I have been wondering , since Huhne got so close with his leftish agenda , just how Nick Clegg was going to lead his party. His speech attempted the tricky manoeuvre of trying to appear decisive when he is in no position to be anything of the sort “ Freedom choice ,diversity , he said , these are Liberal words lets take them back “.
Having said that he also said , “ The state must intervene to allocate money on a fair basis in our health and education systems “. this sounds faintly redistributive but chew on it and the texture is blancmange . Lo speaketh he more, in riddles “ We would never advocate change for the sake of it …” but he also says” but neither should we defenders of the status quo .” Does any one , and I mean anyone ,have the slightest idea what this means ?.
He attempts to say he is different to David Cameron..” They claim to care for poor people but their only spending commitment is a tax cut for the richest people in the country” This would be the tax cut so popular that Labour were obliged to rush out a copy and which persuaded the Liberal that they had to stop drifting further left even if no one did take them seriously . He also objects to the Conservative suggestion that the tax system might stop actually discriminating against married couples “ They want to use the tax system to make moral judgments about whether people are married or not “ So he does not support marriage .
Nick Clegg `s suggestion of attenuated academies still run by the local authority but a bit less so is feeble stuff. The educational establishment own the Liberal party and the status quo will move not a millimetre thanks to them .To summarise the thrust is this .They will be tax neutral which means nothing but by Liberal standards is an explosion of sense. They are however different to the Conservative because they care about poor people and don’t like marriage . There was a little window dressing about local involvement but it was really dragging the Party after the Conservatives on “How” with a bit of guff about caring thrown in. I found it a dishonest speech he was trying to suggest that you can have redistribution without coercion and you can’t. he was trying to suggest you can have greater efficiency and total equality of result and you cannot . He was trying to pretend the Liberals do not love bossing us around when they do. It has a deep incoherence and was an arse splitting feat of sitting on the fence
Never forget the objective , which is to cut into the Conservative vote so they can do a deal with Brown for PR and establish a left centre progressive dictatorship. A vote Liberal is not only a vote Brown but a vote for eternal Brown. A Trojan horses go it looked a bit suspicious to let into Troy and we must sound the alarm.
4 comments:
“ Freedom choice ,diversity , he said , these are Liberal words lets take them back “.
Having said that he also said , “ The state must intervene to allocate money on a fair basis in our health and education systems “....“ We would never advocate change for the sake of it …” but he also says” but neither should we defenders of the status quo .” Does any one , and I mean anyone ,have the slightest idea what this means ?.
Not defending the status quo?
That means these alleged anti-war protestors will not just shake hands with those nulab politicians who voted for Blair's invasion of Iraq, they will get into bed with them, humiliate themselves, do S&M for them, suck nulab's nasty bits, indeed do ANYTHING the dominatrix nulab demands.
Not advocate change for the sake of it?
That means that Lib Dems will prostitute their environmentalism to blindly follow nulab down whichever twisting, labyrinthine avenue nulab dictates. If that means contemplating voting totally against their principles for the massively damaging and totally unnecessary expansion of, say, Stansted Airport, the Lib Dems will follow their nulab leader- until a massive public outcry stops them, which is what happened to the nulab admin here.
Liberal Community politics?
It means abandonment of their community politics ideals to satisfy their nulab masters. They will go through the motions of course and hold their bogus consultations...but will ensure that these are so meaningless that nothing can come of them.
One example, the alleged consultation on the massive, flood prone development in Old Harlow: A cardboard box containing brief and misleading leaflets - on a local plan comprised of spin and lies - was shoved behind the counter of OH's little library for less than a week. There were no posters or publicity to tell local people the leaflets were there or even that a 'consultation' taking place. No mention of flood plains, increased flood risks, no vital flood survey either - indeed the local flood plain has been erased from the local plan!
Freedom, choice?
It means Lib Dems will pose holding new campaign posters of a huge pair of tigers' eyes with the legend below 'WE'RE WATCHING YOU!' to let us know that we all belong to nulab now.
No empty threat that either, as shortly afterwards shouting cameras with taped messages of a child's voice designed to humiliate litter droppers and deaf and disabled miscreant- 'Oh, look people, that man with the black tee-shirt and blonde hair has dropped litter - you pick that up, pick it up, go on!' - will appear in our town centres, or zones as they will become known.
However don't run away with the idea that Lib Dems will do all of this with the cynical aim of winning power. That isn't what they want at all. For no sooner do Lib Dems acquire power than they mess their pants, throw it away and run off into alliances with nulab.
Most Lib Dems, you see, have neither the skills nor the confidence to run a local council, let alone a country. The Lib Dems get into bed with nulab for one reason only - they are petrified of power and are desperate to have decisions made for them.
And we know that Brown and nulab will be only too pleased to oblige, don't we?
Auntie Flo'
Interesting Flo, I quite like some Lib Dems but the proble is that ther Party is actually left of Clegg by a long way and so hecannot deal with Cameron whuch would be ok by me .
Tghis leaves New Labour and that menans the protestations are misleading the voter
There was I thinking Old Harlow was like New Hampshire.
You`ve lost me there LBS ? I hope I have not give the wrong impression I know very much ?
Post a Comment