Why the lib-dems are shit

[butchersapron]

Don't you see? This is the "graphite revolution", a "popular insurrection"...:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/our-graphite-revolution

That piece is insulting frankly.

 

[articul8]

interesting how it conflates "normal" with (privately?-)educated and middle class, and how little interest he has in political content as opposed to the fact that they are changing the form of parliamentary arithmetic

 

[TAE]

No i didn't it's perfectly readable if you zoom in.

Then we have a different understanding of "perfectly readable".

you've totally misread me

I can see where the misunderstanding between us arose:

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.

If he was talking about a form of PR which still has constituencies, then I cannot see any change to the current proposal of a constituency recalling an MP.

Therefore I thought he was talking about the simplest form of PR where a party that gets, say, 12% of the votes across the nation, then gets 12% of the seats in the nation's parliament.

Hence I replied:

The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.

Of course that statement makes no sense if we are talking about PR with constituencies.

 

[butchersapron]

Have a check of the record on intimidating workers and strikers that Ian Wright's - secret payer into Nick Clegg's personal bank account - company Diageo has:

Diageo boss 'in threat to staff if they go on strike'

Check out their board members and other connections as well - Baron Clive Hollick (labour peer), Margaret Beckett and Mandelson all in the mix. Clean hands. Fresh air. The lib-dems.

 

[Bailey]

maybe its been pointed out already but I will say to remind you anyway:

they are the only major party opposing the Digital Economy Bill.
This is a big issue for me and i'm sure many people here.

 

[ernestolynch]

No, we need Trident because North Korea could attack the UK at any moment!

Workers' Bomb.

 

[hipipol]

Here's your chance to post up why the lib-dems are shit - personalities and policies.

Starters - Nick Clegg supports private education and health-care, has used the latter to jump NHS ques and has said he will use the former to transmit his own massive privilege to his sons.

Still an idiot I see

 

[sleaterkinney]

Heather Mills has fallen over.

It's nicked legs fault


Badoom-tish

 

[Corax]

Of the 3 major parties, all of which are firmly centrist, which is most to the left?

I appreciate that the differences are down to Planck length, but still...

 

[kabbes]

Of the 3 major parties, all of which are firmly centrist, which is most to the left?

I appreciate that the differences are down to Planck length, but still...

Why restrict yourself to the economic axis though. What about the civil liberties axis? Or other metrics too, for that matter?

 

[Corax]

Why restrict yourself to the economic axis though. What about the civil liberties axis? Or other metrics too, for that matter?

I'm thinking in more than just economic terms.

Left/right is simplistic I'll concede.

Out of the 3 though, the lib-dems appear to be the least worst, on various measures.

 

[kabbes]

I'm thinking in more than just economic terms.

Left/right is simplistic I'll concede.

Out of the 3 though, the lib-dems appear to be the least worst, on various measures.

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[butchersapron]

Derek Wall has some info as regards their clean hands over Iraq:

1) This ongoing myth about being against the Iraq War - the Lib Dems weren't against the war, they wanted to see a UN resolution authorising the war. If Bush/Blair had secured that, through outright bribery and arm twisting at the UN Security Council, what would have happened then?

 

[fractionMan]

maybe its been pointed out already but I will say to remind you anyway:

they are the only major party opposing the Digital Economy Bill.
This is a big issue for me and i'm sure many people here.

Shame they were the ones who originally drafted all the things they went on to oppose.

 

[London_Calling]

I think I probably despise Cameron and Brown about equally now, thought for entirely different reasons.

What also concerns me is that Brown will probably hang on even beyond the length of the hung Parliament. They are literally going go have to prise his dead hand off the door of NL leaders office.

 

[London_Calling]

1) This ongoing myth about being against the Iraq War - the Lib Dems weren't against the war, they wanted to see a UN resolution authorising the war. If Bush/Blair had secured that, through outright bribery and arm twisting at the UN Security Council, what would have happened then?

But that's the same thing as opposing the war because a second specific resolution was always impossible - it's opposition couched in realpolitik.

 

[butchersapron]

But that's the same thing as opposing the war because a second specific resolution was always impossible - it's opposition couched in realpolitik.

Instead, Bush and Blair pursued the illegal option.

No, that's a very different thing from opposing the war - it's an acceptance of the case for invasion and occupation just done through the proper channels.

If it was impossible why not just openly oppose the war then - authorised or not? Esp when the polls showed the vast majority of the population opposed the war outright. And no, a second resolution was not impossible. They've got you jumping through hoops to defend them.

 

[London_Calling]

If it was impossible why not just openly oppose the war then - authorised or not? Esp when the polls showed the vast majority of the population opposed the war outright. And no, a second resolution was not impossible. They've got you jumping through hoops to defend them.

Why oppose the war outright when you can look international and cooperative by saying you agree with the UN's judgement and the rules of international law? Strategic init. As I say, it was pretty simple realpolitik.

Re the second resolution:

French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war.

 

[butchersapron]

Why oppose the war outright when you can look international and cooperative by saying you agree with the UN's judgement and the rules of international law? Strategic init. As I say, it was pretty simple realpolitik.

Re the second resolution:

Why would that be any more beneficial to them then outright opposition - given the majority opposition to the war? Opportunistically jumping on that bandwagon would have been genuine realpolitik. I fail to see the advantage that the position they adopted brought them. I think the far more likely case is that it was a genuine position (i.e that they weren't anti-war - as Kennedy made absolutely clear at the time) - and this is borne out by their position of offering "genuine support" once the war had started.

That chirac quote came not from the start of the crisis but the very end days - 10 days before the invasion started in fact. Up to that point (and even after as the history of international diplomacy indicates) the 2nd resolution authorising an invasion which the lib-dems supported was a goer - their months of arguing for a 2nd resolution were based on just that expectation and basis.

 

[butchersapron]

And of course, this is to let them off the hook for supporting then and now the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[London_Calling]

It also winds you up.

Crirac spoke on the issue when necessary. That's what politicians do - as the LibDems did on Iraq. It doesn't mean you don't hold that view beforehand, or that it was diplomatically obvious.

 

[butchersapron]

There were 5 months before the first resolution and Chirac's statement - 10 days between that and the war. That this (support for war under properly drawn up procedures) was the lib-dems genuine position is backed up by 5 months of arguing the case, 5 months of speeches, 5 months of votes, their position once the war had started and their bloodthirsty support of the Afghan invasion and occupation - all against the advantages of what an all out genuine opposition to either or both wars would have brought them - which would certainly have outweighed that they recieved for this back-door support.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I remember that Chirac's "veto promise" was spun by the US/UK anyway - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/03/chirac-iraq-war-veto-chilcot

 

[London_Calling]

again, diplomatic speak:

Chirac made very clear he was not against a second resolution, but such a resolution was not appropriate at that moment – and if presented would be vetoed by France.

Exactly. It means no, folks.

 

[butchersapron]

That's rubbish spin London_Calling - it blows your position out of the water.

I think the letter needs posting:

Emphasis needs to be given to the important points raised by Philippe Marlière (Comment, 29 January) regarding French president Jacques Chirac's crucial interview in the runup to the Iraq war. As the Financial Times bureau chief in Paris, I was well briefed on the Elysée's position in advance of the Chirac interview which came to be used as the justification by London and Washington, as evidence that France would block any new UN resolution. Chirac made very clear he was not against a second resolution, but such a resolution was not appropriate at that moment – and if presented would be vetoed by France.

I filed a story to this effect, but by the time it reached London, the news agencies had already hardened this vital proviso into an outright rejection of any fresh UN resolution. Downing Street and the White House jumped on the agencies' hard version as the proof they were looking for to say, in so many words: "France will never come on board, so we will have to go it alone." Faced with these official statements, my copy was altered to express an outright French rejection. Thus it was not so much a case of blaming the French as saying: "Thank you, Jacques, you have given us the rationale we have been looking for to go ahead with our plans." I think Chirac should have repeated better the French position, as it would have been much harder for Blair and Bush to go for regime change.

Robert Graham

Paris

 

[FridgeMagnet]

again, diplomatic speak:


Exactly. It means no, folks.

No it doesn't, it means he didn't want one at that specific stage in the process.

 

[kabbes]

If this thing is true about Liberals winning seats translating into Labour having the most seats in total, there are some attractive bets on offer! Lots of 4-1 bets around for Labour having the most seats.

 

[London_Calling]

NL's vote is far more concentrated in particular areas/seats than the others.

 

[butchersapron]

Here's the article that outlines the outright lies told about Chirac's position on a 2nd resolution that Robert Graham mentioned above:

At this point, Goldsmith drew the public's attention to one awkward episode in the run-up to the war: Britain's voluntary distortion of the French position. In short, Blair never obtained a second resolution because those shifty French would not concede it. Evidence of that was a much-quoted interview with President Chirac on French TV. Blair told the House of Commons: "France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances." In reality, Chirac said: "My position is that, whatever the circumstances, France will vote no [to a US-British resolution authorising the use of force], because we presently consider that war is not the proper means to reach our objective, that is disarming Iraq." In other words, Chirac thought that the UN should let Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors get on with their job. Had they found any weapons, the French argued, the UN would have met to decide on the appropriate course of action. War would then have been an option

 

[sihhi]

Why is someone's schooling relevant?

Lots of right wing scum bags went to state comps. What does it tell us? Bugger all in the big scheme.

It's the failure to repudiate these things.

To take the private school in question

Shane MacGowan - repudiates Westminster school - OK
Nick Clegg - doesn't repudiate Westminster school, supports the idea of private education for his children to entrench elite privilege.

Couple it with the insistence on using private healthcare it's all there for anyone to see.

It was the same with Thatcher - private education for the children, and private healthcare - all before being PM.