Lib Dems made many vows during their conference. This shows how trustworthy they’ll be
This bird is dead – as dead as any reputation for honesty the Liberal Democrats may have once had.
This investigation by Koser Saeed of Spotlight Newspaper UK on Facebook speaks for itself.
But just in case you need the result of the evidence spelt out for you: The Liberal Democrats spent months promising to act on Female Genital Mutilation, then voted against a law to do just that.
You can be sure they’ll treat their resolutions at this year’s party conference with the same cavalier insincerity.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I see what’s happened here. They, rather obviously, voted down this piece of legislation. Reading between the lines they voted against it because (going by the votes) it was a LABOUR amendment. And they won’t vote for something THEY want if it wasn’t THEIR idea, will they?
This is not uncommon. EXACTLY the same thing happened in Holyrood, and repeatedly, for many years (still happening) Policies which agree with their own being voted down because it’s come from ‘them’ and not ‘us’ Although in Holyrood this behaviour was principally exhibited by the Labour Party when confronted with policies they could have, should have and otherwise WOULD have supported EXCEPT, of course, when they came from the SNP. I’d heard it called ‘The Bain Principle) (named for a Labour politician from Glasgow whose brainchild it was) A principle of total non cooperation no matter the cost. The cost, of course, was high. It took Labour from being the front party in Scotland to being fourth place (behind the LibDems ironically) The politicians involved DID realise that Holyrood proceedings were televised, but probably not that people actually WATCHED them.
These behaviours are exactly what cause people to become disengaged and become sick of politicians as a group. Many are keen to call it ‘The Art of the Possible’ whilst still preventing legislation that could, especially in this case, actually save lives.
I don’t doubt other parties are guilty too but I do know that the public are sick of it and won’t continue to put up with it. In the Scottish Parliament (with a system created SPECIFICALLY to ensure no one party could have a majority and therefore cooperation was an absolute necessity) this behaviour became glaringly obvious very quickly and the culprits were punished at the next election.
With FPTP it is less obvious and scurrilous behaviour is simply a way of life for all of them. If only people WATCHED the parliament on TV instead of the ‘much edited highlights’ we see on TV. We have all the information at our fingertips and we choose to look away, it’s a shame…
The Illiberal Hypocrites will soon realise just how popular they are, when their blue and red M.P.s are rejected by the electorate. So liberal are they that they all stood in by-elections, to be certain that their constituents still supported them, despite changing their political colour and abandoning the manifestos on which they were elected. A bit like their stance on leaving the European Union; we’ll keep campaigning for a “People’s Vote,” – like it was trees that voted in the Referendum – but if we’re elected to government, we’ll treat you the same way and just ditch the whole thing, rendering your votes of 2016 utterly meaningless; that’s how much we value democracy.
The arrogance of Jo Swinson, like so many politicians, these days, was stark, when she was asked, at Conference, about the 52% majority of the electorate who voted to leave the E.U. She claimed to know why they voted and thus chose to ignore them. She knows best. That seems to be the mantra of so many M.P.s and I’m sick to my eye teeth of it. Politicians have not been listening and they’re not listening, still. Edmund Burke said, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” He was talking about local issues affecting the national conversation. This was a national question and the nation answered yet M.P.s, like Jo Swinson, are treating those of the electorate who voted not as she wished, like fools, whose opinion is not worthy of consideration except in what she and those like her ascribe to it. If we do not leave the European Union, democracy will not have been served and it will cease to be served, because the majority of the electorate who voted will be shown that their votes are meaningless, worthless and therefore will most likely never vote again (allegedly, many were first time voters, although not first time eligible) and to disenfranchise so many is BAD for democracy.
If people like Jo Swinson had accepted the result, truly, we would have left by now and she has the gaul to say that the only way out of the mess, which she and others like her, created, is to call the thing to a halt. Is she mad? How does she believe that will solve anything? Nobody talks about what staying will mean, for it is not what many believe it to be; there is no status quo. Will the E.U. offer us David Cameron’s deal? Does anybody know what staying would actually mean, for nobody has talked about it, publicly, ever? The damage to our fragile trust in politicians would be long lasting.
David Cameron may have run a shoddy Campaign but he did impress upon us the importance of our decision, that it was a one-time thing and that there could be no going back, if we make what we think is the wrong decision; my analogy was “you can’t jump back into the plane,” so why have people been trying to do that, ever since? Why are we still running the Campaign long after the result? The question has been asked and answered yet still, Jo Swinson and those like her, refuse to accept the mandate given by people and claim to know what they really want, which is what they, themselves want. Contemptuous individuals.