Why the lib-dems are shit

[Ptolemy]

Apparently real.

View attachment 188067

They removed Hitler.

Ironic coming from the party which backed every Tory welfare "reform" in the Coalition and quite literally cost many thousands upon thousands of lives.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Probably rude reply, I’m just out to the foodbank that Carmichael said we didn’t need in Orkney to some local gov types in the pub.
And we’re back on topic with Lib Dem Shit News you won’t get in the papers guys!

 

[teuchter]

They're cunts.

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.

 

[Ptolemy]

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.

The only thing simplistic about their stance is that it's an electoral dumpster fire and for what purpose unless it reveals their true leanings?

 

[brogdale]

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.

I'm arguing about the right or wrong of the cunts' position.
They were wrong to enact the legislation and wrong not to support the regret amendment.

 

[teuchter]

The only thing simplistic about their stance is that it's an electoral dumpster fire and for what purpose unless it reveals their true leanings?

Whose stance?

 

[SpineyNorman]

"NHS privatisation" is so ill-defined that pretty much any headline that mentions it is fairly meaningless.

Voting for this amendment would not have meant an "end to NHS privatisation" even if it had been legally binding.

The amendment was about Labour signalling that they in principle want less private sector involvement in delivering NHS services, which is then translated into voter-friendly language about "stopping the sell-off of the NHS" or "ending NHS privatisation" and so on. The reality is that repealing that bill would not mean anything like ending private sector involvement in the NHS.

The Lib Dems I believe are fairly open about the fact that they are more interested in increasing funding to the NHS than fundamentally changing its structure. On that basis it seems unsurprising that they didn't feel like voting for this amendment. By abstaining they signal that they are not entirely opposed to reducing private sector involvement.

Headlines that say stuff like "refusing bid to protect NHS" are just meaningless and simplistic rubbish journalism.

shut up you bell end

 

[Proper Tidy]

They're cunts.

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

It's objectively true I'm afraid. Hard facts. Like gravity or death.

 

[butchersapron]

You know that feeling where you see that there's been new posts on a thread that you're interested in then you spot last post - teuchter. Horrible ain't it?

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

I'm not arguing about the right or wrong of the Lib Dem's position. I'm arguing about the simplistic way in which their decision is being reported and discussed.

lib dems'

 

[Pickman's model]

All fine words and a 'logical' delivery, but people should not be concerned with the semantics of the Lib Dems and more concerned with what it indicates - to me, any private sector running of NHS services is a crowbar to opening it up to more private sector involvement, not simply existing in a status quo vacuum. All actions (and lack of actions) have consequences.

It's one thing to crow about protecting the public nature of the NHS and then do nothing about it. It's quite another to not even spout the rhetoric. Why can't they even bring themselves to engage in the optics?

The LDs are a mess, a total void at the centre of politics.

leave optics where they belong, in pubs

 

[Teaboy]

Yeah, I know that's your opinion.

As someone who is surrounded by them all the time, living in probably the most lib dem place in the country as I do. I am happy to confirm they are indeed cunts. HTH.

 

[Ptolemy]

leave optics where they belong, in pubs

Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.

many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses

 

[teuchter]

Yeah, I agree. I'm just writing that for the benefit of people who think that optics are an acceptable substitute for integrity - even in this case the LDs can't get the former right.

In this case, voting for the amendment might have been good for their 'optics' (fewer kneejerk headlines from lazy or disingenuous journalists) but not for their integrity, as it would have meant voting for something that is not consistent with their stated position.

 

[Teaboy]

but not for their integrity,

Ha ha ha.

You're a total bell but you do do a lovely line in sardonic humour.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses

Yeah I’ve seen Carmichael’s face up close he’s well engaged with the optics


A joke I intended to make earlier before you beat me to it

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's misleading to claim the libdems refused to support an end to privatisation is false because the motion wouldn't have been binding and would instead have just 'applied political pressure' is the claim there - but that is still refusing to support an end to privatisation isn't it. Think about it.

It's funny that, while you could argue that what the motion means has been misrepresented, the actual "fact check" site phrases the issue in such a way that what they say is "misleading" simply isn't.

The Lib Dems didn't support the motion. They seem to be annoyed that that's is being used to make it out that they are happy with NHS privatisation but, well, if their policies means they won't vote for a motion that opposes NHS privatisation, they'll get that happening. "It's so unfair that people are publicising what we want to do" is basically what this is.

 

[brogdale]

It's funny that, while you could argue that what the motion means has been misrepresented, the actual "fact check" site phrases the issue in such a way that what they say is "misleading" simply isn't.

The Lib Dems didn't support the motion. They seem to be annoyed that that's is being used to make it out that they are happy with NHS privatisation but, well, if their policies means they won't vote for a motion that opposes NHS privatisation, they'll get that happening. "It's so unfair that people are publicising what we want to do" is basically what this is.

Yep; whinging cunts.

 

[NoXion]

In this case, voting for the amendment might have been good for their 'optics' (fewer kneejerk headlines from lazy or disingenuous journalists) but not for their integrity, as it would have meant voting for something that is not consistent with their stated position.

Their stated position of being yellow vermin.

 

[teuchter]

Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Actually, come to think of it, if they'd had any courage in their convictions they'd have voted no, not abstained.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.

It’s alright though, because your mandate to go to the ballot box is just the wee cheerleader in your head so we can leak integrity until the tank is empty, who cares!

 

[brogdale]

Anyway. Anyone who abstains from voting in the coming general election 'does not want to protect the NHS'. Those who didn't vote in the referendum 'support the neoliberal EU', etc etc.

Yes, obviously...the actions of the legislators that presume to govern us equating exactly to the electoral participation of those invited to vote for them.

 

[chilango]

 

[Dogsauce]

many lib dems are known to admire - for hours at a time - the optics in pubs, to gurgle with delight as amber liquid flows through the optics into their glasses

Is gurgling amber liquid another of Oaten’s things?

 

[teuchter]

It’s alright though, because your mandate to go to the ballot box is just the wee cheerleader in your head so we can leak integrity until the tank is empty, who cares!

Yes, obviously...the actions of the legislators that presume to govern us equating exactly to the electoral participation of those invited to vote for them.

My point was to do with the interpretation of an abstainer's position but you both respond in a way that implies the act of abstention (regardless of context) is in itself problematic if taken by an MP. Is that your view?

 

[brogdale]

My point was to do with the interpretation of an abstainer's position but you both respond in a way that implies the act of abstention (regardless of context) is in itself problematic if taken by an MP. Is that your view?

No.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

.

 

[teuchter]

No.

I don't know what your point was then.