner sanctions. Which is also fortunate.

Emmeline wrote:Hopefully not at the point which would prevent mrjonno making critical comments about the LibDem party.

Critical comments - fine. Outright lies - not so much.

chairman bill wrote:Though misrepresenting the views of members of those parties seems to not garner sanctions. Which is also fortunate.

You're not banging this drum again, surely. Nobody ever misrepresents the opinions of Labour members.

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Though misrepresenting the views of members of those parties seems to not garner sanctions. Which is also fortunate.

You're not banging this drum again, surely. Nobody ever misrepresents the opinions of Labour members.

Er, you & Carl have managed it a few times in one fucking thread, so don't give me this shit. FFS.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:Hopefully not at the point which would prevent mrjonno making critical comments about the LibDem party.

Critical comments - fine. Outright lies - not so much.

"Lies" about a political party can be matters of opinion with which opponents can disagree or matters of factual inaccuracy, which opponents can correct. Neither constitutes trolling particular posters here nor should it ever become so.

Strontium Dog wrote: Nobody ever misrepresents the opinions of Labour members.

I do not think the failures and misdemeanour of previous administrations should be cited to somehow off-set the failures and misdemeanour of the current one.

chairman bill wrote:Er, you & Carl have managed it a few times in one fucking thread, so don't give me this shit. FFS.

I see you provided no examples to support your assertion. Wonder why.

Emmeline wrote:"Lies" about a political party can be matters of opinion with which opponents can disagree or matters of factual inaccuracy, which opponents can correct. Neither constitutes trolling particular posters here nor should it ever become so.

Of course repeating lies which are shown to be lies can constitute trolling.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:"Lies" about a political party can be matters of opinion with which opponents can disagree or matters of factual inaccuracy, which opponents can correct. Neither constitutes trolling particular posters here nor should it ever become so.

Of course repeating lies which are shown to be lies can constitute trolling.

Like this kind of comment?

It is absolutely disgraceful that someone should have to affiliate themselves with a political party in order to gain workplace protections.

Emmeline wrote:Like this kind of comment?

It is absolutely disgraceful that someone should have to affiliate themselves with a political party in order to gain workplace protections.

No, "lie" generally refers to comments that are untrue.

I want to be a Lib Dem for a day. Where do I sign up?

andyx1205 wrote:I want to be a Lib Dem for a day. Where do I sign up?

I was when I voted for them , trust me its an overrated experience

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Er, you & Carl have managed it a few times in one fucking thread, so don't give me this shit. FFS.

I see you provided no examples to support your assertion. Wonder why.

Yoiu want examples? You'll get fucking examples.

CarlPierce wrote:... And you are willing to forgive the Labour party sending freedom fighters back to Libya but you condemn the lib-dems for not managing to get one of their policies included in the coalition agreement.

Was it real or Rendition Labour that introduced fees in the first place ?

Which way does your moral compass point exactly ?

The suggestion that it was Labour, as opposed to certain ministers, is simplistic nonsense of course, but either way, the statement that asserts that I would forgive those that engaged in rendition to Libya is a fucking lie. So strike one.

Here's some more bollocks ...

Strontium Dog wrote:... Bang on. Bill laments "New Labour and "Rendition Labour" and wants a return to "Real Labour", not seeming to appreciate that they are all the same thing; one party, indivisible ...

Again, a misrepresentation of my position. Strike two.

CarlPierce wrote:... you happily misrepresent the Lib-dems position on univ course funding knowing full well its simply a policy we weren't able to get into the coalition agreement.

Untrue. A lie. Strike three.

CarlPierce wrote:... I'm puzzled by your apparant forgiveness for rendition (why still support Labour if you haven't forgiven them) but con-dem the lib-dems for not managing to get a policy implemented.

This shit, on a thread I started, calling for the jailing of those Labour ministers responsible for UK involvement in rendition! Idiocy of the most profound nature, or just plain lying & trolling? You decide. But strike number fucking four.

And that's from just one page, on one thread. Get your head out of your arse & recognise the misrepresentation that you & your ilk engage in.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:Like this kind of comment?

It is absolutely disgraceful that someone should have to affiliate themselves with a political party in order to gain workplace protections.

No, "lie" generally refers to comments that are untrue.

We're back to opinions then because IMO if people can opt out of the political levy, they're not affiliating themselves with the Labour Party but in your opinion they are.

It is absolutely disgraceful that someone should have to affiliate themselves with a political party in order to secure lucrative government contracts, concessions, exceptions or privileges granted in law for their commercial activities, or to further their personal business interests.

chairman bill wrote:Yoiu want examples? You'll get fucking examples.

CarlPierce wrote:... And you are willing to forgive the Labour party sending freedom fighters back to Libya but you condemn the lib-dems for not managing to get one of their policies included in the coalition agreement.

Was it real or Rendition Labour that introduced fees in the first place ?

Which way does your moral compass point exactly ?

The suggestion that it was Labour, as opposed to certain ministers, is simplistic nonsense of course, but either way, the statement that asserts that I would forgive those that engaged in rendition to Libya is a fucking lie. So strike one.

It was a Labour government and ministers in that government, so it was unquestionably Labour who did these things.

The fact you remained a Labour member throughout the whole episode suggests, if not forgiveness, then a certain level of comfort with extraordinary rendition to Arab despotates.

Or to put it another way: I would leave the Lib Dems if any Lib Dem minister had been involved in rendition, and I suspect Carl would do the same.

chairman bill wrote:Here's some more bollocks ...

Strontium Dog wrote:... Bang on. Bill laments "New Labour and "Rendition Labour" and wants a return to "Real Labour", not seeming to appreciate that they are all the same thing; one party, indivisible ...

Again, a misrepresentation of my position. Strike two.

This isn't a misrepresentation, this is my perspective.

chairman bill wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:... you happily misrepresent the Lib-dems position on univ course funding knowing full well its simply a policy we weren't able to get into the coalition agreement.

Untrue. A lie. Strike three.

So will you stop criticising the Lib Dems on tuition fees?

chairman bill wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:... I'm puzzled by your apparant forgiveness for rendition (why still support Labour if you haven't forgiven them) but con-dem the lib-dems for not managing to get a policy implemented.

This shit, on a thread I started, calling for the jailing of those Labour ministers responsible for UK involvement in rendition! Idiocy of the most profound nature, or just plain lying & trolling? You decide. But strike number fucking four.

I think we covered rendition earlier. You belong to a party whose former leadership merrily supported rendition, and whose current leadership (many of whom are survivors of that regime, merely occupying different deckchairs on the same sorry ship) haven't distanced themselves from those actions.

chairman bill wrote:And that's from just one page, on one thread. Get your head out of your arse & recognise the misrepresentation that you & your ilk engage in.

I can't see any misrepresentation, much less outright lies.

The leftist trolls on this site...

Whats really sad is people voted for the Lib Dem's because they were (or appeared to be) leftists.
The irony is painful

Strontium Dog wrote:The fact you remained a Labour member throughout the whole episode suggests, if not forgiveness, then a certain level of comfort with extraordinary rendition to Arab despotates.

Well I choose not to jump ship, but argue for change. Ministers & politicians come & go, the party remains. My familiy were there at the founding of the party, nad have been active on the left for generations. I'm not inclined to abandon that heritage, even if Blairites don't give a shit. But Labour isn't one minister, nor a prime minister, nor an entire cabinet, it is the membership.

Or to put it another way: I would leave the Lib Dems if any Lib Dem minister had been involved in rendition, and I suspect Carl would do the same.

Would you leave the LibDems if it was discovered that rendition or torture had knowingly taken place under a coalition government that the LibDems were an integral part of? It's just that a little bird whispered something in my ear, something that may yet come out in the news media ...

... This isn't a misrepresentation, this is my perspective.

Your perspective on what I lament? Bollocks. You ascribe a position to me that I do not hold. That is misrepresentation.

So will you stop criticising the Lib Dems on tuition fees?

No. I've been very specific about my criticism. I've acknowledged the difficulties your party had in light of coalition with the Nazty Party, and I've also backed those who chose to abstain in the parliamentary vote - unable to back a pledge made in opposition, but making a principled stand not to vote for it as their leaders wanted. I absolutely backed those LibDems & Tories who voted against the rise. But the party's ministers voted for it. A complete & unprincipled volte face, and I hope each one suffers for it next election.

I think we covered rendition earlier. You belong to a party whose former leadership merrily supported rendition, and whose current leadership (many of whom are survivors of that regime, merely occupying different deckchairs on the same sorry ship) haven't distanced themselves from those actions.

We've yet to see conclusive proof of where ministerial complicity existed - I have my suspicions, and want to see those responsible jailed. We are talking about a minority of people, a minority of ministers no doubt. How that translates into me be content with rendition is beyond me.

I can't see any misrepresentation, much less outright lies.

QWith your head up your arse, how would you?

Strontium Dog wrote:

mattwilson wrote:When someone publicly signs a document saying we promise to vote against any rise in tuition fees, and then votes in favour of a rise in tuition fees, what would you call that?

I don't call it lying. Lying is when you sign a pledge like that with the intention of going back on it later.

If I say I'm going to the shops to buy some bread, but I get there and it's all sold out, and I return home empty-handed, I wasn't lying. If I say I'm going to give my last £10 to charity but it's stolen from me by muggers before I can donate it, then I wasn't lying.

Your analogies get worse, as has been pointed out, they had the option to vote against or abstain. They promised to vote against any rise, they then voted for it when presented with the opportunity.

Strontium Dog wrote:
Isn't it funny how people can clearly see the difference between intentional misleading and changed circumstances which render promises undeliverable in real life situations, yet when it comes to politicians they're not prepared to see it?

It wasn't underliverable though was it, they retained the right to vote against or abstain, only a small number abstained.

Strontium Dog wrote:I think perhaps people are just not used to truthful politicians. A calculating politician would never have made that pledge in the first place! It would be political suicide. Liberals are naively honest. It's our fatal flaw.

They publicly promised to vote against rises then voted for, if that is what you call honest you may want to get a new dictionary. Preferably one not authored by George W Bush

Strontium Dog wrote:

mattwilson wrote:There is provision in the health and social care bill for the cessation of services which then must be sought privately, there is provision in the health and social care bill for the outsourcing of NHS work to for profit medical organisations such as BUPA. It is the opening gambit of privatisation by another name.

There has been an element of private provision in the NHS since day one. Every GP is private and profit-making. Every dentist is private and profit-making. This is the way it has always been. Everything else is manipulative bullshit from unscrupulous politicians trying to play on people's emotions by invoking our national religion, the NHS. Shame on anyone who falls for it.

The cessation of services that were previously covered by the NHS and the supply of these services being handed over to the private sector at cost is a very real scenario and is not manipulative bullshit.

chairman bill wrote:

rJD wrote:The tories often have been better on general individual civil liberties than Labour ...

The Tories are often better in terms of allowing the better off to enjoy their civil liberties. But the poor, and ethnic minorities? They really couldn't give a shit. As an example, the Tories again & again make access to legal aid difficult for poor people, and access to the legal system is a fundamental civil liberty.

The Tories are more individualistic, and care less about a wider societal well-being. Civial rights & liberties for the masses? Apart from some One-Nation types, they generally don't give a toss.

I generally agree with you, but there is a genuine ideological strand within both the tory and lib dem parties that does value individual rights against the tendencies of creeping statism to which governments of all parties are liable. As now, for instance.