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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    Perhaps, as Thunder and Jazz said, you should look back at Birchington's (relatively) recent posts before getting so het up in your responses. You may be of the opinion that this name change is purely superficial - and I am inclined to agree with you, or at least that's how I think it will end up - but your party leader has provided a totally different answer. I can provide you with his quotes if you'd like, but there's a relatively easy-to-use function on TSR for you to do it yourself.
    As I said to TAJ, I do keep track of Birchington and other fellow Liberals' posts here, but nowhere have I seen him supporting policies which he didn't before our name change. I would be grateful if you provided evidence to back up these claims. In the private Liberal forum Birchington was all for not swinging either to the left or the right, so I am finding what you're saying hard to believe.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    As I said to TAJ, I do keep track of Birchington and other fellow Liberals' posts here, but nowhere have I seen him supporting policies which he didn't before our name change. I would be grateful if you provided evidence to back up these claims. In the private Liberal forum Birchington was all for not swinging either to the left or the right, so I am finding what you're saying hard to believe.
    Okay. I shall provide the evidence in about an hour or so, once I've finished revision for the day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the fundamental question is this. Can a Lib-Con coalition work towards the goals of both parties? I think the answer is yes. I think the same is probably true for Lib-Lab.

    I don't think this would be true for a Lab-Con coalition - but then that's a function of our adversarial political system and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Germany and more recently the Netherlands, for example, have seen successful coalitions between the large parties of the centre-right and centre-left - perhaps because, unlike in the UK, the more extreme elements of each are spun off into their own distinct parties.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm quite shocked at how tedious and petty this conversation has become, and it's more frustrating that people have not given me the courtesy to respond before accusations began to fly - I have been off TSR all day so coming back to find this storm in a teacup isn't great.

    My views are personal, and they do not dictate Liberal party policy. Our party is run democratically, where all members have a say and policy is consensus-based. Therefore, to assume that Liberal policy is just an outlet of my personal views is foolish and wrong.

    My comment on trade unions was my personal opinion - I did not call for union powers to be curtailed, I just expressed a perfectly legitimate view that the threat of strike action was merely sabre rattling from unions with diminished power (hence 'irrelevant'). This was in the Commons Bar - not exactly the place for outlining party policy. It is even more ridiculous that some have tried to assume that my vote in another forum is a demonstration of Liberal Party policy. Although party leader, I don't decide party policy and this assumption is wrong.

    The behaviour of some Labour members here, trawling through TSR for views I might have expressed, is childish and to hold me to account over how I voted in a poll in another forum is pretty desperate. Needless to say, the aggressive and unwelcome behaviour of some tonight has pretty much ruled out any co-operation between our parties, either in government or otherwise, so don't expect our support in any coalition proposals.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    According to your leader, yes.
    Personal views expressed in the Commons Bar and an external forum do not define Liberal party policy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I'm quite shocked at how tedious and petty this conversation has become, and it's more frustrating that people have not given me the courtesy to respond before accusations began to fly - I have been off TSR all day so coming back to find this storm in a teacup isn't great.

    My views are personal, and they do not dictate Liberal party policy. Our party is run democratically, where all members have a say and policy is consensus-based. Therefore, to assume that Liberal policy is just an outlet of my personal views is foolish and wrong.

    My comment on trade unions was my personal opinion - I did not call for union powers to be curtailed, I just expressed a perfectly legitimate view that the threat of strike action was merely sabre rattling from unions with diminished power (hence 'irrelevant'). This was in the Commons Bar - not exactly the place for outlining party policy. It is even more ridiculous that some have tried to assume that my vote in another forum is a demonstration of Liberal Party policy. Although party leader, I don't decide party policy and this assumption is wrong.

    The behaviour of some Labour members here, trawling through TSR for views I might have expressed, is childish and to hold me to account over how I voted in a poll in another forum is pretty desperate. Needless to say, the aggressive and unwelcome behaviour of some tonight has pretty much ruled out any co-operation between our parties, either in government or otherwise, so don't expect our support in any coalition proposals.
    Neat way of conveniently agreeing a Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't work after the Labour leader already made clear he wasn't interested!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Neat way of conveniently agreeing a Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't work after the Labour leader already made clear he wasn't interested!
    If people had given me the courtesy to reply earlier instead of pursuing this desperate and ridiculous search for my comments and quotes, I might have considered working with Labour. Let's be clear, Labour want to stay in government and if we do well, they will probably approach us for support whatever Mechie says to the contrary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Personal views expressed in the Commons Bar and an external forum do not define Liberal party policy.
    I wasn't talking about those things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Trust me I've haven't lost faith in the strength of my argument. I've just lost faith in the strength of you're arguing and by just screaming "Naive" at me you lost the right to criticise me for being offensive.
    I was referring to the character of your argument, and in softer terms than wailing profanities.

    I'm pretty sure you know just as well as me that the Liberal position isn't at all close to Labour's but just to make the point a bit more clear for you - Labour have just took part in the common's most socialist government ever and have nationalised water without paying as well as nationalising the railways. I take it the liberals are fine with this and the various other less liberal economic policies. Unless your liberal moniker is totally pointless.
    As I've said before, of course there will be differences in individual policy positions between parties. Heck, there are differences in individual policy positions between members of the same party, let alone different ones! That is not to say that the general political turf isn't shared or that the two parties can't work together, if not agreeing all the time.

    The Greens, Socialist, Libertarians, Labour and Liberals all value social justice and civil liberty. And Labour and the Liberals don't fulfill this, Labour in the MHoC are a very Old Labourite style party whereas the Liberals have effectively turned into New Labour.
    Complete nonsense. If you look at the Liberal manifesto you will see a strong committment to tackling the invasive legislation New Labour brought in. Once again you are making grand, sweeping statements without much evidencing or explanation. How are we 'New Labour', and how is Labour 'Labourite', if that is not just calling oranges orange.

    Actually the Greens have made it blatantly clear we have no intention of getting into power this term as we want to focus on developing our own identity more - this view is pretty widely held within our party although not by absolutely everyone. You don't have to be ashamed for wanting to get into power but you should be ashamed for having an identity makeover to get into power.
    Once again, our identity makeover was to rid ourselves of the unjust dismissal we were receiving at the ballot box due to the RL connotations. This is not the same as doing it for mere political expediency. Your continued failure to acknowledge this suggests that you are either too dense to appreciate it or are deliberately ignoring it to paint us as opportunists, ironically, for your own political expediency and that of your party.

    Whether you're even centrist is debatable but if we assume you are you're still compromised by claiming you'd be happy to work with any party at all. A supposedly centrist party working with the Socialists or Libertarians is going to comprise your claim to occupy the middle ground as a party as you would've been enabling a far-left or far-right coalition.
    No, because the whole point of coalition is that it is a compromise between the political ground of the two or more parties.

    Theoretically being willing to work with any party is all very nice of you but it's not exactly fair on your voters is it. I doubt Liberals voters are particularly keen on either UKIP or the Socialists. To be prepared to work with absolutely anyone shows a blatant disregard for your voters opinions and a clear intention to use your centrist policies and Liberal makeover to look like a brand new outfit but in reality you are still Liberal Democrats and hold the Liberal Democrat mantra of "sod the voters we'll lie and deceit our way to power that's what matters." Nobody voting Liberal would want a Liberal-UKIP coalition yet your still perfectly fine with it?.
    You continue to confuse RL politics with TSR politics. Do you simply not understand the distinction or is it your feeble attempt at propoganda? It is bitterly ironic that you should accuse us of practising deceit when doing so makes you yourself deceitful.

    Coalition government is a perfectly legal part of representative democracy. I have already suggested that coalition between the Liberals and UKIP is unlikely, thus completely exploding your suggestion that I would be 'fine with it', but were we to combine with either Labour or the Conservatives, while our voters would not have voted for Conservative nor theirs for us, the combined votes between us would constitute a far greater democratic mandate than we would have held individually.

    So you're okay with changing you're name to gain votes but not okay with changing your name to gain votes at the same time?
    We're okay with changing our name when our previous name was unfairly punishing us at the ballot box because many voters, like you, failed to differentiate between RL and TSR politics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    The behaviour of some Labour members here, trawling through TSR for views I might have expressed, is childish and to hold me to account over how I voted in a poll in another forum is pretty desperate. Needless to say, the aggressive and unwelcome behaviour of some tonight has pretty much ruled out any co-operation between our parties, either in government or otherwise, so don't expect our support in any coalition proposals.
    First of all, you could have at least had the courtesy to have quoted me here. (Assuming it is me you're blatantly referring to.)

    I will however, highlight that this wasn't some kind of personal attack as you seem to be making it out to be; so it wasn't as if you were defenceless to such a ruthless tirade as there wasn't any sort of attack in the first place. You're the party leader and you're on record on numerous occasions stating the rationale behind this party name change that nobody seems to understand. Saying that your views don't speak on behalf of the party is complete folly; you're the party leader! Of course your opinions on this are the most important - rightly or wrongly, perhaps.

    Surely you agree that it's a tad confusing when Tuerin, Mazzini et al are saying the party hasn't changed ideologically when you - the leader - are saying that there has indeed been a change?

    Finally, I am glad that there is now no possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition as a) Nobody can tell where this party stands ideologically and b) We never had plans for such a coalition anyway.

    I think that Detente is needed, for now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    If people had given me the courtesy to reply earlier instead of pursuing this desperate and ridiculous search for my comments and quotes, I might have considered working with Labour. Let's be clear, Labour want to stay in government and if we do well, they will probably approach us for support whatever Mechie says to the contrary.
    On second thoughts, this has annoyed me far too much. Had you actually bothered to read through the comments you seem so enraged about, you would have noticed that in the first place all I stated was what you said. It was Tuerin who demanded that I produce the evidence for "such sweeping claims".


    And as for the last bit, isn't it the Liberals/Lib Dems who you usually jump into bed with another party to get into power?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    First of all, you could have at least had the courtesy to have quoted me here. (Assuming it is me you're blatantly referring to.)

    I will however, highlight that this wasn't some kind of personal attack as you seem to be making it out to be; so it wasn't as if you were defenceless to such a ruthless tirade as there wasn't any sort of attack in the first place. You're the party leader and you're on record on numerous occasions stating the rationale behind this party name change that nobody seems to understand. Saying that your views don't speak on behalf of the party is complete folly; you're the party leader! Of course your opinions on this are the most important - rightly or wrongly, perhaps.

    Surely you agree that it's a tad confusing when Tuerin, Mazzini et al are saying the party hasn't changed ideologically when you - the leader - are saying that there has indeed been a change?

    Finally, I am glad that there is now no possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition as a) Nobody can tell where this party stands ideologically and b) We never had plans for such a coalition anyway.

    I think that Detente is needed, for now.
    On second thoughts, this has annoyed me far too much. Had you actually bothered to read through the comments you seem so enraged about, you would have noticed that in the first place all I stated was what you said. It was Tuerin who demanded that I produce the evidence for "such sweeping claims".


    And as for the last bit, isn't it the Liberals/Lib Dems who you usually jump into bed with another party to get into power?
    It wasn't just you, don't worry. As a party, we're still defining properly our ideological platform and I accept some here may be confused. If we're given time to adjust to the rebrand and collectively establish our platform as a party, our position will become clearer.

    Apologies for my abrupt response, I was just annoyed at coming back to an unexpected, overblown situation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    It wasn't just you, don't worry. As a party, we're still defining properly our ideological platform and I accept some here may be confused. If we're given time to adjust to the rebrand and collectively establish our platform as a party, our position will become clearer.

    Apologies for my abrupt response, I was just annoyed at coming back to an unexpected, overblown situation.
    That's fine, problems were caused at both ends. I will refrain from asking this question again for the time being as I should have appreciated that this may be a slightly odd, difficult transition phase.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    On second thoughts, this has annoyed me far too much. Had you actually bothered to read through the comments you seem so enraged about, you would have noticed that in the first place all I stated was what you said. It was Tuerin who demanded that I produce the evidence for "such sweeping claims".
    Take some responsibility for your actions. If you're going to make claims about other people's actions you should have the intellectual integrity to evidence your and Mechie's claims, claims which were, let's be clear, that Birchington had announced a change in our party's political ground:

    (Originally Posted by Mazzini)
    Apologies if I've missed anything, but when did we change our idealogical positioning? I'd love to know.

    (Originally Posted by Endless Blue)
    Perhaps, then, you should follow some of your party leader's posts.

    As Birchington has since clarified, there is a difference between his own personal views expressed in the off-the-record environment of the Commons Bar and official party policy, which requires the input of all members. I am not at fault for requiring that these false claims be evidenced, since I knew they couldn't be adequately; the person at fault is you by distorting the truth.

    And as for the last bit, isn't it the Liberals/Lib Dems who you usually jump into bed with another party to get into power?
    Takes two to tango, but once again you are confusing RL and TSR politics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Take some responsibility for your actions. If you're going to make claims about other people's actions you should have the intellectual integrity to evidence your and Mechie's claims, claims which were, let's be clear, that Birchington had announced a change in our party's political ground:

    (Originally Posted by Mazzini)
    Apologies if I've missed anything, but when did we change our idealogical positioning? I'd love to know.

    (Originally Posted by Endless Blue)
    Perhaps, then, you should follow some of your party leader's posts.

    As Birchington has since clarified, there is a difference between his own personal views expressed in the off-the-record environment of the Commons Bar and official party policy, which requires the input of all members. I am not at fault for requiring that these false claims be evidenced, since I knew they couldn't be adequately; the person at fault is you by distorting the truth.



    Takes two to tango, but once again you are confusing RL and TSR politics.
    I have no idea what is going on in that post, it's formatted really weirdly. What have you done?

    Anyway, as much as I'd love to continue this little debate (and since you seem so intent on doing so, despite being desperately wrong), I shan't on this thread as things seem to be escalating slightly and I'm not sure Birchington would appreciate it given his previous response. If you're still not convinced and and feel that you have to desperately cling onto your position so as not to lose face, I will PM them over and then, if I am proven right in having sufficient evidence (which I have), you can post your apology to me in here.

    And "intellectual integrity" - haha, what a phrase. I'll have to use that one next time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I have no idea what is going on in that post, it's formatted really weirdly. What have you done?

    Anyway, as much as I'd love to continue this little debate (and since you seem so intent on doing so, despite being desperately wrong), I shan't on this thread as things seem to be escalating slightly and I'm not sure Birchington would appreciate it given his previous response. If you're still not convinced and and feel that you have to desperately cling onto your position so as not to lose face, I will PM them over and then, if I am proven right in having sufficient evidence (which I have), you can post your apology to me in here.

    And "intellectual integrity" - haha, what a phrase. I'll have to use that one next time.
    I copied the quotations. They are available by clicking on the hyperlinks.

    There's no shame in admitting defeat; it becomes shameful when you don't have the balls to admit it and instead insist that your opponent is 'desperately wrong' despite failing to find a single fault in anything they've said. You either misinterpreted or distorted Birchington's personal views as implying a complete shift in party policy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I copied the quotations. They are available by clicking on the hyperlinks.

    There's no shame in admitting defeat; it becomes shameful when you don't have the balls to admit it and instead insist that your opponent is 'desperately wrong' despite failing to find a single fault in anything they've said. You either misinterpreted or distorted Birchington's personal views as implying a complete shift in party policy.
    I agree that there's no shame in admitting defeat, which is why I am urging you to do so. I didn't distort or misinterpret his views at all. You haven't even seen them yet so how could you possibly judge the extent to which his comments may be deemed ambiguous? I never said "complete shift", by the way, so unless you can provide the evidence (ah, the shoe is on the other foot now!) to verify that you did I must ask that you retract your statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    I agree that there's no shame in admitting defeat, which is why I am urging you to do so. I didn't distort or misinterpret his views at all. You haven't even seen them yet so how could you possibly judge the extent to which his comments may be deemed ambiguous? I never said "complete shift", by the way, so unless you can provide the evidence (ah, the shoe is on the other foot now!) to verify that you did I must ask that you retract your statement.
    The evidence that you painted Birchington's personal views as a fundamental ideological change in the Liberal party is provided in my previous post, but the 'shoe' never left your foot in the first place since you have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence of Birchington suggesting such a change in Liberal position, despite having promising to do so earlier in this thread.

    How you can not accept that you were wrong to confuse, deliberately or not, Birchington's personal views expressed in non-formal environments with official Liberal party policy when Birch has himself tackled this confusion is a mystery. Once again you accuse me of being in the wrong without providing any valid criticisms of anything I've said.

    Someone provided Birchington's comments on the unions and re-distribution of wealth earlier on, so I have seen them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a good one: (1) justify liberal-democracy; (2) justify capitalism.

    Good luck!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Here's a good one: (1) justify liberal-democracy; (2) justify capitalism.

    Good luck!
    Would it not be more appropriate to submit alternatives to both of those and then decide whether they are superior? Neither of them are perfect but I don't know of any preferable alternatives.
 
 
 
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: May 6, 2015
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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.