Why the lib-dems are shit

[articul8]

Surely if everyone votes yes, it's an endorsement of the lib dems and their policy and by extension an endorsement of tories? I don't really see any *significant* difference between the leadership of the lib dems and that of the tories.

No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships. It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against. It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition. But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it. So the losers are both coalition parties.

 

[butchersapron]

The libdems should be put in death camps.

No reflection? No useless leniency? You tory.

 

[butchersapron]

No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships. It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against. It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition. But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it. So the losers are both coalition parties.

You're manufacturing a self-justifying fantasy that has as its hero a rotten villain - and makes a virtue out of it. But it's the best i could do.

 

[articul8]

What sort of reflection is needed in response to you and all you sail in are thick tories? It's pathetic. And you're paid for it.

No - Im asking (*genuine question*) what logic leads you to line up with virtually 100% of Tory MPs against left unions and MPs? You think I'm only saying this because I'm paid to? WRONG I work on this campaign because I happen to believe that it is worthwhile.

 

[Belushi]

I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.

 

[stethoscope]

I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.

Innit!

 

[butchersapron]

See, this is the reality. None of this devious waffle above.

 

[ymu]

you don't answer why the Tories and their allies would be so keen on a NO vote - and why leading lefts would argue for YES.

Let's have an answer...

I'm not sure I'm understanding you, so forgive me if I'm pointing out the glaringly obvious and missing the deeper point you're making.

The Tories don't want a YES vote because it means they will never hold power alone again. Labour are split on this issue. They abandoned plans for electoral reform when they got in because they had a huge majority and didn't want to give it up for coalition politics.

 

[articul8]

I would rather burn my eyes than vote yes to AV and give those whigg cunts what they want.

Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead. Well, ok....

 

[butchersapron]

No - Im asking (*genuine question*) what logic leads you to line up with virtually 100% of Tory MPs against left unions and MPs? You think I'm only saying this because I'm paid to? WRONG I work on this campaign because I happen to believe that it is worthwhile.

You're doing exactly what i say you are. It's why you're going to lose.

 

[frogwoman]

No you're absolutely right to criticise both leaderships. It certainly wouldnt be seen as an endorsement of the Tories given the fact their MPs will come out en masse against. It might save the LDs in the seats where the Tories are main opposition. But if there's a big swing from LD to Lab in their 2 way marginals, they will gain little out of it. So the losers are both coalition parties.

If we're going to have PR we might as well have proper PR and not this watered down imitation for the benefit of the tories as coalition partners which will make everyone in a worse position before its introduction. And im not convinced that the tories will come out against it, the lib dems and tories compromised so that we'd have a referendum on AV and not proper PR.

How is not supporting something that tories also don't support making me a tory or sympathetic to their views? I'm not

 

[butchersapron]

Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead. Well, ok....

You're a tory too!

 

[butchersapron]

Innit!

Also a tory!

 

[butchersapron]

Seriously, what fucking london think tank bubble do you live in a8?

 

[ymu]

Okay, you'd rather give the tories what they want instead. Well, ok....

You want to hand the Lib Dems the power to give us a perpetual Tory government? Because that's what AV makes more likely. The parliamentary party are overwhelmingly on the right, much more so than their membership.

 

[articul8]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are acting as useful idots for the tories. Frogwoman - Cameron has said in his conference speech he will be working against a YES vote. The head of the NO campaign is Matthew Elliot of the Taxpayers Alliance - working with Lynton Crosby and others from the pro-Tory, pro-Boris camp - others include Bernard Jenkin Mp, Daniel Kaczinsky MP and Charlotte de Vere. All tory.

How would a YES vote "make things worse" - I don't see it. You lot obviously think an awful lot about the significance of Clegg and company if you're so desperate to deprive them of a "win". The thing to work for is a YES, followed by an anti-coalition voting pattern. That would shaft both Clegg and Cameron to the maximum extent.

 

[articul8]

You want to hand the Lib Dems the power to give us a perpetual Tory government? Because that's what AV makes more likely. The parliamentary party are overwhelmingly on the right, much more so than their membership.

After the coalition this is what FPTP government is likely to mean. AV is no more likely than FPTP to lead to hung parliaments. Indeed, in Australia (which has AV) there have been fewer hung parliaments than in the UK in the same period.

 

[Belushi]

The thing to work for is a YES, followed by an anti-coalition voting pattern. That would shaft both Clegg and Cameron to the maximum extent.

TBF thats fucking delusional.

 

[frogwoman]

So what though? Clegg is also a tory.

 

[articul8]

TBF thats fucking delusional.

why?

 

[articul8]

So what though? Clegg is also a tory.

yes and the best way of getting rid of both is...for Labour to win over former LD voters in LD/Lab marginals but for the LD vote to hold up where the Tories are the main challenge. You don't need to be an expert psephologist to see this

 

[butchersapron]

A no vote that splits the lib-dem and fucks the coalition is bit more damaging than this paid fantasy.

 

[frogwoman]

SO you say we should endorse one lot of tories' policies above another because the other tories are the bad tories, whereas a no vote wouldn't be a vote for cameron et al, it would be a vote of distrust in the government. AV is actually a worse voting system than FPTP, it doesn't give smaller parties a bigger advantage, I don't know why you';re so keen on it

 

[butchersapron]

A yes vote that really means no. In the coalition but against it. In labour but anti-labour. Pro-coalition but against it. All things to all men at any one time - but no politics. Bring back moon.

 

[articul8]

It won't split the LDs though - it will make their leadership cling even harder to the Tories. I'm not paid to spend my evenings posting here (funnily enough). I do it as I happen to think it

 

[frogwoman]

yes and the best way of getting rid of both is...for Labour to win over former LD voters in LD/Lab marginals but for the LD vote to hold up where the Tories are the main challenge. You don't need to be an expert psephologist to see this

But this is a referendum, this isn't about Laobur. The lib dems - one lot of tories in government - are proposing this - do you not see?? And why do you believe what Cameron is saying in his speeches - if the lib dems can play the duplicitous game so can the tories surely ??

 

[Jeff Robinson]

James Mayo is a freedom fighter. We need a national campiagn to call for the releasing of this political prisoner and hero:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/ExPara-made-threat-to-kill.5801453.jp

A great, great man.

 

[butchersapron]

It won't split the LDs though - it will make their leadership cling even harder to the Tories. I'm not paid to spend my evenings posting here (funnily enough). I do it as I happen to think it

Their leadership is going to cling to them anyway - yay or nay. The members are only going to challenge that if their leaderships policy is shown to not lead anywhere they want to go. That can only come from a no vote. A yes vote will cement that leadership. You are living in a fantasy land.

 

[articul8]

SO you say we should endorse one lot of tories' policies above another because the other tories are the bad tories, whereas a no vote wouldn't be a vote for cameron et al, it would be a vote of distrust in the government. AV is actually a worse voting system than FPTP, it doesn't give smaller parties a bigger advantage, I don't know why you';re so keen on it

NO - oppose the LDs policies on cuts/deficit all alond the line. A vote against AV just tells Cameron what a great game he's played in shafting the LDs. Which is fine, except it makes getting rid of tories harder not easier.

AV doesn't go as far as I would like. But a NO vote locks the current system in place for decades. A YES vote is a step forward in breaking the "you're splitting the vote" argument against the left. That's why I'm in favour. And it's a platform for moving to a better system still.

 

[butchersapron]

In and out, for and against - and if you don't agree with what i'm paid to say this week you're a tory.

Btw, the only prat whose used the you're splitting the vote bollocks on here recently is you.