Do you want AV for the UK? Cast your vote here!

[articul8]

Besides which what makes you think that the narrative of the referendum defeat would be "the cuts lost it for Clegg" - could just as easily be "Britain shows it's Conservative instincts".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What makes you think Clegg, Huhne, Cable, Alexander or Laws wants to be more critical – except in saying that the Tories aren't being economically (neo-)liberal enough.

 

[butchersapron]

tbf (grudgingly!), I think he means "do even more to sell the coalition to the backbenchers and activists".Still a rubbish argument,though

Nope, see above - he actually does mean their popular rejection on the basis of their support for cuts will mean they'll be forced to support even more cuts. Mental. Similar approach to his one last night that to attack the coalition the lib-dems need to be propped up and maintaining the coalition. It's really strw grabbing stuff.

 

[articul8]

What makes you think Clegg, Huhne, Cable, Alexander or Laws wants to be more critical – except in saying that the Tories aren't being economically (neo-)liberal enough.

There is a faction - Clegg, Laws, Alexander whose instincts are Tory that's true enough.

 

[butchersapron]

Besides which what makes you think that the narrative of the referendum defeat would be "the cuts lost it for Clegg" - could just as easily be "Britain shows it's Conservative instincts".

Don't be so bloody stupid. You know damn well that this will be the story and you know damn well that the lib-dems know this too - already, even before the vote. That's why Clegg has been forced to keep a low profile, because the association of him with the cuts in the public eye hurts the YES campaign.

 

[Streathamite]

A yes would give them that, and free them up to say "we got what we wanted" and start getting more critical. A No would mean they would have to sell the "benefits" of their economic agenda even harder.

but...but...they don't WANT to be more critical.
They believe in the cuts

A No would mean they would have to sell the "benefits" of their economic agenda even harder. They could be forced to go along with even more cuts in the short term

Can you honestly not see the massive contradiction here?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a faction - Clegg, Laws, Alexander whose instincts are Tory that's true enough.

And Cable and Huhne. Ie all five libdems who have so far been ministers.

Their instincts aren't tory, though. They are more radically right-wing than that.

 

[fractionMan]

Paid for propaganda, now delivered straight to the heart of u75.

 

[butchersapron]

There is a faction - Clegg, Laws, Alexander whose instincts are Tory that's true enough.

A faction? That's the bloody leadership - they're not a faction, they own that party lock stock and barrel.The lib-dems now are the orange bookers, It's over. It's clear that you have a desperate need to establish the idea that the lib-dems are really secretly left wing and it's just a clique at the top in order to prop up your claim that AV will mean a permanent coalition between the labour party and the secretly left-wing lib-dem party (and this is supposed to be a reason to vote for it!) - but it's an unsustainable picture and one becoming ever more so every single day that the coalition lasts. No one buys it any more and no one ever will again.

 

[articul8]

to attack the coalition the lib-dems need to be propped up and maintaining the coalition.

I have NEVER said that. It is desperate tactics to misrepresent arguments so violently. Clegg doesn't care enough about losing the referendum to switch his whole strategy, and his MPs will be desperate to avoid the coalition falling apart in circumstances when they have nothing to show for it.

This is self-evident?

 

[Streathamite]

There is a faction - Clegg, Laws, Alexander whose instincts are Tory that's true enough.

Plus Cable,Huhne and Moore....in other words, ALL their cabinet members are economic neo-libs!
e2a:Bugger,BA and LBJ got there first.
Again. Grrrr......

 

[Santino]

AV would allow the two Tory parties to double up their votes in some places. FPTP would make them either form an electoral pact or just merge if they want to stay in permanent coalition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Plus Cable,Huhne and Moore....in other words, ALL their cabinet members are economic neo-libs!
e2a:Bugger,BA got there first.
Again. Grrrr......

Hactually, I got there first.

 

[butchersapron]

I have NEVER said that. It is desperate tactics to misrepresent arguments so violently. Clegg doesn't care enough about losing the referendum to switch his whole strategy, and his MPs will be desperate to avoid the coalition falling apart in circumstances when they have nothing to show for it.

This is self-evident?

You've argued the point across at least two of the three large threads on this. You were doing it last night again. You have argued repeatedly that if a NO vote somehow managed to cause enough internal conflict within the coalition that it fell then the inevitable outcome of this would be a tory majority govt (wrong btw) - the logic that follows from this is that to avoid this worst of all possible situation it's preferable to vote YES in order to keep the more favourable current coalition going on the basis that the lib-dems are somehow reining in the tories right now (wrong again).

And you really have some cheek moaning about misrepresentation when you have racked up hundreds of posts simply calling people who want to vote NO to bring down the coalition 'tories i.e 'You and Cameron must be creaming your pants'.

 

[Streathamite]

Hactually, I got there first.

I know
and Grrrr to you too.....

 

[Streathamite]

No one buys it any more and no one ever will again.

You think LD cred is gone for good? <hopeful>

 

[butchersapron]

You think LD cred is gone for good? <hopeful>

Well, not if the people behind the blue labour and the sort of pluralist networks A8 is involved in have their way. I think the idea that some people had as of them being essentially on our side just a bit different has now gone totally. The idea of them ever becoming one of the two main parties has definitively gone though.

 

[articul8]

A faction? That's the bloody leadership - they're not a faction, they own that party lock stock and barrel.The lib-dems now are the orange bookers, It's over. It's clear that you have a desperate need to establish the idea that the lib-dems are really secretly left wing and it's just a clique at the top in order to prop up your claim that AV will mean a permanent coalition between the labour party and the secretly left-wing lib-dem party (and this is supposed to be a reason to vote for it!) - but it's an unsustainable picture and one becoming ever more so every single day that the coalition lasts. No one buys it any more and no one ever will again.

No, it is the dominant faction in the leadership - there is another represented by Hughes, Kennedy, Cable who still have an ability to reach out and present a different face, and which is better in step with their party's electoral base. A yes vote strengthen the hand of this wing, to the extent that it disadvantages the Tories at the next election.

 

[butchersapron]

No, it is the dominant faction in the leadership - there is another represented by Hughes, Kennedy, Cable who still have an ability to reach out and present a different face, and which is better in step with their party's electoral base. A yes vote strengthen the hand of this wing, to the extent that it disadvantages the Tories at the next election.

You are so stuck in the past it's unreal. Cable is a neo-liberal extremist and has been for decades - he's a leading orange booker, Hughes is a pathetic coward and Kennedy is yesterday's man and despised by the new lib-dem members who now own the party - and they've all sat and watched this happen (apart from Kennedy's purely symbolic vote against the coalition agreement). That you're pinning your hopes on this bunch says it all, that these people represent the secretly left-wing lib-dem party...

 

[articul8]

You have argued repeatedly that if a NO vote somehow managed to cause enough internal conflict within the coalition that it fell then the inevitable outcome of this would be a tory majority govt (wrong btw)

Nonsense - I've never indicated that a NO vote has the capacity to bring down the coalition. In fact I've argued repeatedly it won't. But it would make the odds of electing a Tory majority come the next General Election more likely than if AV was in place

t's preferable to vote YES in order to keep the more favourable current coalition going on the basis that the lib-dems are somehow reining in the tories right now (wrong again).

No - it's prefereable to vote YES to maximises the chances of kicking the Tories out of government when the opportunity arises.

And you really have some cheek moaning about misrepresentation when you have racked up hundreds of posts simply calling people who want to vote NO to bring down the coalition 'tories i.e 'You and Cameron must be creaming your pants'.

People who are voting NO, are voting to give the Tories the outcome they are most keen to deliver.

 

[Streathamite]

No, it is the dominant faction in the leadership - there is another represented by Hughes, Kennedy, Cable who still have an ability to reach out and present a different face, and which is better in step with their party's electoral base. A yes vote strengthen the hand of this wing, to the extent that it disadvantages the Tories at the next election.

HUH?Economics-wise,Cable's the driest of the lot,Hughes is the token "progressive conscience" puppet, and charlie's an alkie has-been.
You've REALLY got them wrong!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

HUH?Economics-wise,Cable's the driest of the lot,Hughes is the token "progressive conscience" puppet, and charlie's an alkie has-been.
You've REALLY got them wrong!

Yep. The 'left' in the libdems are dead. They died the day this coalition was formed against the wishes of four previous leaders.

 

[weltweit]

People who are voting NO, are voting to give the Tories the outcome they are most keen to deliver.

Not all. I am voting no because I prefer FPTP to AV.
There is no other reason for me.

 

[articul8]

You are so stuck in the past it's unreal. Cable is a neo-liberal extremist and has been for decades - he's a leading orange booker, Hughes is a pathetic coward and Kennedy is yesterday's man and despised by the new lib-dem members who now own the party - and they've all sat and watched this happen (apart from Kennedy's purely symbolic vote against the coalition agreement). That you're pinning your hopes on this bunch says it all, that these people represent the secretly left-wing lib-dem party...

I'm not pinning hopes on them - I'm saying that an incidental feature of winning electoral reform would be to alter the dynamics in the Lib Dems away from the current leadership faction. The subjective weaknesses of the social democratic faction (eg Kennedy's drinking) don't trump the fact that- objectively the social base of the LD vote will lead them to turn away from the most openly neo-liberal elemements. The key thing is that most of the people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 will continue to prefer Labour over the Tories.

 

[butchersapron]

Nonsense - I've never indicated that a NO vote has the capacity to bring down the coalition. In fact I've argued repeatedly it won't. But it would make the odds of electing a Tory majority come the next General Election more likely than if AV was in place


No - it's prefereable to vote YES to maximises the chances of kicking the Tories out of government when the opportunity arises.


People who are voting NO, are voting to give the Tories the outcome they are most keen to deliver.

I never said that you'd argued a NO vote would bring the coalition down - i said that you'd argued if a NO vote was part of a process that brought down the coalition a tory majority govt would be direct result. And you have. You don't seem to be able to recall your arguments from hour to hour - it's really quite frustrating.

No, it's preferable to vote NO to hurt the lib-dems and to potentially hurt the coalition, in oder to bloc the cuts.

So are people voting yes then, because, despite your inability to see it, this is a win-win situation for the tories - the only way to get at them on this is through the lib-dems. A yes vote cements the coalition, ensures the cuts will be forced though and so on - you don't think this is an outcome that the tories want?

 

[articul8]

Not all. I am voting no because I prefer FPTP to AV.
There is no other reason for me.

That doesn't change the fact that you are objectively voting for the outcome the Tories want.

 

[Streathamite]

That doesn't change the fact that you are objectively voting for the outcome the Tories want.

Jesus,here we go again....

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not pinning hopes on them - I'm saying that an incidental feature of winning electoral reform would be to alter the dynamics in the Lib Dems away from the current leadership faction. The subjective weaknesses of the social democratic faction (eg Kennedy's drinking) don't trump the fact that- objectively the social base of the LD vote will lead them to turn away from the most openly neo-liberal elemements. The key thing is that most of the people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 will continue to prefer Labour over the Tories.

Why on earth do you think the leadership winning the thing they based their sell out of claimed principles on would hurt or weaken them? You're barmy! It would bolster them immeasurably , give them a platform of achievement to sell to their MPs and members as being the fruits of coalition and the space/legitimacy to clamp down on any internal dissent from the bunch of idiots you just mentioned. I don't know what world you seem to be living in.

 

[butchersapron]

Yep. The 'left' in the libdems are dead. They died the day this coalition was formed against the wishes of four previous leaders.

All those leaders except Kennedy voted for it.

 

[Random]

That doesn't change the fact that you are objectively voting for the outcome the Tories want.

And you are not only voting for, but campaigning for, the outcome that the Lib dems want. You're their boy, their radical on retainer. Don't assume that everyone else has the same forelock-tugging attitude as you though.