Why the lib-dems are shit

[killer b]

can we cunt off this dickhead and go back to insulting the liberal vermin?

 

[Santino]

450 resignations my arse.

Let's see their figures when the annual DD's & SO's are called for.

What are the chances that when the time comes to renew subs there's a delay 'in order to handle new membership'. Say, about two or three months so that the real membership figures get buried on a busy news day.

 

[Proper Tidy]

What are the chances that when the time comes to renew subs there's a delay 'in order to handle new membership'. Say, about two or three months so that the real membership figures get buried on a busy news day.

Almost guaranteed

 

[Pickman's model]

can we cunt off this dickhead and go back to insulting the liberal vermin?

which one?

 

[Edie]

...you're a nutjuob. Off you fuck

Are you a bit simple?

Yeah, good trolling. Now, do fuck off.

Ignorance

Really? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Really? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.

No, he's a loon in a cult

 

[ymu]

Really? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.

No, it's not just that I disagree with him. What he's stating is largely half understood propaganda messages, which he hasn't backed up with any kind of source. He's repeatedly mis-stating the theories and concepts he's using, and simply repeating them again when someone points out his error. He's changing the subject rather than answering direct questions put to him, demanding links that have already been posted and then making it obvious he hadn't read them, and then claiming that I'm actually asking him to read all of Keynes and Friedman's work and not just a couple of thought-provoking articles. He may be the world's laziest idiot, but he's most likely trolling.

 

[butchersapron]

Alan McGee - lib dem.

 

[Sgt Howie]

Alan McGee - lib dem.

Preferred him when he got kicked out of the Labour party for running Malcolm McLaren's campaign against Livingstone. Ah well, never trust a hun.

 

[little_legs]

FT's comment on Clegg's speech:

Mr Clegg offered the usual simplistic nonsense of comparing a governmental deficit with household debt. He lumped tax "avoiders" and "evaders" into the same sentence, which is pretty stupid ("Doesn't he have an Isa then?" muttered my neighbour). And he has picked up his new colleague Michael Gove's mad mantra about setting headteachers free to do what they like. This is meant to be a party opposed to untrammelled dictatorship

Also, it looks like the LibDem activists have voted for a boycott of the free school reform, stating that the reform encourages "social divisiveness" and "increasing the amount of discrimination on religious grounds in pupil admissions". But!

Sarah Teather, Lib Dem minister in the education department, defended the policy, attacking the motion as "illiberal" and appealing to delegates not to "tie our councillors' hands" by encouraging them to boycott free schools. The margin of the victory is a signal of grassroots discontent.

 

[Combustible]

Just came across Shirley Williams' brilliantly incoherent justification for supporting the coalition

In the end, two things persuaded me. For the whole month of April, I travelled from the top to bottom of England, Newcastle to Penzance and Land's End. I didn't just do meetings. I spoke to thousands of people on the streets and pavements. What I got from them was a very strong sense of outrage about MPs' expenses, disproportionate outrage really because the level of anger was even greater than the level of misbehaviour. Some of these were a shock to the core. Some things were almost ludicrously exaggerated like the issue of the rocking chair, or the dolphin or whatever. It was very silly of the MP but not wicked. There were wicked things like the switching around of one's house to get capital gains. I was quite surprised by the fury of the public which was very, very powerful. I was exempted by being a "national treasure". I say that in quotation marks. The second thing was this very intense sense of a plague on all your houses, a 'we don't want any of you in government'. The Liberal Democrats were not so morally accused as the two [bigger] parties, but there was a sense that you're all up to it, you're evil. Therefore, when the electorate voted in fairly substantial numbers, it was an improvement on earlier elections, not a drop. What you got was this very strong feeling that we're going to give you another chance. We're going to stick to the mainstream parties. There wasn't a huge upsurge for UKIP or the Greens. What they wanted was, I think, the parties to work together. I don't think they worried explicitly about which parties they wanted to work together but they wanted to see politicians working together.

 

[butchersapron]

That is mental. Fuck the dolphin.

 

[butchersapron]

She thinks a vote was a vote for any of them. If you voted labour then fuck you, you really meant lib-dem. If you voted tory then fuck you, you meant lib-dem.

 

[frogwoman]

In the end, two things persuaded me. For the whole month of April, I travelled from the top to bottom of England, Newcastle to Penzance and Land's End. I didn't just do meetings. I spoke to thousands of people on the streets and pavements. What I got from them was a very strong sense of outrage about MPs' expenses, disproportionate outrage really because the level of anger was even greater than the level of misbehaviour. Some of these were a shock to the core. Some things were almost ludicrously exaggerated like the issue of the rocking chair, or the dolphin or whatever. It was very silly of the MP but not wicked. There were wicked things like the switching around of one's house to get capital gains. I was quite surprised by the fury of the public which was very, very powerful. I was exempted by being a "national treasure". I say that in quotation marks. The second thing was this very intense sense of a plague on all your houses, a 'we don't want any of you in government'. The Liberal Democrats were not so morally accused as the two [bigger] parties, but there was a sense that you're all up to it, you're evil. Therefore, when the electorate voted in fairly substantial numbers, it was an improvement on earlier elections, not a drop. What you got was this very strong feeling that we're going to give you another chance. We're going to stick to the mainstream parties. There wasn't a huge upsurge for UKIP or the Greens. What they wanted was, I think, the parties to work together. I don't think they worried explicitly about which parties they wanted to work together but they wanted to see politicians working together.

fixed it for you

 

[little_legs]

combustible found this garbage on Iain Dale's blog, that fucking LBC commentator who will swim naked in the sea of glass to suck cameron's dick. a truly wonderful find, combustible.

 

[butchersapron]

If she thinks the dolphin was exaggerated she ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[butchersapron]

Vince Cable will tomorrow launch an aggressive attack on capitalism with a speech that warns that the current system "takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can". In an echo of Denis Healey's famous 1974 pledge to "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak", Cable will unveil plans to shine a "harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour".

He is here to help.

 

[butchersapron]

Lib-dems play left, their mug supporters lap it up. No one else buys it.

Pint in the head of steam.

 

[butchersapron]

Crucified lib-dem, tattoo. pic please..

 

[Open Sauce]

we do NOT need cuts on anything like the scale needed, and the proposed cuts may make things worse by triggering a second recession which further limits the UK's ability to cut the deficit (See; Ireland, and South America, pretty much all of it, throughout the 80s).
SElling back our shares in 2 huge banks would go a huge way to reducing the deficit.
e2a; These cuts are about ideology - Thatcherism, in fact - and not 'good housekeeping'

The Tories have already talked about privatising these at a discount. So rather then the country as a whole benefiting from any profit (and there will be profit), it is going to be used for gerrymandering again, this has the added benefit or making the middle class owners of banks, therefore more likely to oppose any legislation stifling their activities. The libdems have not yet signed up to this, but they don't need to, it is trick to play nearer the next election.

 

[ymu]

Really? Or do you just disagree with him. Genuine question, I have no idea if what he's saying makes any sense.. some of it seems to.

Just to come back on this more formally, now that I can be arsed. Edie, you don't need to take our word for it that he's got it wrong. The IMF and OECD both say he's got it wrong - and neither of these are even centre-right, let alone left; they're full on neo-liberal, economically far-right.

The International Monetary Fund today provided a boost for Labour's campaign strategy when it warned rich western countries that their economies were too weak for spending cuts, tax increases or higher interest rates.

In its influential World Economic Outlook, the IMF said the recovery in global growth over the past year had relied on "highly accommodative" policies and there was a risk of a relapse.

"In most advanced economies, fiscal and monetary policies should maintain a supportive thrust in 2010 to sustain growth and employment," the WEO said.

"Regarding the near term, given the fragile recovery, fiscal stimulus planned for 2010 should be fully implemented, except in countries that are suffering large increases in risk premiums," the IMF added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...conomies-too-weak-for-spending-cuts-imf-warns

Growth is weakening in the world's rich economies, and further monetary stimulus might be needed in the form of quantitative easing and commitment to close-to-zero interest rates if the slowdown proves more than momentary, the OECD said. Plans to bring looming budget deficits under control through public spending cuts and tax rises "could be delayed".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/09/oecd-cuts-global-economic-growth-forecasts

Oh, and the comparisons of an economy with a domestic household? Nonsense according to informed non-propaganda spouting journalists across the mainstream political spectrum, from the Guardian to the FT.

Elsewhere, Mr Clegg offered the usual simplistic nonsense of comparing a governmental deficit with household debt.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f832eff8-c4f0-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss

He reached for that disreputable old populist fallacy, comparing the national economy with a household budget: how can you spend more than your income?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/clegg-talks-pure-cameronomics

It's not just nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. Useful for propaganda purposes, hopeless for actually running an economy - even if you want the economy to have small government and as much income inequality as possible. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of ending the stimulus (the OECD) has stepped back sharply now that the effects of the first round of cuts are having their (highly predictable) impact. It will be an absolute fucking disaster if the coalition don't act on this and go ahead with the ideologically-driven agenda anyway.

 

[DotCommunist]

The news is saying Cable is going to criticize capitalism. I look forward to his intense and cogent marxist analysis of the current mode of capitalism...

A tenner says he wags a finger at the naughty bankers and thats it.

 

[i_got_poison]

heres what the guardian really think about the IMF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/28/useconomy-imf

"can we trust the IMF?" it asks. lol

 

[ymu]

heres what the guardian really think about the IMF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/28/useconomy-imf

"can we trust the IMF?" it asks. lol

Well, that's the point. They're amongst the most untrustworthy neo-liberal arseholes out there, responsible for ruining many an economy with their privatise-everything mantra. If even the IMF (and OECD, now) are saying cuts to the extent proposed by the coalition are a shit idea right now, you can bet your bottom dollar they really are a shit idea.

It's interesting that you chose to post that article in an (ill-judged) defence of your position, when it is fundamentally opposed to your position.

There are alternatives. Central banks like the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve Board could just buy and hold large amounts of government debt. These central banks can both ensure that there are no questions of solvency by providing a ready market for government debt and that there is no build-up of interest burdens. The interest paid on the debt held by the banks is refunded to governments.

Large-scale central bank purchases of government debt will not create inflation in a context of massive unemployment and excess capacity. This is not a point we have to debate. Japan's central bank has bought an amount of government debt roughly equal to its GDP, yet it remains far more concerned about deflation than inflation. While we could hope to do better on the stimulus front than Japan, inflation is simply not a problem it faces now or even on the distant horizon.

 

[ymu]

.

 

[Santino]

What is Cable up to? A feint to the left to keep the dissidents down? Positioning himself to split/defect?

 

[i_got_poison]

Well, that's the point. They're amongst the most untrustworthy neo-liberal arseholes out there, responsible for ruining many an economy with their privatise-everything mantra. If even the IMF (and OECD, now) are saying cuts to the extent proposed by the coalition are a shit idea right now, you can bet your bottom dollar they really are a shit idea.

It's interesting that you chose to post that article in an (ill-judged) defence of your position, when it is fundamentally opposed to your position.

you used a IMF statement in a guardian article, to support your position, yet when presented with a guardian article discrediting the IMF you backtrack
and agree the IMF isn't trustworthy. what is it to be? can we assume the IMF was right on deficit spending in your post of 1311 and thoroughly unscrupulous
in the quoted post? or should we accept your talking out your arse (yet again) and move on.

p.s. i didn't post the link to agree with "my position" as my position should stand free of any particular biase.
but since you highlight it, it's funny how japan's unemployment rate has soared to 4.4%
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-unemployment-soars-to-44-in-december
having brought up all that government debt. note the article mentions "seasonally adjusted" figures. this is code for 'we are cooking the numbers'. birth\death ratios,
temporary christmas jobs etc etc. expect the real figures to be much higher.

you see even the guardian gets it wrong occasionally, but that's what happens when you pursue the reality you want and ignore the reality which is there

 

[ymu]

No. I used the IMF statement to show that even the rightiest of the right, and not just the leftiest of the left (not me, btw) know that your arguments are cack. I have never ever said the IMF are anything but neoliberal arseholes in my entire life! You may google search my posts on here to prove it if you like (you won't be able to use the urban search function because of the tremendously irritating 4 letters or more restriction).

 

[butchersapron]

Desperate Cable - got the go ahead from Cameron and Clegg. Just how insulting to their members can they be? Do they really think that little of them?

 

[Pickman's model]

you see even the guardian gets it wrong occasionally, but that's what happens when you pursue the reality you want and ignore the reality which is there

you seem quite capable of ignoring reality