Why the lib-dems are shit

[sihhi]

It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.

Yes but even if you accept that a system can be reformable, a new system will be created for you to reform.

Look at the new 'democratic' bodies that have been appearing over in recent years : the European Union, the Welsh & Scottish parliaments, 'democratic' managing committees for the NDC, directly elected mayorships in London and for local councils, 'Area Assemblies'

Out of interest do you back the Greens?

 

[danny la rouge]

It's at this point that we diverge philisophically. I believe in reformism, and you believe in revolutionary politics. Therefore for you, reforms to the existing system are window dressing, and for me they are slow progress toward a different system.

Reforms take place at moments of crisis. And they occur because of struggle.

 

[butchersapron]

Q: Who hates the idea of PR the most?
A: The Tories

Surely that is reason enough to vote for the muppets?

Q. Who do you fear the most?
A. Tories

Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.

 

[Idaho]

Reforms take place at moments of crisis. And they occur because of struggle.

But what constitutes struggle? It seems, like much in the leftist dictionary, a word out of time.

I would suggest that governments have become quite sensitive over the centuries to when they need to bend a little. They know it's better (for them) to give a small amount, than have people take a big chunk. A majority of voters voting for a party which then gets 15% of the seats is political pressure. That creates change. Then smaller parties can get into politics. They can maybe focus on consituency work, rather than chasing govt jobs. They can use that as a platform to promote progressive ideas.

I think the problem with the left is that it's intellectually lazy. Stuck with the idea that change can only occur with the recreation of 1930's style trade unions and industrial relations.

 

[Idaho]

Q. Who do you fear the most?
A. Tories

Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.

Yeah but they are all Tories when in government. They are all ambitious, self serving, ruthless and in the pocket of whoever is backing them.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah but they are all Tories when in government. They are all ambitious, self serving, ruthless and in the pocket of whoever is backing them.

Well the argument offered is that the lib-dems are slightly better than nthe tories, and the tories the absolute worst - so tell me where the logic is in casting a vote for someone on the basis that they're the least worst when they've said they'll support the worst, when it helps to bring about the outcome that you believe is the worst?

 

[Idaho]

Well the argument offered is that the lib-dems are slightly better than nthe tories, and the tories the absolute worst - so tell me where the logic is in casting a vote for someone on the basis that they're the least worst when they've said they'll support the worst, when it helps to bring about the outcome that you believe is the worst?

Because I would propose voting liberal in order to give them a vote majority and seat minority. We would be voting to highlight how the system is fundamentally undemocratic - regardless of the muppets we are voting for.

Surely that's fundamental? How can we work toward democratic principles and a fair society whilst maintaining FPTP and the nonsense that cascades from it?

 

[butchersapron]

Because I would propose voting liberal in order to give them a vote majority and seat minority. We would be voting to highlight how the system is fundamentally undemocratic - regardless of the muppets we are voting for.

Surely that's fundamental? How can we work toward democratic principles and a fair society whilst maintaining FPTP and the nonsense that cascades from it?

Why to highlight this situation do you need to take a path of action that brings about the worst possible outcome? A vote for any of the parties would actually highlight the way that FPTP works just as well. Why must it be the lib-dems? (and if you think they lib-dems will even come close to getting a vote majority then you're insane).

 

[ernestolynch]

Q. Who do you fear the most?
A. Tories

Then don't vote for the party that are going to put them in power.

What about TORY-Liberal marginals?

 

[frogwoman]

vote bnp

*that was a joke btw

 

[ernestolynch]

vote bnp

*that was a joke btw

If they weren't full of paedos I would be tempted.

 

[Idaho]

Why to highlight this situation do you need to take a path of action that brings about the worst possible outcome? A vote for any of the parties would actually highlight the way that FPTP works just as well. Why must it be the lib-dems? (and if you think they lib-dems will even come close to getting a vote majority then you're insane).

Because sometimes you need a big display of visible injustice to focus attention.

Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Clegg comes accross as a right cunt. Smug, public school, egostistical, patronising and smarmy. Tony Blair mk 2.

And now hes trying to bounce his own party into doing a deal with the fucking tories whilst seemingly telling labour to get a new leader before he condescends to talking to them.

Shame the roly-poly ginger pisshead isn't still in charge.

 

[Idaho]

telling labour to get a new leader before he condescends to talking to them.

He has to say that. He can hardly say "Vote for me and you will get him". He has to campaign on a 'change' ticket.

 

[ymu]

Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.

Even though this is the exact opposite of what Clegg is saying?

 

[butchersapron]

Because sometimes you need a big display of visible injustice to focus attention.

Also I think that the liberals more likely give a shoe-in to Labour than the Tories. And also because they are much more likely to co-operate with Labour than the Tories.

Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.

 

[butchersapron]

Even though this is the exact opposite of what Clegg is saying?

Indeed, he's even had Paddy Ashdown having to slap him like a naughty child misbehaving in tescos and stop getting too big for his boots. If he's already spinning out of control after just a few weeks good headlines what's he going to be like with some power in his hands?

 

[the button]

Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.

..... enabling Labour to trot out the "Vote LibDem, get Tory" line they push at every election, and actually have a quote from Clegg to back it up this time. Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg, depending on who is the least unpopular of the two main parties.

 

[mk12]

.....Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg,

Definitely. Those Guardianistas who just last week suggested 'progressives' should vote Lib Dem might be changing their mind now...

 

[Idaho]

Have you not been reading the papers or watching the TV over the last few days? Clegg has been banging on that he'll support the tories.

It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.

Although tbh - all I am interested in is things getting messy and different. I don't want a bog standard labour or con win with small/medium majority. I want to see something new. I want a hung parliament, weird pacts, etc.

 

[butchersapron]

..... enabling Labour to trot out the "Vote LibDem, get Tory" line they push at every election, and actually have a quote from Clegg to back it up this time. Could be a big tactical blunder from Clegg, depending on who is the least unpopular of the two main parties.

I think he's estimated the number of effective votes (i.e in marginals) they can pull in from traditional right side will outnumber those they can pull from labour/left - which looks to me like they think the labour vote is going to hold up in their traditional seats and so the lib-dems won't be making any inroads there.

 

[butchersapron]

It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.

Although tbh - all I am interested in is things getting messy and different. I don't want a bog standard labour or con win with small/medium majority. I want to see something new. I want a hung parliament, weird pacts, etc.

Well i'm glad that you're quite sure. Nick Clegg is equally sure and he's in rather a more influential position than you.

 

[danny la rouge]

It'll never work. I can't see a con-lib pact happening.

Not really the point, though, is it? The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with. And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.

 

[sihhi]

Not really the point, though, is it? The point is that Clegg has made it clear who he'll deal with. And that if Labour's not in front, it'll be the Tories.

I think he could still do a temporary coalition agreement with Labour if Labour come second: change your leader while the Tories change theirs, meanwhile let's put in PR and then have a new general election with a new PR system when the temporary coalition is finished.

 

[sihhi]

I think he's estimated the number of effective votes (i.e in marginals) they can pull in from traditional right side will outnumber those they can pull from labour/left - which looks to me like they think the labour vote is going to hold up in their traditional seats and so the lib-dems won't be making any inroads there.

Broadly,
Lib Dems have given up chasing Labour where they are behind

Tories have given up chasing Lib Dems where they are behind

The Lib Dems strategists have abandoned many London Labour constituencies to focus on the West London Tory seats.

 

[butchersapron]

Broadly,
Lib Dems have given up chasing Labour where they are behind

Tories have given up chasing Lib Dems where they are behind

The Lib Dems strategists have abandoned many London Labour constituencies to focus on the West London Tory seats.

I can go along with most of that, except i'm not so sure the tories have given up on chasing the lib-dems across the country - certain areas sure. I trhink attracting lib-dems will be Cameron's key thing for the at least the first half of this week. They really need to get some lib-dems back in the key lab/con marginals (which everyone seems to have forgotten about over the last week).

Peter Kellner had a piece in the Times yesterday which received baffling few comments, that showed how the lib-dem surge has done sever damage to the tories in those lab/con marginals, reducing the swing to 4% in line with the national swing which, if carried though to the election would make it impossible for the tories to form a govt on their own.

analysis

Our sample of 2,220 in these target seats now puts Labour one point ahead. The swing since 2005 is down to 4% in the Labour marginals — the same as the national swing. Not only is the prospect of big Conservative gains from the Lib Dems slipping away; the bonus swing the Tories had been enjoying in the Labour marginals has also disappeared.

The Lib Dem surge has hurt the Tories with special force in Labour-Conservative marginals. The 10-point gain in Lib Dem support in these seats has been overwhelmingly at the Tories’ expense.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think he could still do a temporary coalition agreement with Labour if Labour come second: change your leader while the Tories change theirs, meanwhile let's put in PR and then have a new general election with a new PR system when the temporary coalition is finished.

Yes, he hasn't said he won't deal with Labour; he said he won't prop up a party that's come third.

 

[sihhi]

I trhink attracting lib-dems will be Cameron's key thing for the at least the first half of this week. They really need to get some lib-dems back in the key lab/con marginals (which everyone seems to have forgotten about over the last week).

Yes that's right I think. The Tories don't want an overall rising Lib Dem tide to steal the non-Labour vote, where the Conservatives are the main challengers to Labour.

Their main idea of anti-LibDem-ism weak though. "Unless you vote Tory, you might get a Lib-Lab coalition", but Cameron hasn't ruled out doing a deal with the Lib Dems so a LibDem vote might also mean a LibDem-Tory coalition, it might not be as convincing as he thinks.

 

[frogwoman]

A Lab-Con coalition would be ... well ...

 

[sihhi]

A Lab-Con coalition would be ... well ...

It happened for fourteen years in this country, it happened in Germany with its PR system.