Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Ask a TSR Liberal Democrat

Announcements Posted on
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, I am suscribing to this thread.

    Oh, and, by the way:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    The status-quo regards NI, Scotland & Wales should remain.
    Why not England?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    But more support for radical parties, and a greater sense of liberty would be good.
    Would that include more support for the BNP? If we had more support for the BNP then they would start to gain seats and then they would begin to get big-headed. I predict that there would then be some sort of huge war between the BNP and foreigners :eek3:

    Like you said, people are generally conservative. They support the main three parties and have no intention for severe change. Good points and bad points to that.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Would that include more support for the BNP? If we had more support for the BNP then they would start to gain seats and then they would begin to get big-headed. I predict that there would then be some sort of huge war between the BNP and foreigners :eek3:

    Like you said, people are generally conservative. They support the main three parties and have no intention for severe change. Good points and bad points to that.
    I would suggest that the BNP is not a radical party. Certainly they are nothing new and they don't offer any radical change except 'immigrants out' and a more nationalistic outlook. That isn't radical imo.
    I can't see a war between the BNP and foreigners either.. have you ever watched a film called 'In Bruges'?

    But yeah, disappointingly moderate. I personally think that a stronger education system could change that somewhat..
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SergioMZ)
    Well, I am suscribing to this thread.

    Oh, and, by the way:

    Why not England?
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=170
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    The Conservatives have all the attractive females :yep:

    Thanks for that.
    I think now I will go and wash my eyes out with vinegar.
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Thanks for that.
    I think now I will go and wash my eyes out with vinegar.
    Better than some of the photo's posted of Margaret Thatcher from the Maggie is a milf party (AKA the Tories)
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Any thoughts on ol' Blunket's statement that the Lib Dems clearly cant be trusted as they are 'like every harlot in history'?

    The situation reminds me a lot of our own a few terms back, where - by offering a coalition to basically everyone - the Lib Dems proved how shambolic the idea of apparantly arbitrary coalitions is. It seems bizarre to me that one can argue that either the Tories or Labour have a legitimate moral mandate based on whoever offered the LDs the most to sleep with them. The fact they're actively engaged in talks with BOTH parties, and not just whichever they think would be most effective at dealing with our problems speaks volumed about their integrity.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Any thoughts on ol' Blunket's statement that the Lib Dems clearly cant be trusted as they are 'like every harlot in history'?

    The situation reminds me a lot of our own a few terms back, where - by offering a coalition to basically everyone - the Lib Dems proved how shambolic the idea of apparantly arbitrary coalitions is. It seems bizarre to me that one can argue that either the Tories or Labour have a legitimate moral mandate based on whoever offered the LDs the most to sleep with them. The fact they're actively engaged in talks with BOTH parties, and not just whichever they think would be most effective at dealing with our problems speaks volumed about their integrity.
    IMO negative comments like that are far from helpful.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    IMO negative comments like that are far from helpful.
    .... wah? Far from helpful for whom?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    IMO negative comments like that are far from helpful.
    :shock: .. Nick Clegg?
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    .... wah? Far from helpful for whom?
    Well the parties all need to come to some sort of arrangement before getting back to bashing each other other the head with comments like that.

    I think before they revert back to mud slinging they should finish working together to secure and form a new government.

    Plus it just comes across as a bit of an off hand comment. Not really that helpful.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    :shock: .. Nick Clegg?
    :confused:
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Well the parties all need to come to some sort of arrangement before getting back to bashing each other other the head with comments like that.

    I think before they revert back to mud slinging they should finish working together to secure and form a new government.

    Plus it just comes across as a bit of an off hand comment. Not really that helpful.
    I was asking what people thought of the RL LD party. I still can't work out if you're talking about RL or TSR HoC. My point was simply that Clegg's doing a lot of damage to the "we're alternative" wing of the party by flirting with both parties. He should choose whichever party he thinks has the most effective policies and go with them - not because of what he offers them, but because he thinks that's the right direction our country should go in. He's elected for that purpose, not so he can grab the Lib Dems as much as possible, irrespective of the national outcome. And I really think that this is the way it looks to the public (because that's precisely what's happening).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    And I really think that this is the way it looks to the public (because that's precisely what's happening).
    :ditto:

    This is precisely what they are doing. That said, if the Lib Dems went in with the Tories I can see them falling apart as a party (here's hoping )
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I was asking what people thought of the RL LD party. I still can't work out if you're talking about RL or TSR HoC. My point was simply that Clegg's doing a lot of damage to the "we're alternative" wing of the party by flirting with both parties. He should choose whichever party he thinks has the most effective policies and go with them - not because of what he offers them, but because he thinks that's the right direction our country should go in. He's elected for that purpose, not so he can grab the Lib Dems as much as possible, irrespective of the national outcome. And I really think that this is the way it looks to the public (because that's precisely what's happening).
    I was talking about the real parliament.
    I agree that Clegg should make his mind up pronto.
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    :ditto:

    This is precisely what they are doing. That said, if the Lib Dems went in with the Tories I can see them falling apart as a party (here's hoping )
    Apparently Nick Clegg being to the right of the party is pushing for a Cons-Lib coalition, while people like Lord Ashdown and Sir Menzies Campbell are pushing for the Lib Dems to join with Labour.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Good to see some casual misogyny in here already.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Any thoughts on ol' Blunket's statement that the Lib Dems clearly cant be trusted as they are 'like every harlot in history'?

    The situation reminds me a lot of our own a few terms back, where - by offering a coalition to basically everyone - the Lib Dems proved how shambolic the idea of apparantly arbitrary coalitions is. It seems bizarre to me that one can argue that either the Tories or Labour have a legitimate moral mandate based on whoever offered the LDs the most to sleep with them. The fact they're actively engaged in talks with BOTH parties, and not just whichever they think would be most effective at dealing with our problems speaks volumed about their integrity.
    :confused: This seems like a silly argument. The LDs believe their policies are right and those that were elected were elected on those policies. It's absolutely coherent that, when thinking about what's best for the country, they think it's their policies. It's also absolutely appropriate that they think about the people they're representing, who voted for them, when looking at forming coalitions, and those people voted for their policies. IMHO this leaves the LDs morally obligated to talk to both parties to try to get as many of their policies implemented as possible. That does say volumes about their integrity - they were elected on a platform that they stand by and try to implement. Isn't one of the issues we have with politicians that they promise things they then conveniently forget when it comes to implementing it?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    :confused: This seems like a silly argument. The LDs believe their policies are right and those that were elected were elected on those policies. It's absolutely coherent that, when thinking about what's best for the country, they think it's their policies. It's also absolutely appropriate that they think about the people they're representing, who voted for them, when looking at forming coalitions, and those people voted for their policies. IMHO this leaves the LDs morally obligated to talk to both parties to try to get as many of their policies implemented as possible. That does say volumes about their integrity - they were elected on a platform that they stand by and try to implement. Isn't one of the issues we have with politicians that they promise things they then conveniently forget when it comes to implementing it?
    But that's rubbish - what if going into a coalition with the BNP offered them the best chance of the Lib Dems getting the most of their policies through, albeit at the expense of all black people being deported? You can't divorce the results of their potential partners own legislation from their decision to get as much as they can for themselves on the grounds that they see their solutions as best. That they are even willing to talk to both seems ludicrously self-interested to me.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    But that's rubbish - what if going into a coalition with the BNP offered them the best chance of the Lib Dems getting the most of their policies through, albeit at the expense of all black people being deported? You can't divorce the results of their potential partners own legislation from their decision to get as much as they can for themselves on the grounds that they see their solutions as best. That they are even willing to talk to both seems ludicrously self-interested to me.
    Because that's quite firmly against their policies. Of course you can't divorce the results of their partners legislation, but you don't need to. My point is very simple:

    The Lib Dems have a view of how the UK should be governed, that they were elected upon. Their job is to represent those voters as best as they can, which means getting the UK governed as close to that view as they can. Which means talking to both sides to see who'll give them that.

    What you're saying is that the LDs should ignore the pledges they made to the electorate, that they were elected upon. As Lib Dem voter represented by a Lib Dem MP, I'd be pissed off if my MP decided to backtrack on what he said he'd do. You vote for your politicians to fight for a set of views. Lib Dem voters deserve Lib Dem MPs who will do just that.

    Think about it this way. You're a Libertarian voter and the Libertarians end up able to form a coalition with either of two larger parties after an election. One of those offers greater freedom, the other doesn't. As a Libertarian voter, wouldn't you be pissed off if the party formed a coalition with the one the didn't offer greater freedom, whatever their reason? You elected them to represent the principle of greater freedom for all, surely it's their job to represent that?
Updated: March 11, 2013
New on TSR

Talk about SQA results day

Join the chat ahead of grades coming out on Tuesday

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.