Forum menu
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.
maybe the Libdems stance will force Labour to go Remain
Time to wheel out the photos of Jo Swinson and Tom Watson meeting…
losing seats to parties with clearly defined policies rather than a **** flow chart
To be fair, the LibDem policy now requires a flow chart as well.
Again I said nothing so simplistic.
I don’t think I misrepresented you in the slightest. You pointed out (rightly) that even a majority government would not win a greater than 50% share of the vote in a general election (it can’t, for many reasons) and that somehow that means that they can’t disregard the (getting more out of date all the time) referendum result because it was more than 50%. Sorry, but hell no. Anyway, such thinking is why we must reluctantly have another, probably doomed to be flawed, referendum. Politicians feel their hands are tied by that one wretched vote in the eyes of so many people, in a way no General Election would solve.
You also banged on about “the population” rather than electorate. And I asked you about that, not to be awkward or pedantic, but as a reminder that a government, and the whole of parliament, has to act for the whole population, not just those that get to vote.
‘Vote for something like Brexit because the only party that will Revoke and Remain might not actually do so’ is mental.
It would be if that was what anyone was advocating.
We know from direct experience that the Lib Dems, when given the opportunity, will not deliver on their headline commitments.
Much better not to have any commitments at all, then?
Maybe Jezza is a genius after all.....
The tuition fees thing is a classic Daily Mail cheap shot - more often used by the Tories even thought it is toe-curlingly cynical of them, in particular, to do so. Yes, it is true, but in comparison to Brexit it is a side issue of a side issue of a side issue. But keep trotting it out, if it is the best you have got - but by doing so you are proving how rattled you are by a party who aren't dithering.
lots of the normal bickering... not much discussion about the current court hearing?
Nothing will be decided for days…
The SNP will never win a majority in Parliament
Err.....
The tuition fees thing is a classic Daily Mail cheap shot
Is this the 'how dare you play politics with something that is inherently political' defence? Given that the people involved are largely the same and it was only a few years ago and no apologies have been made about it, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the libdems on whether they can be trusted to keep to their primary policies if they are in power. Especially when their new leader displays such transparently naked personal ambition even though it damages what is supposed to be her primary objective.
Nothing will be decided for days…
I know, but watching it unfold is interesting, and it's already becoming clear what tack each side is taking with their arguments.
Given how important this case is I'm surprised there's not been more discussion here about how it's unfolding or potential outcomes.
But hey ho, carry on.
The SNP will never win a majority in Parliament
Err…..
No chance. How do you think they'd do in Malvern?
Given how important this case is I’m surprised there’s not been more discussion here about how it’s unfolding or potential outcomes.
Im fairly sure the government will win
WHich means remainers will continue to see Brexit as illegitimate
Johnson gets let off the hook, for now....
the SNP get to say that the government doesnt respect scotland
would be funny if they didnt, mark francois reckons the country will explode if we dont leave on 31st october
I reckon mark francois may explode
Well … the “if parliament don’t like the PM proroguing Parliament, they can pass a VONC in him” line has been played hard. Of course you can’t have a VONC while parliament is prorogued. And if they do it late October, he’ll still be PM on our current exit date. Not the most enjoyable game of chess ever. The big missed move was a VONC back before the summer recess… but explaining why that is got boring long ago.
Im fairly sure the government will win
Probably. Wrong is not the same as against the law. But then what? Parliament starts up briefly in October, and then the government uses wrong but legal measures to stop Parliament restricting him in any way?
no apologies have been made about it,
but by doing so you are proving how rattled you are by a party who aren’t dithering.
Yeah the tories are great arent they. Proroguing parliament and binning off loyal MPs.
No dithering there just action.
No chance. How do you think they’d do in Malvern?
Ah. Your ignorance knows no bounds. or you are trolling and, apparently, that gets you a ban these days.
The tuition fees thing is a classic Daily Mail cheap shot
I appreciate that the truth is inconvenient.
It was a totemic commitment dropped like a hot potato the minute that Clegg sniffed the leather in the ministerial Jag. Swinson is cut from the same cloth.
Is this the ‘how dare you play politics with something that is inherently political’ defence?
I'd rather call it the 'not picking a relatively very minor issue and endowing it with a false importance as a one-size fits all reason to denigrate them' defence. But, hey, if it is the best angle you have, then keep flogging the horse.
Yeah the tories are great arent they. Proroguing parliament and binning off loyal MPs.
No dithering there just action.
So, the way to confront 'action' (be it positive or negative) is with dithering?
Doesn't seem to have worked too well so far, does it?
"Doing the exact same thing we have done eighteen times before is the last thing they'll expect us to do this time".
So, the way to confront ‘action’ (be it positive or negative) is with dithering?
No just that announcing something is better than dithering is a bit simplistic.
Although I am not sure exactly what is dithering about a second referendum whilst keeping open the right to renegotiate the deal and, if it is good enough, to support it. I know it is a bit more complicated than the binary aye/nay but not exactly hard to follow.
Whereas the libdems are going for preferred option is second referendum unless they win a majority in which case its not.
No actual information on what that second referendum is.
Although I am not sure exactly what is dithering about a second referendum whilst keeping open the right to renegotiate the deal and, if it is good enough, to support it.
That's not labour policy. Labour Policy is to negotiate a terrific deal and then call a referendum and campaign against the terrific deal.
...and what incentive to Labour have to negotiate a good deal, because if they get a good deal it will be harder to make the case against it in the Referendum? ...and what if no deal is forthcoming? I guess the leave option becomes no deal.
Lib = Remain.
Tory/Brexit Party = Leave.
Labour = Leave with or without a deal or remain.
All four of these parties might fail to deliver but leavers and remainers each know where they want their vote recorded to provide the mandate they want.
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.
How long would it take to deal with the illegal funding issues, the questionable franchise, data harvesting, and come up with a question? the reality is years, not months. 3 years in and the brexiteers still haven't got a plan. You carry on with the farce or you can call it quits.
Carrying on with another couple of month extension followed by a couple of months, isn't helping anyone either. You either ask for a long extension and sort out the plan or scrap Brexit altogether and start dealing with the UK's problems, health, transport, education, etc etc.
There are no clean options anymore, the issue really never has been about the EU for more than a tiny handful.
I’d rather call it the ‘not picking a relatively very minor issue
Tuition fees on it's own is quite minor (although not to the kids who are terrified of the amount of debt), but the central issue is whether a political party can be trusted to stick to it's flagship manifesto commitments. At the first opportunity they had, the lib dems proved beyond any doubt that they can't, and those involved are still at the top of the party in the form of Jo Swinson and Ed Davey.
No actual information on what that second referendum is.
The LibDem Policy is remain. Not leave, not a referendum, but remain. (That ought to appeal to 48pc of voters.)
The libdems, and each of the two main parties will have to modify policy if they fail to win an outright majority in ways they can't predict. Sounds like the LibDems would accept a second ref under those circumstances.
central issue is whether a political party can be trusted to stick to it’s flagship manifesto commitments. At the first opportunity they had, the lib dems proved beyond any doubt that they can’t,
I think people understand that all manifestos come with the caveat "If we win." 😀
At the first opportunity they had, the lib dems proved beyond any doubt that they can’t,
welcome to coalition politics, minor party has to give way on occasion. If you would prefer the binary s*** show of westminster carry on. Personally i see the approach across much of europe working better and resulting in a higher standard of living for most.
political party can be trusted to stick to it’s flagship manifesto commitments
Blimey. The history of majority governments falling at that hurdle is bad enough… minor parties in a coalition? No chance. And I’m still angry about tuition fees. Other parties are allowed to bounce back from dumping manifesto commitments (you only have to look at the history of tuition fees across all three main parties to see this) but not the LibDems? Very odd. Anyway, another SNP policy I approve of, down here south of the border.
Uncle Vince said at the time
"I was sceptical about the pledge but we agreed collectively to do it and I take my share of the responsibility," he said. "I signed the pledge on the basis that had we been in government on our own, which was the commitment, we would have put through that policy and we would have done so.
"It was an unwise commitment to have made and we regret that and that was the basis of the apology."
Education minister David Laws told Radio 4's Today
it would have been "technically possible" to keep the fees pledge and ultimately scrap them but only if the Lib Dems had been governing on their own and ditched other key commitments such as support for disadvantaged pupils and tax breaks for the low paid.
but not the LibDems? Very odd.
I have this working theory that a lot of Lib Dem voters out there aren't really voting for an actual real life political party called the Liberal Democrats, they're voting for the Good Witch Of The South from the far side of Emerald City and they're really, really voting for her because she isn't the Tories and isn't the Labours.
Then, when the actual political party turns out to be an actual political party, who have to do adult things like compromise and whatnot, they get all pissy about it because their dream of a fairy run utopia turns out to be a bit unrealistic. Then they cut their own nose off, and find out it hurts.
welcome to coalition politics, minor party has to give way on occasion.
Yes but generally its a bad idea to give way on your key policies. Especially when one of your parties key recent books setting out ideology came out as not being particularly in favour of that policy anyway. Comes across as somewhat dubious how committed to it you were.
Then, when the actual political party turns out to be an actual political party, who have to do adult things like compromise and whatnot
Ah yes because anyone who disagrees with a party abandoning headline pledges isnt a adult?
More accurately I would see many lib dem members as not dissimilar to many Labour party members under Blair. They have seen their party yanked hard to the right by a bunch of ideologues but dont have an immediate other option to go to.
Ah yes because anyone who disagrees with a party abandoning headline pledges isnt a adult?
Not what I wrote, but carry on.
Then, when the actual political party turns out to be an actual political party, who have to do adult things like compromise and whatnot
In the situation we are in now, anything to do with anything other than Brexit is pretty irrelevant. Too many people view Brexit as a (granted) large part of a tapestry of policies for the major parties.
It isn't. It is like an event horizon. Get pulled past the point of no return and nothing that went before matters. It will do such damage that any manifesto pledges are pointless.
Mr Price said a snap general election would act as a "substitute referendum" on Brexit.
Lets decided who's going to be in charge of the country off a singular populist issue. I cannot see how that could go wrong at all.
If your going to have a referendum then have one - properly and legally where all the options are laid out in full. Not a half-arsed substitute still based of vacuous rhetoric.
Shower of shite the lot of them.
If your going to have a referendum then have one – properly and legally where all the options are laid out in full.
Yeah good luck with that bearing in mind those on Brexit and voting reform.
Lets decided who’s going to be in charge of the country off a singular populist issue. I cannot see how that could go wrong at all.
PC have said that we should have a referendum before a general election. If the bigger parties want to ignore them and do it the other way around, then Brexit will be the key policy of that General Election for PC and all parties. I feel your anger is justifiable, logical, but misaimed.
Yes but generally its a bad idea to give way on your key policies.
A manifesto is only valid if you are in government on your own. It's pretty obvious. I can see why Clegg did what he did, and I don't believe it was because he just wanted to be deputy PM. Who the hell wants that? In real life, real human beings have to do deals and make compromises. It's not all Hollywood heroism. Clegg and the LDs would have got nothing if they'd said no; as it was they got to influence and shape a government. Unlike in the movies, you generally don't save the day by sticking doggedly to principles. Tuition fees would have stayed in place either way.
Johnson's plan for the WA
Can't see that flying with the EU, Norway pay in handsomely to trade fish with the EU, surely they'd want a similar deal ?
The government’s case to the Supreme Court seems to largely be based on the Prime Minister being able to say “Unless you do what I want, I can close you down”.
The very fact that these bastards are willing to set such a manifestly dangerous precedent just reveals how self-serving and venal they are.
And what happens when a future government decides it would like to intern ‘undesirables’ without trial, maybe in some kind of prison camp?
Disgrace.
Molgrips - the lib dems could easily have avoided being made into such patsies for the tories by NOT going into coalition but simply doing S&C then they have veto power over every vote and could easily have voted against the tuition fees rise. Like the DUP now.
Instead the lure of ministerial cars was too great so they went into coalition - and not only that pledged to vote with the tories on everything. simply gave away all their power.
If your USP is you have principles and stick to them then give away those principles for nothing then you lose your USP with the results we see - they become a complete irrelevance and no one trusts them.
Kimbers - thats never going to fly. Stormont lock means its no safety net for the EU.
Its just simple nonsense
Molgrips – the lib dems could easily have avoided being made into such patsies for the tories by NOT going into coalition but simply doing S&C then they have veto power over every vote and could easily have voted against the tuition fees rise.
Agree that it wasn't their only option. However people banging on about how they abandoned their principles for a bit of power is just ridiculous, and it's an attitude that really does not help politics move forward in this country.
Corbyn still at it..
Don't go chasing unicorns
Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all
But I think you're moving too fast
the lib dems could easily have avoided being made into such patsies for the tories by NOT going into coalition but simply doing S&C then they have veto power over every vote and could easily have voted against the tuition fees rise. Like the DUP now.
Oh come off it, the Liberal Democrats went into coalition in good faith knowing it would end badly for them.
Remember the days of Cameron wheeling out clegg to deliver any news that was unpopular? Cameron would say the good news?
They did succeed in curbing some of the more extreme tory madness, much of which is now undone.
The libs agreeing to coalition government has probably been the most selfless altruistic act I've ever witnessed in brittsh politics in my lifetime.
Oh but student fees... Lol
Anyone got any stats of declining uni applications since the price change?
It's more expensive but you don't have to start paying it back until you're earning a decent wedge anyway. And then it's on a sliding scale.
Labour fanatics getting twitchy?
Corbyn still at it..
would opt to stay out of campaigning in a second referendum on a Labour-negotiated Brexit deal
Good.
Matty - they didn't have to do it - and they did not think it would end badly. ~they made a series of huge political miscalculations. S&C would have been so much better all round - but no - they wanted those ministerial cars.
Its the total lack of willingness to admit they made a huge blunder and caused so much damage that gets me.
Its not just student fees - thats a minor point. Its 10 000 dead from austerity, its the bigotted policies they enabled, its the huge damage to public services - none of which was needed its the whole EU referendum - they could have stopped all that by doing S&C
they sold their principles for a ministerial jag and that all they got in return
Look at what they voted for during the coalition - call themselves liberal?
and they achieved and ameliorated absolutly nothing
Nothing to do with lefties getting twitchy - the lib dems will not make any siugnificant gains and by bet is that they end up with less MPs than they have now and Swinson loses her seat.
However people banging on about how they abandoned their principles for a bit of power is just ridiculous,
Almost as ridiculous as your simplification. No one is saying they should keep everything in their manifesto but when you make something a headline ****ing pledge and go around signing a bit of paper specifically for this one pledge then breaking it is rather poor. Especially when you are so incompetent as to allow the other party to completely undermine your other main policy.
That said in the Lib dems case it really isnt obvious whether they abandoned their principles or rather actually followed them and instead lied to both their party membership and the electorate.
Clegg was known to be not to be a fan of the lib dem position on opposing tuition fees. So it seems a bit convenient that it got abandoned.
Can you take this age old tuition fees stuff to another thread now? I’m still annoyed it happened, but it’s not really on topic, is it.
I can't be bothered, but can someone open /start a new thread, possibly titled 'lib dems are scum and Labour are brilliant?'
I feel its distracting from the national emergency of brexit.