Strontium Dog wrote:... as a defender of truth, justice, fairness, liberty and things like that ...

Strontium Dog wrote:I find it hard to believe that you've never seen me criticise coalition policy.

Do you have an example of a coalition policy you believe is illiberal?

... I, being the sole official liberal here ...

Strontium Dog wrote:

smudge wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

The fact that you never point to specifics.....

The specifics are your posts. Almost all of them.

I haven't read every post you have ever written - but I have never seen you criticise coalition policy. I've never seen you criticise a Tory policy either for that matter. Clearly that does not mean you have never done so. As I am not the only one on the forum who seems to have missed your (alleged) Coalition/Tory critical posts, please do let us know, what are the Coalition policies you disagree with (if any). Which Tory policies do you disagree with (if any)?

Almost all of my posts are suggestive, but you haven't read them all. Brilliant.

Strontium Dog wrote:
Do you have an example of a coalition policy you believe is illiberal? Then I can explain either (a) why it isn't illiberal or (b) why I, being the sole official liberal here, do not support it.
.

Parliament's public spending watchdog has today accused ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions of hiding the failings of the coalition's troubled universal credit scheme.

The public accounts committee said the decision to devise a new category of "resetting" projects could have been a way of preventing scrutiny and obscuring problems.

Universal credit is the £2.4bn centrepiece of Iain Duncan Smith's reform programme and involves merging six different benefits, with the claimant receiving a single monthly household payment.

Ministers started implementing it three years ago, but have been criticised by successive watchdogs for failing to come clean about the problems the DWP has experienced with the technology.

The assessment comes in a report by MPs on the Major Projects Authority, the government watchdog responsible for assessing the scheme's implementation.

According to the report, the DWP, in consultation with the MPA, published their delivery confidence assessment of the universal credit project as "reset" in September 2013. It was a new term that appeared to have been devised specifically for the the new programme, committee members said.

"We are particularly concerned that the decision to award a 'reset' rating to the universal credit project was an attempt to keep information secret and prevent scrutiny," the report said.

"The 'reset' category was introduced for the 2013-14 report and was only applied to this one project. The MPA confirmed that the decision to give universal credit a reset rating was ultimately made by ministers," it added. (cont)

smudge wrote:Ah. More distortion and evasion.

Clearly you are trying to be amusing. Your attempts at humour are not really to my taste - I must admit I kinda thought we were having a serious discussion .

I guess it is rather funny. In a certain sense at least....

Strontium Dog wrote:You claim I'm a Tory, yet when asked to provide specific evidence of me supporting things that aren't consistent with me being a Lib Dem, you clam up.

Strontium Dog wrote:...don't think for one moment that many people here are impressed by your baseless slurs, nor the manner in which you refuse to substantiate them.

chairman bill wrote:Are you deliberately being fucking obtuse? Your conflation of LibDem with the entirety of liberalism & liberal actions, is dishonest, stupid, or both. Your deceitful twisting of arguments, to your own apologetic ends, is well noted.

chairman bill wrote:The LibDems have supported the illiberal Immigration Bill, the Justice & Security Bill (& secret courts), the destruction of Legal Aid, the retro-active amendment of Tory 'workfare' legislation, & gagging clauses on charities & Trades Unions. Oh, but according to you, only they give a shit about freedom & liberty & liberalism. Yeah, right.

Strontium Dog wrote:So essentially, charities want to keep getting government money while acting as mouthpieces for Labour Party policy.

Always loved this Guido quote:

A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend.

Of course, this is the problem when there is such a clear conflict of interest. The Institute of Economic Affairs produced an excellent report on the independence of charities which I heartily recommend.

Today the IEA releases a paper – Sock-Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why – which shows that the situation may be more serious than critics have realised. It argues that state-funding of charities and pressure groups constitutes a form of modern patronage, with groups whose ideology supports that of the political elite being given public money and a seat at the table while the rest of civil society is left out in the cold.

chairman bill wrote:I think you'll find that the claim was that you appear to be a Tory supporter, and you asked for evidence of you supporting things not consistent with liberalism, not with being a LibDem. They are not the same thing.

Strontium Dog wrote:Are you therefore suggesting that the Lib Dems aren't liberals?

chairman bill wrote:Now, I've previously noted that the LibDems have supported the illiberal Immigration Bill, the illiberal Justice & Security Bill (& secret courts), the illiberal destruction of Legal Aid, the illiberal retro-active amendment of Tory 'workfare' legislation, & illiberal gagging clauses on charities & Trades Unions, so I can understand you wanting to shift the goalposts a little, but don't imagine we haven't noticed.

Strontium Dog wrote:

smudge wrote:Ah. More distortion and evasion.

Clearly you are trying to be amusing. Your attempts at humour are not really to my taste - I must admit I kinda thought we were having a serious discussion .

I guess it is rather funny. In a certain sense at least....

You claim I'm a Tory, yet when asked to provide specific evidence of me supporting things that aren't consistent with me being a Lib Dem, you clam up.

The moderators in their infinite wisdom have decided that it's fine to hurl the pejorative "Tory" at me as much as you like, but don't think for one moment that many people here are impressed by your baseless slurs, nor the manner in which you refuse to substantiate them.

Strontium Dog wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Are you deliberately being fucking obtuse? Your conflation of LibDem with the entirety of liberalism & liberal actions, is dishonest, stupid, or both. Your deceitful twisting of arguments, to your own apologetic ends, is well noted.

Are you therefore suggesting that the Lib Dems aren't liberals? It's hard to follow the argument.

I would venture that the Lib Dems are the only major liberal party in the UK.

- The Immigration Bill: I'm unsure as to what you're referring, nor am I familiar with any Lib Dem support for illiberal immigration policy. Perhaps you can clarify? Should any illiberal Immigration Bill exist then I, as a militantly pro-immigration liberal, would certainly oppose it.

- Secret Courts: was explained at the time, by me, that it's not what its critics would have you think

- "Destruction" of Legal Aid: Britain has the highest per capita Legal Aid spend in the world. Perhaps you can explain how spending more on Legal Aid than any other country is tantamount to "destroying" Legal Aid? Perhaps you can explain how attempting to rein in Legal Aid costs is illiberal?

- Retro-active amendment of Tory 'workfare' legislation: While I had plenty to say about workfare, I don't recall actually having a position on retroactive amendments, although I remember a Tory friend of mine (a real Tory, that is) being pleased that the courts struck it down, because his position is that retroactive legislation is always wrong, and who am I to argue with a lawyer. I also seem to remember that less than 50 Labour MPs opposed it? Perhaps most Labour MPs are secretly Tory, then? It's getting hard to keep track.

- Gagging clauses on charities & Trades Unions: Not sure where trade unions come into it, although this is what I posted regarding charities:

Strontium Dog wrote:So essentially, charities want to keep getting government money while acting as mouthpieces for Labour Party policy.

Always loved this Guido quote:

A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend.

Of course, this is the problem when there is such a clear conflict of interest. The Institute of Economic Affairs produced an excellent report on the independence of charities which I heartily recommend.

smudge wrote:
Hilarious! Thanks SD!
Your posts are evidence that you generally support Tory policies and are pretty right wing. This is apparent to anyone who follows this, or other threads, where you pop up regularly. When asked to list examples of posts where you have been critical of government or tory policies you either vanish or have a tantrum. Much to everyone's amusement!
You seem like a Tory to me. I suspect others would agree if they read a handful of your posts. I may be wrong. But I wonder why you find the description so irritating?
You're tendance to disappear when you've been 'found out' or 'corrected' is amusingly obvious to all. To accuse others of doing so is just fucking funny!
It sounds like you've gone crying off to the mods again and been ignored. Why don't you give these people a break SD?

this valiant defender of liberty.

Fallible wrote:

this valiant defender of liberty.

Who?