National Walkout Against Fees 24.11.10

[Lock&Light]

You are brain-dead, I see.

 

[Belushi]

He's an elitist cosmopolitan type isn't he?

He's rootless.

 

[Pickman's model]

You are brain-dead, I see.

no you don't. you're wittering away 15 to the dozen without making any sense and only making yourself look stupider and more ridiculous than ever.

 

[dylans]

It's actually fairer this way. People with one Jewish or gypsy grandparent are now exempt from heavy labour shifts.

And I bet the ungrateful bastards won't thank us.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've given example as to how there are other interpretations of 'most' in post 659. Given that I have also clarified the term in which I meant it I fail to see why it continues to be a point worthy of discussion.

The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy. This is one of those instances.

The Coaltion agreement was made so a programme of government could be delivered, to facilitate that programme of government support is required from both parties in areas of disagreement. So the Conservatives are supporting an AV referendum bill and the Lib Dems are supporting the fees proposals, albeit with having made improvements.

You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.

Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.

Nobody is suggesting that you should be able to impliment your whole manifesto. Had you opposed the fee rise but not abolished them you wouldn't be getting this much criticism - voters aren't stupid. We know it would be childish to expect the minority party to be able to impliment all its proposals. But equally we're not so stupid that we don't know when we've been lied to and betrayed by opportunistic, careerist politicians and their useful idiots (eg. you).

I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.

 

[frogwoman]

be interesting if you recieve an answer spiney ...

 

[dylans]

I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.

This is absolutely spot on. The lib dem argument is the argument of the collaborator. Yes we helped the Germans deport thousands of Jews but we got some POWs released in return. The argument of Philippe Pétain.

 

[Citizen66]

you are mr logic and i claim my £5.

Haha

 

[moon23]

You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.

Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.

Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement.

I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.

Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.

 

[moon23]

This is absolutely spot on. The lib dem argument is the argument of the collaborator. Yes we helped the Germans deport thousands of Jews but we got some POWs released in return. The argument of Philippe Pétain.

When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.

 

[Pickman's model]

When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.

i think you mean holocaust. but it's not just the fees issue, which is fuck all to do with cuts, but the dishonesty of the lib dems (no more broken promises) and their supine acquiescence, if not advocacy, with the cuts. these cuts, apart from savaging the cultural life of the country through the closure of libraries and archives, will also change the character of towns and cities as ghettos out of sight and out of mind on the outskirts of urban areas are created. vast swathes of higher education will be destroyed by the philistinism of the government. services provided by local government, such as adult social care, will be cut to the bone leaving the most vulnerable people up shit creek. but i suppose you think that's all right and that the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable should simply move to where better social care's provided - along the lines of what you posted some time ago about moving towns to look for work.

 

[frogwoman]

Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.

How the hell do you know? The BNP claim to be a democratic party. Given the fact that all three main parties have moved so steadily and decisively to the right - even what some may call the far right - over the last 30 years i would say it isn't "obvious" at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.

obviously no more broken promises means no more broken promises and nick clegg and that are going to shout 'fooled you' in a few minutes. we all know the lib dems would get into bed with the nsdap if they thought it would give them an hour or two of power.

 

[butchersapron]

Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement.

First off, no it's not binding - it's purely and solely conventional.

Secondly, there is no mention whatsoever of agreeing to support a rise in university tuition fees in the coalition agreement..

We await Lord Browne's final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to

...

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

If anything it says that you expressly do not have to support any proposals that go against your principles as outlined in your manifesto and the pre-election pledges - which, let me remind you were that

We will scrap unfair university tuition fees so everyone has the chance to get a degree, regardless of their parents’ income

The last plank of your argument has just been kicked away.

 

[chilango]

How the hell do you know? The BNP claim to be a democratic party.

The Italian Liberal Party merged with the fascist Italian Social Movement in 1995.

But it could never happen here, could it?

 

[magneze]

be interesting if you recieve an answer spiney ...

Doubtful, there's been no answers to some reasonable questions all through this thread.

 

[dylans]

When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.

Petain justified his collaboration with the German occupiers in precisely the same terms used by yourself and Clegg to justify the lib dems compliance with the cuts programme of the Tories.

I hope you remember what happened to collaborators upon liberation?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement.

Was it a lie? Yes or no.

Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.

But anyone outside your cult can see that the Lib Dems are not a democratic party. No genuine democrat would betray their voters, implimenting a programme that is diametrically opposed to the platform they stood on. So can we take that as a yes?

 

[Ungrateful]

You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.

Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.

Nobody is suggesting that you should be able to impliment your whole manifesto. Had you opposed the fee rise but not abolished them you wouldn't be getting this much criticism - voters aren't stupid. We know it would be childish to expect the minority party to be able to impliment all its proposals. But equally we're not so stupid that we don't know when we've been lied to and betrayed by opportunistic, careerist politicians and their useful idiots (eg. you).

I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.

Aye Vince cabel's claim that we have to compromise against our election pledges to be in a colaition government is just a little self-defeating. The Lib Dems' core principle is a more proportiopnalvoting system which would mean every government would (as likely as not) would be a coalition, so any partner can claim to break election pledges because it was necessary for the coalition agrement. so even minimal accountabilioty disappears.

Anyway lets get back to sacking the lot of them, and reformulating society based on virtuous, open and anti-hierarchical social practices.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Anyway lets get back to sacking the lot of them, and reformulating society based on virtuous, open and anti-hierarchical social practices.

That sounds like a lot of hard work. Can't we just keep calling Nick Clegg a cunt?

 

[dennisr]

One thing with the 21 grand repayment limit as well (beside the fact that it is being touted as more generous than the current limit or 15 grand, which let's not forget was 23 grand when it was introduced - wedge strategy anyone?) is that it is likely to be more imposing the lower your salary gradient. So if you get a job that starts at 30k when you graduate and quickly rises to 50k, then you're in a different situation to someone who might only start earning national average wage in their 30s, when they might well have kids and it will be seriously inconvenient to start paying back student loans.

The average student will pay at least £15 a week for 30 years to pay off their debts under the government’s proposal. This at a time when bankers have made an additional £7 billion in bonuses! In the theoretically ‘state-owned’ Lloyds Bank, the chief executive officer gets £8 million a year! Through ending the educational maintenance allowance (EMA), £30 a week will be taken from 16-18-year-olds – £1,560 a year!

 

[frogwoman]

Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.

Just on this point. What makes you think that the BNP aren't a democratic party? They don't openly advocate a fascist state, have a street gang of thugs or break the law in anything they say, do they? They don't even say that everyone who isn't white or "european" should be deported, the most they say IIRC is that immigrants should be given economic incentives to leave the country. Which is what some people in the tories have talked about anyway - and remember Clegg talking about pass systems for immigrants etc?

 

[DotCommunist]

The average student will pay at least £15 a week for 30 years to pay off their debts under the government’s proposal. This at a time when bankers have made an additional £7 billion in bonuses! In the theoretically ‘state-owned’ Lloyds Bank, the chief executive officer gets £8 million a year! Through ending the educational maintenance allowance (EMA), £30 a week will be taken from 16-18-year-olds – £1,560 a year!

in hostels etc that 30 quid is often the only thing keeping 16-18 year olds in FE- even then the prospect of minimum wage is more attractive ime. Sigh.

 

[TopCat]

I was quite heartended by the tenacious nature of the protesters. I arrived just before that van was attacked. As for it being an old rusty model, this is bollocks. its a Mercedes Sprinter with a Euro 4 engine, well modern ( I am a bit of a geek on vans and buses). The kettle was properly breached on three occasions on the West side of Whitehall. This was very encouraging, the police were just swept aside by the sheer weight of numbers. The energy of the protesters was brilliant. Tory scum, up your bum!

 

[Streathamite]

The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. .

No it fucking isn't, it's about whether there is a mandate for the cuts that are being implemented, and there isn't.
Your party and their coalition partners have deceived the British people - full stop.

 

[frogwoman]

if anyone wants to read it, my (slightly edited it seems!) report of the occupations is on the SP website here (scroll down to near the end)

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/10675/25-11-2010/student-walkouts-on-24-november

 

[Lock&Light]

The Italian Liberal Party merged with the fascist Italian Social Movement in 1995.

But it could never happen here, could it?

Didn't Russia have a Liberal Party led by a raving right-wing loony? Anyone can use the name Liberal.

 

[Streathamite]

The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy.

absolute crap; practically everywhere else that has coalition govts sees the smaller party hold the bigger one to ransom, at least in the negotiations. That's how it works. Your leadership didn't because they actually share the same neolib agenda with the tories; they both wanted to shaft the poor.

 

[Lock&Light]

Just on this point. What makes you think that the BNP aren't a democratic party? They don't openly advocate a fascist state, have a street gang of thugs or break the law in anything they say, do they? They don't even say that everyone who isn't white or "european" should be deported, the most they say IIRC is that immigrants should be given economic incentives to leave the country. Which is what some people in the tories have talked about anyway - and remember Clegg talking about pass systems for immigrants etc?

There's something new. The Left-wing using the BNP to attack the LibDems.

 

[killer b]

Didn't Russia have a Liberal Party led by a raving right-wing loony? Anyone can use the name Liberal.

indeed they can. hence the British political party, The Liberal Democrats.