Why the lib-dems are shit

[frogwoman]

It's not an "emotive hit" if people are being forced off benefits, are being decclared fit to work when they have terminal illnesses, are threatened with losing their homes and onto the streets and if funding is being cut for some NHS services which involve care for people with life threatening conditions

 

[moon23]

Before you have a go at anyone about not standing up for principles why not ask the Lib Dem MPs why they abstained on the vote for PR when even some tories and Labour MPs did when it has been THEIR POLICY for the last four years !

And I'm not in the Labour party, as you know

Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.

 

[frogwoman]

if you want electoral reform so much why not have a referendum on proper PR

 

[frogwoman]

Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.

Some tories voted FOR PR

your party didn't

 

[frogwoman]

transitional demands lol

 

[moon23]

this is a thread about the lib dems, i think i am allowed to bring in whatever issues are relevent to the topic - and "throwing away our generations chance" is a misjudged choice of words indeed when it comes to the events of the last few days ..........

Maybe you are right, maybe like many Lib Dems I think the tuition fee proposal is a pile of shit. Thing is this has nowt to do with electoral reform. You are conflating issues and destroying our generations chance for reform because of you hold other political grievances.

 

[frogwoman]

Lib Dem MPs obviously abstained from Caroline Lucas' amendment because they realise AV is now the only realistic hope . Labour and the Tories denied them PR, so the party has to fully get behind AV as the first step on the path to reform. Arguing for AV is the only option for reform offered by Labour and the Tories. No one in the Lib Dems is saying AV is a perfect system, we are saying this is an improvement that was realistically offered.

Why is it the only realistic hope? What made them change their mind when they've been arguing for the last god knows how long for PR?

 

[frogwoman]

Maybe you are right, maybe like many Lib Dems I think the tuition fee proposal is a pile of shit. Thing is this has nowt to do with electoral reform. You are conflating issues and destroying our generations chance for reform because of you hold other political grievances.

I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to -

Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this:

“Marketisation,” and particularly the Conservative-created Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes imposed by Gordon Brown, has been a disaster which is saddling Trusts and the taxpayer with enormous debts. We totally reject this attempt to turn the nation’s health service into a private profit centre for giant corporations.

should they take what they say (which in that sentence sounds pretty reasonable tbh) at face value and ignore everything else??
and say that their policy on health needs to be looked at separately from the other stuff, ie, their racism?

 

[moon23]

Some tories voted FOR PR

your party didn't

Again you are putting a chance to smear the Lib Dems over any opportunity for real poltical change. As we all know the Tories were not prepared to offer PR in the Coalition agreement neither were Labour. The only reason the Lib Dems are getting behind AV with such passion is because they realise it's the only realistic thing that can be achieved. The reason they didn't vote for the amendment by Lucas is because it would have been portrayed badly by the NO to AV campaign.

 

[moon23]

Why is it the only realistic hope? What made them change their mind when they've been arguing for the last god knows how long for PR?

Becuase after years and years of arguing for PR (in the Jenkins report that was ignored by Labour for instance) we thought a hung parliment might offer a chance to actually have some infulence. It turns out neither Labour or the Conservative party were prepared to offer PR, so the party now has to settle with AV as a practical compromise on the road to reform.

 

[i_got_poison]

I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to -

Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this:


should they take what they say (which in that sentence sounds pretty reasonable tbh) at face value and ignore everything else??
and say that their policy on health needs to be looked at separately from the other stuff, ie, their racism?

this from someone who said they'd vote BNP over liberal democrats.

the word you're looking for, is hypocrite.

 

[moon23]

I'm going to answer this post in more detail because I think it's a point that needs coming back to -

Why assume that political issues are unconnected and that a party's stance on one thing shouldn't affect your views on its other policies? That seems to be the assumption going on here, that if you "conflate issues" you are automatically wrong and that each one should be looked at discretely. That is not true. Should we say, not oppose the BNP when they say this:


should they take what they say (which in that sentence sounds pretty reasonable tbh) at face value and ignore everything else??
and say that their policy on health needs to be looked at separately from the other stuff, ie, their racism?

If the BNP say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong in that point, but you wouldn't want to vote for them becuase they are a bunch of racist fuckers.

In the same vain of the Lib Dems say AV is better then FPtT it doens't mean they are wrong. Maybe you hate the Lib Dems, but they are still right that AV is better than FPTP.

 

[frogwoman]

I was joking. You've not been around here long but other posters who've been here loger than you will tell you I'm one of the last people to even think of voting BNP.

 

[frogwoman]

If the BNP say 1+1=2 it doesn't mean they are wrong. You wouldn't want to vote for them becuase they are a bunch of racist fuckers.

In the same vain of the Lib Dems say AV is better then FTPT it doens't mean they are wrong. Maybe you hate the Lib Dems, but they are still right that AV is better than FPTP.

You've just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave you to think about why.

 

[moon23]

You've just destroyed your own argument. I'll leave you to think about why.

Not at all, this is a referundum on whether AV is better than FPTP so it should be argued on such a basis. Whether the Lib Dems support it or have won it has no more relevance then whether Matthew Elliot from the Tax Payer's Alliance is running the NO campaign.

You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.

 

[moon23]

I was joking. You've not been around here long but other posters who've been here loger than you will tell you I'm one of the last people to even think of voting BNP.

I believe you to be joking. Your joke does tell us something about how eagerly you demonise groups as being 'like the BNP'.

 

[frogwoman]

It doesn't, not really. I knew it'd get a reaction, and hey, i was right.

 

[moon23]

if you want electoral reform so much why not have a referendum on proper PR

Becuase neither Labour or the Conservatives would offer this. The Lib Dems have wanted PR for years, but realise this is a stepping stone.

 

[moon23]

It doesn't, not really. I knew it'd get a reaction, and hey, i was right.

Fair enough, I thought it was silly to joke about voting for the BNP. We all make silly jokes though, I say stupid things sometimes too when I’m feeling flippant or jokey. I don't for one minute seriously think you would vote BNP, I know you are no racist or facist.

 

[frogwoman]

Not at all, this is a referundum on whether AV is better than FPTP so it should be argued on such a basis. Whether the Lib Dems support it or have won it has no more relevance then whether Matthew Elliot from the Tax Payer's Alliance is running the NO campaign.

You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.

If the BNP were promoting some policy, would you judge it only on what they said about it? Of course not.

 

[frogwoman]

Fair enough, I thought it was silly to joke about voting for the BNP. We all make silly jokes though, I say stupid things sometimes too when I’m feeling flippant or jokey. I don't for one minute seriously think you would vote BNP, I know you are no racist or facist.

Thank you.

 

[moon23]

If the BNP were promoting some policy, would you judge it only on what they said about it? Of course not.

An important question. If BNP said raping children was wrong and promoted a policy against raping children then I would say that policy was correct. I would also say the BNP are wrong generally because of the other views they hold. I might even say the BNP were using this issue as a fig leaf to gain popularity and trick people, however if there was a vote on whether raping children was wrong I’d still vote to say it was wrong.

Now my apologies for such a crude analogy, my point is this: There are many things which the Lib Dems might do wrong (cuts, coalition, tuition fees etc). Regardless of those points AV is still a bit better then FPTP.

To be frank I think your arguments against the Lib Dems are stronger when you attack on principle against the cuts or on issues like tuition fees. I don't think there is much principle to be had in defending FPTP or a NO vote.

Anyway it’s way too late and I’m in need of sleep. I respect you for being up at the small hours and debating Frogwoman, it shows you are passionate about these issues, so I wish you a good night.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Clegg and Huhne both in big trouble in their seats. This on uk polling report tonight:

Sheffield Hallam is a weird constituency (I live here). I'd say that if an election were announced today, the right kind of protest candidate would have a decent chance here.

 

[articul8]

NO to the cuts, YES to voting reform. Why is this an inconsistent position? It's shared by some of the most prominent opponents of the cuts/privatisation agenda - Serwotka, McDonnell, Billy Hayes, Caroline Lucas....

 

[butchersapron]

NO to the cuts, YES to voting reform. Why is this an inconsistent position? It's shared by some of the most prominent opponents of the cuts/privatisation agenda - Serwotka, McDonnell, Billy Hayes, Caroline Lucas....

So is no to the cuts, yes to voting reform, no to this AV referendum.

And no one's said that position you have is inconsistent, they've said it's either damaging or is throwing away an opportunity for sweet fa.

 

[butchersapron]

Moon's moans last night are pretty sickening to read this morning. For a start he makes the disgusting assumption that there's some sort of shared values between pro-cuts neo-liberal extremists like him and me/other posters that we're selling out. There isn't.

Secondly, he dares to wag his finger at people who disagree with him and dares to tell them that they don't have the right to politically judge his party and their positions and then act accordingly. He appears to believe that he and Clegg can cut to their hearts content attacking people left right and centre and then declare that this av referendum is 'above politics' and only nasty people would try and insert politics into it. Such hubris over so little. It's partly why you're going to lose.

 

[butchersapron]

Becuase after years and years of arguing for PR (in the Jenkins report that was ignored by Labour for instance) we thought a hung parliment might offer a chance to actually have some infulence. It turns out neither Labour or the Conservative party were prepared to offer PR, so the party now has to settle with AV as a practical compromise on the road to reform.

A post of such staggering mendacity that i believe that there may be a future for you in what's left of the party. You didn't have to 'settle' for AV as the best you could get, labour had an AV referendum for 12 months time as part of their manifesto, regardless of your lot. And on top of this, Brown offered you a referendum on full PR as part of a coalition deal. The lib-dems turned this offer of a referendum on PR down.

They turned it down because they were using labour to bump the tories into offering AV, because they were already ideologically committed to the tories and the immediate aggressive cuts agenda - as later revealed by Clegg when he publicly admitted his parties whole pre-election plan was lie and he had already signed up to the immediate cuts agenda.

This and other blatant lies are what are driving polling results like Clegg and Huhnes:

Huhne: CON 42%(+3), LAB 21%(+11), LDEM 31%(-16)
Clegg: LD 33%(-20), LAB 31%(+15), CON 28%(+4)

 

[articul8]

And on top of this, Brown offered you a referendum on full PR as part of a coalition deal. The lib-dems turned this offer of a referendum on PR down.

They turned it down because they were using labour to bump the tories into offering AV, because they were already ideologically committed to the tories and the immediate aggressive cuts agenda - as later revealed by Clegg when he publicly admitted his parties whole pre-election plan was lie and he had already signed up to the immediate cuts agenda.

Bit more complicated than that. Yes Clegg (and a faction around him) were already committed to that agenda - but the difficulty for the others was that a rainbow alliance coalition was extremely difficult to make work given the arithmetic. 20 Labour rebels committed to FPTP and/or not working with the LDs could have sabotaged any such alternative coaltion. Of course, they could have let Cameron govern with a minority and worked with Labour and others on getting AV through - but that would have cost them their places round the cabinet table.

Naked opportunists led by a right wing neoliberal. None of which means the a NO vote on electoral reform is of any advantage in the longer term.

 

[frogwoman]

You seek to conflate the issue with the cuts with the referundum, in doing so you sell yourself short in both regards.

I am conflating the issue with the cuts with the referendum because they are conflated anyway. You can't separate one from the other especially when your party are attempting to use one as a distraction for th other.

 

[frogwoman]

Like it or not the Lib Dems WILL use it as a referendum on their popularity because that's partly (mostly) what it is.