The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    ^
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the news about the lack of safety surrounding Sellafield, anyone want to revisit their view on nuclear power?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    David Davis is by far and away my favorite Tory. Always have a lot of time for him even if I disagree with a lot of what he says.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Considering the news about the lack of safety surrounding Sellafield, anyone want to revisit their view on nuclear power?
    Nah (although my view was already I'm not a fan)

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    David Davis is by far and away my favorite Tory. Always have a lot of time for him even if I disagree with a lot of what he says.
    I feel the same about Jacob Rees Mogg
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So May has ruled out a points-based immigration system. Interesting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Good, its beauurocratic.

    Near free movement with say a 10k cost per person would be better. Keeps away the dossers without the beaurocracy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Considering the news about the lack of safety surrounding Sellafield, anyone want to revisit their view on nuclear power?
    I'm still against it unsurprisingly. I do think the Government needs to invest more in renewable energy though.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    DoH - "BMA does not care about patient safety"

    Also, agree about Rees-Mogg and Davis. Far too neutral and too much hot air on Brexit at the mo.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    They didn't. 1) They offered us AV. 2) We demanded it without referendum and they said too many of their MPs would rebel


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Paddy Ashdown later admitted that Gordon Brown offered the Lib Dems PR without a referendum. Had they secured that I could have forgiven everything else they did wrong.

    In the coalition agreement with the Tories they should have drew an absolute red line for PR, instead they went for a referendum on AV.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Paddy Ashdown later admitted that Gordon Brown offered the Lib Dems PR without a referendum. Had they secured that I could have forgiven everything else they did wrong.

    In the coalition agreement with the Tories they should have drew an absolute red line for PR, instead they went for a referendum on AV.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    From David Laws, who was in those negotiations:
    Ed Balls was bluntly warning us that Labour MPs might not vote for their own manifesto pledge to support a referendum on the Alternative Vote.
    If that was the case, how the hell would they have offered them PR without a referendum?

    Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/...drew-coalition

    Edit:

    Also:
    What Labour was offering us was a weak coalition with a divided Labour Party; a coalition with no majority in the House of Commons, no clear policy platform, and no guarantee of a referendum on voting reform.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    From David Laws, who was in those negotiations:

    If that was the case, how the hell would they have offered them PR without a referendum?

    Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/...drew-coalition

    Edit:

    Also:
    Paddy Ashdown was also in the negotiations and later admitted that Gordon Brown offered PR without a referendum.
    But even putting that aside why did the Lib Dems not put an absolute red line down for PR to be introduced? Why did they settle for a mere referendum on AV which even Clegg described as a 'miserable little compromise'?


    I could have forgiven all the Lib Dems did if they'd achieved real constitutional change. Instead they tripled fees, voted for the bedroom tax, voted to strip public services and welfare down to the bare bones, knowingly devastating the lives of so many disadvantaged people.

    Keynes was a huge player in the Liberal movement yet where was the acknowledgement by the lib Dems that we should invest to grow rather than simply cut? Why did they jump on the bandwagon of blaming labour for the financial crash?

    Yes the Lib Dems got through a few decent policies such as the pupil premium and plastic bag charge and a slight increase in tax allowance but how could they willingly vote through the bedroom tax, the privatisation of social housing and devastating cuts to public services?

    Again I could forgive all of that, all of it if they had pushed through PR but instead all they got was a piffy referendum on AV.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Paddy Ashdown was also in the negotiations and later admitted that Gordon Brown offered PR without a referendum.
    But even putting that aside why did the Lib Dems not put an absolute red line down for PR to be introduced? Why did they settle for a mere referendum on AV which even Clegg described as a 'miserable little compromise'?


    I could have forgiven all the Lib Dems did if they'd achieved real constitutional change. Instead they tripled fees, voted for the bedroom tax, voted to strip public services and welfare down to the bare bones, knowingly devastating the lives of so many disadvantaged people.

    Keynes was a huge player in the Liberal movement yet where was the acknowledgement by the lib Dems that we should invest to grow rather than simply cut? Why did they jump on the bandwagon of blaming labour for the financial crash?

    Yes the Lib Dems got through a few decent policies such as the pupil premium and plastic bag charge and a slight increase in tax allowance but how could they willingly vote through the bedroom tax, the privatisation of social housing and devastating cuts to public services?

    Again I could forgive all of that, all of it if they had pushed through PR but instead all they got was a piffy referendum on AV.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Tories MPs would have voted against anything more. Why push for something that cannot be achieved with absolute certainty in coalition talks when you can push for things like same-sex marriage, the pupil premium, the personal allowance increase, etc.

    There were plenty of faults in the coalition - some on us, some on the Tories. But in the end, I think the deal we got was fair, and we ultimately did the right thing.

    On Paddy Ashdown, can you give me a source? He wasn't involved in talks - the four in the talks were Laws, Alexander, Huhne and Stunnell.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Tories MPs would have voted against anything more. Why push for something that cannot be achieved with absolute certainty in coalition talks when you can push for things like same-sex marriage, the pupil premium, the personal allowance increase, etc.

    There were plenty of faults in the coalition - some on us, some on the Tories. But in the end, I think the deal we got was fair, and we ultimately did the right thing.

    On Paddy Ashdown, can you give me a source? He wasn't involved in talks - the four in the talks were Laws, Alexander, Huhne and Stunnell.
    Those were all nice policies but none were major, on the scale of constitutional reform. Tories couldn't have governed without you and had you put a red line on a pr ref on the condition that the Tories would support it, you could have made a real difference.

    Does pupil premium outweigh the devastating effects of the bedroom tax which the lib dems voted for?


    You haven't responded to how the lib dems took the tory line by repeatedly blaming the financial crash on labour and more particularly on public spending. Why did they stop believing in Keynes? Why did they insist that public services be cut so hugely?


    If nothing else please tell me whether you supported the bedroom tax.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Tories MPs would have voted against anything more. Why push for something that cannot be achieved with absolute certainty in coalition talks when you can push for things like same-sex marriage, the pupil premium, the personal allowance increase, etc.

    There were plenty of faults in the coalition - some on us, some on the Tories. But in the end, I think the deal we got was fair, and we ultimately did the right thing.

    On Paddy Ashdown, can you give me a source? He wasn't involved in talks - the four in the talks were Laws, Alexander, Huhne and Stunnell.
    Those Liberals certainly pushed the Tories more than TSR's do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Those were all nice policies but none were major, on the scale of constitutional reform. Tories couldn't have governed without you and had you put a red line on a pr ref on the condition that the Tories would support it, you could have made a real difference.

    Does pupil premium outweigh the devastating effects of the bedroom tax which the lib dems voted for?


    You haven't responded to how the lib dems took the tory line by repeatedly blaming the financial crash on labour and more particularly on public spending. Why did they stop believing in Keynes? Why did they insist that public services be cut so hugely?


    If nothing else please tell me whether you supported the bedroom tax.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Really? None were major? Allowing millions of people the same rights as straight people isn't major? Investing £2.5billion extra into education, targeting disadvantaged areas isn't major? Taking so many people on low incomes out of tax or at least giving them a tax cut isn't major?

    The Bedroom tax, theoretically, is a good idea. It's just that the way it was implemented was absolutely awful. I won't defend that.

    The financial crash in the UK wasn't Labour's fault - but they made it a lot worse.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Those Liberals certainly pushed the Tories more than TSR's do.
    Well, you would say that (Haven't had a chance to reply to your comment from DPMQ's in the bar. Will do so now)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Well, you would say that (Haven't had a chance to reply to your comment from DPMQ's in the bar. Will do so now)
    I only say that because I took a look at the 2010 Tory manifesto to see just how much the Lib Dems had diluted it and was struck by just how extremist the government you're the Deputy Leader of actually is. 0.25% on foreign aid? Seriously?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're only saying it's subjective because you know you made an insupportable claim. I'm sure through your yellow-tinted glasses all manner of untruths seem correct. And if you did not think it should be a point in this debate (I have moved this from DPMQs) you shouldn't have made those slanderous comments. The fact of the matter is that whether I support their economic policy or not they actually have one and they have consistently sought to see it enacted through well researched, well written legislation.

    If your economic policies were vague it would imply you don't have the economic competency to outline clear and specific policy or policy that you won't later decide isn't all that good (as you've demonstrated with your personal allowance example).

    With regards to Corp Tax I presume you mean the 25% cut that failed to pass through the House once. I don't see why a random (and considerable) tax cut from a party that promised to make corporations pay their fair share shows competency. It's a simplistic policy of debatable effectiveness enacting in a single line of legislation.

    You have made it utterly clear that you believe that simply by being a 'centrist' it means only you can be 'sensible' or even 'competent'. That should be taken as a sign of diabolical arrogance and an insult to every left-wing and every right-wing member of this House. Bland, inspecific appeals to some vague notion of being in the middle of the road is not a substitute for the research, hard work, creativity and intellect that goes into bills written by the rest of us. Don't hide behind 'subjectivity' or 'opinion' when you can't back up your insults - I am not so blind and self-important as to be unable to accept that any manner of economists I disagree with from Marx (too left) to Friedman (too right) are undeniably 'economically competent' not to mention members of this House I might disagree with.

    Though I suspect you won't, I want you to retract the offending statement and apologise to Aph and his party on the grounds that it constitutes lying to the House.
    I'm not saying they haven't set out a clear economic policy - just that it's the wrong one. I withdraw the word "incompetent" if that helps?

    Tbh, looking at the numbers we probably won't even cut Corporation Tax now. It doesn't have the support of the house either, given the failed bill.

    The Personal Allowance bit was on my part and I take the blame for that. I, however, think we're doing something a lot better for those on low incomes by introducing a 10% rate for those earning up to £15,000. Giving those on low incomes a tax cut isn't something we've bailed out on, just something we've done differently.

    Let me be clear here, I don't think economics that aren't centrist are "incompetent". I just believe that economics that are so far-left or so far-right are detrimental to the nation as there is no balance between economic freedom and help for those that need it. I wouldn't call the economic policy of your party or the Tories out, like I did the Socialists, as they are more extreme.

    I am arrogant, absolutely (at least when it comes down to my politics). It is because I so strongly believe in the things that I do. I reject the notion that my party's economics are bland or inspecific. We have a general election in a month Ray, I'm sure you can wait a little longer. It is harder to judge a party's position when they are in coalition. We were "a bunch of lefties" when we coalitioned with Labour, and now we've suddenly "lurched to the right" now that we've gone with the Tories. As I've said numerous times now, we won't be in Government next term, so please, feel free to judge us then.

    Finally, I won't apologise after I was told by Aph that I'm "living in Cuckoo land", and I do not expect him to apologise for a statement that is simply part of the back and forth of parliament, as was mine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I only say that because I took a look at the 2010 Tory manifesto to see just how much the Lib Dems had diluted it and was struck by just how extremist the government you're the Deputy Leader of actually is. 0.25% on foreign aid? Seriously?
    There are plenty of countries that receive aid that do not need it, and there are other countries that do not spend the money wisely. The Government prefers to finance NGO's that can provide aid for people rather than corrupt Governments.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not saying they haven't set out a clear economic policy - just that it's the wrong one. I withdraw the word "incompetent" if that helps?

    Tbh, looking at the numbers we probably won't even cut Corporation Tax now. It doesn't have the support of the house either, given the failed bill.

    The Personal Allowance bit was on my part and I take the blame for that. I, however, think we're doing something a lot better for those on low incomes by introducing a 10% rate for those earning up to £15,000. Giving those on low incomes a tax cut isn't something we've bailed out on, just something we've done differently.

    Let me be clear here, I don't think economics that aren't centrist are "incompetent". I just believe that economics that are so far-left or so far-right are detrimental to the nation as there is no balance between economic freedom and help for those that need it. I wouldn't call the economic policy of your party or the Tories out, like I did the Socialists, as they are more extreme.

    I am arrogant, absolutely (at least when it comes down to my politics). It is because I so strongly believe in the things that I do. I reject the notion that my party's economics are bland or inspecific. We have a general election in a month Ray, I'm sure you can wait a little longer. It is harder to judge a party's position when they are in coalition. We were "a bunch of lefties" when we coalitioned with Labour, and now we've suddenly "lurched to the right" now that we've gone with the Tories. As I've said numerous times now, we won't be in Government next term, so please, feel free to judge us then.

    Finally, I won't apologise after I was told by Aph that I'm "living in Cuckoo land", and I do not expect him to apologise for a statement that is simply part of the back and forth of parliament, as was mine.
    If you're withdrawing the offending term there really isn't much left to it is there. Though your defence of your own competence has boiled down to one policy. And you're the one who called your economic policy vague.

    You were not a 'bunch of lefties' when you worked with us, regardless of the complaints of those on the fringe - nor are you raving right-wingers now. But by not having recognisable policies you allow yourself to be painted with whatever brush anyone wants. And if economics is too tricky then you can hardly take up social libertarianism after your own MP wrote that drugs bill.

    When you're forced to use your own party banner to put forward a legislative platform I'm sure you will be able to make a proper rebuttal to the points raised, which I'm sure everyone's looking forward to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The Personal Allowance bit was on my part and I take the blame for that. I, however, think we're doing something a lot better for those on low incomes by introducing a 10% rate for those earning up to £15,000. Giving those on low incomes a tax cut isn't something we've bailed out on, just something we've done differently.
    Umm your tax regime is worse than RL. The poorest 6% are no better off and the poorest 10% are on average £12 worse off a year.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    There are plenty of countries that receive aid that do not need it, and there are other countries that do not spend the money wisely. The Government prefers to finance NGO's that can provide aid for people rather than corrupt Governments. Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is a horrendous defence given that foreign aid spending goes to NGOs. A moral government would have set out a plan to correct inefficient spending but would have kept it's international commitments.

    To quote The Week: "The Department for International Development's priorities for 2015 included helping nine million children into primary school, immunising more than 55 million children against preventable diseases, saving the lives of at least 250,000 newborns and encouraging global action on climate change. Examples of aid include a grant of £724,500 awarded to Medical Aid for Palestinians, to deliver trauma support and plastic reconstructive surgery for many of those injured in the Gaza conflict, and the £230m provided to fight the spread of Ebola."

    I get that on some old Tory spreadsheet a 64% cut to foreign aid looks like a nice place to save a few billion but what it really represents is a huge shirking of responsibility which will have the devastating affect on people's lives - it's a shame those people weren't born in the UK, but then again, not everyone is.

    Heck, the RL Lib Dems whose virtue you seem to enjoy propounding want to enshrine the 0.7% target into UK law (TSR already has a 0.5% target enshrined in law and I expect the Speaker to declare the budget's foreign aid provisions as impassable without legislation). You've blocked out the image of millions of children without an education, immunisation or medical treatment to fund a few vanity projects? Some serious mental gymnastics has been going on here.
 
 
 
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 3, 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
Would you rather have...?

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.