Add a comment February 29th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The Liberal Democrats are said to be “
hopeful” of achieving a vote in the House of Commons on their
absurd idea of holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU -
rather than on the Lisbon Treaty.
Yeah, right. In the same way that I’m hopeful that tomorrow I’ll win millions on the lottery without buying a ticket.
They walked out of Chamber just a couple of days over the Speaker’s refusal to grant them a referendum. Unfortunately they haven’t stayed out since. But they’re never going to get anywhere near having a referendum on EU membership.
Add a comment February 27th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Liberal Democrat MPs walk out of the House of Commons…
…in a huff as part of a pre-arranged stunt after their ridiculous call for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU - rather than over the current Constitution “Treaty” being debated - was denied by the Speaker.
Are they now going to stay out of the Commons?
Please, please do.
At least for the rest of this debate.
Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?
It’s not as if they add anything to the discussion, anyway!
3 Comments February 26th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Nick Clegg wants a vote on EU membership but not on the EU Constitution ‘Lisbon Treaty’.
How does this make any sense?
If you consider that the British people should have vote over whether or not they stay within the European Union, surely you also think that they should have a say over the direction in which it develops? You can’t seriously believe that the people should have a choice over membership but not the direction in which that organisation develops.
If a referendum is held on the Treaty and the British people vote “yes”, then it is obvious that they want to stay within the EU. If they vote “no”, then the issue of EU membership itself becomes an issue.
I agree completely with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, over this when he says:
Whilst in the long term I agree that this is the referendum we want, calling for it at this time is only to cover up their weasel-like position over a referendum.
Instead of hiding behind this call, they [the Lib Dems] should be honouring the promise they made to their voters that they would support a referendum on this treaty.
The Lib Dem leadership should either back a referendum on the Treaty or finally accept that they don’t want the British people to vote on the EU at all.
The Lib Dem membership seem to want to back a referendum on the Treaty, so why don’t the leadership? Is it because they’re chicken, and want to be able to sit on the fence? Yes, of course it is.
2 Comments February 11th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Two words: No thanks.
A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government would not work. Just Like a Labour-Lib Dem coalition wouldn’t. Or Labour-Conservative coalition. Coalitions, just in general, simply don’t work. Not in our political system.
Name any coalition in Britain that has not existed during a world war. Stuck? That would be because there hasn’t been any. There have been minority governments, but never any coalition government. And for good reason.
The first-past-the-post electoral system encourages oppositional politics. It certainly doesn’t encourage coalition government. The reason for this is the coalitions require a great amount of compromise and consensus – something not encouraged in the tribal world of British politics.
Whilst it is very good that the Lib Dems are making these sort of noises, the sort of thing they will want is to going to be things that a Conservative government could, or would, give. PR for Commons elections, for example, would be a very bad idea – although a cause close to the heart of many Lib Dems. It would be far better for the Conservatives to work with the Lib Dems on certain issues. But a formal government coalition? No thanks.
4 Comments January 31st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland has been accused of “unparliamentary language” after this little outburst in the Commons [via Tory Radio]:
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: We are all fed up with it. I return to the substantive issues.
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
On regulation costs, I shall consider the question of the consultation that the Healthcare Commission is undertaking—
Greg Mulholland: He’s an a*******.
Although Labour Minister Ivan Lewis may well be almost certainly is an “a*******” - I can’t say for sure because I know bugger all about him, but the fact that he is a Labour Minister means that more than likely he is - I’m going to call Greg Mulholland an a******* as well.
For suggesting this:
Pubs, bars and restaurants should be forced to start selling smaller glasses of wine again, an MP says.
Liberal Democrat Greg Mulholland is to propose a bill in the House of Commons calling for the reinstatement of traditional 125ml measures.
The MP for Leeds North West argues that larger glasses are making customers “less aware of how many units of alcohol they are drinking”. (BBC)
Erm, no it doesn’t - well unless they’re a retard, of course. Anyone with even half a brain can tell how large the glass of wine they have is, either on (a) it’s size; (b) the amount of liquid in it; or (c) the length of time it is taking you to drink it. Or, of course, they could always ask how big it.
The reason that “[m]any licensed premises only sell wine in 175ml and 250ml measures” is because those are the sizes that people want. Why have pubs and bars stop selling 125ml glases of wine? Because people don’t want 125ml glasses of wine.
The a******* - Greg Mulholland, that is - should stop trying to interfere with what individuals and private business do [of course, so should the other a*******, Ivan Lewis]. People do know how much they are drinking, at least pretty much. But it certainly isn’t up to anyone, let alone an a****** of an MP like Mulholland to force pubs, bars and restaurants to serve 125ml glasses of wine. “Liberal” Democrats my a***. But then again, they’re hardly “Democratic” either…
Add a comment January 22nd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Nick Clegg has broken his party’s 2005 manifesto commitment to supporting a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty. He is, however, following on from Ming Campbell, who also opposed letting the people of Britain vote on the one piece of legislation which will dictate how this country works for the foreseeable future. Clegg said:
We would support the government by not voting for a referendum.
The principle at stake here is: are we going to carry on doing what the Conservatives are doing? Playing games with the treaty itself, which let’s remember is in effect a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place? Do you do that? I do not believe that is right, which is why we will not be voting for a referendum on the treaty.
But he is wrong - in every way. It is not “playing games with the treaty itself” or specifically ‘party politics’ to suggest that the very people who are supposed to give parliament it’s power should be allowed to vote on it, considering that all the main parties were elected with promises of a referendum on this issue in their manifestos. Since two of those parties have broken their pledges, they really don’t have that democratic right any more to decide this issue at the very least.
The “Lisbon Treaty” as it is now called is not “a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place” but far more than a codification of existing treaties - and even that would be subject to a referendum, just like any codification of the British constitution would have to be - since it provides the very foundations of the removal of sovereign power [even if, as some claim, that has already begun] in the creation of an EU President and Foreign Minister.
Quite simply, Clegg’s refusal to push for a referendum on this puts the lie to the very name of his party - the Liberal Democrats. Maybe that’s why there are rumours of him wanting to change to to the “Liberal Party” instead?
The idea of a referendum is not about getting the treaty voted down, but about democratic legitimacy. If a popular vote has been held, no-one who opposed the treaty can possibly argue against it being ratified and becoming law. If we the people vote for the treaty then those of us who oppose it would accept it. But if it is passed through a Parliament which promised to hold a referendum on this when it was voted in refuses to meet it’s promises, then the opposite will happen.
Such large changes as proposed by the “Lisbon Treaty” require a referendum - or at least it should in the eyes of any true believer democrat.
UPDATE: At least all Lib Dems aren’t as anti-democratic as their leaders [via DK].
UPDATE 2: Norfolk Blogger yet again shows why his blog is one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother to read.
3 Comments January 10th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The calamitously close result of the Lib Dem leadership battle didn’t take long to be raised up as a comment against one of Clegg’s proposals - by a Lib Dem, no less:
What annoys me is that we’re back to activist-bashing again, and less than a month into Clegg’s leadership. It’s an old leadership tactic: make yourself look bold and radical by portraying your own party as awkward and out of touch. The worst thing is, it is with reference to a policy that has already been passed by party conference.
Do I have to remind Team Clegg of these results? Clearly I do:
- Nick Clegg: 20,988
- Chris Huhne: 20,477
Nick Clegg had a chance to spell out his vision for public service reform during his leadership election campaign; he bottled it. By all accounts he should have won an easy victory; he failed. If he wants to make the case now, that’s fine, but he doesn’t have a mandate and the price he has to pay for only just failing to pluck disaster from the jaws of victory is that he has to treat the intelligence of the party membership with a modicum of respect. Spinning before making a major policy speech that we aren’t going to like what he’s going to say is pathetic, counter-productive and yaaaawn! so like his predecessors.
If Clegg’s 511 vote majority can already - remember he was only elected less than a month ago! - be able to be described in terms of him not having a mandate, there may well be internal party/activist troubles coming along for Clegg far sooner than anyone could have realised.
1 Comment January 9th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Do they, really?
The penultimate sentence in a post on the new Times blog, Red Box, on Nick Clegg’s first PMQs as Lib Dem leader, reads:
Lib Dem strategists said afterwards his choice showed that Clegg not Cameron had focused on an issue which they really mattered to voters
Iain Dale picks up on this and asks:
Er, Cameron asked about ID Cards. Seeing as ID cards has been one of Clegg’s main campaigns, shurely shome mishtake… Perhaps our LibDem friends might like to clarify matters.
Well, I’m not a Lib Dem, but I think I can answer it anyway. Ignoring the fact that this is a media report of an unattributed and non-quoted remark.
Whilst ID cards are undoubtedly an issue - one which Nick Clegg has spoken on quite a bit and even declared that he would take part in a campaign of civil disobedience against them and even go to court. What is being said here by these “Lib Dem strategists” is more that ID cards are not the most pressing issue that most people could come up with.
Yes, it is a very important issue, but for the large majority of non-political active people, it really isn’t there number 1 priority right now. When it comes closer to fruition, then yes it will be an truly important issue for all freedom-loving people in Britain, but right now, more people are likely to be interested in their winter fuel bills.
When it comes down to it, ID cards won’t be the most important issue for the majority of people until the axe is hanging right over their heads. However it is, and will remain, an important one - but just number 1. A simple fact of human nature.
2 Comments January 7th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
A new kind of party politics?
We are on the way to reinventing politics.
The days of two-party politics are numbered…
I have set a very clear long-term objective which is that I want to see us over the next two elections break the two-party system for good, establish three-party politics for good.
- Nick Clegg
Yeah, right. That just ain’t gonna happen.
Add a comment January 3rd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Labour have had a few. The Conservatives too. But now it’s the Lib Dems turn to have another* donation ’scandal’.
The Lib Dems always claim to be less corrupt than anyone else, yet this just proves what is more likely is that because no-one really cares, they just get caught less. And now for them to get a little of their own medicine, with calls for an inquiry.
They are at least as bad as everyone else.
British politics may not be whiter than white, but it is at least better than most others. Of course we want - and should want - it to be whiter than white, but that will only be achieved through a requirement for as good as complete transparency over party funding and diligent journalists keeping a tab on politicians of all parties.
What will be interesting about this is how new leader Nick Clegg reacts to and deals with it.
* Remember Michael Brown’s £2.4m, anyone?
