14th November Movement for Left Unity

[articul8]

No they couldn't. ffs

well, in electoral terms they could have formed a majority
well in 32 anyway

 

[butchersapron]

well, in electoral terms they could have formed a majority
well in 32 anyway

No they couldn't. What daft historical ignorance.

 

[articul8]

The prediction that never happened? Desperate dishonest stuff.

it was certainly implied it - I said it would bind the LDs to Cameron for the full term. I was right in that.

 

[butchersapron]

it was certainly implied it - I said it would bind the LDs to Cameron for the full term. I was right in that.

It's great stuff this - in a few seconds you've gone from my 'confident prediction' to me not actually predicting it at all.

And no, i have said from day one that the lib-dems were tied to the tories for the full term. Have another crack.

 

[articul8]

No they couldn't. What daft historical ignorance.

How so, they polled 37% which is enough for a majority under a majoritarian system (true it would have been disproportionately concentrated in Bavaria etc), and in any case in 32 the bourgeois parties wouldn't have been ready to accommodate them. Still, it's more feasible than the argument that the Nazi's wouldnt have come to power without PR (not saying anyone on here is arguing that, but stilll)

 

[articul8]

said from day one that the lib-dems were tied to the tories for the full term. Have another crack.

you quite clearly argued a NO vote would do more to damage the coalition. You were wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

How so, they polled 37% which is enough for a majority under a majoritarian system (true it would have been disproportionately concentrated in Bavaria etc), and in any case in 32 the bourgeois parties wouldn't have been ready to accommodate them. Still, it's more feasible than the argument that the Nazi's wouldnt have come to power without PR (not saying anyone on here is arguing that, but stilll)

Let's see your figures for translating this 37% into majority govt. Did the tories with 36% in 2010 get to form a majority govt? This is a particularly fruitless road for you to start down. But i guess that's what happens when you accuse people who don't share your bubbles obsessions of being pro-fascism.

 

[butchersapron]

you quite clearly argued a NO vote would do more to damage the coalition. You were wrong.

Now, from 'clear prediction' to didn't predict it at all back to clearly argued. Keep it straight for a few minutes politician. I argued that a no vote was the only vote that contained any potential to damage to the coalition. I was right. You, on the lib-dem side of your paymasters, argued that a YES vote could. You were wrong. You are always wrong because you live in a bubble. You wrote a piece in your mag under a fake name admitting that i was right and that you were wrong. Desperate.

 

[articul8]

Let's see your figures for translating this 37% into majority govt. Did the tories with 36% in 2010 get to form a majority govt? This is a particularly fruitless road for you to start down. But i guess that's what happens when you accuse people who don't share your bubbles obsessions of being pro-fascism.

it wouldn't automatically have given them control but it *could* have - that was my claim.

 

[butchersapron]

it wouldn't automatically have given them control but it *could* have - that was my claim.

They could have come to power under PR a few years earlier if you're going to play that stupid game. Don't make historical comparisons that you're not equipped to defend.

 

[butchersapron]

I notice your confident predictions of a NO vote leading opening a path towards an early split between the coalition parties has come to pass..

I'd like you to have a look at this claim again and either take it back or support it please.

 

[articul8]

Desperate.

You were right in some of your criticisms of the campaign, but wrong to claim/imply/infer whatever) that a No vote would somehow accelerate divisions within the coalition. In any case AV was only ever a very weak and inadequate form of electoral reform, which I was clear about at the time.

 

[articul8]

I'd like you to have a look at this claim again and either take it back or support it please.

Ok it wasn't quite as definitive as this - but that was the direction you were pointing in

 

[butchersapron]

You were right in some of your criticisms of the campaign, but wrong to claim/imply/infer whatever) that a No vote would somehow accelerate divisions within the coalition. In any case AV was only ever a very weak and inadequate form of electoral reform, which I was clear about at the time.

Why have you cut off the bit about your fake name piece?

And no, you weren't clear in that at all - you shilled and shilled like you shill now.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok it wasn't quite as definitive as this - but that was the direction you were pointing in

Is that you taking it back or you supporting the claim?

 

[articul8]

The piece had to be written pseudonymously for contractual reasons - my thoughts on AV and the nature of the campaign were shared directly internally both at the time and in the aftermath.

 

[butchersapron]

The piece had to be written pseudonymously for contractual reasons - my thoughts on AV and the nature of the campaign were shared directly internally both at the time and in the aftermath.

Bollocks.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Bit of a rubbish counterfactual all round the whole Nazis thing. In the 1920s the Nazis ranged from being the fourth most popular right-wing party to sixth most popular. It's highly unlikely under FPTP that they'd have sustained the requisite level of support in order to enjoy a post-depression surge.

 

[articul8]

Is that you taking it back or you supporting the claim?

reformulating it

 

[butchersapron]

reformulating it

More bollocks. Politician.

 

[ska invita]

Conference report including policy decisions now posted http://leftunity.org/a-raft-of-solid-left-wing-policy-conference-report/
havent read it yet

 

[treelover]

I see the Ex Workers Power (lecturers) contingent appear to have won the conference to open borders.

 

[ska invita]

I dont know, but just in case anyone was thinking its for some kind of anarchist open borders, its just support for the current EU open borders - well thats what i understood it as from the write up

 

[ska invita]

dp.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So not actually open borders at all?

 

[ska invita]

So not actually open borders at all?

no, unless you think EU open borders means open borders. personally i think EU freedom of movement is a good thing, though im aware of the effect on wage supression etc.
ive no idea what tree lover understood by it, maybe he'll tell us

its a pro-migrant position re the EU thats been agreed on

 

[belboid]

No, it does go further - it was in the Europe section but the policy does affirm that:

Left Unity believes that immigration controls are inherently unjust and racist. They are part of the global management of labour along racist lines which inevitably brutalise the poorest workers while in fact weakening the collective interests and bargaining power of workers. As such, we are opposed to immigration control, as we are opposed to any laws which make people illegal because of who they are, where they or their parents were born, the colour of their skin, or what language they speak. And we insist that it is in the interests of the working class as a whole, migrant and non-migrant, in Britain and internationally, to have equal rights to move across borders, to settle in other countries, and to bring their families with them if they choose to do so. Insofar as these rights exist, however imperfectly, in the EU states as a result of binding international agreements, we defend them trenchantly and without equivocation.

Quite where the idea that it was won by the 'Ex Workers Power (lecturers) contingent' is a fiction of treelover's, that indicates a complete lack of understanding about how both LU and WP work, but what's new?

 

[ska invita]

But arent the first two lines just abstract preamble - the key thing is "insofar as these rights exist, however imperfectly, in the EU states as a result of binding international agreements, we defend them trenchantly and without equivocation." isnt it?
The policy isnt to allow unchecked migration from any country in the world right?

 

[belboid]

It's essentially only firmly committing to opposing any new immigration controls, but within a general framework of not wanting any. They'd probably get around to abolishng the ot about the same time they abolish VAT.

 

[ska invita]

but VAT will be abolished "immediately"