They’re not doing awfully well at changing my mind that the whole party is nowt but a bunch of duplicitous snakes, and to my shame I used to be a paid up member too.

How hypocritical, when have the libdems as part of the coalition ever objected to any cuts. Libraries are essential for poorer children. When our two children were growing up, they got most of their books from the local library. they both went on to university and have a life long love of books.

The argument (which I have no idea about the accuracy of) is that in Lib Dem constituencies, they’ve been protecting sure starts and libraries, because these closures are hurting them electorally a lot more. Whereas Labour are happier to close them, and are even exploiting the closures, because it helps them electorally.

Like I say, I do not know if this is true or not. But that’s what the Lib Dems argue is happening.

^ Nope, all councils are being given a massive cut in their funding by the Tories/Lib Dems. Councils can’t get rid of vital services, so they cut ‘non-essentials’ like libraries and Sure Starts.

Disgusting hypocrisy from the Lib Dems.

This would only be hypocritical if the local Liberal Democrats had supported the local library cuts – there has been no policy at parlimentary level to cut libraries, just to cut council funding (which may lead to libraries being cut, but does not need to do so – not all councils have cut libraries which means it is not inevitable).

So, despite the shock of the leaflet, this is not actually a case of local Liberal Democrat hypocricy (I am assuming they opposed shutting the libraries), and worryingly on recent form is a case where the Liberal Democrats appear to be better at grown-up politics that the commentators on this here site (this is not normally the case…).

@ 3 Libertarian Lou

Odds are Labour only had to close those libraries because of budget cuts imposed by the coalition (frankly it would have helped if the article had pointed this out). The cuts are mandated by the Tories, but as the Lib Dems are part of that coalition it’s pretty pathetic of them to try to blame Labour for it. If I’m right.

On the other hand, I don’t think this really reflects on the party as a whole. The Tories and Labour have also been embarassed by sole MPs and councillors using underhand or offensive tactics that the parties themselves would have avoided with an eye to the potential PR debacle.

What is the point of the Lib dems anymore?

Their leader is either a tory double agent or one of the most naive politicians of all time. I can’t really decide. Everytime the tories beat the shit out of them Clegg looks bewildered. How many more times is he going to get played like a piano? Europe, cuts, banks, murdoch, voting systems, you name it the lie dems look like suckers.

Unless of course they support all these tory positions. Who knows? After all a lib dem pledge is about as useless as the piece of paper Chamberlain brought back from Munich.

For 10 years, I was a senior local government officer working in three different councils (one Tory controlled, two Labour controlled). Nearly all the Labour and Tory members were polite and professional to me, not to mention the Greens and independents. Yet most (though not all) of the Lib Dems were difficult, manipulative, two-faced, unprincipled, and often downright nasty to the officers. Now perhaps I was just unlucky with the Lib Dems I met, but I found the Lib Dems were ‘the nasty party’ in local government…Give me an honest socialist or an honest Tory any day.

There’s nothing inconsistent with supporting cuts in overall expenditure whilst opposing one particular cut. So the Lib Dems aren’t hypocrites for supporting overall budget cuts (assuming these ones do, that is — being a party member doesn’t mean agreeing with every policy or action of your party leadership) and opposing library cuts, unless the budget has been cut so much that there is literally no way the libraries can remain open (which is rather unlikely).

Labour councils are cutting harder than the government are requiring them to, and they are doing it to score points with the electorate.

The coalition is cutting hard out of necessity and do so with a heavy heart to keep the IMF at bay.
Labour are cutting even harder to make the coalition look bad and are LOVING it.

Their plan is to make the cuts seem as bad as possible, make people suffer as much as possible so they can blame it on the coalition and make themselves look good.

Labour make me sick. A bunch of truly disgusting slimeballs.

You what? I’m starting to wonder if the people who write for this site actually understand the basics of how politics works…

Labour Conspiracy’s ongoing playground politics and smear tactics are still failing to convince.

It is individual councils who decide how to balance their Budget.

As a rule Labour run councils are closing services at a faster rate than Lib Dem or Conservative run councils. Simply because, it then allows them in their respective literature to critisize the Government Austerity measures.

Here in Derby we have a Coalition Council consisting of Conservatives/ Liberal Democrats. No Sure Start centres have closed at all, despite our local Labour Group putting out leaflets prior to the last council election stating they would.

Library hours are being streamlined, but reductions only occur when the Libraries are under used – Like between 4pm-6pm for instance.

Nobody wants to close vital services, that includes Liberal Democrats. A little creative thinking on the council can minimise cuts to services, that is what Labour run councils appear to be failing to do.

The reason the 6 libraries are in the process of being closed is the coalition’s change in council funding with Brent having to make cuts of £100 million.

The library service in Feltham, and I assume Heston, is first class and I can’t see the locals being taken in by the LibDem claim.

Labour Councils closing libraries because of cuts asked for by a Conservative and Liberal Democrat national Government that are required because of the mess created by a Labour national Government. I think it’s pretty much blame-who-you-want.

Of course the real problem is that Labour REFUSE to tell us the details of their own cuts – not only would they have been worse than the lib dems cuts but also the coalition is spending MORE on capital projects than Labour would have done.

Before we have the lying of labourites on here – let’s have some details of their own cuts they would have made – which departments, which councils, which services.

Then perhaps you can attack the Lib Dems or anyone else with particular issues.

Unless of course you want to put the usual Labour mantra. Question to Ed Miliband `what do you think of the song `show me the way to go home` Answer: `I don’t know – I wouldn’t start from here`

@9 – Libraries are one of the few things which *can* be cut by councils, without *directly* affecting quality of life for people. Of course it has an indirect effect, but that’s better than cutting things people directly rely on.

Which is essentially what you’re calling for.

@13 – A typical distorted lie. It’s because Labour councils have had bigger cuts. Typical ideological pruning of funding.

@15 – Yes, if you’re a pathological liar or a politician, but I repeat myself. In reality, of course, the coalition has to take responsibility for it’s budgets, and their wrecking of the economy.

Agree strongly @14.

@5, “this is not actually a case of local Liberal Democrat hypocricy (I am assuming they opposed shutting the libraries)”

Let me get this straight – they oppose cutting them by cutting the money needed to keep them open?

What a load of nonsense. The cuts to Brent Council’s budget are obscene. Anything non-statutory and/or non-essential is a target. That is hardly the fault of councillors. One would assume they would have far more to gain by not making any cuts.

This Lib Dem wriggling is underhanded two-faced nonsense. Sarah Teather could stop these cuts tomorrow.

In contrast, Labour is currently powerless to do anything but cut 100M of services, as the Lib Dem central powers dictate.

@16 – Why yes, they’re spending more than the last government’s plans. Which wouldn’t be *necessary* with better growth. Moreover, much of their capital spending will do little for the economy at large, but make some rich people much richer.

Labour just don’t get it – they’re still locked in the politics of the past.

People have given up on the idea that governments are there to be worshipped and adored – we’re going back to the age old model of `begrudging respect` if not hate but hating Labour more.

As usual, more of the `if only Labour were in power everything would be wonderful` – when in reality they have gambled with not telling us their own projections (we only have Darling’s to go on) so in this fairytale world no one is responsible for their own actions and councils have no choice on where to cut as they have lost their political masters in central government telling them what to cut or spend and how to spin it (now that the other tribes are in).

Can you tell me then why in my Lib Dem led council no libraries are being cut neither are sure starts? Why in neighbouring Manchester they tried to cut all lollipop ladies while in Stockport only cutting those in the safest locations?

It’s about CHOICES – Lib Dems choose to protect the frontline – Labour cuts for political opportunism.

`Why yes, they’re spending more than the last government’s plans. Which wouldn’t be *necessary* with better growth. Moreover, much of their capital spending will do little for the economy at large, but make some rich people much richer.`

Really? Try telling that to the people of Stockport who are relieved there’s going to be a new bypass that was only half built decades ago. Fancy putting what you said on a leaflet – i’d write it for you.

@ 20

“Can you tell me then why in my Lib Dem led council no libraries are being cut neither are sure starts? Why in neighbouring Manchester they tried to cut all lollipop ladies while in Stockport only cutting those in the safest locations?”

Because the coalition pushed the most punishing cuts on Labour-led areas, bizarrely enough.

“It’s about CHOICES – Lib Dems choose to protect the frontline – Labour cuts for political opportunism.”

It’s about MONEY – the Tories and Lib Dems took it. I can see where Labour has a motive to make cuts as visceral as possible in an attempt to make the government look bad, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that they’re doing that. Possibly because, while the party overall would benefit from such admittedly underhand tactics, the local politicians who would actually be making this decision would be taking a far bigger risk.

@ 11 Simon

“You what? I’m starting to wonder if the people who write for this site actually understand the basics of how politics works…”

Understanding that politicians often engage in hypocrisy and duplicity does not preclude the possibility of calling attention to it.

I recall that some Labour run councils were considering the idea of making no cuts at all, in defiance of the coalition. However, the consequences of such an action would have been a budget inc cuts set by the coalition. Some in the labour party thought this would be a good move as any and all cuts made would then deffinately and without a shadow of a doubt be the whole responsibility of the coalition government.
The job of councillor comes with responsibility though, and letting the coalition destroy lives in their district to score political points wasn’t really the done thing to do. If the library is going, you can guarantee that something along the lines of a meals on wheels service was saved in its place. Those will have been the choices forced by the government’s austerity drive.

It’s about MONEY – the Tories and Lib Dems took it. I can see where Labour has a motive to make cuts as visceral as possible in an attempt to make the government look bad, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that they’re doing that. Possibly because, while the party overall would benefit from such admittedly underhand tactics, the local politicians who would actually be making this decision would be taking a far bigger risk.

All this is immaterial if you don’t publish what you would have cut yourself as a Labour Govt – Labour have gambled on coasting along hoping the govt will just fall. If they were to keep more of the money in local councils what would they have cut instead?

As for not making any cuts at all – don’t make me laugh. There would have been MORE cuts under Labour and the idea that you could just carry on regardless in such an economy is simply living in some fantasyland.

So that Cllr would have had to have gone to his constituents with cuts as well.

As for the `falling more unfairly on Labour areas` – who’s been in control of these areas for generations? Why didn’t Labour bang their fist on the table demanding more powers from central govt including changing the democratic structure so that in the long-term create a level playing field so that the lower land prices and salaries could attract more jobs from wealthier areas – ie to grow the local private sectors so that they wouldn’t have to go cap in hand to central government so much.

But no it sums up the Labour govt – that would be too difficult – much easier to manipulate client groups and unwary voters into voting for the local apparatchik rather than tackling the causes of poverty on the ground.

@ 24 John

I agree with a lot of that, and I’m certainly not here to thump the pulpit for Labour. However, it doesn’t change that fact that many Labour areas were forced to make major cuts by the coalition. That’s not the issue in itself – as you say, there would have been cuts somewhere or other under a Labour government too. It only become duplicitious when the parties in the government attack Labour for making cuts that the government forced Labour to make. Regardless of the background, taking money away from someone and then having a go at them for not spending the money that they now in fact do not have is bloody ridiculous.

If the Lib Dems in these areas wanted to make a more honest attack on Labour, based on the facts you raised in your post, they could have pointed out that a Labour administration would have made cuts too, or explained how Labour policies were to blame. They didn’t. They went after the local Labour reps and blamed them for a situation that the government had forced them into. I don’t know who had the moral highground to start with, but that’s a great way to lose it.

It only become duplicitious when the parties in the government attack Labour for making cuts that the government forced Labour to make. Regardless of the background, taking money away from someone and then having a go at them for not spending the money that they now in fact do not have is bloody ridiculous.

No you simply don’t understand. Labour have chosen to take the easy route by not putting forward detailed plans AND put forward a narrative in my area to gain seats saying `standing up against the Lib Dem cuts`. They even put the blame all on the bankers!

Now when people like Andrew Marr start asking piercing questions and they come up wanting it’s all `we would have cut lower` – so riding two horses. It’s a politically unsustainable narrative.

I’m still not sure why after decades of Labour rule in Manchester they still have the structural employment problems. Why do they have a CE who is paid so much yet have cut all lollipop ladies? It’s basically using politics to get at the coalition to hide their own failings.

In neighbouring Lib Dem led Stockport they cut only the safest ones because as a default the administration puts frontline services first not politics.

I don’t live in a particularly well-off area – it’s a two up two down but boy do I feel safer and have a better quality of life than in many areas of Manchester.

@ 26 John

I do understand. The fact that you keep sounding off about Labour is irrelevant. The points you make are broadly true but they’re non-sequiturs: it’s simply hypocritical to have a go at someone for abiding by the budget that your party set for them.

BTW, I feel pretty safe and have a great quality of life in Manchester, despite earning well below the average wage. So I don’t think our personal anecdotes are all that useful here.

Was it not hypocritical when Labour councillors and MPs campaigned to save their local post offices, when it was their goverbnment closing them