Turn on thread page Beta

Maximum respect to Cable, Laws, Alexander et al watch

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...erage-politics

    Senior Lib dems have rejected peerages in the House of Lords.

    Yet again the Liberals have been shown to have huge amounts of integrity and havent 'jumped on to the gravy-train' as many swivel eyed commentators had suggested.

    Huge respect to some very talented and hardworking politicians.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed. It was a great shame they had to be sacrificed for the greater goal.

    Would like to see Alexander back in a by-election.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    and Simon Hughes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Peerage isn't always bad. As someone who's been called an orange book liberal and being very culturally liberal, I'm a monarchist and a supporter of HM Privy Council, though this is more to do with diversifying how we choose our governors rather than actually liking our royals, but I do kinda like our royals .

    In several countries these types of 'peerages' are used to choose who defends the government from majority rule and I believe HoL defends our country in a similar way.

    I do think HoL is too big so it really ought to be merged into a knowledge based Privy Council, and I look down on hereditary as a superior power in government.

    There's a small place in government for hereditary sources, as I cannot think of any other method to choose governors for a body of government other than our royals, and they have shown that they can be trusted to be moderate. If one took this school of thought further then one would understand why I think HoL has some positives.

    Though I respect their decisions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You help the Tories to abolish EMA, offered AV not PR, triple tuition fees, introduce the bedroom tax, cut taxes for multi millionaires, oversee a dramatic rise in zero hour contracts, ignore sharp drop in oversea students, do nothing as the Syrian people are mass murdered, do nothing as Ukraine is invaded and a victim of a land grab, waste billions on a unwanted top down reorganisation of the NHS. And then, after being decimated at the general election blame anyone but themselves for betraying the centre-left. But because they didn't join the Lords deserve huge respect?

    **** off.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    You help the Tories to abolish EMA, offered AV not PR, triple tuition fees, introduce the bedroom tax, cut taxes for multi millionaires, oversee a dramatic rise in zero hour contracts, ignore sharp drop in oversea students, do nothing as the Syrian people are mass murdered, do nothing as Ukraine is invaded and a victim of a land grab, waste billions on a unwanted top down reorganisation of the NHS. And then, after being decimated at the general election blame anyone but themselves for betraying the centre-left. But because they didn't join the Lords deserve huge respect?

    **** off.
    PR was the best on offer: if that was that or nothing. What you think Labour were going to help back the LDs for PR?

    EMA whilst nice was a luxury.

    Whilst their promise on tuiton fees was stupid the new system is actually better.

    Zero Hour contracts aren't a serious problem, plenty of people actually like them- that includes people with families who now have more freedom to see their children/ look after relatives.

    Still quite a lot of oversea students.

    The Lib Dems actually favored intervening in Syria, it was labour that stopped the Coalition. (Funnily enough im glad they did!)

    What party is currently proposing to intervene in Ukraine?

    The NHS reorganisation has always been colossally mis-managed regardless.

    I know Previous Lib Dem Leaders (And more left leaning supporters) seemed to want to be just a prop for the Labour party but Clegg and the Orange Bookers did mark a significant shift to a more centrist position that (Rightly) viewed Labour as just as bad as the Tories (Especially after Iraq, ID Cards, Child Detention Centers etc).

    The Point in 2010 was threefold: Show that Coalition could create stable government, Create a strong stable government to better manage the recession and to implement LD policies (Tax cuts, pupil premium etc). They were successful on all three of these.


    ***

    There is actually quite a lot of soul searching going on at Lib Dem HQ, as far as I can tell. Whilst they did many things wrong, most notably a lack of a coherent message they also implemented things that I think strongly have had a very positive affect on our country.

    Even the Guardian is starting to see this.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...g-them-already
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    Peerage isn't always bad. As someone who's been called an orange book liberal and being very culturally liberal, I'm a monarchist and a supporter of HM Privy Council, though this is more to do with diversifying how we choose our governors rather than actually liking our royals, but I do kinda like our royals .

    In several countries these types of 'peerages' are used to choose who defends the government from majority rule and I believe HoL defends our country in a similar way.

    I do think HoL is too big so it really ought to be merged into a knowledge based Privy Council, and I look down on hereditary as a superior power in government.

    There's a small place in government for hereditary sources, as I cannot think of any other method to choose governors for a body of government other than our royals, and they have shown that they can be trusted to be moderate. If one took this school of thought further then one would understand why I think HoL has some positives.

    Though I respect their decisions.
    Because they believe the people in Lords should be elected, voted for by the people. I agree that a second house with wide range of expertise and experience is/can be useful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    You help the Tories to abolish EMA, offered AV not PR, triple tuition fees, introduce the bedroom tax, cut taxes for multi millionaires, oversee a dramatic rise in zero hour contracts, ignore sharp drop in oversea students, do nothing as the Syrian people are mass murdered, do nothing as Ukraine is invaded and a victim of a land grab, waste billions on a unwanted top down reorganisation of the NHS. And then, after being decimated at the general election blame anyone but themselves for betraying the centre-left. But because they didn't join the Lords deserve huge respect?

    **** off.
    I just want to point out a few things:

    Electoral Reform: Why is PR any better than AV? But you would be glad to know that the Lib Dems actually want to overhaul HoL by having it elected using PR.

    I think Parliament should be elected using D'Hont, while I am open to having an upper house (Senate) elected using PR.

    Tuition Fees: This is something of a contentious issue, since a major election policy of Lib Dems was to stop tuition fees increases. I'm not sure if it's the best system for universities or not - it's acceptable, but I'm not sure if it's the most progressive for Britain.

    Taxes: I don't enjoy our tax system too and large swathes of governmental services should be privatised similar to various continental models. I support efforts that make tax more progressive, but tax has to be raised from somewhere.

    Overseas Students: I don't think overseas students are being locked out. There are still plenty of places available for them, and surely it's positive for locals to have access to more education places?

    NHS: Bureaucracy needed to be cut but I agree that they made a mess of NHS, but I haven't heard anyone suggest anything positive. It's something that we have the worst healthcare on earth, only beating USA and developing countries.

    (Original post by blahbleeblah)
    Because they believe the people in Lords should be elected, voted for by the people. I agree that a second house with wide range of expertise and experience is/can be useful.
    I actually think Lords should be 'merged' into Privy Council, and powers handed to the Monarch. The Royal Family would take over from Lords acting on advise from Privy Council. This would instill some knowledge and diversify parliament, I do not think 'rule of majority' is democratic.

    PR for Senate would be acceptable, though imo D'Hont in Parliament would be enough. More important is redrawing fair constituency boundaries
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    EMA whilst nice was a luxury.
    Excuse me?! giving hundreds of millions to wealthy pensioners in state benefits is a luxury. Spending billions on a top down reorganisation of the NHS is a luxury. Giving tax cuts to millionaires is a luxury. EMA was given to low income students, helped to close down the material inequality and boost education attendance. Fighting for equality of opportunity is not a luxury it is a national necessity.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    PR was the best on offer: if that was that or nothing. What you think Labour were going to help back the LDs for PR?
    I get angry at all the parties that do not back PR.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Whilst their promise on tuiton fees was stupid the new system is actually better.
    Disagree. Rather have £9k fees to pay back then have £27k. So the payment has been delayed by a mere thousands, how wonderful. Give me a break.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Zero Hour contracts aren't a serious problem, plenty of people actually like them
    Some do some don't and I am not suggesting we abolish them completely, but radically reform them to help those that don't.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Still quite a lot of oversea students.
    Yes but supposedly they have taken a massive dive which is bad for the UK culturally, economically and academically.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    The Lib Dems actually favored intervening in Syria, it was labour that stopped the Coalition. (Funnily enough im glad they did!)
    No. The coalition had a working majority, if Cameron and Clegg got their act together they could have convinced their MPs to back the government. Labour could have opposed but they would not have the numbers to deny parliamentary consent.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    What party is currently proposing to intervene in Ukraine?
    Is this thread about the other parties? many wrongs don't make a right and before you say not sending arms to Ukraine is a right allow me to agree to disagree.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    The NHS reorganisation has always been colossally mis-managed regardless.
    You should go do some research in this matter. Give me the eradication of food banks over the many billions wasted any day.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    I know Previous Lib Dem Leaders (And more left leaning supporters) seemed to want to be just a prop for the Labour party but Clegg and the Orange Bookers did mark a significant shift to a more centrist position that (Rightly) viewed Labour as just as bad as the Tories (Especially after Iraq, ID Cards, Child Detention Centers etc).
    I am not complaining about the Liberal Democrats intentions of injecting some Libertarianism and civil liberties in UK politics. But they underestimated the intolerance from the left and the centre voters over their piss poor attempt at Social liberalism. I wish they were the party I believe they think they are, but I fear a Tory government propped up by Liberal Democrats too much. Of course that won't be happening any time soon unless we get PR.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    Excuse me?! giving hundreds of millions to wealthy pensioners in state benefits is a luxury. Spending billions on a top down reorganisation of the NHS is a luxury. Giving tax cuts to millionaires is a luxury. EMA was given to low income students, helped to close down the material inequality and boost education attendance. Fighting for equality of opportunity is not a luxury it is a national necessity.
    Meh I'm happy to be proven wrong but I don't think that much good.everyone I knew who was on it including myself spent it on drink and drugs ( I was made homeless essentially at 17) . Also michael sandel gave a brilliant lecture in his justice series about why incentive based education is actually a very bad approach which I'd highly recomend.

    I get angry at all the parties that do not back PR.
    So Tories and labour? Face it the lib dems never stood a chance against both of them working together just like they did with lords reform.

    To be honest I'm starting to rethink my pr stance, the thought of ukip getting 57 seats scares the crap out of me.

    Disagree. Rather have £9k fees to pay back then have £27k. So the payment has been delayed by a mere thousands, how wonderful. Give me a break.
    You only get to pay it if your earning above a 23k I think. I don't think it's that big a issue personally bit if you really want to blame someone blame labour who introduced it and pushed for uncapped fees when they had an overall majority.

    Some do some don't and I am not suggesting we abolish them completely, but radically reform them to help those that don't.
    Yes but supposedly they have taken a massive dive which is bad for the UK culturally, economically and academically.
    So it's not that bad then is it? Probably half of my Uni are foreign students.

    No. The coalition had a working majority, if Cameron and Clegg got their act together they could have convinced their MPs to back the government. Labour could have opposed but they would not have the numbers to deny parliamentary consent.
    Maybe politicians aren't so quick to get involved abroad did to that bother with the previous government? In any case that's one thing ed miliband did right. Syria would make Iraq look like a picnic.

    Is this thread about the other parties? many wrongs don't make a right and before you say not sending arms to Ukraine is a right allow me to agree to disagree.
    No, but you seem to set impossibly high standards on the lib dems. Don't make assumptions, I would whole heartedly back sending troops to Ukraine.


    I am not complaining about the Liberal Democrats intentions of injecting some Libertarianism and civil liberties in UK politics. But they underestimated the intolerance from the left and the centre voters over their piss poor attempt at Social liberalism. I wish they were the party I believe they think they are, but I fear a Tory government propped up by Liberal Democrats too much. Of course that won't be happening any time soon unless we get PR.
    What social liberal policies? They delivered on practically all of their environmental policies and had to fight hard for the pupil premium, etc,

    They couldn't have gone with labour the numberseoilcnt add up and additionally other than the hugely unpopular Brown wanted to go back to opposition.


    If the lib dems had backed off they would have been written off.

    Most of the centre left would inevitably joined labouf under miliband anyway. The lib dems didn't stand a chance .

    They are also the only non crazy party advocating PR.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    No, but you seem to set impossibly high standards on the lib dems. Don't make assumptions, I would whole heartedly back sending troops to Ukraine.
    So you want to go to war with Russia? That's pretty much what this amounts to.

    Sending arms might be a reasonable position to take but outright war?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    So you want to go to war with Russia? That's pretty much what this amounts to.

    Sending arms might be a reasonable position to take but outright war?
    Russia would have to say it is involved for it to be a war.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Russia would have to say it is involved for it to be a war.
    And what are they likely to say when you send troops to fight their troops or patrol the border or whatever you want them to do?

    I'm sorry but I don't see why we want to send in troops to maybe get into a war on the European continent with a nuclear power. Doesn't sound too great to me especially when we don't have very much money.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    And what are they likely to say when you send troops to fight their troops or patrol the border or whatever you want them to do?

    I'm sorry but I don't see why we want to send in troops to maybe get into a war on the European continent with a nuclear power. Doesn't sound too great to me especially when we don't have very much money.
    Give additional support to the ukranians defence. It's practically a trench war in some places.

    We have nukes too but in any case I can't see Russia ever using them unless the US tries to invade them or something.

    Russia is suffering. If we up their casualty ratio it could be enough to topple Putin.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    And what are they likely to say when you send troops to fight their troops or patrol the border or whatever you want them to do?

    I'm sorry but I don't see why we want to send in troops to maybe get into a war on the European continent with a nuclear power. Doesn't sound too great to me especially when we don't have very much money.
    There's no threat of nuclear war from it. It would be more like Korea or Vietnam.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Give additional support to the ukranians defence. It's practically a trench war in some places.

    We have nukes too but in any case I can't see Russia ever using them unless the US tries to invade them or something.

    Russia is suffering. If we up their casualty ratio it could be enough to topple Putin.
    I don't care about toppling Putin. He's one of the best leaders Russia has ever had and certainly their best for a long time. They don't want war with the West because it would be a stupid thing to get into. They just don't want the EU pushed right up against their borders which is entirely understandable given their bloody history.

    I don't see how either of you could be so keen on war on the European continent with a major power. Is this the new imperialism? EU imperialism?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    There's no threat of nuclear war from it. It would be more like Korea or Vietnam.
    A rehash of the Vietnam war when the West is skint doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    I don't care about toppling Putin. He's one of the best leaders Russia has ever had and certainly their best for a long time. They don't want war with the West because it would be a stupid thing to get into. They just don't want the EU pushed right up against their borders which is entirely understandable given their bloody history.

    I don't see how either of you could be so keen on war on the European continent with a major power. Is this the new imperialism? EU imperialism?
    Quit your bull****. Russia land grabs Ukraine and Georgia using it's military might. The EU gains land after asking in a referendum. It doesn't go bullying Iceland, Greenland, Norway and Switzerland for not wanting to join the EU. Heck there's reluctance to accept Turkey. European countries have a right to exercise their state sovereignty to join whatever political organisation they damn want. Eastern Europe was oppressed by Russian imperialist, that time is over. If Belerus is free to join the Russian-led Euroasian Union then Ukraine, Turkey and Georgia can join the EU and they certainly don't need permission from bigoted Russian politicians in the Kremlin. Its 2015 not 1915.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    Quit your bull****. Russia land grabs Ukraine and Georgia using it's military might. The EU gains land after asking in a referendum. It doesn't go bullying Iceland, Greenland, Norway and Switzerland for not wanting to join the EU. Heck there's reluctance to accept Turkey. European countries have a right to exercise their state sovereignty to join whatever political organisation they damn want. Eastern Europe was oppressed by Russian imperialist, that time is over. If Belerus is free to join the Russian-led Euroasian Union then Ukraine, Turkey and Georgia can join the EU and they certainly don't need permission from bigoted Russian politicians in the Kremlin. Its 2015 not 1915.
    Russia didn't land grab Crimea. They held a referendum and they wanted to be part of Russia. The only reason the whole thing happened was because of the coup in Ukraine and Russians in Ukraine weren't as happy with the political arrangements any more.

    Surely you must understand that, given Russia's history of being invaded by foreign powers, they have a right to be worried about a superstate that doesn't like them being right on their borders?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Russia didn't land grab Crimea. They held a referendum and they wanted to be part of Russia[/b]. The only reason the whole thing happened was because of the coup in Ukraine and Russians in Ukraine weren't as happy with the political arrangements any more.

    Surely you must understand that, given Russia's history of being invaded by foreign powers, they have a right to be worried about a superstate that doesn't like them being right on their borders?
    Who do you think you're bull****ting? The Crimean referendum was a farce and failed to match the standards used in respected referendums. For example voting boxes were transparent and the ballots were not placed in envelopes making some of the marked ballots visible through the box walls. According to the BBC the campaign was entirely Pro-Russian and election posters often featured swastikas in an alleged attempt to portray the Ukrainian government as neo-Nazis was sent to people. Ukrainian TV channels were made unavailable for Crimean viewers, replaced with Russian stations. OSCE military observers attempted to enter the region four times but were turned away, sometimes after warning shots were fired.

    I am never going to trust the word of Russian backed rebels over the combined reports from the OSCE, BBC, Guardian, Fox News and Russian eye witnesses.

    The racist, illiberal, homophobic, undemocratic Russian government and its supporters can go rot in Siberia for all I care.
 
 
 

2,927

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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