Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Debra Storr was one of the councillors who opposed the US tycoon's plans for the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire.
Ms Storr said the "increasingly intolerant and illiberal" attitude of the Lib Dem group on Aberdeenshire Council had forced her to quit.
The Lib Dem group said its process had been "entirely fair".
So pushed out merely because she tried to deprive Aberdeenshire of thousands of jobs & £1 billion of investment - how dreadful that any sort of politician be held to account for the damage they do.
This may be slightly petty of me when most of my posts here are normally about how to improve Britain & the world but I think I am entitled.
3 years ago I was expelled from the LibDims on the grounds of writing newspaper letters saying that tax cutting would improve the economy & that we need nuclear power to keep the lights on. As part of this the Executive endorsed a lie that the reason debate of lower taxes at conference had been disallowed was because my motion was "badly drafted" Ms Storr voted for this. To quote from an earlier post:
"Mr Fraser's claim that the motions were "badly drafted & not thought through" is in no way truthful. As said the Enterprise motion had already been preliminarily selected for debate at conference. Moreover both motions had had been drafted together with Debra Storr whose job is to ensure that motions debated are properly drafted. She can confirm that she pronounced both motions, after she had finished with them, as satisfactory for debate (though she thought the committee might choose to split the housebuilding one in 2). Indeed after she had finished I suggested that she should publish & put the notes on drafting that she had given us on the Scotlibdem site - she did this which contradicts her endorsement of allegations against me so demeaning of her own abilities. This was done because a previous draft of the Enterprise motion had been rejected by the Conference Committee"
While I obviously have reason not to like Liberal Democrat witch-hunts it seems somewhat hypocritical for a wholly corrupt parasitic eco-fascist whore* like her to complain.
The LD leadership now promise that when they come to power they will cut taxes, that now being a LD "principle". I would not like to dispute that that represents the highest standard of honesty to which they aspire.
*whore definition - A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
2 LD bloggers have reported on this saying how dreadfully she has been treated. I put this comment on both blogs
"As a member of the party executive she voted for a document calling for my expulsion & alleging that a motion I had drafted for conference, calling for debate of tax cutting to improve the economy, was "badly drafted" & "too right wing" to consider.
In fact the final draft had been written by her. She thus deliberately voted for a motion which, untruthfully, said she was incompetent.
The executive voted unanimously that in saying windmills would not keep the lights on & that tax cuts would help the economy I was being "illiberal" & "to right wing" to be a member. Such a thing could only have been claimed by people who have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the ideas liberalism was founded on.
I understand that the party are now promising, clearly dishonestly, to support tax cuts.
The description of her as having "such strong liberal and green credentials" is clearly untrue on the "liberal" part though she is certainly willing to tell any lie to support the eco-fascist cause."
Stephen Glenn replied "I have read through the motion five times already and must agree that it is badly drafted, sadly it hard to follow any argument or proposition through the test in a clear and coherent fashion.
Even with my degree in Economics and knowledge of classical and evolved liberalism through the centuries I can not pass judgement on your comments regarding that just yet as I'm still looking for a rosetta stone to help me break down the code."
To which I replied quoting from the motion & asking what particular part of the phrase "make a substantial reduction to corporation tax in Scotland" he had difficulty understanding but since he has decided to censor my comment it seems we will never know.
Bernard Salmond on the other hand replied saying that expulsion was because of "calling a former party leader a Nazi" & then censored my response, saying that my remark about Ashdown, while factually based, came after the decision on expulsion & so therefore could not have formed any part of its cause. Bernard also censored this on the grounds that he feared being sued by the "former leader" he had mentioned. I made an amended reply not naming him but pointing out that, since I had put comments on Guardian articles written by Ashdown relating to his support of genocidal ex-Nazis in Bosnia, Croatia & Kosovo he had clearly concluded that he was not in a position to sue. For some unknown reason that got censored too.
It is interesting to note that commenting on many party blogs the only serious censorship I have met with is by one Labour councillor, the Scottish LD Iain Dale (not by the well known one) & by these 2 LD eco-fascists. Clearly while liberalism is alive & well, this is not so in their party.
Although in answer to you question your corporation tax reduction partners with (vii) undertaking not to increase the real tax take on business by more than 1% per annum does make the motion harder to assimilate.
Your explantion that you cannot say what difficulty you have in understanding the words "reduce", "corporation tax" & "Scotland" in clause iv was, but that you are now confused by the motion having more than one clause would make it difficult for you to understand anything discussed by the party conference.
In any case the important thing is that Ms Storr declared that the motion, as finally drafted by her, was satisfactory & only later claimed it had been "badly drafted". If you still cannot understand it I suggest you ask the drafter.
However, if you continue to brandy about phrases like untruthful I have no option put to point out errors/misrepresentations/untruths that you yourself have posted especially when they come in relation to myself.
If the arguments which you posted under the redrafted motion were a reflection of the original motion as drafted that is incredible hard to follow. Therefore my assumption is that that was the sort of language you have originally put forward, rather than the "significantly reduce corporation tax in Scotland significantly" however as this is a deferred issue it would have to have called on the Federal party and Westminster to implement this policy.
I do not have difficulty in understand a motion with multiple clauses. However, if in vagueness two clauses in the same motion one urging what appears to be a significant stimulus and the other then seems to suggest that should that stimulus work we'd have to reduce taxation still further should the total tax take rise above a 1% increase yet still be below the UK & OECD average. Even, I take it, if the difference were 0.1% as that is still below.
I take it the definition of real is the normal economic use of the word.
Should you find some untruth on my blog feel free to mention it - so far you haven't found any.
While I recognise your alleged quote of me using the word "significantly" twice in the same sentence as the absolute pinnacle of honesty of which you are capable it, of course, a total lie. It is also insulting to Ms Storr to say that she would have drafted such an error.
I still don't understand your problem with "to suggest that should that stimulus [a tax cut]work we'd have to [no - would choose to] reduce taxation still further". The idea that if a policy works it would be wise to do more of it does not seem to me to be quite the flash of genius incomprehensible to less gifted alleged economics graduates such as yourself as you suggest.