Why the Lib Dems are great

[butchersapron]

Again this - "we're in power ner ner ne ner ner"

Power meaning we attack he poorest as hard as we ca. Whilst propping up the rich.

It's quite simple.

 

[frogwoman]

The Lib Dems are in power your party or way of thinking isn't and never will be.

So what if "my party or way of thinking" isn't ever in power? Is that all thats important - does being in power make you right or better than people who think differently to you?

Butchers isnt in a party btw.

 

[moon23]

Again this - "we're in power ner ner ne ner ner"

It's just kind of pointing out that the party isn't actually wiped out but really having a shot at implementing some of it's policies.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course the state of the economy you inherit affects what you can do, even people within the Labour party were saying it wasn't a good time to be in power with the cuts. They killed any hope of a so-called Rainbow alliance - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/11/gordon-brown-labour-leadership-lib-dems

I'd kill anything with you involved. And i like stew.

 

[butchersapron]

It's just kind of pointing out that the party isn't actually wiped out but really having a shot at implementing some of it's policies.

How about your massive lie about PR?

 

[frogwoman]

The Lib Dems are in power your party or way of thinking isn't and never will be.

Other people who've been in power:

robert mugabe
kim jong il

 

[moon23]

So what if "my party or way of thinking" isn't ever in power? Is that all thats important - does being in power make you right or better than people who think differently to you?

Butchers isnt in a party btw.

If you want to actually make a differance then yes being in power is important.

 

[frogwoman]

If you want to actually make a differance then yes being in power is important.

Except you're not actually making a differnece are you. You're not even implementing you "golden promises"

 

[free spirit]

Two months unemployment figures are not a sufficient economic marker to make a judgement on. The fact our debt rating hasn’t been downgraded and we still have low interest rates show we have avoided the potential for economic ruin we were heading for.

All three of the main parties said there would be a need for cuts before the election. We haven’t got a Lib Dem government, we have a coalition in which the party has won things including stopping the Tories cutting inheritance tax and increasing capital gains tax. I agree the rise in VAT is a mistake, I don't think many Lib Dems want that but they only have 57 MPs and the Tories have 307MP so they are going to get mostly their way in a compromise.

The cuts will bring us back to a 2006 share of our GDP expenditure, and will not be the utter apocalyptic event they are being portrayed as.

sorry, but you're wrong about the cuts impact on the economy. It's far too early to be cutting in such a dramatic way after we've narrowly avoided a worldwide depression. There is nothing at all that has fundamentally changed in the economic outlook from the months before the election to after the election that could possibly justify this change in position - the greek and Irish debt rating downgrading was entirely predictable and should have had minimal impact on UK economic policy, due to it having been entirely predictable, plus there was sod all chance of our debt being downgraded any time soon unless the government had done something monumentally stupid. We are not greece, and we're not Ireland.

the previous government did fuck up by continuing to rack up huge amounts of debt in the boom years when it should have been clearing our debts, but that's no reason to compound one bad economic mistake with another by trying to clear our debts while we're still trying to claw our way out of recession. Without this public spending we'd still be in recession, and by taking it away now we're in serious danger of ending up in a long depression period.

There is no way that a country just coming out of recession should even be thinking about aiming to bring it's expenditure back to the percentage of GDP it was at the height of the boom years, this is economic madness. At the height of the boom, spending should be relatively low as a proportion of GDP, and debts should be being repaid (which they weren't this time), whereas in a recession and the years following it spending should be high in order to boost the economy, keep people in work etc and avoid entering into a period of depression.

 

[butchersapron]

If you want to attack people via cuts then you need to get elected on an anti-cuts program. Then support cuts.

You are fucked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not a lie, Labour were in power for years and encouraged the boom and bust mentality within the financial sector.

No, they didn't.
What they were guilty of was not re-regulating the financial sector, rather than leaving Tory "self-policing" in place.

Most people recognise Labour are to blame for the deficit, only the delusional think Brown/Blair are somehow separate from the bankers and the fiscal collapse.

I'll reiterate the same easily-checkable facts that I've told you before: The deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the banks bail-out. The bail-out was necessary, here as in many other national economies large and small, to prevent economic collapse.

To blame the results of the banks' abysmal lending decisions, poor understanding of the financial instruments they created and/or invested in and short-sightedness on a pair of cretinous politicians really is the mark of a thoroughgoing idiot.

 

[moon23]

How about your massive lie about PR?

Only in your twisted world would you see compromising for what was actually on offer and achievable as a 'massive lie'. This is why you hate the Lib Dems because you like to remain so intellectually pure and self-righteously principled that you can’t bear the thought of someone doing a deal. You would instead spend your whole life watching on the side-lines hoping for a political system that you will never make real.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tells me more that the downside of power being the need to have realistic policies.

Not really. It tells you that apart from anything else, your MPs have no honour, and care more about holding the scent of power in their nostrils than in fighting for their convictions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Lib Dems are in power your party or way of thinking isn't and never will be.

But you're not "in power". A handful of your MPs have minor Cabinet and ministerial appointments, but they're too afraid of queering their pitch to attempt to exert any power or control, hence u-turn after u-turn on Lib-Dem policy.

 

[butchersapron]

Only in your twisted world would you see compromising for what was actually on offer and achievable as a 'massive lie'. This is why you hate the Lib Dems because you like to remain so intellectually pure and self-righteously principled that you can’t bear the thought of someone doing a deal. You would instead spend your whole life watching on the side-lines hoping for a political system that you will never make real.

Er.. you were offered PR you turned it down.
You're fucked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Power meaning we attack he poorest as hard as we ca. Whilst propping up the rich.

It's quite simple.

Tis the Whiggish way: Prate about looking after the poor, and then out comes the big stick once they're in power.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's just kind of pointing out that the party isn't actually wiped out but really having a shot at implementing some of it's policies.

You don't have a shot at all, because your MPs are too craven to fight for what the Lib-Dem grassroots want.

 

[moon23]

No, they didn't.
What they were guilty of was not re-regulating the financial sector, rather than leaving Tory "self-policing" in place.


I'll reiterate the same easily-checkable facts that I've told you before: The deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the banks bail-out. The bail-out was necessary, here as in many other national economies large and small, to prevent economic collapse.

To blame the results of the banks' abysmal lending decisions, poor understanding of the financial instruments they created and/or invested in and short-sightedness on a pair of cretinous politicians really is the mark of a thoroughgoing idiot.

I’ve demonstrated that Labour had increased the share of debt as GDP by 10% during the 00s before the fiscal crash. If they had kept it as low as it was after the good economic growth in their first years of government, rather than increasing it during the following period of steady growth then we would like Germany have much more room for manoeuvre.

I’m not even sure we can assume Brown's argument that the bank's needed bailing out with public expenses as being correct. He ended up rewarding failure within the market thus allowing the banks to carry on with business as usual whilst the rest of us picked up the bill for their bonuses. The market might actually have been able to contain a the collapse of one or two banks reasonably well.

 

[free spirit]

A big chunk of lib dem support want exactly this. It's what the lib-dems are about.

and a big chunk of it's support or former support don't.

I think my main mistake was in thinking that clegg wouldn't just entirely ignore the views of that side of the party, and basically just marry up the right wing of the lib dems with the tory party, and leave the rest of the lib dems to go fuck themselves. This can be seen most clearly by comparing the tory and lib dem MP's given government jobs, where the tories have most of their recent ex leaders in cabinet, yet none of the lib dems previous leaders have got a sniff of anything despite being among the most competent and experienced of the lib dems rather limited options.

good to see my local MP finally breaking cover and coming out as a spokesperson for the rebels on the student fees issue btw, just a shame he's taken so long to do it, and hasn't spoken out against the cuts, VAT etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Only in your twisted world would you see compromising for what was actually on offer and achievable as a 'massive lie'. This is why you hate the Lib Dems because you like to remain so intellectually pure and self-righteously principled that you can’t bear the thought of someone doing a deal. You would instead spend your whole life watching on the side-lines hoping for a political system that you will never make real.

"Compromising for what was on offer"!
You cock!
Compromise is the result of give and take. There wasn't any give and take involved here. Cameron offered a referendum on AV, and your Eton alumnus rolled over.

 

[moon23]

Er.. you were offered PR you turned it down.
You're fucked.

In what way? How could Labour have delivered PR when they didn't even have enough MPs to offer a coalition? That's before you take into account the inevitable Labour back bench rebels who would have voted to keep FPTP as it suites their best interest in safe seats. Again your taking an ideologically pure but naive view of how politics actually works, promises if you don’t have the power to back them up are normally just for moral point scoring.

 

[moon23]

and a big chunk of it's support or former support don't.

I think my main mistake was in thinking that clegg wouldn't just entirely ignore the views of that side of the party, and basically just marry up the right wing of the lib dems with the tory party, and leave the rest of the lib dems to go fuck themselves. This can be seen most clearly by comparing the tory and lib dem MP's given government jobs, where the tories have most of their recent ex leaders in cabinet, yet none of the lib dems previous leaders have got a sniff of anything despite being among the most competent and experienced of the lib dems rather limited options.

good to see my local MP finally breaking cover and coming out as a spokesperson for the rebels on the student fees issue btw, just a shame he's taken so long to do it, and hasn't spoken out against the cuts, VAT etc.

I hope there is a decent rebellion on student fees.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I’ve demonstrated that Labour had increased the share of debt as GDP by 10% during the 00s before the fiscal crash.

No, you've not "demonstrated", you posted a graph. That's all. No analysis of why the debt was increased, no factoring in of the phase of the economic cycle it occurred in, nothing at all.

If they had kept it as low as it was after the good economic growth in their first years of government, rather than increasing it during the following period of steady growth then we would like Germany have much more room for manoeuvre.

Hmm, which shows that not only do you not understand the British economy, you don't understand the German economy either. Germany has more room to manouvre because it regulates its' banks more closely, and didn't need to bail them out to anywhere near the same extent.

I’m not even sure we can assume Brown's argument that the bank's needed bailing out with public expenses as being correct.

I'm not talking about Brown's argument, I'm stating a that fairly obvious (taken in context with the global dimensions of the problems) necessary measure was taken, a measure (or set of) consistent with what other states did to avoid the rather obvious consequences (the same consequences that crop up every time a run starts on a bank, even if it's a small bank in Buttfuck, Idaho) of saver and investor panic.

He ended up rewarding failure within the market thus allowing the banks to carry on with business as usual whilst the rest of us picked up the bill for their bonuses. The market might actually have been able to contain a the collapse of one or two banks reasonably well.

Banking is globalised. A look at how the collapse of Lehmans sent shockwaves throughout the global banking community and had knock-on effects in banks around the world, even ones with no investment links to Lehmans, should show you just how "containable" a bank failure is, i.e. not at all containable.

 

[Nylock]

Only in your twisted world would you see compromising for what was actually on offer and achievable as a 'massive lie'. This is why you hate the Lib Dems because you like to remain so intellectually pure and self-righteously principled that you can’t bear the thought of someone doing a deal. You would instead spend your whole life watching on the side-lines hoping for a political system that you will never make real.

There is compromise and then there's bending over a bin in a darkened alley to get fucked in the arse.

Pretty much ALL of the lib-dem major pre-election promises have been reneged on (the latest shafting of the student population being a massive case in point -your lot didn't even BEGIN to defend their position on that one, instead you 'compromised' and rolled over).

I agree with butcher's analysis that the lib dems are totally fucked. You sold yourselves and your principles out for a taste of the Lloyd Gorge vintage. Enjoy the next five years, because after that election it'll take another two world wars and fifty-odd years on top before people will even consider your spineless shower of shit for anything with more responsibility than the local council.

...and this is from someone who, when he has voted, has voted for the lib-dems more often than anything else available.

Clegg and co are a fucking disgrace, enjoy the next 80-odd years in the political wilderness...

 

[moon23]

No, you've not "demonstrated", you posted a graph. That's all. No analysis of why the debt was increased, no factoring in of the phase of the economic cycle it occurred in, nothing at all.

It was still in a growth period that they allowed debt to grow, the grapth demostrates that growth.

Hmm, which shows that not only do you not understand the British economy, you don't understand the German economy either. Germany has more room to manouvre because it regulates its' banks more closely, and didn't need to bail them out to anywhere near the same extent.

Germany had less of a defecit before the financial melt-down then we did. The extent to which banks have had to be bailed out has more to do with domestic real-estate than regulation.

I'm not talking about Brown's argument, I'm stating a that fairly obvious (taken in context with the global dimensions of the problems) necessary measure was taken, a measure (or set of) consistent with what other states did to avoid the rather obvious consequences (the same consequences that crop up every time a run starts on a bank, even if it's a small bank in Buttfuck, Idaho) of saver and investor panic.

There would have been consequences, but transferring all the private debt to public debt wasn't without consequences including the public sector cuts we are now seeing as a reaction to the sovereign debt crisis that has spread across Europe.

 

[free spirit]

I hope there is a decent rebellion on student fees.

unfortunately this would IMO be a token rebellion, and therefore wouldn't really count.

The rebellion needed to have happened when nick clegg did his u turn on public spending and VAT to put a proper shot across Osbourne (and clegg's) bows, and make it clear that they'd not support big cuts too early in the economic cycle, and at least managed to get this cuts agenda delayed and reduced. This is what the lib dems were elected to do in any lib/con coalition, and the fact they've not done it basically makes a mockery of any pretence of democratic accountability. It also destroys any arguments the lib dems can offer in favour of coalition government as a method of government, and therefore any likely vote for PR.

Nothing that the lib dems have won in exchange for their support comes even close to compensating for this capitulation on by far the biggest issue this government has to deal with.

 

[moon23]

unfortunately this would IMO be a token rebellion, and therefore wouldn't really count.

The rebellion needed to have happened when nick clegg did his u turn on public spending and VAT to put a proper shot across Osbourne (and clegg's) bows, and make it clear that they'd not support big cuts too early in the economic cycle, and at least managed to get this cuts agenda delayed and reduced. This is what the lib dems were elected to do in any lib/con coalition, and the fact they've not done it basically makes a mockery of any pretence of democratic accountability. It also destroys any arguments the lib dems can offer in favour of coalition government as a method of government, and therefore any likely vote for PR.

Nothing that the lib dems have won in exchange for their support comes even close to compensating for this capitulation on by far the biggest issue this government has to deal with.

In public you have to show a united front when it comes to the plans for the economy, as the bond markets are watching. I think any of those fights would have happened behind closed doors.

 

[free spirit]

Welcome back.

lol... thanks I think.

I said at election time that I'd judge the lib dems on their actions when in coalition rather than on their actual decision to end up with the tories, as they had little option other than to work with the tories one way or another. So far I'm about as far from happy as it's possible to be on virtually every issue, the over-riding one being that they just seem to have no idea how to actually negotiate compromise agreements between the lib dem manifesto commitments and the tory ones... or more to the point, the fact that the ones actually in power seem to be using the coalition as an excuse to simply junk any of the manifesto they don't personally agree with and do whatever they feel like instead.

time yet for the rest of the party to show some actual back bone and redeem itself, but so far they've been far too quiet, which is not what they were elected to do IMO.

 

[Neutron]

Having rocks thrown from all sides....

Having rocks thrown from all sides....

....probably means you're pleasing no-one.

I voted Lib-Dem but not again.

 

[frogwoman]

In public you have to show a united front when it comes to the plans for the economy, as the bond markets are watching.

Jesus !