BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)

Subject: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:59 AM

So, the unthinking, idiot tribalists of the UK have succeeded in destroying the Lib Dems. Now there's nothing to stand between us and a full-blown Tory government for the next generation (after 13 years of power we now know that Labour can't do government - only opposition). The point was, surely, that the Lib Dems, who are in a MINORITY in the Coalition, have acted as a bit of a buffer between us and the rabid Tories ... now the buffer has been badly damaged.

Not only that but the brainwashed twits have succeeded in throwing out AV - which, although not ideal, might have given us some alternatives.

Only the Scots have broken the mould by dumping Labour (a fate that the doctrinaire, autocratic and completely hypocritical apologists for unregulated capitalism richly deserve!). But they've elected f*cking nationalists in their place (!) - they'll live to regret that - out of the frying pan etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:10 AM

You know what's happened? The Tory's plan succeeded. That wonderful Lib Dem shaped shield has been super effective.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:17 AM

The fuckwits, sorry Lib/Dems have never acted as a buffer, they do what Dave tells them period. Nick Clegg seems to be the only person in the world who can't see where the blame lays for their disasterous showing in the polls.

He sold his soul and morals for five years of power [ he thinks ] He even shafted the people in his own constituency and now he seems surprised at the good kicking he's been given, blaming government policys but never himself, the man is either a liar or a fool.

Where are you from Shimrod ? that you can call the vast majority of the British electorate ' brainwashed twits ' I voted in favour of AV but I accept the will of the people, is it a case of " I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong " you are sounding more like Maggie Thatcher all the time.





Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Mo the caller
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:26 AM

Am I the only person who votes in LOCAL elections on who I want to run things LOCALLY.
It should not be anything about the party leaders or Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:39 AM

I agree, Dave H. I am constantly astounded how those who call themselves democrats can make such a to-do when the δεμσϛ makes a decision distasteful to their own almighty doctrinaire egalitarianism. Shimrod, & such, should be ashamed of perpetually expressing such patronising, condescending, knowall, we·know·best attitudes to the indubitable and undeniable will of the majority.

I have, btw, always been amused by the constant desperate repetition of the myth of our having a "3-party system". There haven't been more than 2 since the 30s. The Libs/LibDems have been nowhere near government since. The fortune all those poor buggers must have lost in deposits! & at last, when it finally looked as if they might be in a position for some sort of "power-sharing" or "holding the balance", look what happens!

And Labour have demonstrated repeatedly that they are rubbish in government tho can make an effective, excess-controlling, opposition. Which just leaves what the populace have time & again come to their senses to recognise as our natural government.

All IMO of course. But I think my rundown of past events will hold...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:39 AM

I reckon the vote was convincing enough. The majority of those who bothered to vote voted to keep first past the post.

That doesn't make the majority of voters tribalistic idiots , it makes the moaners undemocratic. It is ok to not be happy with the outcome, but in a democracy you accept it, however reluctantly. Voting is not just about before the event, but by voting, you are part of a voting system and take group ownership of the outcome.

Clegg called AV a miserable little compromise till he had to compromise himself. Surely he can see the irony?

No, perhaps not.

One thing I do agree with Shimrod about is that Labour are not fit to govern just yet, and seem to be better in opposition than in power. (Mind you, up till a year ago, Vince Cable was the voice of reason and common sense........)

But this propped up Tory government relies on neither of the coalition partners trusting Labour to get us out of the economic situation we are in. I firmly believe that it can be helped by a strong economy every bit as much as austerity measures, even more so.

But you know what bugs me more than anything?   That ANY party, once the books are balanced will squander it by spending to bribe voters and put us back under the cosh.

AV, FPTP, any system you like, makes no difference. Ministers like to bribe us in the last budget before an election. That is why they are going too far too fast. They don't want to balance the books, they are just looking as ever to the next election.

Vote how you want, I guarantee you will get the government.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:39 AM

A silver lining may be that if the Lib-Dems vanish completely the "left of centre" (convenient shorthand) will not be split at the next election whereas the right wing one with luck will have the EDL BNP and UKIP competing for the conservative core vote.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:55 AM

I voted for my local counciller and it had nothing to do with their party. I voted for somebody who lived in the same location as me and who I felt would do their utmost for the good of our community.

I also voted YES for AV. I am not upset at all, that the majority voted not to have AV. That is democracy.

The problem appears, that if you are a staunch party supporter of Labour or Conservatives, you are blinded by their doctrine and refuse to see any good in anybody outside your own party. I call that blinkered stupidity. But never the less, that's always been the case and I doubt will ever change.

You only have to see the hatred posted on these political threads on Mudcat. It's always the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:58 AM

It is the right of the "unthinking, idiot tribalists of the UK", to vote for whichever party they wish, for whatever reasons they have. It is up to the parties to win there hearts and minds.

One of the problems with the electoral system is the constant misinformation, and sometimes even downright lies continually puimped out through and by the media which have an influence on voting decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:54 AM

I think Richard is too optimistic there. The modern Labour Party lines up with the others he mentioned as being s basically rightwing organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:09 AM

But, McGrath, that is because it has been demonstrated over & over again that the way for Labour to be sure of losing any election is to go to the country with left-wing policies. From 1951 onwards, the people of the UK have demonstrated time & again that they don't like socialism in any form: they don't like it, they don't trust it, they don't want it. Isn't it time that those thus inclined recognised the fact and stopped bellyaching about it in this undemocratic fashion? By all means, let them continue their campaigning and their attempts at re-educating the populace to their way of thinking. But can't they have the humility and decency to stop denouncing those that don't agree with them as misguided fools?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Yvonne
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:40 AM

The Liberal party decided to 'sup with the Devil'.
So the results in the local elections were well deserved.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:00 AM

The problem with the combination of FPTP and the two-party system is that you can't vote for your real preference, you have to opt for the less worse of two package deals. However the winning party will then claim a mandate for the whole package, warts and all.

Looking back though, it has long seemed to me that whenever we had a change of government either way, then invariably:
    - the incoming party had to spend the first two years or so fixing the other lot's mistakes,
    - the next couple of years were spent introducing their own common-sense reforms, generally welcomed,
    - after that, policy tended to become increasingly driven by party dogma, until eventually the electorate were pushed too far and voted them out again.

So there is some sort of long-term balance, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:17 AM

You could straighten things out soon enough if you had the sense to give yer apes and monkeys the vote.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:26 AM

I agree with virtually everything that Arthur Itis says above (except that I AM upset that we didn't get AV!).

Democracy would be a fine system if we had some real choice and a few more people were able to think things through (which they plainly can't).

And for all of you who wanted to 'damage' Nick Clegg - shouldn't you have been directing most of your fire against David Cameron?

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:33 AM

What's so good about a democracy? It's a meaningless word banded about by politicians like 'freedom' or 'choice' (Thatcher's favourite). How can you have a democracy in a monarchy or a FPTP system: the government is chosen by the floating voters in the marginals only, nobody else counts. Of course the majority voted for FPTP: people don't like real change and don't vote for it. Arthur would you have accepted it if a referendum voted for capital punishment (which it would following the rantings of the Sun, Mail etc)? Cromwell and Ireton had the right idea in using Pride's Purge to cleanse the House of Commons of those who endlessly tried to negotiate with the King. They whinged about democracy then but the Army was probably more democratic than the House of Commons.
The trouble is there's now too many overgrown schoolboys in the House of Commons. It's easy to be a Saviour for a day when you just talk about it as Nick Clegg discovered.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:00 PM

Bankers, don't forget the bankers - they f*cked up the economy. They are still running things and they remain rich and powerful and if they care about parties at all we all know who they support.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:12 PM

"Democracy would be a fine system if we had some real choice and a few more people were able to think things through (which they plainly can't)" -- Shimrod
===
See what I mean? What a conceited, patronising conclusion. Why can't Shimrod "think through" the obvious fact that what he wants is not what most people want. How dare he go on from there to conclude that this is because they can't "think things through" as clearly as His Monumental Intellectship can?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Arthur would you have accepted it if a referendum voted for capital punishment (which it would following the rantings of the Sun, Mail etc)?" Doc John
===
Another example of the 'progressive' at work. WHY precisely should he consider himself entitled to denounce expressions of views contrary to his own as "rantings", in tones which suggest we should all regard this description as self-evident?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh, what's the use?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:27 PM

MtheGM
Yes I would have accepted capital punishment, if the referendum voted for it.

Whatever anybody thinks, we are all still very lucky that we are not like Libya or Syria or other countries like that.

You should all be very thankful for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:30 PM

But come on - would you really vote for a lisping fool??

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:30 PM

Before anybody goes any further with the thought of if LibDem were wiped off the "left of centre" map, Labour may have more strength come elections....

Don't forget. When Thatcher was asked what her greatest achievement was, she said without hesitation, "New Labour."

Tell you what, despite being a Labour voter come what may in my earlier years, once I started seeing the world a bit more, running a business and then running public sector bodies, I (like to think) I have become more pragmatic. Hence I became a floating voter.

It's nice to be part of the 7% of voters that actually make and break Governments. Perhaps that's why I have more faith in democracy than some of our friends here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:35 PM

Arthur-itis ~~ It was not me who was asking you the question you have just answered: it was Doc John; I was merely quoting it as an example of a misguided question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:37 PM

I didn't know you lisped, Bonzo.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:40 PM

You know very well I'm referring to the fool leader of the opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:44 PM

I too have followed Ian Mather's voter-career-path. An illustration, perhaps, of Aristide Briand's famous dictum that "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."

NB ~~ I do not put this forward as in incontrovertible truth [not being a 'progressive'] but as a possible point for consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:53 PM

So, we mock the leader of the opposition for having a speach problem? And then we expect to have related views taken seriously?

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:58 PM

Sorry MtheGM :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:03 PM

"But they've elected f*cking nationalists in their place (!) - they'll live to regret that - out of the frying pan etc."

If we're in the frying pan (which I'd dispute anyway)then we've been in it for a while. Labour lost power in Scotland 4 years ago not this week.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:44 PM

"What a conceited, patronising conclusion. Why can't Shimrod "think through" the obvious fact that what he wants is not what most people want. How dare he go on from there to conclude that this is because they can't "think things through" as clearly as His Monumental Intellectship can?"

I seem to remember that it was the SF and song-writer John Brunner who first noted that vast numbers of the population appear to be unable to think things through. I've known far to many people, in my lifetime, who have been prone to elevating the airy notions which float into their heads into incontrovertible 'facts' and I've worked with, and for, far too many of them! If noting that such a phenomenon exists, and agreeing with Brunner, makes me arrogant then sue me!

Although I suspect that you might sing a different tume, MtheGM, if your 'darling' Tories weren't in power!

You've also neglected to notice that many of the voters, who claim to be 'on the Left' voted in order to 'punish' Nick Clegg. I maintain that this is a silly, puerile approach to politics. The destruction of the Lib Dems means that we are more likely to get a full-blown, undiluted Tory government now (which will no doubt please you). If such people really are of the Left their key priority should have been to oppose David Cameron and the Tories (who hold the majority of the seats in Parliament) - not the leader of the Lib Dems.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:08 PM

I was Best Man at the [alas] late John Brunner's wedding, shared a flat with him in the 50s, and was married from there at Hampstead Register Office in 1959: you will gather he was one of my dearest-ever friends; so don't try to tell me about him, please, Shimrod.

The Tories are not my darlings ~ look at my last post about being the absolute Floater: have voted for several different parties in my time {Lab, Con, Referendum, Lib [for the person, when Clement Freud {another friend} was my MP in Isle of Ely]···

I agree with you about the 'punish' attitude being a puerile approach to politics: but suspect it is spread across the whole spectrum: and endeavour to remember that its perpetrators have exactly the same number of votes that I have and are equally entitled to cast them as they wish ~~ an attitide I should commend to your attention & recollection for the benefit, if nought else, of your blood pressure.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:30 PM

"Left wing policies" don't come into it. The Labour Party at present is some way to the right of the centre. But our institutionalised political structure, frozen into stasis by the electoral system, makes it effectively impossible for a party with moderate left-centrist policies to get a fair crack of teh whip.

Outside Scotland, where a party with just those qualoties has just won a majority in the Scottish GEneral Election.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:41 PM

Would you really, Arthur, want people who read the Sun and the Mail deciding the future of the country? This is what would happen if there were frequent referenda; we'd soon have hangings, floggings, rat infested prisons, chain gangs...the lot.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:22 PM

Er... excuse me, Doc John, but I read the Mail. What do you feel that says about me?

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:16 PM

@Eliza, it means you probably have cancer. Have they marked paper as giving you cancer yet?

I jest. Slightly.

Here's what I expect to happen. If the SNP manage to get Scotland independent (which will be amusing to watch), Labour could be in REAL trouble. If that happens, Labour voters might become Lib Dems.

As Mo said "Am I the only person who votes in LOCAL elections on who I want to run things LOCALLY. It should not be anything about the party leaders or Westminster."

Yes. This, this, and more this. That's what pissed me off about the referendum. It became "Piss off Clegg or Cameron".

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:18 PM

Glad the S.N.P. did so well - Scottish nationalism also being the best hope for English republicans/nationalists, frankly; plus I've really enjoyed visiting there - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#66

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:40 PM

"if there were frequent referenda; we'd soon have hangings, floggings, rat infested prisons, chain gangs...the lot."
,,,
A bit of an exaggeration I suspect, Doc J; but I take your point. But I think we could benefit from a system whereby issues on which the public has strong views {on receipt of a petition with 10k signatures, say} should obligatorily be put to referendum; and, if carried, would have to be presented to Parliament for decision, with a free vote guaranteed. Something on those lines, anyhow; which would surely not lead to the dire consequences you rubricate above, but would allow those who at present feel entirely disenfranchised because their views on such matters as appropriate penalties for crime are never going to be taken into consideration in any circumstances. They are not necessarily all fools or villains who feel that a society in which multi-murderers are executed and violent criminals flogged is to be preferred to one in which such offenders receive penalties entirely inadequate as expressions of societal revulsion from the gravity of their offences.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:02 PM

Without labouring the point too much, the public has just ruled out the mechanism that would have enabled them to express such a view.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:41 PM

"The Labour Party at present is some way to the right of the centre."

Too true! But speak to any Labour Party supporter and you get the impression that Kier Hardy and Aneurin Bevan are still at the helm and for that person to even THINK about voting for any other party would be absolute sacrilege!

And MtheGM - John Brunner was one of the revered writers of my youth and I would not deliberately misquote him. I think that he made the remark about people not thinking things through in an interview in a SF magazine - but it might take me a while to find it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:23 PM

Shimrod: Glad to hear that my dear friend John was so much an object of your reverence. The point I meant to make before, however, was not merely to name-drop: I meant to add point, but somehow {Freudianly?!} missed this bit out, that altho we were obviously the closest of friends with much mutual regard, he & I did not see eye-to-eye on all (or even many) political/sociological points; so I would not necessarily accept any dictum of his, any more than of yours, as unquestionably authoritative on such matters as those we are engaging with here.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:33 PM

Let me make it clear in addition, Shimrod, that, altho there undoubtedly are people, in the nature of things, who do fail to 'think things thru', it is your implied assumption that these comprise all those who do not happen to see things the way you do which I find so rebarbative.
Can you deny that this is the implication of your "Democracy would be a fine system if we had some real choice and a few more people were able to think things through (which they plainly can't)'? Otherwise, why 'plainly' can't they, eh?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:48 PM

---'I seem to remember that it was the SF and song-writer John Brunner who *first* noted that vast numbers of the population appear to be unable to think things through'---

As to "first" in this suggestion, Shim: I suspect you do old John too much honour. I should rather be inclined to attribute the aperçu to Socrates, myself!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 11 - 01:18 AM

Guest Shimrod: have you ever condsidered the possibility that the Lib Dems did theirselves in?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:23 AM

"The Lib Dems are heroes of the Labour Movement. They could not support Labour to form a government - the numbers didn't add up. The allowed themselves to be taken hostage by the Tories to give Labour time to elect new leader and sort out it's policies. They silently encourage the Tories to become more and more extreme.

When Labour are well ahead in the polls the Fibs will pull the plug and cause an election, they will be wiped out and Labour will go on to win"

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:32 AM

Aristide Briand's famous dictum that "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."

A witty dctum, yes. But I am more inclined to accept your own comment about how to behave: WHY precisely should he consider himself entitled to denounce expressions of views contrary to his own as "rantings">

Plenty of people declare that those who come to an opposite view to their own are idiots, or heartless. But I think Briand may be the the best known person who says that anyone who didn't follow his exact path is both heartless and idiotic, even if not necessarily at the same time.

There are plenty of people who are tories or labour throughout the whole lives, but who genuinely think about their stance. There are examples of people brought up in a labour household who become tories by conviction, and more than a few who go the other way, with perhaps the best known example of recent times being Tony Benn. It simply does not do to lump people into a handful of categories: we are more complex than that.

Ok, back to the main thread. I doubt that come the next election the LibDem vote will reach much above 10% as a proportion of the vote in most constituencies. 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. Even without the whole coalition kerfuffle, whoever administered the 'nasty medicine' that the cuts are likely to be would probably suffer. (Everyone admits their dentist is necessary but few actually like them for it!) So the Conservatives would have found it more difficult to get a second term by the nature of things. Having a sidekick to take most of the hatred certainly helps the Tory chances next time, but the fact the supporters will probably vote for their opponents doesn't. So, all in all, I see the LibDems fading but as to what happens to everyone else - it's too dependent on the next few years to tell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:48 AM

It is an unfortunate side effect of democracy that the views of the stupid or unprincipled receive the same weight as those of others. Given the alternatives I'll usually settle for democracy, but none of that is any reason why stupidity and lies should not be called stupidity and lies, those who swallow the lies should not be called fools and those who promulgate the lies be called liars.

It should be remembered however that at least two major reforms of UK law - the abolition of the death penalty and the partial derestriction of homosexual activity by the Sexual Offences Act - were passed by Parliament when a referendum would not have passed them. Sometimes leaders have to lead.

In the present case if the deserved destruction of the Lib-Dems puts all less rightward leaning votes into the Labour party that will eventually reduce the need for AV to give a true reflection of voting intentions - but it will still mean that there is a barrier to plurality in political representation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:16 AM

<"Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Les in Chorlton - PM
Date: 08 May 11 - 02:23 AM

"The Lib Dems are heroes of the Labour Movement. They could not support Labour to form a government - the numbers didn't add up. The allowed themselves to be taken hostage by the Tories to give Labour time to elect new leader ......">

Hi Les

As recently as Thursday night (Lord) Paddy Ashdowne said on Any Questions that he blamed the "whole mess" on the Labour Party for not joining with the Libdems when he personally invited them to as the election results became clear that one party would not have a clear majority.

So we have Clegg blaming maggie Thatcher and Ashdowne blaming labour.....seems to me that they are a little bemused and shell-shocked at the moment.

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: Darowyn
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:38 AM

I stood as a Lib Dem candidate in the local elections- unsucessfully as you might expect. In fact it was sitting members who were re-elected- mostly Independents round here as it happens. That is the way it goes with local issues.
But if you think that this week's results mean that the party is wiped out then you have it very wrong.
Lib Dems are at their best on local issues and in direct contact with the electorate.
I am now living in an area where there is no party branch, no organisation and only two Lib Dem activists in the town, yet still gained a vote that did not come near a humiliating defeat.
Underlying Liberal Democratic philosophy is a generosity of spirit (liberality) and a genuine respect for democracy.
A reflex desire to punish an unpopular government coalition is a passing fancy. The wheel will turn. There is time to organise locally and to rebuild morale.
Down is a good place to start if you intend to go up.
Stop pointing fingers and playing the blame game. If you believe in Liberalism and Democracy, do something about it!
Or is that just less fun than squabbilng on the internet?
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: DMcG
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:55 AM

Good to hear from you, Dave. And I'm glad to hear you were prepared to stand up and try even in the face of the nay-sayers. That's important. And I agree that historically the LibDems have been at their best on local issues, which is why, again historically, they proved themselves to through the councils in most cases before being successful in National Government.

But it doesn't chance the fact that people will be asking 'What is the purpose of the LibDems' at the next election, and you will need a more solid answer than 'they stand for a spirit of liberty'. In fact, as you will be aware, in the foundation of the party the term 'liberal' was more closely related to 'free trade and deregulation' than 'civil liberty'. And what are we to make of 'a genuine respect for democracy' when the democratic message you have just got appears to be that you were not wanted (for now, at least)?

I am not anti-Liberal, by the way. It is simply that there are some hard questions coming up and they need to be answered, not dodged.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:19 AM

--- two major reforms of UK law - the abolition of the death penalty and the partial derestriction of homosexual activity by the Sexual Offences Act. ---

You write as if all must accept it as a demonstrable fact that these were 'reforms', Richard. I am expressing no opinion as to that when I beg you to remember what "begging the question" means.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems
From: kendall
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:27 AM

I've been watching the local news and I still don't know what AV is. Would someone please explain?

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~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:40 AM

Yeah but let's be honest. Your message above is wonderful! Somebody (happened to be me) points out that this thread has drifted and you reply in a way designed to wind me up. Can't happen sorry. I am at home recovering from an operation so apart from having too much time on my hands, I am also pumped up with happy pills and want to be every bugger's friend.

When a debate descends to such levels, it is case closed. Ok, perhaps not for those who are enjoying the ride, but for those who were curious or interested in the original subject matter, I reckon case closed just about sums up my opinion.

To be honest, I don't subscribe to having to be civilised in such debates, and love the freedom that I could enjoy if I went by anything other than my own name. But my lack of anonymity precludes revealing whether I think you or Richard Bridge is being the most absurd.

Godwin's Law is, if taken academically, relative to Hitler / 3rd Reich comparisons and I did note that this debate hasn't got there just yet. But if you take the spirit of said Law then the protagonists, your good self included, appear to be revelling in it.

Of course, as most points in the second half of this thread are verging on the pedantic, perhaps the spirit is unwelcome?

Nurse!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 11 - 06:55 AM

There, there, Ian; just go back to sleep & leave us to it, eh?

"Nurse" indeed. Bring Ian his sedative, please...

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:31 AM

You see...

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:35 AM

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Nick Clegg decides to step down from being the Leader of the Liberal party if recent events are anything to go by. I think he should stick with it whether I like the man or not to try to regain his supporters trust but we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 10:09 AM

The LDs have some mighty hills to climb.


As I understand it, they are getting stuck into the conservative plans to enable the rich to buy university places pretty ferociously and the conservative climb-down may have started - to the extent that I wonder if it was not an intentional Aunt Sally.


On the NHS, however, all the present signs are that the "reflection" on the conservative privatisation plans is merely a smokescreen, and that Clegg will to consider the nuclear option to stop that train.


The reductions reported in disability allowances for even those Bonzo could not call scroungers (we all know that in his heart Dickie Blackshirt would support a eugenics programme) should prove another litmus test for the LDS.





IMHO the LD's have totally betrayed those who voted for them and that it will take much longer than one term to rebuild trust - so at the next erection once we have seen the full measure of the suffering the conservatives intend to cause the anticonservative vote should be more united - but the LDs do have an excellent opportunity to start thier rehabilitation afforded by Kent's recent disgraceful treatment of - what was the phrase - "mongs and mingers"

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:00 AM

----From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:31 AM

You see... ----

A truly gnomic utterance! What, precisely, do we see, Richard?


~M~

Ian, butt out; DRIFT back to slee-ee-eep

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 May 11 - 05:46 AM

Answer! Answer!

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 11 - 07:11 AM

You see the nature of MtheGM.

Keep digging, chap.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 May 11 - 08:42 AM

Nature Boy, that's me ~~ A very strange enchanted boy...

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 May 11 - 01:07 PM

I nevertheless will pay R Bridge the thoroughly undeserved compliment of assuming that HE knows what on earth he is on about in his recent posts.

But I cannot truly believe that anyone else does ~

~ do they?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 11 - 07:53 PM

You do not understand that you have betrayed your nature?

I suggest that you dissemble.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 11 - 02:39 AM

In what way, R? What do you purport to know of my "nature", pray?

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 11 - 11:46 AM

"Betrayed" in the sense of "revealed".

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 11 - 12:01 PM

I don't see what difference this gloss is supposed to make, and repeat my former question ~ what have I revealed/betrayed/whatever regarding my 'nature'? of which you know nothing. {Mind you, R, your making oblique nod'n'wink'n'nudge·nudge assertions regarding matters of which you know nothing is no sort of innovation on this thread ~~ or this forum.}

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 11 - 03:01 PM

This is all getting rather silly...

Which I suppose is fitting in the current context of British politics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Destruction of the Lib Dems (UK)
From: SRD
Date: 15 May 11 - 06:25 PM

Excellent cover to the latest edition of Private Eye.