BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:50 AM

Sorry Kendall it just cannot be explained - at all

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:53 AM

Audio Visual.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:56 AM

Or maybe, Alternative Vote, where you can put your preferences in any order, but if you vote for more than one candidate, your vote may eventually elect someone you didn't really want.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:00 AM

A(ston) V(illa) is my football (soccer) team in England Kendall.

However I don't think it means what this thread is about.

Alternative Vote allows you to place in order, your candidates when you vote. This can lead to somebody being voted in, even if they were not top of the list. It's suposed to give smaller parties a chance to get voted inand takes, supposedly, the power away from the main 2 parties.

Whereas we currently have FPTP First past the post in the uk.

Sorry if that is more confusing. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:21 AM

Whereas we currently have FPTP First past the post in the uk.

And to rub it in, that's the way it's going to stay thank Clapton.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Allan Conn
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:23 AM

"Would someone please explain?"

Your main vote would be your first preference then you would have the option to place second, third, fourth prefrences etc. If at the end of the first preference count the leading candidate hasn't 50% of the total votes, then the person in last place is discounted and the second preferencies for people who voted for that candidate are added to the other candidate's totals. This is repeated until someone's total is over 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:27 AM

Whatever I imagine happening over the next four years seems to end up with either the LDs being indistiguishable from the Tories - in which case what is the point of not voting Tory - or them taking the rap for most of the problems along the way. The implications of that is unclear but more likely a strengthening of Labour against the Conservatives

I actually doubt that the Lib Dems will become Tories - there's far too much anger inside the camp as it is. What I do expect is that more bad news will be shunted on to Lib Dems. I'm not expecting them to get anywhere near power until I'm 40.

AV is fairly simple, and I can explain it thusly:
1) Rank your candidates in order of preferences
2) Count up all of the highest preferences
3) Does someone have 50% of the vote
3a) No? Then remove the person at the bottom of the list and reassign their highest preferences. Then go back to 2
3a) Yes? Then that person wins the election.

There is also a cat video that explains it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:35 AM

Kendall ~~ If still confused, I commend to your attention another thread ongoing called "Any thoughts on AV {Alternative vote}?", from which you can select for further enlightenment.

HTH,

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:58 AM

Guest Eliza,

It's not what people read that shapes an opinion of someone, it is the extent to which they believe what they read, and the extent to which they shape their opinions on what they read.

In my opinion the Daily Mail will demonise whatever disadvantaged group is flavour of the month: Single Mothers, Muslims, Asylum Seekers, etc.. to forward their political objectives.

To read this, and dismiss/condemn this indicates free thought, to join the lynch mob of the month because the DM says so suggests otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:58 AM

I'm not expecting them to get anywhere near power until I'm 40.

You're still in playschool then, Drugcrazed - and a very optimistic young LibDem at that...

Two possible explanations of Nick Clegg. Either he is a genuine LibDem, and incredibly incompetent at playing politics. Or he's a crypto-Tory all along who saw the party he joined as a less competitive way to get on in politics. Either way the best thing that party could do would be to dump him as fast as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:05 AM

What the 'Thoughts on AV' thread does not cover is why ardent supporters of proportional representation dislike both first-past-the-post and AV. In a nutshell both grant all authority to the winner, whether the final vote was split 51%-49% or 66%-33% doesn't matter - it is winner takes all (and they will claim a mandate for their viewpoint)

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:11 AM

Eliza, it means you need rehabilitation. See you at the gulag.
Nick Clegg is just an example of most of our politicians these days: overgrown schoolboys who've gone from school (usually public) to university (usually Oxbridge) and then to Politics to play. No wisdom or experience of real life at all. It really sickens me when they start playing soldiers and talk about casualties, collateral damage etc; they have no military experience and behave like they are playing a computer game where you can press a key and restart. A generation ago we did have politicians who had some experience of real life, of real war and gained some wisdom on the way. Attlee, Supermac...no not Grimmond: he was just playing as he knew he would never be in power.
Or did they seem so much better because I was younger then.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:16 AM

What are the odds on NIck Clegg seeking a safe tory seat at the next general election ?

The good people of Sheffield have seen through him.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 08 May 11 - 10:35 AM

In trying to put the Lib Dems on the map and selling their soul, has in actual fact badly backfired. It has done untold damage and I doubt very much if anybody in their right mind will ever bother to vote for them again. I voted for them, but never again.

I have to admit to being very surprised that Cleggy decided to make a pact with the Tories, but in another way, it stopped Brown the bungler from carrying on, which was needed IMHO. Trouble is, his replacement is a weakling and does not give me any confidence whatsoever and in all honesty, will not get Labour back in at the next general election.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Allan Conn
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:31 AM

"In trying to put the Lib Dems on the map and selling their soul"

My constituency up until recently been basically a Lib Dem fiefdom - but they'd maintained their position over their main rivals (the Conservatives) because some people who would perhaps normally support the SNP or Labour would vote Lib Dem as a specifically anti-Tory measure. But when the parties become almost indistinguishable what's the point in doing that? Plus their campaign treated people as simpletons. On one part of the election leaflet it boasted of how good a job they were doing at UK level in conjunction with their Tory partners - and just underneath that in big writing was "remember voting Lib dem is the only way to keep the Tories out" They've ended up not just losing again but falling back into third behind the SNP.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:37 AM

What are the odds on Nick Clegg seeking a safe tory seat at the next general election ?
Four years is a long time in politics but at the moment it is hard to see any seat of any colour being safe enough for Nick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:02 PM

Translator needs to be summoned for Across the Pond language.

But the U.S. has our Tories also. Called Repuglicans.


AV (alternative voting) would be a gift for U.S. politics for the people.

Why choose incessantly between the "lesser of two evils" which is now being amalgamated
into a single party here controlled by Wall Street and the MIC?

It gives football fans something to do in assessing political parties.

Problem with Nader is that he is a consumer "gadfly" well-needed but not good presidential material because he is not relevant.

The Lib/Dems in the U.S. are being destroyed through movement toward the mythical "Center" which is a euphemism for the assumption of Conservative values by Americans. Instead of a crack in the vase, the vase is melting away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:12 PM

MtheGM - there can be no civilised person left who would reverse those reforms.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:28 PM

Richard ~ That is still assuming the answer in the question being asked [i.e. 'begging the question'] ~ particularly here in your tendentious usage of 'civilised', as well as the repeated assumption that they must be regarded as 'reforms'. You know this to be true whatever you pretend.

I am anyhow not sure of the accuracy of the statement [letting 'civilised' pass for the moment]. "Can" there not, indeed? Just read the 'Bulger' thread to see how true {not at all!} it may be re the first of the 'reforms' at least. And if you respond that some of the views expressed therein prove their holders not to be 'civilised', then you will be compounding your ?-begging in ♠♠♠, will you not?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:31 AM

Since hair-splitting seems to be the order of the day there can be no doubt at all that these were "reforms". Whether they are improvements seems to be what you are questioning and while I certainly believe they are the issue of whether they are reforms is a simple fact whatever the answer.

As to the Bulger case: without pinning my particular colours to the mast there is a big difference between the death penalty in all cases, as the norm to which they may be exceptions and as rare but used in exceptional cases. Each of these would be a further reform, but it is literally a matter of debate which, if any, would be improvements.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:36 AM

I know what "begging the question" means. And what I have said does not so beg. The reforms I identified were improvements to our law, and no civilised person would now reverse them (I'm quite happy to debate that, but it ins not the point here) but they came about despite popular opposition at the time. On those occasions "Well done Parliament".

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:12 AM

Have it it your own way, Richard.

Your last post was every bit as question-begging as the previous two; and if you can't see that, then you conclusively demonstrate that, tho you may purport to know what 'question-begging' means, you fail to recognise instances of its use in your own arguments; & ∴ DON'T know what it means in practice.

There's glory 4U!

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Musket
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:25 AM

Of course, it is the future, post referendum that counts now.

Clegg & co maintain that a coalition is there to push through the necessary agenda to get the country out of the shit. So far, so good. I don't agree with austerity being the only tool in the box, and personally feel that growth can help too. Even if that does mean encouraging the banks to pump prime whilst vilifying them (for good reason mind.) But I can go along with suspending dogma for a pragmatic period to settle down.

However, I cannot take the coalition stance at face value whilst despite both parties having opposite views on the future of NHS structure, the Lib Dems voted through a health bill that has no bearing whatsoever on their manifesto, and indeed does the opposite of what they wanted. Playing with The NHS is not a financial imperative. It was already on course for a £20Billion saving and the people making that happen have just been given mass redundancy notices before it was achieved. Well done Ministers. Of both parties.

In the meantime, Clegg announced yesterday he is not happy with the bill despite holding whip on his MPs when they voted on it. this thread is about the destruction of the Lib Dems. it starts with credibility, and my example is one of many, albeit the one that I know most about.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:50 AM

The Labour Party has to create policy that promotes jobs, green economics, ethical foreign policy, redistribution of power and wealth, defend the health service and public education, stop trident (who will vote for that?).

Other non-tory parties should campaigne for what they believe in. After an election in which non-tory parties are collectively a majority they should agree a proper coalition based on policies agreed before the election and presented to the country as such.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:57 AM

The Labour party should also promise not to run the country into debt. The last government were not the only labour party to leave the country in financial debt. It happened before.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:58 AM

No. There is no question. The popular view at the time would have been wrong, and time has cemented that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Ringer
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:58 AM

I spoiled my local paper: it offered me no choice other than Lab or Lib and I despise both. The sooner we are allowed to vote "None of the above," the better.

For AV, I voted No, because it seemed to me that the proponents of AV had singularly failed to make a convincing argument; there have recently been too many half-arsed, ill-thought-through constitutional changes (think "reform" of the Lords, devolution, etc).

Looking at posts above, it seems to me that all posters regard "right of centre" to mean "right of my pov". MtheGM seems to be the only poster actually aware of the relativism of the personal viewpoint.

From the OP: "the Lib Dems... have acted as a bit of a buffer between us and the rabid Tories..." Another example of the relativism of the personal viewpoint -- no sane person (yes, I'm aware of the irony) could think that any of the Cameron/Osborne/etc crew were Tory!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:59 AM

Sorry, Les, I don't understand. That could have worked under AV, but not with FPTP. Did you mean 'Before an election'? Because after the election whether they are collectively a majority won't matter unless one of them is also the majority and its hard to see 'a proper coalition' coming into being in that circumstance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:07 AM

Oh stop it, Richard; you are just making yourself look silly. M

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:09 AM

I am suggesting that if their is a hung parliment a coalition of non-tory parties might be possible. It might not but it just might. In which case that coalition must respect the views of those that voted for its various bits.

It could equally be a right of centre coalition if the Lib Dems fought on a right wing manifesto.

The point I am trying to get to is that the current coalition is made of one party that is doing what it said it would and the other isn't.

This is clearly wrong. Coalitions should be based on the manifestos of the parties trying to agree.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:14 AM

If you don't think so,Richard, just look at Ringer's post immediately following yours; & then, as I said before, go back to the Bulger thread [to which you posted some quite sensible points, I observe] & count the posts from such as Richie, Silas, Smokey [leaving out josepp who is a fool] who contradict your assertion that no civilised person could disagree with you ~~ and withdraw that assertion unless you mean to appear as gratuitously offensive as well as ?-begging.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:53 PM

... and for heaven's sake contemplate the difference between an incontrovertible physical fact and an opinion, however deeply you may feel it and widely held you may consider it. I am absolutely astounded by the persistent wilful failure of a man of your intelligence to recognise this distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:30 PM

You cite Dickie Blackshirt as a civilised person? With respect you make my point.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:11 PM

Oh, come, Richard: you can surely do better than such a — ah, um, er — somewhat inexpensive debating point as that...?!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:06 PM

vote for me
http://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Ringer
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:05 AM

"With respect you make my point."

Not so, Richard Bridge. Rather, you make MtheGM's point. That "my opinion" and "the good" are not necessarily contiguous is something you don't seem able to comprehend.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:37 AM

Don't be silly. You'll be asserting that the abolition of slavery and the creation of votes for women are still politically contentions next.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:19 AM

Ask the Saudis, Sudanese, Nepalese, Taleban about that, why don't you, Richard?

Again: most, I will agree, are glad of the abolition of any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation ~~ but my no means all, & there is no legal bar to re-enactments against it as you well know: it is not a law of nature that such reforms cannot be reversed.

As for Capital Pun.; the situation there is by no means even that cut&dried, & if you think its abolition absolutely irreversible, and that nobody would rejoice at its return, you are an even bigger idiot than you have so far revealed yourself.

& that is saying something. You are the one being 'silly'. I re-aver that I can hardly believe how silly a man of your intellect & attainments is being.

Ringer clearly agrees with me.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Max Johnson
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:54 AM

I was chatting with a local, re-elected, Independent Councillor in the pub last night. He told me that he only stood for election to serve the local community, that he has no interest in politics and, in fact, never votes in General Elections!
I wish there were a few more Councillors like him.

The Lib Dems went down with all hands. Wiped out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:29 AM

I am not aware of anyone who would reverse the original abolition of the death penalty. I am aware of some who would reintroduce it in certain circumstances but (a) that is not the same thing and (b) they are outside my reference to "civilised" people.

I am not aware of anyone who would abolish votes for women or reintroduce the property requirement or seek to introduce slavery. It is ironic that those you cite are those whom you yourself castigate as uncivilised.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:19 AM

Precisely, Richard ~~ YOU are "not aware" ~~~ *YOUR "reference".

And who, precisely, within the context of this dispute, do you imagine "you" to be, to establish unarguable criteria which we are all supposed to accept as fact rather than as mere personal opinion?

My goodness, but you have some opinion of YOURself, haven't you?

I have not the remotest idea what your final sentence is supposed to mean. I don't believe you have either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:26 AM

EXTRACT FROM "THE NEW RICHARD BRIDGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE" ~~~

civilised adj sharing the personal opinions of Richard Bridge Esq

uncivilised adj failing to share the personal opinions of Richard Bridge Esq

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:34 PM

Arguably compulsory community service as a way of dealing with offenders is actually a form of servitude or slavery which has quite widespread support.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:02 AM

Not slavery - slavery involves the slave being property not a person.

MtheGM - grow up. There are times when Parliament leads and the two examples I cited were undoubtedly the right things to do. Undoubtedly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:02 AM

Sorry Richard. As to one of them, I agree it was the right thing to do; but your and my agreement, & indeed that of most people, does not make it 'undoubted' in any viable sense. As to the other, that is widely disputed by people who are perfectly civilised by any but a foolish & mnemonic definition.

The question as to how far parliament should lead is by no means definitively answered by your particular say-so. Until you can get it into your thick, mulish head that there is no "undoubted" {said twice, or 10 times, or even ∞∞ times} about it, grow up yourself.

Or can you really not see that the assertion "All civilised people agree with this because those who don't are not civilised" is about the most priceless question-beg ever question-begged?

Ignoratio elenchi

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:36 AM

Richard ~~ permit me a quotation from my academic discipline. Yours was Law, I believe. Mine was Eng Lit; and I greatly admire within it a book by John Gross called The Rise & Fall Of The English Man Of Letters (1969); a fine critique of the leading lit critics. Of the faults he observes in the work of the once highly influential Cambridge critic F.R. Leavis, Gross writes of "the faintly ridiculous air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been vigorously asserted".

He might have been writing of you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:15 AM

Ah-hah! After what seems an age of simple name-calling, the pair of you have finally reached the point where there is a real topic that could be discussed between you in a way that will benefit we bystanders. Because the term 'civilsed' denotes a hodge-podge idea which is partly the logical consequence of stated or unstated axioms ("we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men ...") And partly a cultural norm arrived at statistically (in an informal sense) so the the criminal/outcast is declared 'uncivilised' because they do not conform to the norm. And there are other aspects to what it means to be civilised as well. Now on occasion these two aspects are in conflict and that's when things get interesting.

So what each of you means by 'civilised' and why you adopt that meaning and how you resolve the sort of internal conflicits in the concept is something that could be genuinely enlightening for us.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 02:54 AM

Not in my case, DMcG ~~ I didn't attempt in any way to define the concept, but simply declined to accept the narrow, mnemonic, doctrinaire conceptualisation of it asserted by my interlocutor*.

As my 1st-cousin-once-removed Louis B Mayer's partner once requested in one of his celebrated Goldwynisms: "Include me out!"

~M~

*I do however refute the accusation of 'name-calling', I am unaware of having addressed him by by other name than Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 11 May 11 - 04:01 AM

Case closed.

it started by questioning the credibility of the Lib Dems and ended, as apparently many internet debates do, by discussing slavery and capital punishment. You only need Hitler for a full set.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 04:14 AM

Ian: My first wife's maiden name happened to be Godwin; but I am otherwise unaware of being in any way connected to Godwin's Law.

And who, pray, do you take yourself to be, to declare any cases closed? We shall conclude our discussion as & when we list, without any reference to your gracious leave or permission, thank you very much just the same.

~M~