Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Talk about the What-Used-To-Be-The "Liberal" Democrats Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    I'd rather not. I just thought I'd prove my statement wasn't the "cheap shot" Tuerin was trying to make it out to be? Although in fairness to you I could of done that to most of the last election manifestos.
    That's fine. We'll bear in mind what you have said, but ultimately we'll write our manifesto how we see fit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Another frivolous thread about the TSR Lib Dems?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    This would be true if we were a single-issue party, but it's perfectly possible to agree with your party leader on multiple issues, to the point you would prefer him to stay in power, while strongly disagreeing with him on a single issue.
    Yes, it is. My point was that the party's decision to retain him as leader was indefensible given the illegal and ultimately brutally destructive action he committed an unwilling nation to.

    Nice assertion. My original point was simply that by choosing the name "Liberal", you are associating yourself with the "Liberal Party", which is a party associated with not being electable for any of its most recent incarnation.
    It may be associated with electoral failure to historians and the elderly, but to the young people of TSR it is just a very agreeable name associated with very agreeable ideas.

    All you've attempted to do here is argue so long the original point gets partially forgotten and then tried to leap back on it in the hope you'll have made some ground. You haven't.
    I haven't done that. My posts are far more succinct and to the point than yours.

    Yawn. There's a rather large degree of magnitude between how bad the Liberal Democrats are doing and how badly the large parties are doing to the point they're not analogous. There's no need for us to disassociate ourselves with RL Labour on account of how badly they're doing within the TSR demographic - if you need proof, look at the last TSR election results. On the other hand, there's a rather large need for you to disassociate yourselves with RL Lib Dems on account of how badly they're doing withint the TSR demographic - if you need proof, look at the last TSR election results.
    Which is precisely why we're changing our party identity. You seem to be supporting this, despite having previously opposed it.

    What you've done is attempted to amalgamate things which are the same process but on different scales of magnitude to the point they're not comparable.
    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...

    You underestimate the intelligence of the TSR voter. They won't be fooled by a single word being dropped.
    Let's wait and see. I have a good feeling you're wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    I'd rather not. I just thought I'd prove my statement wasn't the "cheap shot" Tuerin was trying to make it out to be? Although in fairness to you I could of done that to most of the last election manifestos.
    What I said, was that it was a cheap shot to deride our manifesto without being specific in your criticisms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Yes, it is. My point was that the party's decision to retain him as leader was indefensible given the illegal and ultimately brutally destructive action he committed an unwilling nation to.
    -shrugs- I personally was never in favour of Blair but I can understand why others in the parties would be. Voting against the Iraq War but not moving to unseat Blair are not contradictory stances.

    It may be associated with electoral failure to historians and the elderly, but to the young people of TSR it is just a very agreeable name associated with very agreeable ideas.
    Why?

    I haven't done that. My posts are far more succinct and to the point than yours.
    lolnope

    Which is precisely why we're changing our party identity. You seem to be supporting this, despite having previously opposed it.
    Straaaaaawman. I've never opposed you changing your party identity - or for that matter, even calling yourselves the Liberals. In fact, from my perspective it's probably better you use the name Liberals just because it's so bad. I was just advising you out of the kindness of my own heart to pick something, well, better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    What I said, was that it was a cheap shot to deride our manifesto without being specific in your criticisms.
    No what you actually said was "that remains a cheap shot until you provide specific criticism". I provided the specific criticisms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    -shrugs- I personally was never in favour of Blair but I can understand why others in the parties would be. Voting against the Iraq War but not moving to unseat Blair are not contradictory stances.
    I didn't say they were.

    Why?
    Because of the positive ideas that are associate with liberalism and the traditional sympathy among the young for progressive politics.

    lolnope
    A little elaboration might make this a valid point.

    Straaaaaawman. I've never opposed you changing your party identity - or for that matter, even calling yourselves the Liberals. In fact, from my perspective it's probably better you use the name Liberals just because it's so bad. I was just advising you out of the kindness of my own heart to pick something, well, better.
    Besides, what sort of a wider net are you casting? Expecting to get the vote of Liberal Dictators now?
    This isn't exactly a resounding endorsement of a LD party name change. It seems to deride the idea as electorally futile.

    'better' here having the meaning of 'better for Labour's election chances'

    You seem to have missed some of my points off
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    No what you actually said was "that remains a cheap shot until you provide specific criticism". I provided the specific criticisms.
    Yes, and then you said this:

    I just thought I'd prove my statement wasn't the "cheap shot" Tuerin was trying to make it out to be?
    Which implies I was viewing it absolutely as a cheap shot when it was an explicitly conditional attachment until you provided said criticisms.

    By the way, what I said and what you 'corrected' it to are identical
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I didn't say they were.
    So what on earth is your point then?

    Because of the positive ideas that are associate with liberalism and the traditional sympathy among the young for progressive politics.
    Okay, so firstly many people now associate liberalism with economic liberalism rather than social liberalism, and economic liberalism often results in regressive politics, and secondly you still haven't actually named any positive ideas that are associated with liberalism apart from insinuating it's progressive.

    A little elaboration might make this a valid point.
    Oh, I was just using a little irony to rebut your assertion my arguments weren't succinct. Might want to get your humour department checked.

    This isn't exactly a resounding endorsement of a LD party name change. It seems to deride the idea as electorally futile.
    Well done! That's exactly what it says! Unfortunately, there's no connection between that and actively opposing it.

    'better' here having the meaning of 'better for Labour's election chances'
    Really? Labour won twice as many seats as the next largest party at the last election. To make the argument RL Labour is dragging us down just seems wrong.

    You seem to have missed some of my points off
    That's because your other points were:

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
    Which isn't actually a proper response, and:

    Let's wait and see. I have a good feeling you're wrong.
    The first part of which I agree with, and the second part I do not. It doesn't shift the context of this debate in any meaningful way.

    As such I decided neither point was really even worthy of any great response and dumped them in the hope we wouldn't get continuous quote walls of death all over the place. (if only)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Yes, and then you said this:



    Which implies I was viewing it absolutely as a cheap shot when it was an explicitly conditional attachment until you provided said criticisms.

    By the way, what I said and what you 'corrected' it to are identical
    Which I've now done I was telling Birchington I was providing the specific criticisms you asked for, rather than have any great desire to pour over your manifesto and spend large chunks of time on your party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    So what on earth is your point then?
    You said that voting against the Iraq War and retaining Blair were not contradictory. I didn't say they were. I said that retaining Blair after the utter scandal of the Iraq Invasion was indefensible, and for such a huge error as that I believe the Labour Parliamentary Party were silently complicit in the action by not ousting him soon after.

    Okay, so firstly many people now associate liberalism with economic liberalism rather than social liberalism, and economic liberalism often results in regressive politics, and secondly you still haven't actually named any positive ideas that are associated with liberalism apart from insinuating it's progressive.
    Liberalism is divided into mainly two camps. Those knowledgeable enough to be aware of the economically liberal train within liberalism will also be aware of the economically statist train. Knowledge of these both would offset one another from prejudicing people against / for the name, depending on their personal view. That's the greatest strength of the term 'Liberal'; it accomodates the most ideologically.

    If you're seriously telling me that an Oxford PPE undergraduate is not aware of positive ideas associated with Liberalism...which the voters will also be aware of.

    Oh, I was just using a little irony to rebut your assertion my arguments weren't succinct. Might want to get your humour department checked.
    Firstly, I didn't say your arguments weren't succinct, I said mine were more so, which, if you look back, you can see to be the case. You had originally accused me of trying to lose the point in a mire of talk, which just isn't acceptable when you look at the length and density of my individual points, especially in comparison to yours. Secondly, I'd rather not stoop to such an innane level of humour. Might want to get your vocabulary department checked, since succinct =/= short.

    Well done! That's exactly what it says! Unfortunately, there's no connection between that and actively opposing it.
    I am always fascinated by those who begin to adopt a patronising tone in debates. I wonder why they do it. I eventually conclude it's because they aren't secure enough in the strength of what they're actually saying and so try to compensate for perceived weaknesses by enhancing the content with supercilious expression in an attempt to intimidate their opponent into submission

    I think that's about as close you could possibly come to 'active opposition' short of being so presumptuous as to try to command our party's inner functioning.

    Really? Labour won twice as many seats as the next largest party at the last election. To make the argument RL Labour is dragging us down just seems wrong.
    I didn't make the argument that RL Labour was dragging you down. What a complete distortion. I implied that this change of LD identity to Liberal would cost TSR Labour more votes than your suggested names.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I didn't make the argument that RL Labour was dragging you down. What a complete distortion. I implied that this change of LD identity to Liberal would cost TSR Labour more votes than your suggested names.
    Wouldn't they not just be able to direct their voters however? I.e. if you want Labour vote for this option.....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Wouldn't they not just be able to direct their voters however? I.e. if you want Labour vote for this option.....
    ?

    This tennis match is messy enough as it is without another player entering the court. But that post doesn't seem to make sense
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    ?

    This tennis match is messy enough as it is without another player entering the court. But that post doesn't seem to make sense
    I thought it was doubles.


    What I am saying is that even if A84 passes - Labour would still quite be within the rules to essentially direct their voters to the option that they submit for the ballot as the proposed rule would mean they would only have to ensure that they don't use their RL name on the ballot paper or logo within the manifesto.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    You said that voting against the Iraq War and retaining Blair were not contradictory. I didn't say they were. I said that retaining Blair after the utter scandal of the Iraq Invasion was indefensible,
    Given I provided a defence which you haven't yet approached, this is wrong.

    and for such a huge error as that I believe the Labour Parliamentary Party were silently complicit in the action by not ousting him soon after.
    Depends fully on where you want to start or stop complicity. Personally, I'd have said having almost two-thirds of the party voting against indicates they weren't really complicit in the action at all.

    Liberalism is divided into mainly two camps. Those knowledgeable enough to be aware of the economically liberal train within liberalism will also be aware of the economically statist train
    Indeed. Now how will they distinguish which one your 'Liberal Party' is?

    Knowledge of these both would offset one another from prejudicing people against / for the name, depending on their personal view. That's the greatest strength of the term 'Liberal'; it accomodates the most ideologically.
    ... in other words, it's so vague people might just be fooled into believing it! A more realistic conception is that in order to combat this vagueness, voters will attempt to identify which party the Liberals are most similar too. All they have to do is add "Democrats" and bam goes your vote.

    If you're seriously telling me that an Oxford PPE undergraduate is not aware of positive ideas associated with Liberalism...which the voters will also be aware of.
    As an Oxford PPE undergraduate, I'm taught there are multiple strains of liberalism some of which do not cohere, and that in order to proceed with any given argument it is necessary to isolate which strain of liberalism is in question.

    Firstly, I didn't say your arguments weren't succinct, I said mine were more so, which, if you look back, you can see to be the case.
    Again, no.

    You had originally accused me of trying to lose the point in a mire of talk, which just isn't acceptable when you look at the length of my individual points, especially in comparison to yours.
    A mire of talk doesn't mean using more words. It just means over time you've steadily been working away from the key issues by diverting my attention to other topics.

    Secondly, I'd rather not stoop to such an innane level of humour.
    Humour broken confirmed. (also you spell it "inane")

    Might want to get your vocabulary department checked, since succinct =/= short.
    Might want to get your eyes checked, since I never said that. Succinctness is simply how little extraneous material there is proving a point. If you make an assertion with nothing to back it, I don't need to provide a counter-example, I can simply deny it. Thus, "lolnope" was rather succinct (and co-incidentally short).

    I am always fascinated by those who begin to adopt a patronising tone in debates. I wonder why they do it. I eventually conclude it's because they aren't secure enough in the strength of what they're actually saying and so try to compensate for perceived weaknesses by enhancing the content with supercilious expression in an attempt to intimidate their opponent into submission
    What was that you were saying about succinctness?

    And no, I just find the paucity of your argument amusing.

    I think that's about as close you could possibly come to 'active opposition' short of being so presumptuous as to try to command our party's inner functioning.
    Sure. But they're not the same.

    I didn't make the argument that RL Labour was dragging you down. What a complete distortion. I implied that this change of LD identity to Liberal would cost TSR Labour more votes than your suggested names.
    You shifted the goal-posts here; you definitely didn't mean that at the start of this particular sub-argument. Want proof? Here's this particular sub-argument followed all the way through:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Besides, the current main parties aren't exactly faring well themselves. Hung Parliament in 2010 and many predicting more to come.
    Sure, but they're not exactly Liberal Democrat levels now, are they?
    RL =/= TSR
    So, your argument was that the real life Conservative and Labour parties aren't doing well either, so therefore we should disassociate ourselves with the real life Conservative and Labour parties. I then respond by agreeing they're not doing particularly well, but they're not quite at the critically bad stage the real life Liberal Democrats are at. You then respond by saying that real life is not equivalent to TSR. Like, that doesn't in any way respond to my argument, and in fact it probably just blows up your opening premise where you said the real life Conservative and Labour parties aren't doing well.
    Wrong way around. You began by saying the Lib Dems are doing badly, I responded with the Cons and Labs also doing badly, you then re-iterated this first point and I am now concluding by demonstrating this division.
    Yawn. There's a rather large degree of magnitude between how bad the Liberal Democrats are doing and how badly the large parties are doing to the point they're not analogous. There's no need for us to disassociate ourselves with RL Labour on account of how badly they're doing within the TSR demographic - if you need proof, look at the last TSR election results. On the other hand, there's a rather large need for you to disassociate yourselves with RL Lib Dems on account of how badly they're doing within the TSR demographic - if you need proof, look at the last TSR election results.

    What you've done is attempted to amalgamate things which are the same process but on different scales of magnitude to the point they're not comparable.
    Which is precisely why we're changing our party identity. You seem to be supporting this, despite having previously opposed it.
    Straaaaaawman. I've never opposed you changing your party identity - or for that matter, even calling yourselves the Liberals. In fact, from my perspective it's probably better you use the name Liberals just because it's so bad. I was just advising you out of the kindness of my own heart to pick something, well, better.
    'better' here having the meaning of 'better for Labour's election chances'


    That's a direct quote chain, starting with you and alternating between us. You can clearly see that your argument started with the idea RL Labour could be dragging us down too. This is what I mean about arguing away from the point - you started on one topic, then as your arguments got destroyed, retreated and retreated to new previously unraised arguments.

    But even if we take the new argument at the end there at face value, I have a simple answer: no, it means 'better for the Liberal Democrat's election chances'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I thought it was doubles.


    What I am saying is that even if A84 passes - Labour would still quite be within the rules to essentially direct their voters to the option that they submit for the ballot as the proposed rule would mean they would only have to ensure that they don't use their RL name on the ballot paper or logo within the manifesto.
    The electorate cannot be organised efficiently enough for parties to be able to direct significant portions of them in this way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    x
    I will answer this tomorrow morning. All-nighter yesterday and very tired.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I notice that the Cleggs are sending one of their children to the school that Cherie (and Tony) Blair send their children to. Had they followed the lead of the last prime minister and his wife, they would have been following Mrs Brown's Boys.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I notice that the Cleggs are sending one of their children to the school that Cherie (and Tony) Blair send their children to. Had they followed the lead of the last prime minister and his wife, they would have been following Mrs Brown's Boys.
    Ooh, another new name you've reminded me of...

    "The Monster Raving Liberal Party"!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: March 6, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.