Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

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.

Fair enough, if you think all the parties are the same AV unlike FPTP isn't going to help get a minority party into power. I do agree with Adrian Ramsay the Green's deputy leader that voting NO will be used as an indicator that people are happy with the current way in which politics is run.

"If you vote No in this referendum, nobody would know whether you were rejecting AV because you wanted genuine reform, or were simply opposing any reform. We think the only logical vote for reformers is to vote Yes to AV, because everyone who does so is clearly showing that they're unhappy with the current system. "
 
Fair enough, if you think all the parties are the same AV unlike FPTP isn't going to help get a minority party into power. I do agree with Adrian Ramsay the Green's deputy leader that voting NO will be used as an indicator that people are happy with the current way in which politics is run.

"If you vote No in this referendum, nobody would know whether you were rejecting AV because you wanted genuine reform, or were simply opposing any reform. We think the only logical vote for reformers is to vote Yes to AV, because everyone who does so is clearly showing that they're unhappy with the current system. "
Oh, what a shock, they're not giving us a referendum which allows us to vote for what we actually want.

I don't have a vote, but if I did you'd be doing a great job of convincing me that anything that makes it easier for the Lib Dems to get power would be a bad idea. There's no politics here, just opportunistic blackmail. Imagine my surprise to see a Lib Dem behaving like that ... :rolleyes:
 
Oh, what a shock, they're not giving us a referendum which allows us to vote for what we actually want.

I don't have a vote, but if I did you'd be doing a great job of convincing me that anything that makes it easier for the Lib Dems to get power would be a bad idea. There's no politics here, just opportunistic blackmail. Imagine my surprise to see a Lib Dem behaving like that ... :rolleyes:

I think Ramsay makes a reasonble point about change and how voting for electoral reform is worthwhile. I don't understand what you mean by blackmail, who is being blackmailed? Personal i'm in favour of AV as I'd prefer to have the power to rank candidates I liked.
 
I think Ramsay makes a reasonble point about change and how voting for electoral reform is worthwhile. I don't understand what you mean by blackmail, who is being blackmailed? Personal i'm in favour of AV as I'd prefer to have the power to rank candidates I liked.

Vote for what we want because otherwise you're telling the government that they're doing a good job and you approve.

Fuck off. Vote for what you want and tell the Lib Dems they have a future? No chance!

I don't care much about electoral reform because it's missing the point. But you didn't even manage to get that on the table. AV puts STV further away, not closer, you spineless self-aggrandising wimps.
 
A No vote will make the LDs cling harder than ever to the Tories, out of desperation to make the public think the coalition has "worked" and compensate for losing their "trophy" of electoral reform. It won't speed the demise of the coalition. If it was do disastrous for the coalition why would Con central office be organising so hard for a NO?

Conservative central office will organise against AV because:

1. they can't do anything else given the Tories long standing and deeply held opposition to electoral reform;

2. they want to damage the Lib Dems (remember this is a marriage of convenience not one of choice) as coalition partners and as opponents at the next general election.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
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.

Both coalition partners i.e. Clegg and Cameron would claim it as a victory for 'the new politics'. Given the similarity of their agendas why shouldn't they; it's actually a very small price to pay for Cameron (especially since prior to the referendum he will have made sure he's making a lot of anti-AV noise).

Cheers Louis MacNeice
 
No - against the coalition but in an electorally effective way, not just all mouth

How is voting yes in one the key products of the coalition (a referendum on AV) being against the coalition. Yes to AV is an exemplary way to show the coalition at it's 'best'; four more years.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
We those opposed to the coalition and wanting to see a left alternative emerge

Some of 'we' surely? Unless you're trying to claim that it is impossible to oppose the coalition and AV, which would be both intellectually dishonest and persoanlly insulting.

Louis MacNeice
 
My guess is that AV would mean more influence for the left and the greens.
A bit like the situation in somewhere like Italy, then? What determines the strength of the opposition to neo-liberal class war on the poor is not the parliamentary left and the greens, but rather people's ability to mobilise to put pressure from outside. Look at countries where the greens have been in government, for goodness sake.
 
A bit like the situation in somewhere like Italy, then? What determines the strength of the opposition to neo-liberal class war on the poor is not the parliamentary left and the greens, but rather people's ability to mobilise to put pressure from outside. Look at countries where the greens have been in government, for goodness sake.

Yep. You cannot change the politicians, you have to change the discourse.

This is a particularly crap article by Monbiot, but it's worth a read for the psychology he discusses in it. The key reference is linked to from there if anyone wants to read more (no idea if it's any good, not got round to it yet). AFAIK the basic psychology is sound.

Rightwing politicians have also, instinctively, understood the importance of values in changing the political map. Margaret Thatcher famously remarked that “economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.”(4) Conservatives in the United States generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that both appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more. The progressive response to this trend has been disastrous.

Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once-progressive political parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes: think of all those New Labour appeals to Middle England, which was often just a code for self-interest. In doing so they endorse and legitimise extrinsic values. Many greens and social justice campaigners have also tried to reach people by appealing to self-interest: explaining how, for example, relieving poverty in the developing world will build a market for British products, or suggesting that, by buying a hybrid car, you can impress your friends and enhance your social status. This tactic also strengthens extrinsic values, making future campaigns even less likely to succeed. Green consumerism has been a catastrophic mistake.

Common Cause proposes a simple remedy: that we stop seeking to bury our values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology which informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – which make us insecure and selfish.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/10/11/the-values-of-everything/#more-1289
 
The seeds of Lib-Dem disquiet followed by coalition collapse are already germinating nicely in the large cities in this country. The shoots should start to break through around the time of the Local Elections. It was gaining cllrs in large cities which gave the LDs the foothold they used in their last genuine upturn. I'd wager the same will hold true in reverse.

In a general election, in LD/Con marginals the LDs will probably hang on, but in their much-lauded post-industrial inner city seats (which also contain a lot of students) they are toast.
 
From (a Guardian summary of) a YouGov survey:

Perhaps the most alarming finding for Clegg is the one right at the end. Near the start of their survey, YouGov asked its respondents how they would vote in a referendum on AV or FPTP. FPTP was one point ahead. But at the end of the survey, after respondents had answered a series of questions testing the arguments for and against electoral reform, YouGov asked the same question again, asking people to take into account the issues raised in the poll. In the responses to this question, FPTP was seven points ahead. This suggests that exposure to the arguments makes people even less likely to back AV.
 
Vote for what we want because otherwise you're telling the government that they're doing a good job and you approve.

Fuck off. Vote for what you want and tell the Lib Dems they have a future? No chance!

I don't care much about electoral reform because it's missing the point. But you didn't even manage to get that on the table. AV puts STV further away, not closer, you spineless self-aggrandising wimps.

It's an argument, not my words but that of the Green's deputy leader. The NO camp will portray a NO vote as evidence that people don't want electroal reform and that they are happy with the status quo.

AV is about giving people a fairer choice of representative, and ensuring MPs have to work harder to gain the majority of support. If people want to vote against it becuase they don't like the Lib Dems for forming a coalition with the conservative party they are welcome to cut off their noses to spit in our faces.
 
I think it's a great compromise as it's something that could actually happen rather than a pipe dream. Politics is all about compromise and winning practical improvements.

I've not seen any convincing arguments yet that it will be a 'great compromise' and offer 'practical improvements'. The Lib Dems sold out on what they wanted (just as they did things like VAT, speed of cuts and perhaps the scale of the revolt over student fees).
 
I think this is a very sad turning point, if the left decide to vote against the non-partisan yes campaign because they think it will punish the Lib Dem's.
Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.
 
Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.

The Lib Dems aren't offering anything different! Despite their pomp and circumstance leading up to the election, now they find themselves in a coalition, they're falling into the same. They haven't got a backbone because they want the 'coalition' to appear to succeed.
 
I_got_poison, if you call yourself a leftie, then what in particular makes you one? don't you see a contradiction between the "left's" ideals and the lib dems'? i would ask both of you the same question i asked before - if you get involved with left wing parties and groups then there must have been something which made you get involved and how their ideas made sense on some level. that's why people - a lot of people - voted for the lib dems, as they thought they were a progressive party and stood up for ordinary people against the war etc. as we know that wasn't reality, but that's what got a lot of people involved in and voting for them. so i'd ask both of you the same thing - you must have thought that that "leftie" stuff made sense on some level, no? and why has this changed for you?
 
I think this is a very sad turning point, if the left decide to vote against the non-partisan yes campaign because they think it will punish the Lib Dem's.
Look forward to another 20-30 years of First Past the Post and the familiar cycle of Labour/Conservative governments delivering the same.

So what? it's not like the lib dems are any different is it? in fact, the party that comes out of it the best (!!!) if you can even call it that is the tories - at least you know what they stand for, at least they're not sell outs, you KNOW what views they have, you know what cunts they are, and thats that.
 
So what? it's not like the lib dems are any different is it? in fact, the party that comes out of it the best (!!!) if you can even call it that is the tories - at least you know what they stand for, at least they're not sell outs, you KNOW what views they have, you know what cunts they are, and thats that.

Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.
 
Wow. I'd love to see an expert analysis of how biased (or not) the poll questions were. Highly suspicious, but interesting if it was a genuinely well-constructed exercise.
 
Theleft in this country makes me despair sometimes. Opportunistically jumping on the NO bandwagon as they think they can punish the Lib Dems and gain electorally from it. Hopefully Ed Miliband has more principled politics, and will steer the Labour party towards supporting AV.
 
Pathetic, you even prepared to praise the Tories.

it's because the Tories are such cunts she said that. If they started NOT being cunts they would then be sell outs to their true supporters. She isbasically saying that the Tories are the only party true to their supporters.
 
Back
Top Bottom