The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    To be fair that is then the paradox of blame. If I break the law clearly it's my fault but I could blame my mother for giving birth to me, thus enabling the crime. By this logic I can blame the SDP for our current Tory government because they merged with the liberals to create the liberal democrats.
    The difference being that your mother would not reasonably expect her actions to lead to crime being committed. The strengthening of the Tory party was an entirely predictable consequence of the Lib Dems entering a coalition which was deeply unpopular with their own voters in seats where the Conservatives were the only other competitive party. It would have been very surprising had the Conservatives not picked up those seats - and if they hadn't, they wouldn't currently have a majority.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The difference being that your mother would not reasonably expect her actions to lead to crime being committed. The strengthening of the Tory party was an entirely predictable consequence of the Lib Dems entering a coalition which was deeply unpopular with their own voters in seats where the Conservatives were the only other competitive party. It would have been very surprising had the Conservatives not picked up those seats - and if they hadn't, they wouldn't currently have a majority.
    On the contrary, if my mother has a child maybe that child won't commit a crime but in the balance of probably one of that child's offspring will eventually be a criminal.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    On the contrary, if my mother has a child maybe that child won't commit a crime but in the balance of probably one of that child's offspring will eventually be a criminal.
    I was taking your phrase as referring to a convicted criminal.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I was taking your phrase as referring to a convicted criminal.
    The same applies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'll tell you where you're wrong here, at least, from the perspective of a Lib Dem.

    We didn't allow almost every cut to go through. Granted, we should have stopped more, but at one point we even threatened to veto an entire Autumn statement unless it was changed (and it was). I believe it was 2012 but I might be mistaken.

    As for having over 50% of the national vote, I'm sure we only had 49% combined (26 for Labour, 23 for LDs) but that's just off the top of my head. Regardless, it would have meant two things:

    A) We would have had to have included other smaller parties to make up the seats
    B) The Party that the public indicated won the election would not end up in Government.

    I'd argue there is a massive difference between the parties still. It's just that the Tories took credit for every single LD policy that worked out well (I.e Pupil Premium, Personal Allowance, 5p Carrier bag charge, etc).

    We didn't go into Government for the salary. We went into Government for power. Clegg is right when he says it has almost become fashionable to not want power. The Lib Dems wanted the power to actually implement their policies for once, and if you look through our 2010 manifesto at our policies, we largely managed to do just that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Lib Dems certainly got through some good policies but at the expense of voting for some really dreadful ones.
    Personal allowance increase was great, but it doesn't nearly make up for the devastation caused by voting for the bedroom tax and cuts after cuts, hitting the most vulnerable.

    Clegg mentions the fact that Osborne purposely targeted cuts on people who tended to vote Labour, so why did he still vote for such cuts?

    And tuition fees, their biggest pledge that got them so much support. Within days, they voted to increase them. For such a sacrifice they should have mandated that we change our voting system without a referendum, through Parliament to PR or STV. Instead all they got was a 'tiddly little compromise' with a referendum on AV.


    But the worst thing the Lib Dems did was that they parroted the anti-Labour narrative at all times. They regularly blamed Labour for 'wrecking the economy', they kept calling the effects of the global crash 'labour's mess'. They accused anyone who wanted to increase investment into public services as being 'out of touch socialists' or dangerous lefties.

    Even though they went into coalition with the tories, they could and should have formed their own narrative instead of parroting 'we need to fix Labour's mess' again and again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The difference being that your mother would not reasonably expect her actions to lead to crime being committed. The strengthening of the Tory party was an entirely predictable consequence of the Lib Dems entering a coalition which was deeply unpopular with their own voters in seats where the Conservatives were the only other competitive party. It would have been very surprising had the Conservatives not picked up those seats - and if they hadn't, they wouldn't currently have a majority.
    Wait, so we side with the Tories which annoys our voters....so our voters decide to vote Tory instead???


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Wait, so we side with the Tories which annoys our voters....so our voters decide to vote Tory instead???


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No the conservatives barely gained any votes in 2015 (+0.8%). Labour gained a large proportion of your votes (and lost a shítload of votes in scotland to balance it out). However the conservatives were the second party in most of your seats so they won your seats when you capitulated rather than Labour.

    The votes you did lose to the conservatives were because your poll numbers had already tanked so you were no longer considered a viable option in our stupid electoral system.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The Lib Dems certainly got through some good policies but at the expense of voting for some really dreadful ones.
    Personal allowance increase was great, but it doesn't nearly make up for the devastation caused by voting for the bedroom tax and cuts after cuts, hitting the most vulnerable.

    Clegg mentions the fact that Osborne purposely targeted cuts on people who tended to vote Labour, so why did he still vote for such cuts?

    And tuition fees, their biggest pledge that got them so much support. Within days, they voted to increase them. For such a sacrifice they should have mandated that we change our voting system without a referendum, through Parliament to PR or STV. Instead all they got was a 'tiddly little compromise' with a referendum on AV.


    But the worst thing the Lib Dems did was that they parroted the anti-Labour narrative at all times. They regularly blamed Labour for 'wrecking the economy', they kept calling the effects of the global crash 'labour's mess'. They accused anyone who wanted to increase investment into public services as being 'out of touch socialists' or dangerous lefties.

    Even though they went into coalition with the tories, they could and should have formed their own narrative instead of parroting 'we need to fix Labour's mess' again and again.
    BIB: which isn't a tax at all. I do wish that if you are going to criticise the Lib Dems and the coalition in general you would at least be factually correct.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    BIB: which isn't a tax at all. I do wish that if you are going to criticise the Lib Dems and the coalition in general you would at least be factually correct.
    That's not the point and neither adds nor contributes to the discussion in any way.
    It was a reduction in benefits to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people out there. In that sense it had the same effect as a tax.

    Fine, I'll call it the reduction in 'spare room subsidy' if it makes you feel better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's not the point and neither adds nor contributes to the discussion in any way.
    It was a reduction in benefits to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people out there. In that sense it had the same effect as a tax.

    Fine, I'll call it the reduction in 'spare room subsidy' if it makes you feel better.
    Of course it's the point - because people on the left have been parading it as some kind of tax, when it's not. I only ask you to call it what it is because it weakens your own argument if you engage in boogie man style politics about it being a tax. Furthermore, it may have the same effect as a tax, but it is far from being one - taxation comes on what you earn primarily, benefits are not earned, but are given out.

    It's actually a rather fair measure indeed and one I fully support. If you, as the sole occupant of a house on housing benefit, want to live in a four bedroom house, then fine, but it shouldn't be at the taxpayer's expense in the form of housing benefit or indeed to the detriment of the six member family down the road say who are crammed into a two bedroom flat and could do with the extra space. You talk about reduction in benefits, but I don't think that the last Government went anywhere near as far as it should have done. The welfare state is ballooning and there are many more cuts that I think should have been made both to bring the deficit down and also for the long term good of many people currently unemployed.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Wait, so we side with the Tories which annoys our voters....so our voters decide to vote Tory instead???


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    cBay has it spot on. First Past the Post means that in many areas, Lib Dem voters staying at home or switching to Labour or the Greens led to the Tories gaining the seat in question.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    cBay has it spot on. First Past the Post means that in many areas, Lib Dem voters staying at home or switching to Labour or the Greens led to the Tories gaining the seat in question.
    In that case, you can blame Labour and Green voters in Tory-LD marginals for the Tory Government


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    In that case, you can blame Labour and Green voters in Tory-LD marginals for the Tory Government


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, I think I'll blame the professional politicians who were meant to look after the future of the country rather than the ordinary voters, many of whom probably didn't even understand the electoral system, who demanded something better after they were stabbed in the back.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    No, I think I'll blame the professional politicians who were meant to look after the future of the country rather than the ordinary voters, many of whom probably didn't even understand the electoral system, who demanded something better after they were stabbed in the back.
    These are the same people that voted against electoral reform, which would have finally solved the issue of marginals and tactical voting.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    These are the same people that voted against electoral reform, which would have finally solved the issue of marginals and tactical voting.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    TBF labour garunteed the LD's AV without a referendum didn't they? So it would be their fault for not taking that offer.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    These are the same people that voted against electoral reform, which would have finally solved the issue of marginals and tactical voting.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nah, they're the same people who largely stayed at home because you offered a referendum between the status quo and a "miserable little compromise" (thanks to Mr. Nick Clegg for the phrasing) which nobody wanted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Of course it's the point - because people on the left have been parading it as some kind of tax, when it's not. I only ask you to call it what it is because it weakens your own argument if you engage in boogie man style politics about it being a tax. Furthermore, it may have the same effect as a tax, but it is far from being one - taxation comes on what you earn primarily, benefits are not earned, but are given out.

    It's actually a rather fair measure indeed and one I fully support. If you, as the sole occupant of a house on housing benefit, want to live in a four bedroom house, then fine, but it shouldn't be at the taxpayer's expense in the form of housing benefit or indeed to the detriment of the six member family down the road say who are crammed into a two bedroom flat and could do with the extra space. You talk about reduction in benefits, but I don't think that the last Government went anywhere near as far as it should have done. The welfare state is ballooning and there are many more cuts that I think should have been made both to bring the deficit down and also for the long term good of many people currently unemployed.
    No it wasn't the point. The point was that they voted through huge numbers of measures which hit some of the poorest and most disadvantaged and whether you call that a 'cut' or a 'tax' makes zero difference to the point in hand.

    You mention a person living in a four bedroom house, but that's not what was happening. Instead the bedroom tax (or spare room subsidy reduction) hit disabled people hugely. Disabled people who live in council housing, or who are on housing benefit often require a room to keep all of their equipment in, or a room in which their carer can stay in. However such people had their benefit cut, even though they very much needed that room.
    This actually resulted in the Supreme Court ruling the bedroom tax on disabled people as a violation of their human rights.

    The biggest problem with the spare room subsidy was that there is simply not the housing stock available for people to move into smaller houses. It's all good and well saying that a person with a spare room should downsize, but if there is no where for them to move, it becomes impossible for them to do so.

    And guess which government has repeatedly refused to build more social housing.... Oh yes that's the Tories. Even this weekend Nick Clegg has come out and said that Osborne refused to build more houses because he didn't want to 'create more Labour voters'. So you are saying that people with a spare room should downsize yet at the same time refusing to build any properties to which they could actually downsize. All it resulted in was therefore the poorest, most disadvantaged and disabled losing benefits.

    And please do tell me how any of that helps our unemployed?
    Also, if you are so concerned about reducing our deficit, then you surely favor a huge clamp down on tax avoidance, which costs us far, far more than welfare? Of course you don't. Cutting public expenditure only matters to you when it's to do with poor people.

    And cutting benefits actually does little to reduce the deficit in the long term. People who receive benefits tend to spend nearly everything they have, thus pumping the money back into the economy, Conversely, the wealthy who receive tax breaks tend to save money and spend abroad, thus taking money out our economy.

    So to summarise: You support reducing the housing benefit for disabled and poor people because you think they should downsize, yet at the same time you don't support building any social housing which they could actually downsize in to. When you pay benefits the economy does not lose any money, when you give tax cuts to the wealthy it does.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    These are the same people that voted against electoral reform, which would have finally solved the issue of marginals and tactical voting.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lib Dems should have sought a guarantee that STV or PR would replace FPTP without the need for a referendum They could have done so via an act of Parliament.

    That should have been their red line for any negotiations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    TBF labour garunteed the LD's AV without a referendum didn't they? So it would be their fault for not taking that offer.
    Labour actually offered the Lib Dems PR without a referendum, so even better than AV.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like Keith Vaz has some explaining to do to his wife...
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 9, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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