Did You Vote LibDem?
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
I've known some lovely nutters, moon23 is just a cunt.
He's a fucking psy.
I've known some lovely clo - no wait, that doesn't work, yeah you're right.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
just to pick out one of many pieces of crap from this thread...
you'd give up your freedom and live in a totalitarian police state for a roof over your head?
ok then. Many have died to defend it, but blagsta would give it up for a roof over his head.
seriously, I know people are fucked off about ending up with a part tory government, but new labour had got so sucked into the notion of destroying our civil liberties to protect us from some largely phantom menace, that they refused to back down on it even when they knew that a tory government was the alternative, so fuck them, and fuck those who deride the lib dems stance on this issue IMO.
Yes, there's a distinct possibility that this is all going to go horribly wrong, but it's not as though new labour were all sweetness and light is it.
You've no clue chief
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You're arguing a libertarian/minarchist position. You've said some rather offensive stuff too. Maybe i'll feel different after some time to reflect. However i feel that your position you lay out here is thatcherite and tbh i'm shocked at how far to the right your politics have shifted.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Straw man much?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
No-one's defending New Labour.
I'm very anti ID cards, but you know what? Lauding that doesn't make the fact that one council (at least) is now withdrawing Freedom Cards for people with learning difficulties* any more palatable as a result. And wtf point on ID cards when your lot are introducing a pass system.
No-one's defending New Labour.
No-one's defending New Labour.
Are you getting that?
*some kind of new arbitrary 'below 70 IQ only' not even assessed by medical practitioners.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
'Freedom', the rallying call of the individualist right.
Define freedom.
Define freedom.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
the choice was between new labour and tory. If you're going to attack the lib dems for going into partnership with the tories, then you must logically have preferred that we sided with labour.
The only other option being a minority tory government that we'd have had to support anyway or risk it falling, and a knew election being called at which the tories would have almost certainly wiped the floor with us (due to our relative lack of funding, and support from the press apart from anything else), resulting in a full tory government.
the lib dems were between a rock and a hard place and had to choose one or the other. For you and others to attack us so vitriolically and then claim not to be defending or supporting new labour is just disingenuous bollocks.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
as has been pointed out on numerous occasions already, there was no proposal to introduce a pass system, only a proposal to amend the current points based employment system to allow for regional differences in employment requirements.
the people affected by this system are currently barred entirely from entering the country legally, so at least this would have offered them a legal right to work here vs coming in illegally and being exploited to fuck by gang masters with zero legal recourse because they're here illegally.
little_legs
Поехали!
have just read the thread from page 20.
poor moon23... he/she lost the plot
poor moon23... he/she lost the plot
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Eh? The Lib Dems didn't have to side with either the Tories or NuLab - they could have left the Tories to pursue a minority government whilst not entertaining NuLab also!
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
"Attack you vitriolically?" What fucking planet are you on? You've been subjected to some strong criticism as you bounce about giving it the Billy Bragg-lite - but vitriol? I'm more than happy to show you what vitriol is like if you want to gain some perspective. You want your freedom of speech which is fine as long as there's a right of response. Just because you don't like the response - don't fucking go into victim mode.
I don't care if the LibDems were between a rock and hard place - by choosing LibDem, they chose that. There were other options within party politics and there was always the option of opting out of party politics.
And now you're crying 'ref' but there is no 'ref'. Idiot.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Don't think that any amount of double-speak and dressing it up will make any difference to what your party is proposing. Pass system. Even Cameron pointed that out (cheers, moon23)
Tacita
Pipe Dreamer
I disagree with your assessment of the options but well done on recognising 3 options
free spirit
more tea vicar?
for a minority tory government to actually happen, the lib dems would have to have agreed to not oppose it.Eh? The Lib Dems didn't have to side with either the Tories or NuLab - they could have left the Tories to pursue a minority government whilst not entertaining NuLab also!
to agree in advance not oppose something and by doing so to allow it to happen anyway when there was the option of opposing it (and thereby bringing the government down), is basically the same as supporting it in my book.
so the choices were
1) support a labour government (my preferred option if they'd been prepared to compromise their authoritarian streak)
2) support a tory government and in doing so gain a say in the policy making process
3) support a tory government but with no say in the policy making process, just the option to table amendments, or possibly vote it down occasionally if it was too bad, but not too often otherwise the government would collapse.
4) Bring down the government, force a new election that the lib dems had no financial resources to fight, in the almost certain knowledge that the tory party would then pick up enough extra seats to form a majority government.
3 options brought a tory government, 1 would have brought a broad centre left coalition. The broad centre left coalition option was scuppered by labour (if it was ever realistic given the actual seats won), leaving options 2, 3 and 4, of which option 2 gave us the greatest influence over tory policy.
I don't actually like the situation, but given the options available, I fully understand why the lib dems ended up voting virtually unanimously in favour of option 2.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
4 actually.
I disagree with your assessment of the options but well done on recognising 3 options
feel free to point out where you think my assessment is wrong.
First of all the only evidence Labour would have scuppered a "progressive" coalition is from the Libdems and their bag carriers at the Guardian.
Secondly they could well have allowed a Tory minority government, and then opposed it from outside on everything they disagreed with, yes it would not have lasted that long but so what?
Thirdly Oh diddums they couldn't afford another election? So they put party interest first...
Secondly they could well have allowed a Tory minority government, and then opposed it from outside on everything they disagreed with, yes it would not have lasted that long but so what?
Thirdly Oh diddums they couldn't afford another election? So they put party interest first...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
so you're saying it would be in the national interest to allow the tories the opportunity to almost certainly gain an outright majority in the commons?
just so we're clear here, because a leaderless, heavily in debt labour party would also have been in fuck all position to mount any serious challenge to the tories, and with the murdoch press + telegraph behind them they'd have romped home to a clear majority.
Anyone thinking otherwise is at best thinking with their hearts rather than their heads, or knows the reality but chooses to ignore it because it gives them chance to rip into the lib dems some more IMO.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
you obviously missed the entire days worth of various labour party heavyweights pronouncing on air about how a lib/lab/rainbow coalition was never going to work and they'd prefer to spend the time in opposition rather than work with the lib dems etc etc.
those labour MP's (ok and a couple of former MP's) I've found on pages 1 and 2 of google coming out publicly against it while the talks were still on include:
Jack Straw, John Reid, David Blunkett, Douglas Alexander, Andy Burnham, Dianne Abbott, Barry Gardiner, Liam Byrne, and Bob Ainsworth.
and then there was ed balls in the negotiations from all accounts refusing to move from labours manifesto on anything substantial at all.
labour were responsible for fucking this deal up, both those in the negotiations, and those outside of them mouthing off publicly about how it'd never work, and they'd never agree to it. Given the extremely small majority any coalition could have hoped to have mustered, having at least 9 well known labour MP's sticking the boot in at the negotiation stage basically told it's own story - the deal was a non-starter.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
oh piss off.
it was (possibly still is) a very real attempt to solve several very real problems, namely the need of farmers and food processors to recruit additional workers from outside the EU if necessary in rural areas where there aren't enough local workers to fill the jobs, or where the work is too short term for it to be worth local people on benefits signing off for (which is a major flaw to the benefits system, but that's another issue). Under labours points based system, it became impossible for these vacancies to be filled legally by people from outside the EU, and as the economies in poland and the other eastern European countries improve, it's also becoming harder to fill these vacancies from within the EU. This leaves farmers and others with the option of filling these vacancies by employing illegal workers either via gang masters / agencies or directly, meaning that these workers have no employment rights, can be paid well below the minimum wage, have no rights to join unions etc, and can basically be exploited because they have no legal recourse.
Now, I'm not saying that the situation with legitimate EU workers is perfect, far from it, but at least they have the right to leave and find other work if they're treated badly, and are covered by minimum wage legislation etc. Which is a big step up from those working illegally.
the situation in other parts of the UK is very different however, so for example in London, there is no shortage of people to fill vacancies, and any additional immigration to these places would only serve to add to their unemployment problems and drive down wages, both of which are usually seen as not being desirable outcomes to the left.
This is the background to the situation. Feel free to propose a better solution.
re the pass system stuff... as I understand it, this system would only be enforced via immigration checks on employers records, followed up if necessary by checks on the original documents, so there'd be nobody getting stopped in the street and asked to see their pass etc. at least not any more than they are today, and a fuck of a lot less than if we actually had ID cards with the police being given the right to demand to see them. Yes these immigrants would not be allowed legally to work in certain areas of the country, but at present they are not allowed to work legally anywhere in the country, which somehow I struggle to see as being in anyway better.
As an employment law specialist, I'm sure you've got something to add to the debate. As such though, if you're still only capable of repeating the words 'pass system' ad infinitum, I'll presume you don't actually have an argument and are just using it as a convenient stick to beat the libdems with.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
what, you mean as someone who desperately wanted the lib/lab coalition to happen, and was fucking gutted when I saw a procession of labour MP's speaking out publicly against it even while the talks were taking place?
yeah, of course I would say that, wouldn't I?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
incidentally, the problems farmers and other industries that rely on seasonal workforces are facing can IMO be largely traced back to thatcher's obsession with forcing the UK's travelling communities off the road, a policy that New Labour have basically actively continued ever since coming into power.
Apart from all the social justice arguments, their fucked up ideological war with travellers entirely missed the actual very real contribution the travelling community as a whole actually made to this countries economy in actually doing most of the additional seasonal work that the local communities couldn't handle by themselves, which is now having to be done by brining in workers from abroad either legally or illegally, who in turn are now being harassed by labour and the now probably the tories.
what exactly is it with both these parties that has so much trouble with people who choose to live in a different way to the way they consider to be normal?
Apart from all the social justice arguments, their fucked up ideological war with travellers entirely missed the actual very real contribution the travelling community as a whole actually made to this countries economy in actually doing most of the additional seasonal work that the local communities couldn't handle by themselves, which is now having to be done by brining in workers from abroad either legally or illegally, who in turn are now being harassed by labour and the now probably the tories.
what exactly is it with both these parties that has so much trouble with people who choose to live in a different way to the way they consider to be normal?
little_legs
Поехали!
what?
Similar threads
