Who are these clowns who work for The Times

The issue of the £2.4 million is being raised again by The Times, but yet again, the clowns who call themselves jounralists are putting 2 and 2 together and making 29 !

Keeping clear of the issue of should the money be repaid or not, which has been discussed previously, it is The Times obsession with claiming the Lib Dem party members are liable for the debt that devalues their article.

They keep repeating the phrase "party members will be liable" or "each party member would share the debt". The problem for the journalists, and something they cannot explain is why this is the case ?

Surely, just like the Tory Party or Labour Party (who both have massive debts which are not paid by their members) the Lib Dems could arrange temporary loans from individuals or financial institutions ? Just because the Lib Dems have made no provision at present, it does not mean they can't !

The truth of the matter is, I would imagine, that the two Times journalists are Lib Dem haters who want to try and create panic amongst the Liberal Democrat membership so they can write another story about falling membership numbers in the party.

If they have ANY evidence why the Lib Dem members would be liable for the £2.4million when Labour and Conservative members are not liable for their own party's debt, let them print it. otherwise, stick to the facts.


Paul Griffiths said...

Er, IIRC, we are responsible for the party's debts. I think that's how the party was set up. I'd be happy to be corrected, though.

Liberal Neil said...

Yes - but only if the party folds, which it's not going to.

The Lib Dems can carry debt just like the other two parties with no call on existing members.

Nich is right - The Times is making a redcarmountain out of this.

Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

So now the line has moved on. When Iain and I started banging on about this it was "no chance", "good faith" blah blah.

Now it is "we can afford it".

Anonymous said...

The LibDem head-in-the-sand tactic clearly hasn't worked then...

Norfolk Blogger said...

Guido, I was not talking about the principle of whether the money had to be paid back or not. There is enough chatter about this on enough political blogs, and I wanted to leave that issue aside, not because it isn't worth discussing or because I am sticking my head in the sand, but because there has been SO MUCH chatter about it, we are simply going round in circles.

I am pleased you are looking at my blog. I link to yours, will you link to me in return ?