Liberal Democrats

This was not a vote to sell it off or not. This was a vote to accept that the Queen's speech was an accurate representaion of what the current government would do if they were in power . If you don't want it sold off piecemeal, the ones NOT to vote for are obvious. It needs a majority from ALL other parties to change the balance of power, so keeping out a whole party would be counter-productive.

There is a lot of emotional pressurising and tactical smearing going on in advance of the next election. Subtle (and not so subtle) persuasion is a highly sophisticated field, with some powerful players. Be aware of it and don't be influenced by them into passionate decisions that don't achieve the end that you are ultimately hoping for.

Remember these names at the election. They refused to vote to stop our NHS being sold off.

Save our NHS

Tom Pride
@ThomasPride
·
2m
Dear fellow Remainers,
If one reason you're against Brexit is because you don't want to see our NHS sold off to Trump, then you need to think twice before voting
@LibDem
, who have just refused to support a
@LabourParty
motion protecting the NHS from privatisation.
Regards,
Tom

Voting against the amendment would not have made any difference to how the NHS is treated, only in how it appears to some posters and many others as if the LDs would treat it. The LDs could have improved their image by making a big thing of defending the NHS, but it was not under threat here, the voting was on accepting the Queen's speech, not on accepting actual legislation or even policy.

Look a bit closer. They abstained for Pete's sake, they didn't vote against it, in ^favour of selling it off, they chose not to interfere with the Tory statement of what their plans were.

Tory plans will stay much the same with or without that amendment - they are a manifesto, not a solid promise. After an election there may not even be a Tory government to try to make the plans into reality.

This was a vote on accepting the Queen's Speech, which is just a manifesto of what the government of the day intend to do (or claims they intend to do) during the next Parliament. It is not a vote to actually do anything, or to make anything into a law. Nothing has changed about the status of the NHS. The Lib Dems could have gained some useful kudos by being publicly seen to be defending the NHS against a theoretical threat, but perhaps they were saving their ammunition for a vote where it counts?

Tonight’s vote on the NHS finished it for me. I will never ever vote for the LibDems.

I really need to understand better what happened there. But if true, I find this very shocking and disappointing.

2h
Tonight Labour proposed an amendment to protect the NHS from trade deals allowing private companies to put profit before public health. The amendment lost

When the vote was announced someone shouted 'where were the Lib Dems?"

Every Lib Dem MP abstained from protecting our NHS.

twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1187079080430182400?s=20

Urmstongran, you do know a lot about politicians.

Liberal Democrats leader Jo Swinson said: "This is not a done deal, and I won’t stop fighting for our place in the European Union. Liberal Democrat MPs will always fight to keep the best deal we have as members of the European Union.

"Boris Johnson tried to ram his Brexit deal through Parliament tonight, because he knows it’s a bad deal.

"But he was thrown a lifeline by Labour MPs who voted for his deal, despite all the damage it will do to our economy, our NHS and our environment.

"Now parliament has rejected his timetable, it is clear that the prime minister needs to get an extension so that we can have a People’s Vote and offer people the chance to remain in the European Union."

We can stop Brexit and build a brighter future." @joswinson speaking at the People's Vote rally after the Government defeat today.

twitter.com/i/status/1185591460009304066

POGS I totally agree with you and the Lib DEMOCRATS are anything but diplomatic

@bobbybobbyrees
·
17m
Jo Swinson has just stated in her own interview, on Sky News,
Swinson and the LibDems will vote and accept, ANY DEAL, Johnson brings back, no matter, how damaging, as long as, there's a referendum attached!

Reckless, rash and unacceptable!

Fantastic speech by Jo Swinson in the Queen's Speech debate.

She was not called to speak until 5pm and had to address a sparse House of Commons.

The PM and most Tory MPs rudely walked out when Ian Blackford, leader if the SNP was called to speak around 4pm.

Jo paid tribute to the late Paddy Ashdown who led the Liberal Democrats for 11 years. During that time was subjected week after week to this sort of appallingly disrespectful treatment.

The Conservative party are an utter disgrace.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament

I now have 50 years of contributions ,I will apparently get a payment into my account later this month.I will believe it when I see it.Those contributions aren't in my husbands name or because of benefits either .I have worked and paid NI since 1969 .We started our first business when I was 22 ,I always paid by PAYE ,it seemed sensible at the time so we didn't have large tax bills etc .I'm very pleased you appear to have been more news orientated than me ...I'm not stupid I was just run off my feet .If I had known I would have made other arrangements

But it's been 23 years!

Sorry, but I was a full-time working mother with a husband I was on the verge of divorcing. I saw it as my responsibility to find out about my future. I didn't always have time to read newspapers carefully and, of course, we didn't have the internet, but it didn't take much to read the budget headlines.

Do you still have the letter from the DWP? I know that a computer has sometimes spewed absolute nonsensical letters and people often misread them. By the time I reach 66, I will have 48 years of full NI contributions in my own name (not in my husband's name or because I was receiving benefits), but I still won't be eligible for a full state pension. I happen to think it's very unfair, but I can't claim that I haven't known about it.

WASPI has been fighting the wrong fight for women (and men) now in their early sixties who desperately need money.

In 1995 I had just lost my dad,had my chronically sick mother to care for ,a 6 year old and a teenager and TWO businesses and ahome to run.Quite frankly I didn't have time or energy to see the news or read a paper a That situation continued until my mum died 14 years ago by which time I had added care for a grandchild to my mix because of my daughters PND.I'm sure I'm not the only WASPI woman who was under pressure.Not helped by the fact that the one and only letter I had from the DWP told me my contributions were ontrack for a full pension at 60!! I'm not asking for your or anyone elses sympathy growstuff but realising that some of us had very stressful ,difficult lives might be a decent thing to do

A good, reasoned post growstuff - thank you back.

Thank you for replying. I must admit they contradict some of what I found, so I'll maybe dig a little further to find out the context.

I'm afraid the WASPI campaign gets up my nose because the people in charge of it wouldn't accept a means-tested compromise. They're all professional, well paid women themselves and don't actually need the extra money and gave up the chance to campaign for those who really need it. (But that's another issue)

I don't have any sympathy for the women who didn't know the SPA had been increased in 1995. If they care so little to find out about something which affects them personally, I really wonder how much they are aware of changes to benefits, etc which don't affect them. The 2011 changes were different. Labour had introduced the idea of an extension in 2007(?) and the coalition brought the extension forward. I must admit I don't remember it's being Clegg's idea, although I do remember him being involved in the delay to the implementation, when it was realised how unfair it would be to a certain small group of men and women.

My big bugbear is that the public generally couldn't have cared less and didn't campaign to overturn all the other changes to the benefit system (such as the minimum number of worked hours needed for Universal Credit), which could have mitigated the hardship for those most affected. The WASPI organisers didn't care because they weren't in the group which needed most help. They were too concerned about trying to get their £thousands lump sum.

BTW I'm not defending Clegg. I was appalled by the LDs in coalition and for the first (and until now only) time in my life voted Labour in 2015. I just don't like people being accused of things, unless I know the background. There's far too much of it in politics.

Urmstongran
Back of the net.?????

It was Cleggie. Osbourne was DELIGHTED with Clegg’s proposal of ‘bringing it forward’. Was heard to say it was ‘a licence to print money’.

Bastards.

24 June 2010:
“The government is to outline proposals that could push the age people can claim state pensions to as high as 70.

The coalition will also say they want to legislate soon for the state pension age for men to be raised to 66, but it would not rise before 2016.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg defended the plans and said the government was "reinvigorating what retirement means".

In The Guardian Dec 2013>
“Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, defended plans to extend the retirement age, saying the reforms would keep "the principle that a third of your adult life is in retirement that has been the rule of thumb for a long time".

I agree growstuff they went for the wrong angle. Can’t be bothered to go over it all again about Clegg. (Boring)

Suffice to say MaizieD AGREED with me at the time, months ago! Validation enough.
?

I hear what you say Varian but do not agree that they behave in the way you describe. It would have made my life a lot easier when it came to voting if they had. I think, at least for the moment, neither of us will be persuaded.