Why the lib-dems are shit

[frogwoman]

well not all of us, anyway

 

[i_got_poison]

socialist????

are you kidding me ??? how is 25-40% cuts, mass privatisations, and punishing the poorest people in society "socialism"? How is cutting off university access for everyone except the very rich "socialism"? It is not - how can you even say that


you stabbed your core support in the back in such a shameless, despicable manner, that will have repercussions across the public sector and across the country. if you have any integrity or any principles left - LEAVE

mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.

 

[stethoscope]

So much fail.

 

[moon23]

Do people think the AV referendum should be decided on the merits of AV over FTPT or on other political considerations then?

 

[frogwoman]

mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.

You keep going on about the labour party as though the damage it did somehow excuses lib-demmery and all its works. I'm against privatisation and cuts whoever's doing them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.

First, why should we take trident off the table?

Second, your question assumes an answer to another one – namely, should the government be making cuts?

 

[ymu]

mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.

See, this is how we know you're not a leftie. You keep saying that Labour is socialist/on the left.

 

[stethoscope]

It's the classic lazy response froggie... 'yeah but Labour did shit things too11111!111'. Yeah, we know.

 

[moon23]

socialist????

are you kidding me ??? how is 25-40% cuts, mass privatisations, and punishing the poorest people in society "socialism"? How is cutting off university access for everyone except the very rich "socialism"? It is not - how can you even say that

Your talking about cuts in spending over the term of the government that bring spending as a GDP back to around 2006 levels. The reason they are going to be felt in some departments is becuase other areas like oversea aid and the NHS have been protected. They are also over the term of the government so it's about 5% a year.

Also although I disagree with increasing tuition fees, it isn't cutting off access for people as they won't have to pay it back until they earn over £21,000 so you can get a University education safe in the knowledge if you end up on a low income it won't affect you negatively.

The reason I disagree with it is because it saddles middle-earners with too much debt, and it goes against a pledge made by Lib Dem MPs

 

[frogwoman]

The fact is that the lib dems betrayed their voters as much as Labour did. YOu can't handle this fact.

 

[moon23]

First, why should we take trident off the table?

Second, your question assumes an answer to another one – namely, should the government be making cuts?

All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.

 

[moon23]

The fact is that the lib dems betrayed their voters as much as Labour did. YOu can't handle this fact.

I accept the stance on tution fees is screwing over student support, i'm not happy about it at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.

So what? The terms of the debate are set and we are not allowed to think differently? You don't work for the BBC by any chance, do you?

 

[frogwoman]

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts?

Nowhere. I am against all cuts. Reduce the defecit by collecting unpaid taxes ffs - that would get rid of £120bn of it.

 

[ymu]

Do people think the AV referendum should be decided on the merits of AV over FTPT or on other political considerations then?

What do you mean by other political considerations?

Is STV one of them, or does it really belong with your primary question?

Should we consider whether it is likely to deliver actual democracy sooner, or is it more likely to delay it? I think that belongs with the primary question too.

Should we cement the bond between the Tories and the Lib Dems and condemn ourselves to more of the same? If the Lib Dems lose this, they're dead. If they win it, they have a fighting chance - but not of forming a coalition with Labour within a generation. Not after this. I think that belongs with your primary question too. It is supposed to be about getting us the government we want, after all.

 

[frogwoman]

All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.

In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??

 

[i_got_poison]

You keep going on about the labour party as though the damage it did somehow excuses lib-demmery and all its works. I'm against privatisation and cuts whoever's doing them.

if cuts aren't on the table, then you must be in favour of deficit spending.
£1 in every £4 spent is borrowed. what ratio would you be comfortable with?
2 in 4, 3 in 4 or the ludicrous 4 in 4.

 

[frogwoman]

Jesus wept Where do you think money comes from? More government spending would stimulate the economy and the prospect of people losing their jobs wouldn't mean that they were cautious about spending anything.

 

[ymu]

All of the main parties are agreed there is a need to make cuts, I don't think we could carry on without any reduction in our spending.

That does not make them right!

Who should be paying back the deficit?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if cuts aren't on the table, then you must be in favour of deficit spending.
£1 in every £4 spent is borrowed. what ratio would you be comfortable with?
2 in 4, 3 in 4 or the ludicrous 4 in 4.

Again, your reasoning is faulty. Being opposed to cuts does not mean one is in favour of deficit spending. It could mean that one is in favour of tax increases.

 

[ymu]

In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??

Keynes was on his white charger and Friedman was still in short trousers, career-wise. That's how it's different. We've managed to elect three decades worth of economically illiterate, ideologically driven morons, because economically illiterate, ideologically driven morons were all that was on offer.

 

[fractionMan]

Yay for democracy!

 

[Citizen66]

mass privatisation was happening under labour with all those costly PFIs.
tell me where are the jobs for those graduates leaving university?
they're not there, so what's the point in going unless it's to further your knowledge in a particular discipline.

taking trident off the table where should the coalition make cuts? the government makes cuts to child benefit for high earners and the left cries foul. this above anything shows how lost the left (at least on here) is on these issues.

Get rid of trident. We shouldn't be swanning about like we're some super power. Cancel all police over time. Announce wind fall taxes on city bonuses. Don't worry if it means we'll lose 'talent' - if they like selling barrels of oil so much they can fuck off and live in Iraq. Cancel our war obligations. The money is needed at home not for the interests of the neo-cons.

 

[i_got_poison]

Jesus wept Where do you think money comes from? More government spending would stimulate the economy and the prospect of people losing their jobs wouldn't mean that they were cautious about spending anything.

earlier in the thread this same argument was used. my response is the same as it was then. let's hope you don't fall silent
like the last poster.

deficit spending creates inflation and the price of commodities goes up. inflation is tackled by a reduction in the money supply; either through
taxation or public sector cuts. if you ignore inflation and continue to spend all commerce will eventually cease until a deal can be ironed out with the IMF.

 

[frogwoman]

So why don't we collect the unpaid taxes then? Why have there been tax cuts for the rich? I agree we need to reduce the deficit, but there are other ways to do it, not just cuts - cuts will send us into a double dip recession, and this type of "shock therapy" has been nothing but horrific everywhere it has been done. Also, who said that the deficit had to be paid back immediately, especially when the debt is basically owed to the taxpayers anyway?

 

[moon23]

What do you mean by other political considerations?

Is STV one of them, or does it really belong with your primary question?

Should we consider whether it is likely to deliver actual democracy sooner, or is it more likely to delay it? I think that belongs with the primary question too.

Should we cement the bond between the Tories and the Lib Dems and condemn ourselves to more of the same? If the Lib Dems lose this, they're dead. If they win it, they have a fighting chance - but not of forming a coalition with Labour within a generation. Not after this. I think that belongs with your primary question too. It is supposed to be about getting us the government we want, after all.

So you think it's more a question of what the wider political outcomes and considerations are then simply a matter of whether AV or FPTP is better? I'm just trying to boil this argument we are having down.

It seems to me there is on the one hand the question about the actual referendum, what is best AV vs FPTP and another question about what is the best tactical voting outcome to deliver your preferred political outcomes.

 

[moon23]

In the period following the 2nd World War when debt was 200% of gdp and yet the NHS, welfare state, etc was set up - how is that different??

I have to say I am suspicious of the argument that the deficit is not a problem because it has been much higher in the past.

Firstly it doesn't deal with what the likely consequences would be in the medium term of allowing the national debt ...to grow and grow.

Secondly, while there may be similarities with previous occasions when national debt has been higher, there will also be differences. For example, the post-WW2 deficit was funded (to what extent I don't know) by massive loans from the US as part of the Marshall Plan. There is nothing like that to fall back on now.

Without seeing a rounded account that integrates both the similarities and differences it is impossible to say whether there is a valid comparison to be made between now and previous instances of large budget deficits.

 

[i_got_poison]

Get rid of trident. We shouldn't be swanning about like we're some super power. Cancel all police over time. Announce wind fall taxes on city bonuses. Don't worry if it means we'll lose 'talent' - if they like selling barrels of oil so much they can fuck off and live in Iraq. Cancel our war obligations. The money is needed at home not for the interests of the neo-cons.

i, personally would get rid of trident in a heartbeat, but the last government dithered on the proposal and this administration has flat out refused to scrap it.
the wars are harder to extricate ourselves from. gordon brown did the right thing in getting us out of iraq, but was unwilling to do so in afganistan.
cameron is desperate to end the war there but would lose too much political capital, hence his speech on a withdrawl timetable and hand of over afgani provinces to american\coalition
forces.

 

[frogwoman]

So you think it's more a question of what the wider political outcomes and considerations are then simply a matter of whether AV or FPTP is better? I'm just trying to boil this argument we are having down.

It seems to me there is on the one hand the question about the actual referendum, what is best AV vs FPTP and another question about what is the best tactical voting outcome to deliver your preferred political outcomes.

It's as much about the political outcomes as anything else, and most people on here don't want to give you lot an endorsement of anything. You still havent answered btw - why not real PR and not this pathetic imitation of it?

 

[frogwoman]

Besides having had the referendum, there's no guarantee that you'll actually do it - as we have seen in the events of the last few days.