Why the lib-dems are shit

[frogwoman]

people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything? You think?

OK AV isn;t where we want to end up. But it makes the Tories fight for seats in the South that would be otherwise in the bag. And it allows greater space for left/anti-coalition candidates to stand without *necessarily* splitting the Labour vote.

What's it got to do with the legitimacy of anything else? People dont trust the lib dems on ANYTHING, and a vote against the lib dems is exactly that.

without necessarily splitting the labour vote - isn't that the sort of thing that has been so damaging in the past?

 

[articul8]

Yeah the labour party and those who don't want to split their vote. You're rotten. Just have some principles, have some politics and stick by them. Not this paid multi-coloured adopt all positions at once bollocks.

This is it though - the Labour left and non-Labour left would both benefit from a YES. Whereas a NO just cements auto-Labourism for the forseeable future. Prescott wants a NO, PCS want a YES. Why?

 

[butchersapron]

It won't. That will cement the coalition for the full term -anything else would be Ld turkeys voting for xmas

No it won't. Only someone who is paid to argue otherwise cannot see why not.

 

[butchersapron]

This is it though - the Labour left and non-Labour left would both benefit from a YES. Whereas a NO just cements auto-Labourism for the forseeable future. Prescott wants a NO, PCS want a YES. Why?

You can easily support both sides on this as well then can't you?

Back to the you're tory stuff. Keep it coming.

 

[articul8]

What's it got to do with the legitimacy of anything else? People dont trust the lib dems on ANYTHING, and a vote against the lib dems is exactly that.

without necessarily splitting the labour vote - isn't that the sort of thing that has been so damaging in the past?

Like it or not (I don't) - the LDs operate as the de facto anti-Tory opposition in parts of the country (at the same time as operating as the de facto ant-Labour opposition in others - a consequence of not having PR but FPTP). which means simply obliterating the LDs as much as it might feel good (it would) would actually make it harder to reach a non-Tory government. We need to smash the LDs intelligently, where they are at their most reactionary.

 

[ymu]

Idon't call you a tory. I simply *ask* why you are choosing to align yourself with a position backed by few other than tories.

My enemy's enemy is my friend? Is that the level you have to stoop to try and sell this?

 

[frogwoman]

so this jjust about getting labour back in - what makes you think itd even do that?

 

[articul8]

You can easily support both sides on this as well then can't you?

Back to the you're tory stuff. Keep it coming.

there's no support both sides - i want to end auto-Labourism. But that means actually working through and beyond Labour not pretending that the defeat of the coalition partners is possible without it. You're being utterly and completely disingenous.

 

[butchersapron]

We need to smash the LDs intelligently, where they are at their most reactionary.

What hand wringing wet waffle.

 

[butchersapron]

there's no support both sides - i want to end auto-Labourism. But that means actually working through and beyond Labour not pretending that the defeat of the coalition partners is possible without it. You're being utterly and completely disingenous.

But that means actually working through and beyond Labour - what is this self-serving waffle?

 

[articul8]

so this jjust about getting labour back in - what makes you think itd even do that?

I'm afraid that unless you are able to smash and replace parliamentary democracy overnight the only alternative to the coalition parties *is* a Labour government. If you came up with a convincing strategy from winning the majority from electoralism I'd be dancing up and down with delight. But I don't think you have one. And nor do I. So it's a question of what kind of opposition might be mobilised against the coalition partners. And what kind of influences can bear brought to bear upon it. My guess is that AV would mean more influence for the left and the greens. I don't see what argument means that Labour will be more effective under FPTP than AV.

 

[articul8]

But that means actually working through and beyond Labour - what is this self-serving waffle?

stop waffling and read the above

 

[butchersapron]

You're just one of them aren't you?

 

[articul8]

One of whom?

 

[butchersapron]

Them. That lot.

 

[butchersapron]

It actually makes me quite sick to read your caring joan bakewell crap dressed up as politics now.

 

[articul8]

No. In so far as I am inside it's because i want to be outside. But the outside doesn't have a proper strategy to change what goes on inside. So we need to work inside and outside to shift and dissolve the boundary.
(edit - how's that for Joan Bakewell )

 

[Lakina]

turd munching arse licking dick sucking lie rakers who took less than 5 minutes to reveal what a bunch of bullshitters they are. Clegg, Cable, Alexander, you are fucking scum for betraying so many voters so shamelessly. Lib Dem party is getting wiped out forever now - people see through your shit.

 

[stethoscope]

No. In so far as I am inside it's because i want to be outside. But the outside doesn't have a proper strategy to change what goes on inside. So we need to work inside and outside to shift and dissolve the boundary.

 

[elbows]

On the BBC news at 10, after they finished showing the Lib Dems for what they are, they had a story about the Chilean miners and mentioned how they had been humbled by the ordeal. I suggest that after they have been rescued, we put our politicians down the hole so that they can reflect. Let us out they will cry, but sorry, we just cant afford to, there is no alternative.

 

[elbows]

people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything? You think?

Id wager that very few of the people unhappy with the political system think that AV is going to change things in the way thats needed.

Attempts to turn the MPs expenses scandal into a vote winner for some MPs are disgusting.

 

[ymu]

people are happy with the political system and the legitimacy of MPs - after the expenses crisis and everything? You think?

No. Are you saying that you're directing your energies in the best possible way to change things for the better? A new way to elect the same parties? How is that going to change anything?

 

[stethoscope]

Id wager that very few of the people unhappy with the political system think that AV is going to change things in the way thats needed.

Attempts to turn the MPs expenses scandal into a vote winner for some MPs are disgusting.

Exactly, I'd have thought that most people already see AV as both a climbdown for the Lib Dems, as well as being a bit of a convenient distraction from the more serious issues that MPs expenses and the existing parliamentary system posed. It's a cheap sell to the electorate - 'if we change our electoral system, our broken politics will be fixed'!

 

[William of Walworth]

Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.

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

I'm thinking this , and I'm not even especially opposed to AV in principle.

One of the biggest arguments though for voting against the AV referendum as currently planned, is the pro Tory boundary changes that will almost certainly be bundled in with it.

 

[moon23]

No. Are you saying that you're directing your energies in the best possible way to change things for the better? A new way to elect the same parties? How is that going to change anything?

It's going to change it by ensuring MPs have to gain over 50% support which will mean they have to work harder to keep that support rather than rely on having a strong core vote.

 

[moon23]

Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.



I'm thinking this , and I'm not even especially opposed to AV in principle.

One of the biggest arguments though for voting against the AV referendum as currently planned, is the pro Tory boundary changes that will almost certainly be bundled in with it.

I heard someone say this the other day, that they were going to vote NO in the referndum just to spite the Lib Dems for joining the coalition. I pointed out the Tories were going to be voting NO as well so they would be voting with them, and along the lines of Matthew Elliot and the Tax Payers Alliance.

It's pretty sad that this Labour activist was going to throw away the only chance for electroal reform in years for political point scoring.

 

[moon23]

Been catching up with some more recent stuff on this thread.



I'm thinking this , and I'm not even especially opposed to AV in principle.

One of the biggest arguments though for voting against the AV referendum as currently planned, is the pro Tory boundary changes that will almost certainly be bundled in with it.

I'm pretty sure the Tory boundary changes will be included in the bill that enables the AV referendum, not the actual referundum. A NO vote would mean you still had the boundary changes but also what the Tories want in terms of keeping FPTP.

 

[ymu]

It's going to change it by ensuring MPs have to gain over 50% support which will mean they have to work harder to keep that support rather than rely on having a strong core vote.

I don't buy it. MPs shouldn't be doing social work in their constituencies, they should be holding the government, and their own party leadership, to account. It's not going to change what happens centrally, and what happens centrally is what big business wants because the rest of us can't afford to pay them £10k an hour to come and have a chat after dinner.

 

[moon23]

I don't buy it. MPs shouldn't be doing social work in their constituencies, they should be holding the government, and their own party leadership, to account. It's not going to change what happens centrally, and what happens centrally is what big business wants because the rest of us can't afford to pay them £10k an hour to come and have a chat after dinner.

I agree MPs shouldn't just be acting like social workers but much casework is useful, for instance fighting immigration cases and sticking up for the views of local residents by asking questions in the house.

It won't stop all coruption but there was a correlation between how safe someone's seat was and their chances of taking the piss with their expenses. I suspect if MPs had to win more local support then it might make some think twice.

 

[ymu]

I agree MPs shouldn't just be acting like social workers but much casework is useful, for instance fighting immigration cases and sticking up for the views of local residents by asking questions in the house.

It won't stop all coruption but there was a correlation between how safe someone's seat was and their chances of taking the piss with their expenses. I suspect if MPs had to win more local support then it might make some think twice.

Yeah, but I'm still not interested in having different bums on seats if they all belong to identikit parties which are incapable of delivering what the majority of voters want. Punish them for being shit, by all means - brilliant - but if the only alternative is to elect someone who will be equally shit because their party is just as shit ... well, it doesn't get my juices flowing.