Cito di Pense wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Sorry.

?????

You been drinking again ?

This kind of crap is a blight on intelligent discourse. Furthermore it used to be a sanctionable violation of our FUA, mainly due to context. Now people tend not to give a fuck, notably you.

Lib Dems “only party in UK to oppose Brexit” says political correspondent in BBC R4 6m news bulletin. What???????

Gina Miller tells #libdemconf "I am not your leader in waiting"

Gina Miller is the big draw at Lib Dem conference today. She is giving a speech on why she doesn't want to be a Lib Dem. More on this exciting story, as we get it.

ronmcd wrote:Ah yes, "The Resistance". From privatising the Post Office and introducing the Bedroom Tax, to The Resistance under Captain Mainwaring, leading the fight against the dastardly forces of ... their own coalition partners

But it's true the media have bought the lie.

Lib Dems “only party in UK to oppose Brexit” says political correspondent in BBC R4 6m news bulletin. What???????

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/statu ... 4704945153

As members of the government, the Liberal Democrats voted for the Welfare Reform Act 2012. At their 2013 Spring Conference, members voted to review the policy that looks at the "money saved, costs incurred and the effect on vulnerable tenants".[12] In March 2014 Inside Housing reported that the Liberal Democrats plan to scrap the "bedroom tax" for those who refuse a suitable and reasonable offer of accommodation.[13] This represents a change in position as the party voted against a similar amendment to the 2012 Welfare Reform Act. Liberal Democrat Party Leader Tim Farron (at that time President of the party) has also criticised the distorting effect that the under occupancy changes have on the market.[14] Following their change in policy, the Liberal Democrats voted with Labour on 5 September 2014, for Lib Dem MP Andrew George's private members bill to restrict the number of cases in which the penalty could be levied.[15]

In their 2017 General Election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats declared their intention to scrap the bedroom tax.

Following the 2010 general election, the new Business Secretary in the coalition government, Vince Cable, asked Richard Hooper CBE to expand on his report, to account for EU Directive 2008/6/EC which called for the postal sector to be fully open to competition by 31 December 2012.[53][54][55] Based on the Hooper Review Update the government passed the Postal Services Act 2011. The Act allowed for up to 90% of Royal Mail to be privatised, with at least 10% of shares to be held by Royal Mail employees.[56]

As part of the 2011 Act, Postcomm was merged into the communications regulator Ofcom on 1 October 2011, with Ofcom introducing a new simplified set of regulations for postal services on 27 March 2012.[57] On 31 March 2012, the Government took over the historic assets and liabilities of the Royal Mail pension scheme, relieving Royal Mail of its huge pensions deficit. On 1 April 2012, Post Office Ltd became independent of Royal Mail Group and was reorganised to become a subsidiary of Royal Mail Holdings,[58] with a separate management and board of directors.[59] A 10-year inter-business agreement was signed between the two companies to allow Post Offices to continue issuing stamps and handling letters and parcels for Royal Mail.[60] The Act also contained the option for Post Office Ltd to become a mutual organisation in the future.[4]

In July 2013, business secretary Vince Cable announced Royal Mail was to be floated on the London Stock Exchange and confirmed that postal staff would be entitled to free shares. Cable explained his position before the House of Commons:

The government's decision on the sale is practical, it is logical, it is a commercial decision designed to put Royal Mail's future on a long-term sustainable business. It is consistent with developments elsewhere in Europe where privatised operators in Austria, Germany and Belgium produce profit margins far higher than the Royal Mail but have continued to provide high-quality and expanding services.[61]

CarlPierce wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Ah yes, "The Resistance". From privatising the Post Office and introducing the Bedroom Tax, to The Resistance under Captain Mainwaring, leading the fight against the dastardly forces of ... their own coalition partners

But it's true the media have bought the lie.

Lib Dems “only party in UK to oppose Brexit” says political correspondent in BBC R4 6m news bulletin. What???????

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/statu ... 4704945153

More of your twisted fake news. Those policies were all tory. If we hadnt had a coalition there would have been a pure Tory regime and those and much more would have happened i was there and heard the discussions. I'm getting tired of your nonsense you stand for nothing but mockery of what were actually very difficult decisions at the time.

It is with grave regret I must inform you of a phrase Sir Vince Cable will use in his big conference speech tomorrow.

He will refer to Brexit as an “erotic spasm”.

This will surely go down as one of the weirdest things ever said by the leader of a major UK political party.

Major UK political party?

Except when the words “erotic spasm” appeared on the autocue, he just couldn’t bring himself to say them. What came out was an entirely different, involuntary, emission. “Exotic spresm,” he garbled, somehow managing the almost impossible feat of sounding both more and less embarrassing than he had originally intended. The audience didn’t know whether to laugh or try to pretend that it had never happened.

The exotic spresm rather did for the rest of the speech. Which was a problem as there were still 35 minutes to go.

OlivierK wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Ah yes, "The Resistance". From privatising the Post Office and introducing the Bedroom Tax, to The Resistance under Captain Mainwaring, leading the fight against the dastardly forces of ... their own coalition partners

But it's true the media have bought the lie.

Lib Dems “only party in UK to oppose Brexit” says political correspondent in BBC R4 6m news bulletin. What???????

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/statu ... 4704945153

More of your twisted fake news. Those policies were all tory. If we hadnt had a coalition there would have been a pure Tory regime and those and much more would have happened i was there and heard the discussions. I'm getting tired of your nonsense you stand for nothing but mockery of what were actually very difficult decisions at the time.

Carl, I know you're sensitive to painting the LibDem's as Tory enablers while in coalition with the Tories, but perhaps, if you're feeling kind, you could indulge me and explain how a "pure Tory" MINORITY government would have been able to push through policies that were unpalatable to all opposition parties including the LibDems?

Minority governments are, by necessity, creatures of compromise. Certainly the recent minority governments we've had in Australia have been pulled to the centre by their minority status, and have been forced to compromise the more extreme parts of their agendas to a far greater degree than the UK Tories in coalition, bolstered by LibDem votes under a coalition agreement, compromised their agenda.

As Gordon Brown gathered with his praetorian guard of New Labour inside No 10 this afternoon, there was an intense frustration – with the Liberal Democrats, with sections of his own party and, lastly, with the Queen. Brown knew his premiership was at an end, and had wanted for some hours to go to Buckingham Palace to see her to tender his resignation.

But the palace said No. Protocol suggested that he must wait for the call from Nick Clegg, telling him he had struck a deal with the Conservative party.

One minister inside the bunker in the final hours said: "I'm annoyed, relieved and I want to clear off. We are just waiting for Nick Clegg to stop dicking around."

The remarks were a reflection of the bitter recriminations that broke out as Labour negotiators with the Lib Dems accused Clegg's team of proposing ludicrous spending pledges, and Clegg himself of obstructing talks.

They claimed that an effort to open direct discussions this morning between the more sympathetic Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, and Alistair Darling, the Labour chancellor for three years, had been vetoed by the Lib Dem leader.

Some Labour negotiators involved in two rounds of talks on Monday afternoon and this morning said they had not thought that any insurmountable policy difference was going to block agreement between the two sides.

Instead, they believe the growing opposition inside the Labour party, including from vocal former ministers and some MPs angry at what they regarded as the lack of consultation, confirmed Clegg in his view that a Lib Dem-Labour coalition would be not just be illegitimate, but instable.

In what may turn into a vicious political battle between Labour and Lib Dems in the weeks ahead, some were pinning the blame entirely on Clegg, calling him "a Tory in all but name".

One Labour negotiator hotly denied that there had been divisions within the Labour negotiating team, or that they had displayed bad body language.

Ed Balls said the Liberal Democrats had switched position on whether an emergency budget should be introduced this year. "We tried to negotiate in good faith. David Laws said he wanted to go with deficit reduction and cuts in spending this year, and that is not something we could agree with.

"If we had gone to the cabinet and to the parliamentary party and said cut spending now – which is contrary to our manifesto – they would have said no".

Cable denied this account.

But tonight that was certainly the Labour view of why a day that had started with such high hopes of a Lib Dem-Labour coalition had ended with David Cameron in Downing Street.

According to Labour, there were other key sticking points, and demands from the Liberal Democrats that simply could not be met.

The Lib Dems had apparently asked for an extra £2.5bn to spend on the school pupil premium to be spent on poorer children. Labour argued that it was not against the idea, but asked how it could be funded.

There were also divisions over electoral reform.

On Monday, the Lib Dems had demanded that the alternative vote system for electing MPs be passed by parliament – and that if an election occurred before a referendum, the election would be held under AV.

They also wanted a fully proportional system to be offered in a referendum. Labour flatly refused to introduce AV without a referendum, saying it would be illegitimate.

On the environment, the Lib Dems wanted no new nuclear power stations and to increase the proportion of energy from renewables from 15% to 40% by 2020. Labour also eventually agreed to drop the third runway at Heathrow being agreed in the next parliament and any hint of compulsory identity cards.

Labour said it was even willing to look at Cable's pet idea of taking people earning less than £10,000 out of tax altogether, but said a way had to be found to fund a tax switch that might cost £17bn and anyway not help the poorest the most.

Exasperated by the demands, Labour claimed that the total spending pledges being sought by the Liberal Democrats amounted to £20bn.

A Labour negotiator said: "The body language and mood was fine. The idea being put about by the Liberal Democrats that Ed Balls was sneering or not serious is simply not true.

"I am not sure there was any single policy show-stopper, but they just wanted to go in with the Conservatives in the end. I think they are too relaxed about the consequences of that alliance for them. I would not like to be a Liberal Democrat activist on the doorstep explaining what his leadership has done."

Called Lib Dem HQ re Constitution Reform Group re Act of Union Bill they appear to be sponsoring in House of Lords by Lord Lisvane tomorrow 9th October. Website says it “stops threat of separation from Scotland.” Press person will call back.

Act of Union Bill to be introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Lisvane on 9th October 2018

ronmcd wrote:Hey Carl, any idea what this bill is that your party appears to be sponsoring in the HoL tomorrow?

Called Lib Dem HQ re Constitution Reform Group re Act of Union Bill they appear to be sponsoring in House of Lords by Lord Lisvane tomorrow 9th October. Website says it “stops threat of separation from Scotland.” Press person will call back.

https://twitter.com/LesleyRiddoch/statu ... 6746171392

Act of Union Bill to be introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Lisvane on 9th October 2018

http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.u ... ober-2018/

Thommo wrote:Seems to be a new iteration of:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/146 ... ependence/

You may be interested in this pdf:
http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.u ... -bill-pdf/

Thommo wrote:Seems to be a new iteration of:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/146 ... ependence/

You may be interested in this pdf:
http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.u ... -bill-pdf/

OlivierK wrote:

Thommo wrote:Seems to be a new iteration of:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/146 ... ependence/

You may be interested in this pdf:
http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.u ... -bill-pdf/

It's an interesting, but sort of half-assed take on matters.

For starters, it offers two options for England:

(1) an English parliament, or (2) regional devolution and city deals within England while maintaining EVEL (English Votes for English Laws within a UK parliament) in a UK Parliament that doubles as the English parliament.

It's not immediately clear why regional devolution within England should be made dependent on the lack of an English parliament, or why intra-England devolution would not suffer the same problems that the bill attempts to address at a country level.

Federalism doesn't seem well suited to four nations where one has 84% of the population. A federation of the individual English regions, with Scotland, Wales, and NI would seem to have less of the issues of a lopsided four nation federation.