Forum menu
Hence a lot of people looking to the Lib Dems to try and restore a bit of sanity to our countries politics.
Good sense of humour.
They've scooped up a few chancers from tinge and spent time shifting goal-posts to try and appeal to the remain-numbed electorate; packaged up in a faux-caring package that would test the best of any marketing agencies cringe drive.
If they'd not been so heavy-handed and so blatantly cynical - then you may have a had a point.
the vitriol???
She’s a crass opportunist (and not a very good one at that)
Happy to help. Here's a bit more from your post of all of half a page ago.
is instead only interested in her own short term political ambitions
They’ve scooped up a few chancers from tinge and spent time shifting goal-posts to try and appeal to the remain-numbed electorate; packaged up in a faux-caring package that would test the best of any marketing agencies cringe drive.
And still done a much better job of it than your lot.
I suppose you missed the interview with Swinson yesterday advocating the continuation of austerity?
Good. It's necessary.
Even the bloody tories have abandoned that failed policy.
...and they're wrong. Pork Barrel politics might win vote but it isn't good government.
I wasn't a lib dem on Sunday, but I am now.
The end result of Disaster Socialism will be the same as the end result from Disaster Capitalism for the vast majority of people.
That's not even logical nor a comparison.
They’ve scooped up a few chancers from tinge
Which is interesting. Because they've gathered MPs from other parties it's entirely possible they could increase their vote share dramatically and end up with fewer MPs than they have today after the next election.
Good. It’s necessary.
No it's not. It's absolutely not.
Governments have no need to balance books. They just don't. Not in history and not for any good reason. It's a lie.
Austerity is a political choice.
Good. It’s necessary.
No it’s not. It’s absolutely not.
Well, if Boris wins we'll see how effective fiscal incontinence is. We can also watch Trump who's using exactly the same trick (to the astonishment of economists).
In a year or two we'll have a definitive answer.
I previously advocated a further referendum, with the status quo being that we are leaving with no deal & remain needing to get 55% to put a stop to the debacle, as the only decisive option that might satisfy people. Somehow we need a full stop to this & currently libdems are offering it.
Governments have no need to balance books. They just don’t. Not in history and not for any good reason. It’s a lie.
Austerity is a political choice.
Agree. And even if you did want to balance books there are different ways about it. You could take money from the poorest and least privileged (Tories, Swinson) or you could take a fairer approach by taking money from those that can most afford it.
remain-numbed electorate
Sorry, what now?
Governments have no need to balance books. They just don’t. Not in history and not for any good reason. It’s a lie.
Wow.
It is not the 1930s now (at least not in economic and information terms). Ever heard of Ratings Agencies and what happens when you announce you are spending your way out of a hole?
Keynsian economics only works if every decision you make is not instantly factored into every other part of the system.
Agree. And even if you did want to balance books there are different ways about it. You could take money from the poorest and least privileged (Tories, Swinson) or you could take a fairer approach by taking money from those that can most afford it.
I think you need to make your mind up. Either they do or don't. If they don't then taking money from those that can most afford it out of peevishness.
It would also be interesting if you define those who can most afford it....and compare that to the distribution of wealth. Currently those who can 'most afford it' are contributing little or nothing but we can't even do the figures because they are using offshore tax havens.
This then usually comes down to a definition of 'most afford it' being anyone who earns slightly more than the person defining it..
Even just looking at declared wealth (not even the hidden untaxed) you could take every lower and higher rate tax payer earning less than a million a year and zero rate them all and still not approach the amount of missing tax from the people who earn a million a week.
It’s not a solution from a remainer POV.
So let me get this straight. If remain can't win a new referendum, then your preferred solution is to revoke? And you call the leavers the anti-democratic ones? Even if you think it's a viable solution (it isn't), what on earth makes you think the leavers - who you admit may be the majority - are going to lie down and accept it? If the remain side can't win a democratic mandate to cancel brexit, then I'm afraid the game is up.
Happy to help. Here’s a bit more from your post of all of half a page ago.
So you think saying Swinson is an opportunist and only interested in her own political amibions is vitriolic? Wow! And to think you lot have spent the last couple of years bemoaning the (fictional) cult of Corbyn!
It is indeed truly astonishing that various leaders and parties aren't reaching out towards each other in a spirit of compromise. Their supporters are obviously demanding it, can't you tell from their use of language such as "vile", "opportunist", "hopeless", "disgusting", "inconsistent", etc.?
Currently those who can ‘most afford it’ are contributing little or nothing but we can’t even do the figures because they are using offshore tax havens.
This then usually comes down to a definition of ‘most afford it’ being anyone who earns slightly more than the person defining it..
Try doing something about those people. The fact you have lost control over the dodgers doesn't mean you then just take from poor, disabled, cut key services etc,. does it.
Whatever the number is for those who can most afford it (and it would be less than I earn), it is still a better place to start isn't it?
It is indeed truly astonishing that various leaders and parties aren’t reaching out towards each other in a spirit of compromise.
To my knowledge Swinson and Soubry are the only ones who've refused to work with other parties. These self-styled leaders of remain are the main obstacles to stopping brexit. Interestingly they are also the two leaders who's parliamentary seats are most at risk.
Because referendum doesn’t achieve remain:
Ah, so you advocate the Lib Dem position of ignoring the wishes of the electorate. And some have the brass neck to argue that their position isn't extreme!
What you conveniently forget is that remainers got out of bed and voted for the status quo, one thing, remain.
Leavers voted variously for no deal, a customs Union, no immigration, giving Cameron a bloody nose, free fags, etc. etc.
Put all those options on a ballot and see who comes out on top.
you advocate the Lib Dem position of ignoring the wishes of the electorate
If the electorate give the LibDems the mandate to revoke (they won’t) then how could their wishes be ignored?
I much prefer the Labour policy at the moment (sadly I consider a referendum is the only way “forward” now) … but if people vote for LibDem policies in numbers high enough, in enough seats, to give them a majority in Parliament… that is how our democracy works.
Our system needs improving, for sure, but referendums that are used to start a process, rather than ratify/approve the results of one, are not an inprovement.
If the electorate give the LibDems the mandate to revoke (they won’t) then how could their wishes be ignored?
As you say, they won't, so it's another one of their policies that means absolutely nothing. We saw how valuable their commitments were the one time they were given a sniff of power - tuition fees anyone?
What you conveniently forget is that remainers got out of bed and voted for the status quo, one thing, remain.
Leavers voted variously for no deal, a customs Union, no immigration, giving Cameron a bloody nose, free fags, etc. etc.
Put all those options on a ballot and see who comes out on top.
The poorly defined ballot is one of the reasons I support Labour's policy of a second referendum. Alternatively, I could completely ignore which box 52% of voters ticked, if I was really stupid.
Would kerley or rone or dazh care to address my point about it being largely impossible in the modern age for a government to spend its way out of a slump given that the announcement (or enactment) of such a policy would instantly result in the cost of servicing the existing debt to go up, thus nullifying the policy?
I could completely ignore which box 52% of voters ticked, if I was really stupid.
@Ransos … many see your (our) preference of another referendum as ignoring the 52% as well.
Ah, so you advocate the Lib Dem position of ignoring the wishes of the electorate.
Nope, if they've just won an election, by definition, they will be carrying out the wishes of the electorate.
So let me get this straight. If remain can’t win a new referendum, then your preferred solution is to revoke? And you call the leavers the anti-democratic ones? Even if you think it’s a viable solution (it isn’t), what on earth makes you think the leavers – who you admit may be the majority – are going to lie down and accept it? If the remain side can’t win a democratic mandate to cancel brexit, then I’m afraid the game is up.
I'm not calling *anyone* undemocratic and never have. Care to provide a link to me doing so?
...and no, the leavers won't lie down and accept it. They'll campaign and perhaps win the following GE and implement Brexit. Frankly if they did that and won a landslide to do it cleanly I'd be as happy with that as remaining. Of course leavers might win the coming Gen election in a few months time with a workable majority - Boris is ahead in the polls and he seems outwardly to be keen on delivering Brexit. Or Corbyn might win, he's been campaigning for Brexit for 40 years. So if I were a keen Brexiteer I wouldn't be fretting too much that a party that won 8 seats last time has come out in favour of Remain when literally every other party has opted for a strategy that could easily result in Brexit.
so it’s another one of their policies that means absolutely nothing.
It means that some of the 80pc of people who voted for Brexit parties last time won't be this time. That's a massive step forwards IMHO.
I wouldn’t be fretting too much that a party that won 8 seats last time has come out in favour of Remain when literally every other party has opted for a strategy that could easily result in Brexit.
Agreed… there is no realistic result at the next general election that kills Brexit. LibDems want to have the USP (for a UK wide party) of clearly stating that they want to stop Brexit. Why on earth, looking at the polls as regards opinion on Brexit, wouldn’t they jump on that?!? Especially if it slots on so well with their world view and other policies.
Would kerley or rone or dazh care to address my point about it being largely impossible in the modern age for a government to spend its way out of a slump
Start up a separate thread about neo-liberal macroeconomics and we can discuss there. This is about brexit, no?
I’m struggling to see why a remainer would have a problem with Labour’s promise to hold a second referendum – wasn’t that what everyone was badgering them to do?
Whilst one the one hand I think a 2nd referendum is the only way to democratically and unequivocally make a decision (an outright GE win wouldn't as it could be achieved with far less than 50% of the vote) the terms of that 2nd referendum need to be set out clear before a GE.
I'm not sure (have they even published the details) what option, besides Remain, would be on a Labour 2nd referendum ballot and how long it would take before the referendum was held.
Even just looking at declared wealth (not even the hidden untaxed) you could take every lower and higher rate tax payer earning less than a million a year and zero rate them all and still not approach the amount of missing tax from the people who earn a million a week.
...and in a free society the only way to bring those high earners (and businesses) into the UK tax regime is with globally competitive rates of tax. ...If Corbyn did that Momentum would lynch him!
Keynsian economics only works if every decision you make is not instantly factored into every other part of the system.
Agree. And it *never* worked in the sense of "Spend loads of money on popular stuff at any time the more the merrier and it all comes back in a big way." If it did there would be no poor countries at all, they'd just spend their way to wealth.
Stimulus has its place, but it's not a magic bullet.
So you think saying Swinson is an opportunist and only interested in her own political amibions is vitriolic?
That wouldn't be particularly vitriolic, but what you ACTUALLY referred to her as (a crass opportunist), ramps up the vitriol level. And please don't pretend that you just forgot to include the word 'crass' in your rebuttal. Everyone knows how that game works.
tuition fees anyone?
I'm amazed it has taken this long for that little beauty to come up. At least I have won a little side bet I had with myself. Sounding very rattled, lads.
What you conveniently forget is that remainers got out of bed and voted for the status quo, one thing, remain.
Leavers voted variously for no deal, a customs Union, no immigration, giving Cameron a bloody nose, free fags, etc. etc.
I was wondering what the latest trick in logical acrobatics would be. Top marks for originality. Maybe you should give it a name?
And please don’t pretend that you just forgot to include the word ‘crass’ in your rebuttal.
She is a crass opportunist. She's many other things too that I didn't mention which may have justfiied the description of 'vitriol', but this isn't one of them.
Whilst one the one hand I think a 2nd referendum is the only way to democratically and unequivocally make a decision (an outright GE win wouldn’t as it could be achieved with far less than 50% of the vote)
...by that definition UK governments *never* have a mandate and there was no mandate to even hold the first referendum.
I’m not sure (have they even published the details) what option, besides Remain, would be on a Labour 2nd referendum ballot and how long it would take before the referendum was held.
A friend who is a Labour Councillor says Labour would negotiate Norway plus.
How the hell they intend to take the best bargaining chip we have off the table and *then* get a better deal is beyond me. But if they did get a 'good' deal, wouldn't people be tempted to vote for it? In which case isn't Labour essentially a party of leave?
Start up a separate thread about neo-liberal macroeconomics and we can discuss there. This is about brexit, no?
Now that is desperate.
I'll take that as a 'no' to the original question, shall I?
"All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
If the electorate give the LibDems the mandate to revoke (they won’t) then how could their wishes be ignored?
Because you would have the problem of a)what if I voted for their other ideas but not this and b)more importantly even if they somehow won chances of it being greater 50% of the population is pretty much zero. Take 1997 which was considered a landslide but was still just 43.2% for Labour.
So you would have a minority of the population winning out. Now obviously this happens every GE but in this case it would be weakened when compared against the actual referendum figures.
So you would have a minority of the population winning out.
What proportion of the “population” voted Leave back in 2016, and why did democracy end at that point?
Anyway, this kind of nonsense (that a referendum trumps all other elements of democracy) is why I feel that, politically, another referendum has to happen, sadly, and don’t personally agree with the LibDem policy.
Because you would have the problem of a)what if I voted for their other ideas but not this and b)more importantly even if they somehow won chances of it being greater 50% of the population is pretty much zero. Take 1997 which was considered a landslide but was still just 43.2% for Labour.
So you would have a minority of the population winning out. Now obviously this happens every GE but in this case it would be weakened when compared against the actual referendum figures.
All true but so what? In our democracy the winning party governs. They don't call an opinion poll before every act to make sure they have >50pc approval.
All academic because I'm pretty sure we'll be facing the opposite problem - no party will be winning an outright workable majority for a few years to come and nothing will happen at all or perhaps Boris will scrape 10 seats or something and we'll leave by some definition of leave. The last time the UK was governed by a single party with a decent working majority was early 2010. I can't see that changing in the next 6 months.
I’ll take that as a ‘no’ to the original question, shall I?
Absolutely not, start up the thread and I'll respond. I much prefer discussing alternatives to neo-liberalism than this pointless merry-go-round.
Viewers in Scotland, look away now..
Nope, if they’ve just won an election, by definition, they will be carrying out the wishes of the electorate.
I much prefer discussing alternatives to neo-liberalism than this pointless merry-go-round.
Surely you should be starting the thread if you find this one (which you contribute more often to than most) so 'pointless'?
and why did democracy end at that point?
Checks carefully. Nope said nothing along those lines so baffled as to how you thought this was a good response.
Anyway, this kind of nonsense (that a referendum trumps all other elements of democracy)
Again I said nothing so simplistic. Its easy to win if you just throw strawmen around.
Nope, if they’ve just won an election, by definition, they will be carrying out the wishes of the electorate.
Viewers in Scotland, look away now..
Indeed. The SNP will never win a majority in Parliament and therefore will therefore never leave without resorting to some kind of strategy outside our normal electoral processes. Like, errrr... a referendum.
The irony. If the SNP were offered a "no deal" exit from the UK they'd grasp it with both hands, and they didn't seem too worried about the importance of EU membership at the time either. They certainly didn't say "We want a no deal exit from the UK conditional on the EU accepting us as a member."
doesn’t mean you then just take from poor, disabled, cut key services etc,. does it.
Whatever the number is for those who can most afford it (and it would be less than I earn), it is still a better place to start isn’t it?
Not from my perspective because that is drawing a line through 'most people' ... and frankly that is the driving force behind leave populism.
The created imaginary enemy of those dispossessed by globalism are those earning double or triple the national average and those coming to take their jobs but in reality this is just letting those earning tens or hundreds of millions off altogether.
Its a great system, if you have billions offshore.
It works in part simply due to the staggering numbers. You might know a billion is 1,000 million but actually imagining it is a different thing.
@Ransos … many see your (our) preference of another referendum as ignoring the 52% as well.
It's not my preference, more that I don't see any other way out of the impasse. As a democrat, I reluctantly accepted the result and felt the best thing was to negotiate a deal and move on. But that hasn't happened.
I’m amazed it has taken this long for that little beauty to come up. At least I have won a little side bet I had with myself. Sounding very rattled, lads.
Sorry if the truth is inconvenient, but there it is. We know from direct experience that the Lib Dems, when given the opportunity, will not deliver on their headline commitments.
I was wondering what the latest trick in logical acrobatics would be.
It's good you've finally picked up on it. I've rolled it out a few times. Now you've finally picked up on this fact maybe you can get your head around the other inconvenient fact that Labour will, at best, stand still in a ge, and more likely, get pasted, losing seats to parties with clearly defined policies rather than a ****ing flow chart.
We know from direct experience that the Lib Dems, when given the opportunity, will not deliver on their headline commitments.
The last time there was liberal government in its own right was 1910. What headline commitment did they fail to deliver?
'Vote for something like Brexit because the only party that will Revoke and Remain might not actually do so' is mental.
Plus in the same way the Brexit party forced the Tory party to offer a referendum (and later take a leave position) maybe the Libdems stance will force Labour to go Remain. You don't need to be in Government to influence dramatically.