Pressure mounts on "Saint" Vince Cable

A._Badger

It's hard to see why the Treasury would bother talking with Cable.

After all, if his party wins the next election, any economic policy of note would be dictated by Brussels (or, more accurately, Frankfurt), not Westminster.

Not that the same isn't almost as true of the Tories and Labour.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

oh i'm very sure that you do get it and that's why you're going to duck out on this one because your subtle little strategy has been exposed... what a surprise :eek:

Quite seriously, I don't get it. I was wondering whether it really is the case that I am not allowed to express an opinion without it being declared as a campaigning activity, but surely that would be nonsense; and in any event it's not yet the "short campaign" where most of the controls kick in.There is some parallel in local planning issues where those with awareness of the facts typically aren't allowed to make judgements on them - it's just one of the things I'm hoping we will see the end of.

And well done, of course I had to rise to the bait and not duck out.:o

nickmason

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Originally Posted by nickmason

I wasn't mocking - I don't really do that, it seems a bit distasteful.

its refreshing that you use your own name, and are prepared to argue Tory policies (which your leadership don't seem to bother), but save us the sanctimony.

Fair point. Apologies.

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

Nico wasn't engaging, he was mocking a politician in another political party...

he wouldn't dare do that about David Cameron or anyone else in his own party that he is working for to win an imminent election.

Chucky, usually you talk alot of sense (even if I disagree with you which I frequently do) but on this I think you are wrong.

That Nickmason is a Tory and posts as one is not a surprise and does not affect what he is saying. The Sopel interview did put pressure on Vince in a way the Chancellor debate did not.

There are a great many partisan posters here, many posting for Labour, none of whom are subjected to the same demands as to the extent of their affiliation. Indeed many of the posts from the likes of ninky, Ben500 and Rochdale are so similar to posts on other forums in tone and content which is why I think of them as bunkerbots. I recall no ire for them referring to George Osborne as Gideon for instance.

The important thing is the way the view is presented and how it is debated. There is a difference to the stock "the Tories are all Toffs and out for themselves"/"labour have destroyed our economy" nonsense and what Nick has posted here.

I think Nick made a good point about Vince Cable, Saint Vince, Vince Fable, or whatever he is being called on the forums. The Lib Dems, and I speak as one, need to have our policies held up to scrutiny. It reinforces us as a serious party.

I do think Vince had a bit of a free ride on the economy and has flip-flopped his position a few times (rather like the "statesmanlike" Ming Campbell who was hopeless as leader) and I thought Sopel did well to nail him on this. Vince is also presented as being right about the crisis and he was, however some were warning as far back as 1997, Peter Lilley for instance.

It was a good interview for Sopel and was good for the party especially if we back away from this tacit support of Labour which the poster was aiming at and start to seriously oppose both Labour and the Tories. I expect that Clegg will do well on Thursday too.

ninky_2

nickmason wrote: »

voluntary - I'm Deputy Chairman of the local Association.
I'm also a District Councillor in North Dorset, elected as a Conservative.

Does that matter?

so a paid up member then? that does explain your undying commitment.

Spartacus_Mills

ninky wrote: »

so a paid up member then? that does explain your undying commitment.

So what is your excuse with your slavish commitment to all things Labour, ninky ?

nickmason

ninky wrote: »

so a paid up member then? that does explain your undying commitment.

This is what's called the error of causality. Could it instead be because I am committed to Tory values that I'm "paid up"? After all, being a paid up member costs me £25 pa - not an enormous amount of money given the seriousness of the problems we face (in my eyes, anyhow). Would you, out of curiousity, like to declare any financial relationship you have with a political party? It's probably not worth it, to be honest, as I don't think you're believed on here very much anyhow.

nickmason

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Chucky, usually you talk alot of sense (even if I disagree with you which I frequently do) but on this I think you are wrong.

That Nickmason is a Tory and posts as one is not a surprise and does not affect what he is saying. The Sopel interview did put pressure on Vince in a way the Chancellor debate did not.

There are a great many partisan posters here, many posting for Labour, none of whom are subjected to the same demands as to the extent of their affiliation. Indeed many of the posts from the likes of ninky, Ben500 and Rochdale are so similar to posts on other forums in tone and content which is why I think of them as bunkerbots. I recall no ire for them referring to George Osborne as Gideon for instance.

The important thing is the way the view is presented and how it is debated. There is a difference to the stock "the Tories are all Toffs and out for themselves"/"labour have destroyed our economy" nonsense and what Nick has posted here.

I think Nick made a good point about Vince Cable, Saint Vince, Vince Fable, or whatever he is being called on the forums. The Lib Dems, and I speak as one, need to have our policies held up to scrutiny. It reinforces us as a serious party.

I do think Vince had a bit of a free ride on the economy and has flip-flopped his position a few times (rather like the "statesmanlike" Ming Campbell who was hopeless as leader) and I thought Sopel did well to nail him on this. Vince is also presented as being right about the crisis and he was, however some were warning as far back as 1997, Peter Lilley for instance.

It was a good interview for Sopel and was good for the party especially if we back away from this tacit support of Labour which the poster was aiming at and start to seriously oppose both Labour and the Tories. I expect that Clegg will do well on Thursday too.

Thanks Spartacus - an excellent post.

Spartacus_Mills

nickmason wrote: »

Thanks Spartacus - an excellent post.

Thanks Nick.

How is the campaign going in North Dorset ?

We had hopes of nicking this from the Tories in 2005 but my feeling is our time has gone and our resources are better focussed elsewhere in the South West.

I also gather Robert Waller is well regarded locally.

rl290

A._Badger wrote: »

It's hard to see why the Treasury would bother talking with Cable.

After all, if his party wins the next election, any economic policy of note would be dictated by Brussels (or, more accurately, Frankfurt), not Westminster.

Not that the same isn't almost as true of the Tories and Labour.

Ummm, what?
First of all, the Treasury met Vince because there is serious suggestion that, in a hung parliament, he would become a coalition Chancellor. There is no suggestion, whatsoever, that the Lib Dems will win the coming election!

Second, I don't understand your point about economic policies being dictated by Brussels. You think they tell us how much to spend on health, education and public services? You think they tell us how to go about cutting bureaucracy and reforming civil service pensions?? Are you just come kind of UKIP troll??? The Chancellor has an enormous amount of power, and it's essential that we get the right man for the job.

R