Swampy Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Politicians are all lying b*****ds, so just let their actions speak for themselves. ^^^ frantically trying to perpetuate the status quo Backing a student funding scheme that makes it cheaper for the poorest graduates to get a University education is a profoundly progressive thing to do and is not something any true progressive should criticise the Lib Dems for doing. Except the progressives who disagree with it, instead favouring the system promised. This is simply ridiculous. Anyone who believes in plural politics must also accept that the most appropriate option for a government might not always be a centre-left love-in. Well, no, they don't have to accept that at all. They can, and do, accept that the voters' will* may run contrary to a "centre-left love-in." That doesn't mean they have to agree with the corporatists. That is plural politics. What you're describing is "my country right or wrong," which is very different. *once passed through the corrupt, stinking cheesecloth that is FPTP, of course Bollocks. When you've quite finished with your non-factual super-wide brush-tarring we can have a sensible discussion on this. My brush-tarring finished the moment I pressed enter after typing that sentence... I'm not stopping you from discussing whatever you wish to discuss. You've obviously not been paying much attention to the Lib Dems over the last 5 years. Ever since 2004 there has been a sizeable group of centre-right liberals (led by Clegg and Laws in particular) who have been pushing for a different agenda from the traditional one. Their ideology has changed hugely over that period; some people were just too ignorant to realise it. These were the people who were first to call for "savage cuts" in public spending. These were the people who were first to suggest that the likes of Child Benefit should no longer be universal. These were the people who were advocating greater market involvement in the NHS back in 2004. These were the people who were advocating an increased role for non-state providers in education.They're having to do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do because Labour fucked up the economy. So... your counterpoint to my saying that they're doing things they wouldn't normally do, and that they haven't changed in the space of a year, is to contend that i) they are doing things they wouldn't normally do, and ii) their policy platform shifted six years ago? Well, shit, I would have to say you're spot on there, doctor! No they couldn't. They could have done sweet f**k all from the opposition benches. The whole damned Parliament would have turned into an unqualified rabble, which would have failed to pass a budget and would have had us back at the polls within 12 months. It's not incumbent on the Lib Dems to maintain a stiff upper lip and march headlong into electoral irrelevancy, though. The institutional failings of the Westminster model? They aren't the Lib Dems' fault. They've sided with the corporatists - not the same as the centre-right brigade - and now they're paying the price. Them's the breaks. In eight years or so they might be electable again. They did NOT capitulate on policy. They COMPROMISED. This is what happens when you are a tiny party in a coalition. They HAD to compromise to get concessions on various things: income tax thresholds, on capital gains tax, on Tory plans for inheritance tax, on control orders, on the EU, on the Human Rights Act, on Trident (note they secured a deferral of the final cut-off date for its replacement), on Nuclear Energy (they ensured no new money going into government subsidy of nuclear power), on the House of Lords (progress on an elected chamber, although I'll grant you we could be waiting with baited breath), the end of child detention at Dungavel, a student funding package more generous than the one Lord Browne's review recommended (the Brown review, of course, being signed up to by the Tories AND Labour, although the latter like to conveniently forget that). They chose the wrong thing to capitulate on, as shown by the opinion polls (which may or may not represent the "real" opinion which you've carefully scrutinised.) If you think this as a record for a tiny party which had near zero influence on government policy for over half a century constitutes a "capitulation", fine, but I don't. I think it's absolutely astonishing they've managed to get that much out of the Tories. Well, you and the other Lib Dem voter can congratulate each other on their brilliance. I think AV is a miserable compromise too. Nick Clegg agrees. But it's a substantial concession to get from the established parties even to have the issue of voting reform practically on the agenda. This is the first chance since universal suffrage in this country to make a meaningful difference to the way we elect our politicians. Yes, the Lib Dems deserve a salute for at least getting *part* of this one right. Shame they've ballsed up virtually everything else, otherwise they might be a decent party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Yes, I'm sure the Lib Dem's popularity ratings dropping to 8% (eight percent) was just a coincidence. The "real" public opinion, which I'm sure you dutifully researched, must have been misrepresented somehow! Tedious shite from you as always. Certainly some polls saw Lib Dem support fall to 8%. For you to attribute that to and only to their decision on tuition fees is fatuous. Polls for this week have the Lib Dems anywhere between 9% and 15%. For the junior of coalition partners, in a government that's inherited an economic mess and is having to make a lot of difficult decisions, that's not to be unexpected. You can stamp and scream that it's not the point all you want - the public disagreed, as shown in the polls. And the public are morons. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to be morons, of course. It's heartening how you don't think that making a realistic manifesto is in any way related to administrative competence - it means that you won't fail to be delighted by the Tories in future. They are completely unrelated. Manifestos are just bullshitting competitions. Politicians are liars. Why are people so shocked that Lib Dems lie just as much as everyone else? If the "size" of the pledge is equal then you're correct, and I don't recall advocating a harsher punishment for the Lib Dems than for any of the other parties. There should be no punishment for breaking manifesto pledges. There should be punishment wherever governments have pursued bad policies or made bad decisions. The Lib Dems are really naive, though, and have handled the fall-out much, much worse than the other three parties. I don't disagree with that. This is what being in government means. They're having to become more savvy and quickly. No doubt some people are. But "they're pure worse than us!" isn't an argument against what the Lib Dems have done. Again you're wilfully missing the point. I will only have any respect for the "I'll never vote Lib Dem again for breaking their promise" if people then also come down as hard on other parties who break as "key" pledges from their manifestos too. What we are actually seeing is irrational scapegoatism that is rooted in a generic hatred of "them nasty evil Tories" and anyone who has the brass neck to work with them. Again, it's great that you don't think the latter is at all related to the former. This is authoritarian thinking in a nutshell. The Lib Dems promised not to capitulate on tuition fees. The Lib Dems capitulated on tuition fees. The Lib Dems never promised to capitulate on tuition fees. The Lib Dems have helped the poorest whatever percent by capitulating on tuition fees. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Bullshit from you again. There is nothing "authoritarian" about it. You're only using that wholly irrelevant language to try to wind me up. Breaking a promise when it's a stupid promise is not "authoritarian"; it's simply changing their mind in response to circumstances. Clegg and Cable openly admitted that they breached their pre-election promise to implement something which was fairer than the status quo. That doesn't fit into your fatuous little caricature, but never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 No they couldn't. They could have done sweet f**k all from the opposition benches. The whole damned Parliament would have turned into an unqualified rabble, which would have failed to pass a budget and would have had us back at the polls within 12 months. These guys don't seem to share your opinion. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/making-minority-gov-work.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Tedious shite from you as always. Certainly some polls saw Lib Dem support fall to 8%. For you to attribute that to and only to their decision on tuition fees is fatuous. Polls for this week have the Lib Dems anywhere between 9% and 15%. For the junior of coalition partners, in a government that's inherited an economic mess and is having to make a lot of difficult decisions, that's not to be unexpected. It was by far the biggest factor, and that's clear when you look at the drop in poll support among the youth. One poll had it at 42% of students backing the Lib Dems before the election, down to 11% by December. It was far, far bigger than you think it is. Whether or not it's fair is a separate issue here. And the public are morons. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to be morons, of course. Well, that's jolly decent of you. They are completely unrelated. Manifestos are just bullshitting competitions. Politicians are liars. Why are people so shocked that Lib Dems lie just as much as everyone else? As I said, they shouldn't be. But nor is this a defence of them. There should be no punishment for breaking manifesto pledges. There should be punishment wherever governments have pursued bad policies or made bad decisions. I see what you're saying to some extent, but again - the two are related in a way that you don't recognise. Obviously fulfilling a pledge that would for whatever reason be actively damaging, just to say you've done it, isn't desirable. But going back on a key pledge isn't, no matter how you dress it up - and the public agrees. I don't disagree with that. This is what being in government means. They're having to become more savvy and quickly. They're clearly incapable, which is why they'll be booted out and unelectable. Again you're wilfully missing the point. I will only have any respect for the "I'll never vote Lib Dem again for breaking their promise" if people then also come down as hard on other parties who break as "key" pledges from their manifestos too. Yep, that's fair. Again, it's not a defence of the Lib Dems. What we are actually seeing is irrational scapegoatism that is rooted in a generic hatred of "them nasty evil Tories" and anyone who has the brass neck to work with them. I support this wholeheartedly. There should be a cordon sanitaire around the corporatists. I never voted Lib Dem in the first place but their coalition actions would have turned me away had I done so. To clarify, I don't think "The Tories" are "evil" - I do think they're a corporatist party run for a wealthy elite, and the fact that more than around 2% of the UK population thinks they're worthy of the vote is laughable. And a party that thinks it has anything to gain from siding with them will soon learn otherwise. Bullshit from you again. There is nothing "authoritarian" about it. You're only using that wholly irrelevant language to try to wind me up. Breaking a promise when it's a stupid promise is not "authoritarian"; it's simply changing their mind in response to circumstances. I assure you, the fact that it winds you up is merely a bonus. I am 100% sincere when I say that the disconnect between words and action being taken as either irrelevant or a virtue is a hallmark of authoritarian thinking; and the sweeping away of past claims in favour of present expediency is a hallmark of authoritarian praxis (although this is - obviously - not limited to authoritarians.) I recommend this book to a lot of people, mainly because it's free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ I strongly commend it to you. It will make you less wrong, as it made me less wrong, about politics. Clegg and Cable openly admitted that they breached their pre-election promise to implement something which was fairer than the status quo. That doesn't fit into your fatuous little caricature, but never mind. Well, because a politician said that there was a good reason for their changing their mind, obviously there can't be any other factors at play, so I'll adopt the same slack-jawed credulousness that you've put on for the occasion! Meanwhile the remaining 92% of the country can see what happened and why the Lib Dems are now irrelevant for at least the next election, and probably the next two elections. As I said: them's the breaks. Make a Faustian bargain and it's not always going to go your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Can I just ask, how is it that the SNP could run a minority government, with the Lib Dems making contributions, but the Tories are somehow incapable? Also, the way you write off the student fees issue is just wrong. Politicians live and die by public opinion, and public opinion turned heavily against the Lib Dems, with student fees being a key factor. You might disagree, but you are very much in a minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 ^^^ frantically trying to perpetuate the status quo Does not follow in the slightest. Except the progressives who disagree with it, instead favouring the system promised. Except the mere promise not to increase tuition fees is not in itself more progressive. The system has to be taken in totality. Well, no, they don't have to accept that at all. They can, and do, accept that the voters' will* may run contrary to a "centre-left love-in." That doesn't mean they have to agree with the corporatists. That is plural politics. What you're describing is "my country right or wrong," which is very different. *once passed through the corrupt, stinking cheesecloth that is FPTP, of course No, you've completely distorted what I just said there. I didn't say they either "had to agree with" "corporatists". Those who believe in plural politics DO, however, have to accept that it doesn't just mean that Labour and the Lib Dems assume a permanent love in to "keep out those nasty wicked Tories". They also have to accept that when the situation demands it, parties who do not *agree* with each other will need to work together closely to reach a workable compromise. THAT is plural politics. So... your counterpoint to my saying that they're doing things they wouldn't normally do, and that they haven't changed in the space of a year, is to contend that i) they are doing things they wouldn't normally do, and ii) their policy platform shifted six years ago? Well, shit, I would have to say you're spot on there, doctor! Point one was a "no shit Sherlock, but you're missing the cause" - the Lib Dems are, for the most part, doing things they would not normally do (fiscally) but that is because of the way Labour wrecked the public finances and not simply because, as suits your caricature, they are taking it up the arse of those nasty wicked Tories. Point two was a "it's not just within the last year, it's an ongoing shift in policy and outlook that has been going on for more than six years and is still going on. you are plainly wrong to say there has been no policy shift in 12 months." It's not incumbent on the Lib Dems to maintain a stiff upper lip and march headlong into electoral irrelevancy, though. The institutional failings of the Westminster model? They aren't the Lib Dems' fault. They've sided with the corporatists - not the same as the centre-right brigade - and now they're paying the price. Them's the breaks. In eight years or so they might be electable again. They have not "sided" with corporatists! For actual f**k'S SAKE! Of course there are institutional failings in the Westminster model and of course they need radical reform. "Deciding to work with" is not the same as "siding with". They chose the wrong thing to capitulate on, as shown by the opinion polls (which may or may not represent the "real" opinion which you've carefully scrutinised.) For f**k's sake, I've not even visited Order-Order in about a fortnight! His tiresome bullshit on the AV referendum and capital punishment and prisoner voting from a while back has put me right off him. The collapse in poll ratings is easily attributed to being the smaller party of an unpopular government in difficult circumstances. Give it a few years and the intelligent voter will realise that the tuition fees debacle was really a thoroughly insignificant issue for people to get their knickers in a twist about. Well, you and the other Lib Dem voter can congratulate each other on their brilliance. I'm sure we'll have a great chat whilst exchanging membership numbers. Yes, the Lib Dems deserve a salute for at least getting *part* of this one right. Shame they've ballsed up virtually everything else, otherwise they might be a decent party. They haven't "ballsed up virtually everything else". Bringing the poorest paid out of income tax. Closing the capital gains/income tax avoidance gap, forcing the Tories to give up on a huge inheritance tax relief, ending child detention at Dungavel, making tertiary education cheaper for the lowest quartile of graduate earners, ending the ridiculous waste of money that is paying Child Benefit to those earning more than double the median national income, ending 28 day without charge detention, an end to the DNA database holding the information of innocent individuals, an end to bimetric passports, an end to ID cards, an end to the powers for the state to collect fingerprint data of schoolchildren and more besides. What a "balls-up" that must be. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Can I just ask, how is it that the SNP could run a minority government, with the Lib Dems making contributions, but the Tories are somehow incapable? Also, the way you write off the student fees issue is just wrong. Politicians live and die by public opinion, and public opinion turned heavily against the Lib Dems, with student fees being a key factor. You might disagree, but you are very much in a minority. Don't you know how this works? Lib Dem support drops to 8% - the public are morons. 36% vote Tory in a general election - the People Have Spoken and to disagree with them is to question their right to govern at the expense of a "centre-left love-in." Sadly this is how the young right wing actually thinks and talks amongst itself. Without wanting to sound too much like a broken record this is another aspect of authoritarian thinking: the ideal holding that a group can be both wrong and right (the public) at the same time; and the idea that a government can be both popular and relentlessly victimised (the coalition) at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drs Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Anyone daft enough to vote labour should be sent to england for the rest of their natural life. No doubt any problems in Scotland are all the fault of the Sainted Maggie despite the fact that in 2008 more people were working in the coal industry in Scotland than any time in the pervious 50 odd years. Labour = a vote for bankrupt Britain Labour = a sell out to Europe Labour = broken promise after broken promise Labour = the party of inbred thick weegie b*****ds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Some Labour supporters are now complaining that it's the electoral system in Scotland which is to blame for their poor showing. They brought it in to keep Labour in power in Scotland in perpetuity. Like many other Labour ideas, it didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It was by far the biggest factor, and that's clear when you look at the drop in poll support among the youth. One poll had it at 42% of students backing the Lib Dems before the election, down to 11% by December. It was far, far bigger than you think it is. Whether or not it's fair is a separate issue here. Well of course they're going to lose a lot of support from that group. Mainly because of a sensationalist NUS campaign, might I add, which misrepresented the facts and concealed the reality that their preferred alternative of a graduate tax would have either left a funding gap or been less progressive. I take the point that I'm possibly underplaying it, but the student vote doesn't fully or adequately explain the fall in Lib Dem support. If I recall correctly about 20 years ago the Lib Dem support was equivalent to what it is now in public polling. This isn't oblivion. Well, that's jolly decent of you. Thanks As I said, they shouldn't be. But nor is this a defence of them. I'm not saying it is a defence. I'm questioning the double standards. I see what you're saying to some extent, but again - the two are related in a way that you don't recognise. Obviously fulfilling a pledge that would for whatever reason be actively damaging, just to say you've done it, isn't desirable. But going back on a key pledge isn't, no matter how you dress it up - and the public agrees. I understand and accept all that. What I just can't understand is why this (which is all true) is only selectively applied, letting other parties all too frequently, get away with the same offence. They're clearly incapable, which is why they'll be booted out and unelectable. I disagree, but we're not going to reach consensus on that. Yep, that's fair. Again, it's not a defence of the Lib Dems. As earlier. I'm not defending them on this point, but pointing out the absurd hypocrisy of not coming down like a ton of bricks on every single political party every time they do the same thing, which they've done all the time, do all the time, and will do in the future for time immemorial. I support this wholeheartedly. There should be a cordon sanitaire around the corporatists. I never voted Lib Dem in the first place but their coalition actions would have turned me away had I done so. To clarify, I don't think "The Tories" are "evil" - I do think they're a corporatist party run for a wealthy elite, and the fact that more than around 2% of the UK population thinks they're worthy of the vote is laughable. And a party that thinks it has anything to gain from siding with them will soon learn otherwise. Perhaps I should be clearer here. I disagree with the premise that "The Tories" are corporatists. Certainly a large chunk of them are, but I'd venture that you have corporatists right across the main parties and that caricaturing Tory behaviour as inherently, exclusively and unrepentantly corporatist is simply a contortion of the reality. I assure you, the fact that it winds you up is merely a bonus. I am 100% sincere when I say that the disconnect between words and action being taken as either irrelevant or a virtue is a hallmark of authoritarian thinking; and the sweeping away of past claims in favour of present expediency is a hallmark of authoritarian praxis (although this is - obviously - not limited to authoritarians.) Words are meaningless without actions. It is only actions which have true meaning. Words just reflect, and sometimes by coincidence, pre-empt or provide a medium to pre-empt, action. I repudiate the suggestion that any authoritarianism can be inferred from what I have argued. Your parenthesis essentially admits such, and makes the original attack unsubstantiated. I recommend this book to a lot of people, mainly because it's free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ I strongly commend it to you. It will make you less wrong, as it made me less wrong, about politics. I'll take a look. Well, because a politician said that there was a good reason for their changing their mind, obviously there can't be any other factors at play, so I'll adopt the same slack-jawed credulousness that you've put on for the occasion! Meanwhile the remaining 92% of the country can see what happened and why the Lib Dems are now irrelevant for at least the next election, and probably the next two elections. As I said: them's the breaks. Make a Faustian bargain and it's not always going to go your way. Of course other actors are at play, like trying to keep the government viable, external pressures and public opinion. That doesn't mean that they were wrong to change their view, or that in changing their policy they abandoned the values which underpinned their approach to the issue generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 These guys don't seem to share your opinion. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/making-minority-gov-work.pdf Well good for them. Can I just ask, how is it that the SNP could run a minority government, with the Lib Dems making contributions, but the Tories are somehow incapable? Also, the way you write off the student fees issue is just wrong. Politicians live and die by public opinion, and public opinion turned heavily against the Lib Dems, with student fees being a key factor. You might disagree, but you are very much in a minority. Westminster is different. In Holyrood you have a much more fragmented opposition anyway (no one dominant group) and you also have the (I believe, 60%) threshold necessary to dissolve a parliament that Westminster doesn't. That threshold means opposition parties can't just gang up against a weak government as easily as they can at Westminster, particularly on a budget. I'm not "writing off" the tuition fees. I'm simply disputing that a u-turn/compromise constitutes a "capitulation". P.S. sorry for all the multiquotes, but Swampy started it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I don't have time for the whole post right now but on the bit in parentheses (enough of that crap - they're brackets, I get enough 'parentheses' nonsense over here in the US) was only to apply to the second clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Don't you know how this works? Lib Dem support drops to 8% - the public are morons. 36% vote Tory in a general election - the People Have Spoken and to disagree with them is to question their right to govern at the expense of a "centre-left love-in." Sadly this is how the young right wing actually thinks and talks amongst itself. Without wanting to sound too much like a broken record this is another aspect of authoritarian thinking: the ideal holding that a group can be both wrong and right (the public) at the same time; and the idea that a government can be both popular and relentlessly victimised (the coalition) at the same time. The public are and always have been morons. It doesn't mean they don't get the politicians they vote for* Opinion polls don't count for anything. Election polls do. That isn't holding that the public are "both wrong and right at the same time"; simply that the unpopularity of governments during their term is in absolutely no way an argument that they don't command legitimacy in the context of a supposedly viable constitutional framework. At absolutely no point have I said that the government is popular. At absolutely no point have I said that the majority of the populus agree with what it is doing. At absolutely no point have I said that those axioms are the chief discriminants of legitimacy. What cannot be argued with a great deal of credibility (actually any credibility) is that the 2010 Election produced an undisputed centre-left majority. Your problem here is that you're taking what I'm saying then making presumptions about things I haven't said. You're taking fragments of what I'm saying and choosing a way of linking them in a manner I have specifically chosen not to, in order to present their coexistence as flawed. I could call it a straw man offensive but xbl would probably have a hissy fit. *Yes, I know they don't under FPTP but that's a separate issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I don't have time for the whole post right now but on the bit in parentheses (enough of that crap - they're brackets, I get enough 'parentheses' nonsense over here in the US) was only to apply to the second clause. It's parenthesis. Even if it applies exclusively to the latter clause, the point stands. Arguably it's more pertinent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10 CC ICT Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Can I suggest you find out what my avatar actually is before you make a further c**t of yourself? I'd rather suggest your motives for choosing that as your avatar are misguided. Fool Facist Green +44 SNP +33 LibDem +23 Tory -24 Labour -26 Apparently I dress to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Labour to relaunch campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Labour to relaunch campaign Here comes the bogeymen to scare away those nats!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Labour to relaunch campaign Does that mean nobody noticed it the first time ? Dunno about relaunch but they could sure do with launching their leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I'd rather suggest your motives for choosing that as your avatar are misguided. Facist Green +44 SNP +33 LibDem +23 Tory -24 Labour -26 Apparently I dress to the right. Ooh, I hate those Facists. And fascists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10 CC ICT Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Ooh, I hate those Facists. And fascists. Somehow, I find that hard to believe. I accept that I'm far from perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.