Turn on thread page Beta

Why You Should NOT Vote For The Liberal Democrats watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    Not to mention their laughably soft policies on crime, drugs...
    What's the Conservatives view on druggies now? I'm confused. I always thought it was lock them up and throw away the key and they made some mention of rehab, what the...? :confused:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by technik)
    that would be an interesting debate
    Theres no debating it. I'm sure the muppet thinks that liberal democrats and the democrats are in some way connected. Which they aren't. They have similarish ideologies, but thats as far as it goes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    WRONG AGAIN

    FIRSTLY I NEVER SAID KERRY WAS A LIB DEM PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

    secondly no this all could not be applied to lab or tory

    neither lab or tory took sides on the election

    neither have been confronted and found red in the face was heavy two faced campaigning and having leaflets on their website ADVISING such campaigning

    and compared to lib dem how on earth can you say Labour or especially the Conservatives propose big government

    its great you can call me names but at least i provide the evidence to back it all up..you simply say "no" and end the story
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KidA)
    don't start that again, they are good policies that would help this country, i have no idea where you get the crime and compensation ideas from though.
    Well, if you're in favour of even more drug-fuelled crime than there is under Labour, even more illegal immigrant scroungers clogging up schools and the NHS, even more ridiculous political correctness issues, human rights for criminals and the nanny state interfering in everyone's lives, then they're good policies.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    thats liberalism for you
    You know, you rule You have sensible views on everything!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by lionel789)
    WRONG AGAIN

    FIRSTLY I NEVER SAID KERRY WAS A LIB DEM PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

    secondly no this all could not be applied to lab or tory

    neither lab or tory took sides on the election

    neither have been confronted and found red in the face was heavy two faced campaigning and having leaflets on their website ADVISING such campaigning

    and compared to lib dem how on earth can you say Labour or especially the Conservatives propose big government

    its great you can call me names but at least i provide the evidence to back it all up..you simply say "no" and end the story
    okely doke.

    "the tories did not mess with the war..they still have made clear they support the war..unlike Kerry they have carefully only criticised things about the war they couldnt have known before the war..which makes logical sense"
    AS we were talking about the lib dems, I could only assume that was why you mentioned Kerry. Cos no one else sure as hell did. I said that both before and after the lib dems were against the war. That stands.

    "neither lab or tory took sides on the election" define labour and tory.
    Because if by labour you mean most labour mps then yes they did take sides. Blair is the only one that supported the republicans. Labour have a long history of partnership with the democrats.

    "neither have been confronted and found red in the face was heavy two faced campaigning and having leaflets on their website ADVISING such campaigning"
    that's true. Just remind what the labour spin doctor was famously quoted as saying to 'bury' in the 9/11 aftermath. Lets face it, we aren't short of much worse scandals in both labour and tory parties.

    "and compared to lib dem how on earth can you say Labour or especially the Conservatives propose big government"

    By this do you mean bureaucracy? Because there is nothing to say lib dem will increase it. increased socialism doesn't HAVE to mean increased bureaucracy.

    "at least i provide the evidence to back it"
    Where? you make bold brash statements with no substance to them. Anyone can deconstruct your arguments. Fact is most of the arguments you are throwing can be just as easily used as ammo against labour or tory.

    Lib Dems will lead to some tax increases (a proposed 50% tax rate for the higest tax band) to pay for increased education, healthcare, homecare for elderly and pensions. Also lobbing out council taxes and introducing local income tax. (for those who don't understand, it will tax on where you work rther than where you live, to nail some of these commuters who use london services all day, but then go home to commuting area like lincolnshire and pay cheaper council tax)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)

    By this do you mean bureaucracy? Because there is nothing to say lib dem will increase it. increased socialism doesn't HAVE to mean increased bureaucracy)
    That's true. It doesn't have to. But it normally does.

    Socialism demands by it's obvious nature that things otherwise in the hands of the individual/private enterprise become the domain of the State.

    The State tends to be a more bureaocratic creature than the individual/private enterprise.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    Well, if you're in favour of even more drug-fuelled crime than there is under Labour, even more illegal immigrant scroungers clogging up schools and the NHS, even more ridiculous political correctness issues, human rights for criminals and the nanny state interfering in everyone's lives, then they're good policies.
    illegal, therefore no one knows they are in the county, hmmm, how the hell are they going to clog up schools. :rolleyes:

    Theres a party for people like you.

    The BNP.

    :eek:

    Honestly most of their policies are right up your street.

    Why should the fact that someone has committed deniey them of their human rights? I don't get it whats the point in prison if they don't get a life after it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Also lobbing out council taxes and introducing local income tax. (for those who don't understand, it will tax on where you work rther than where you live, to nail some of these commuters who use london services all day, but then go home to commuting area like lincolnshire and pay cheaper council tax)
    This seems topsy turvey to me. Surely council tax is tax paid to the council that administers your area for the services it provides to that area; fire brigade, police, libraries, etc.

    Why should you pay a higher tax if you only work in London but don't receive any of the services London provides?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    You know, you rule You have sensible views on everything!
    i try. its a shame so many disagree. but they'll come round in time i hope
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)

    Lib Dems will lead to some tax increases (a proposed 50% tax rate for the higest tax band) to pay for increased education, healthcare, homecare for elderly and pensions.
    That's not much of a policy. It's prehistoric. Tax "n" spend......dear oh dear oh dear.......is that the best the lib dems can come up with? Shame.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That's not much of a policy. It's prehistoric. Tax "n" spend......dear oh dear oh dear.......is that the best the lib dems can come up with? Shame.
    Well actually its about the best any party can come up with. At least the lib dems tell people they intend to raise taxes on the very rich, rather than labour who just stelth tax everyone.

    Taxes need to be higher anyway. we pay nothing compared to europe..
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KidA)
    Well actually its about the best any party can come up with. At least the lib dems tell people they intend to raise taxes on the very rich, rather than labour who just stelth tax everyone.

    Taxes need to be higher anyway. we pay nothing compared to europe..
    i do agree more tax needs to be paid. we might not like it, but if we want decent services it has to be paid for.

    at the same time wastage and wasters/spongers, need cut down, and the compensation culture thats sprung up needs sorted too. its costing people far too much in insurance hikes that arent necessary
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KidA)
    Well actually its about the best any party can come up with. At least the lib dems tell people they intend to raise taxes on the very rich, rather than labour who just stelth tax everyone.

    Taxes need to be higher anyway. we pay nothing compared to europe..
    I disagree.

    Government
    a) needs to do LESS
    b) needs to ensure that tax revenue is spent effectively.

    Quite honestly I suspect we could raise VAT to 25%, and tax everyone, rich and poor alike at 50% income tax and it still wouldn't be enough. Gordon Brown would still want more.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I disagree.

    Government
    a) needs to do LESS
    b) needs to ensure that tax revenue is spent effectively.

    Quite honestly I suspect we could raise VAT to 25%, and tax everyone, rich and poor alike at 50% income tax and it still wouldn't be enough. Gordon Brown would still want more.
    isnt/wasnt VAT supposed to be going up to 20%. i heard that years ago.

    if it has, ignore me. but i thought it was still 17.5%
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It was only the Lib Dems who wanted to politicise the movement of the Black Watch and it was only them who decided to make the European elections a referendum on Iraq and it is only them who despite all scandals go to the new low levels of being utterly two faced in terms of policy hiding away their bright orange book full of right win ideas in Labour areas and bringing it to the forfront in Conservative areas.

    As for the Labour MPs supporting Kerry these people thank god do not aspire to be Prime Minister.. people like Diane Abbott who loves state schools except when it comes to her family. Charles Kennedy on the other hand does..

    "Blair is the only one that supported the republicans." the only bit is complete nonsense and so is the entire sentence! Blair made clear he is not supporting either one and will work with whoever is elected as did Howard in stark contrast to the Lib Dems!

    ME :"and compared to lib dem how on earth can you say Labour or especially the Conservatives propose big government"

    YOU: "By this do you mean bureaucracy? Because there is nothing to say lib dem will increase it. increased socialism doesn't HAVE to mean increased bureaucracy.

    Lib Dems will lead to some tax increases (a proposed 50% tax rate for the higest tax band) to pay for increased education, healthcare, homecare for elderly and pensions. Also lobbing out council taxes and introducing local income tax. (for those who don't understand, it will tax on where you work rther than where you live, to nail some of these commuters who use london services all day, but then go home to commuting area like lincolnshire and pay cheaper council tax)"

    Those two paragraphs go wonderful together. You honestly think that the Liberal Democrats will provide all those things just with those two tax rises and change! Come off it! and the more a government takes on the more bureacrats! Socialism is traditionally associated with Bureacracy! Not only that but it seems once everyone has had a taste of local lib dem govt they get rid of it because they get taxed a lot, they have their local services neglected and they have large numbers of administrative workers coming in and being paid high salaries.

    A Liberal Democrat on that basis would be a morbidly obese and incompetent government with an alcoholic or sorry a "socially amicable" person as their leader!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)

    if it has, ignore me. but i thought it was still 17.5%
    It is.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Howard)
    This seems topsy turvey to me. Surely council tax is tax paid to the council that administers your area for the services it provides to that area; fire brigade, police, libraries, etc.

    Why should you pay a higher tax if you only work in London but don't receive any of the services London provides?
    it seems topsy turvy at firsat, but the general idea is
    council tax is based on property value, rather than income.
    So a nice house in the commuting areas is cheaper than one in london.
    But those living in these houses are often commuting and earning hefty city wages. Hence money is 'leaving the city' (tho in essence these areas are still part of london for instance).
    Also theres the fact that a pensioner in a nice home has to pay the same as a family in the same house. That doesn't make sense. If you instead base it on income, then the pensioner pays less than a working family (because they will likely be using less services anyway).
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by KidA)
    Well actually its about the best any party can come up with. At least the lib dems tell people they intend to raise taxes on the very rich, rather than labour who just stelth tax everyone.

    Taxes need to be higher anyway. we pay nothing compared to europe..
    I don't think taxes need be higher necessarily, but i think we should cut the power of unions a bit, and re-nationalise some areas like rail, and health services.
    Where is the sense in rail companies and cleaning companies making loads of profit for doing a cack job. The PPP in the london underground is a prime example of how stupid labour are. THey are raking in the money, and services have plummeted. Ken was right to oppose it.
    J
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by lionel789)
    It was only the Lib Dems who wanted to politicise the movement of the Black Watch and it was only them who decided to make the European elections a referendum on Iraq and it is only them who despite all scandals go to the new low levels of being utterly two faced in terms of policy hiding away their bright orange book full of right win ideas in Labour areas and bringing it to the forfront in Conservative areas.

    As for the Labour MPs supporting Kerry these people thank god do not aspire to be Prime Minister.. people like Diane Abbott who loves state schools except when it comes to her family. Charles Kennedy on the other hand does..

    "Blair is the only one that supported the republicans." the only bit is complete nonsense and so is the entire sentence! Blair made clear he is not supporting either one and will work with whoever is elected as did Howard in stark contrast to the Lib Dems!

    ME :"and compared to lib dem how on earth can you say Labour or especially the Conservatives propose big government"

    YOU: "By this do you mean bureaucracy? Because there is nothing to say lib dem will increase it. increased socialism doesn't HAVE to mean increased bureaucracy.

    Lib Dems will lead to some tax increases (a proposed 50% tax rate for the higest tax band) to pay for increased education, healthcare, homecare for elderly and pensions. Also lobbing out council taxes and introducing local income tax. (for those who don't understand, it will tax on where you work rther than where you live, to nail some of these commuters who use london services all day, but then go home to commuting area like lincolnshire and pay cheaper council tax)"

    Those two paragraphs go wonderful together. You honestly think that the Liberal Democrats will provide all those things just with those two tax rises and change! Come off it! and the more a government takes on the more bureacrats! Socialism is traditionally associated with Bureacracy! Not only that but it seems once everyone has had a taste of local lib dem govt they get rid of it because they get taxed a lot, they have their local services neglected and they have large numbers of administrative workers coming in and being paid high salaries.

    A Liberal Democrat on that basis would be a morbidly obese and incompetent government with an alcoholic or sorry a "socially amicable" person as their leader!
    is this more of your proof then?
    AS i recall Lib Dem councils have a pretty solid base. In fact in the last ten years there has been a massive increase in numbers of Lib Dem held councils.
    Last count i believe 34% of councils were tory held, 31% labour held and 30% Lib dem held.

    And as for the Black Watch, i should imagine the SNPs are the ones who were most vocal about the redeployment for obvious reasons. But i can understand why the Libs will kick up a fuss too.
    First we oppose the war.
    War starts anyway (despite huge popular protests)
    Then we say that it was all based on lies
    It is found that the evidence was flawed at best
    Then war 'ends'. We applaud the end but say reconstruction must start asap.
    Americans balls up and fire the entire iraqi army.
    Then our troops start getting shifted about from where they had been utterly successful, to areas where the yanks are getting slaughtered.

    Now as lib dems opposed the war on legal, and selfish grounds (don't want our troops dying) you can understand why they would kick fuss when our troops get moved to an area with a name like the triangle of death
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.