• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spuck-uk

Banned
I still don't get the hate for the Lib Dems getting in bed with the Tories. If anything they held them back for the good of the country and when people protested after the University fees, well we live in the UK as it is now and hateful people with no interest in the EU into the EU as one example and we were lead down a shit path to the present day. It was a waste, you can't win them all and people were stupid to vote against the Lib Dems after that. I would honestly welcome them getting together again, May isn't ideal, that's for sure but I think someone like Hammond, pro EU with the Lib Dems holding the Tories back on some things would be ideal. I totally understand anyone but the Tories and I think they'll get booted out regardless. Tories aren't going to throw away power so Lib Dem team up is better than a DUP team up.

Their coalition was the most pathetic, naked power grab from any party in my lifetime. They rode in to their vote share largely off the back of students, based on a pledge they immediately jettisoned, prefering to cash in their briefcase for a failed attempt at a new electoral system that would have gained them more future seats.

The talk of 'reigning in the tories' was, and is weak tea. If you don't want the tories in power, maybe just don't vote for a party that's potentially going to get into bed with them and prop them up, again.
 
In practice I'm inclined to agree. But in theory, if they did come up with a policy that would help people, I wouldn't think it bad of the Lib Dems on working with them to agreeing to vote for it. If it were very specific to that of course.

Tories: "Hey we're stealing like 50% of your education policy and promising major investment in schools, will you vote for it?"
LDs: "Sure".

But I'd expect Labour to do exactly the same if the Tories decided to increase funding for schools or something. This isn't the US where obstructionism is rewarded.

The talk of 'reigning in the tories' was, and is weak tea. If you don't want the tories in power, maybe just don't vote for a party that's potentially going to get into bed with them and prop them up, again.

If folks want to know why the misinformation campaign about the LDs doing these secret meetings with Tories is carrying on, Spuck is demonstrating how powerful a message it is to suppress the LD vote. Is it fiction? Of course - but that doesn't stop it going on Corbyn's Facebook page.
 
Great OP, here's the reference in case anyone doesn't watch the Simpsons or it's been a while:
gP963po.jpg

From: https://twitter.com/walnutsoap/status/873480357781307392

Should get someone to photoshop it to Teresa May's Tories.

Also another bank another relocate:
Japanese bank Sumitomo Mitsui confirms Frankfurt as European base after Brexit
 

Mr. Sam

Member
It's why I think the path back for the Lib Dems is moving to try and eat up the Cameronite wing of the Conservatives.

I think a lot of things that made voting Conservative "acceptable" under Cameron have been eroded with astonishing quickness by May. It's not just that she feels cold and reptilian where Cameron felt personable (if buffed a bit too much to a PR-friendly shine), but stuff like bringing back fox hunting and "citizens of nowhere" seem to have turned off small "l" liberals in droves. Regardless of who ends up leading the party, I don't see anybody on the horizon with the necessary pedigree (or temperament) to get them back that section of the vote. Maybe that is a sound strategy for the Lib Dems.
 
I can see lots of those coalition-friendly small l liberals in places like St Ives, Cheltenham, Lewes and elsewhere seeing Vince Cable on the telly and nodding along - it's not as if Tory parents are not concerned about their local schools losing funding, or are worried about how hardliners in the Tories seem to be content with a principle-before-policy Brexit.

But frankly I think the LDs are doomed if they're consistently talked about as a potential junior partner, enabler or otherwise. There needs to be real spikey comments if we get treated as such - "we're not here to prop up some other party, we're here to challenge for government."
 

Rodelero

Member
You miss my point, the last 7 years have been horrible for the UK, with austerity and Brexit. The Lib Dems were part of the government from 2010 and 2015 and don't escape criticism for their part in that. To claim that things would have been even worse if the Lib Dems hadn't partnered with the Tories to me seems far fetched and to at least require a lot more proof than you are giving it. Even if this is the case the Lib Dems did an absolutely shit job getting anything of value in the coalition. They practically destroyed their party and didn't even give us electoral reform, their tentpole policy.

Do you not see that it's a bit ridiculous for you to want me to 'prove' it would have been worse if they didn't go into coalition despite you continually asserting that it would have been better?

I have explained what I think would have probably happened if the Liberal Democrats didn't go into coalition - I think there is a strong likelihood that we would have ended up with a Conservative majority in 2010. You are thus far unwilling to explain what you think would have happened to back up your assertion. You have also now completely disregarded the
positive things they did have a hand in despite me briefly listing several above.

Maybe I'm missing something and there was a route the Lib Dems could have taken which really would have been much better, but the alternatives I've been told in the past sound like the kind of fantasy Brexiteers put together.
 

Spuck-uk

Banned
If folks want to know why the misinformation campaign about the LDs doing these secret meetings with Tories is carrying on, Spuck is demonstrating how powerful a message it is to suppress the LD vote. Is it fiction? Of course - but that doesn't stop it going on Corbyn's Facebook page.

Its not so much as misinformation campaign as the fact they did this exact thing in 2010. I'll be ever so happy if they keep an election pledge and don't form an alliance with the Tories, but I can see how it's believable.
 
Do you not see that it's a bit ridiculous for you to want me to 'prove' it would have been worse if they didn't go into coalition despite you continually asserting that it would have been better?

I have explained what I think would have probably happened if the Liberal Democrats didn't go into coalition - I think there is a strong likelihood that we would have ended up with a Conservative majority in 2010. You are thus far unwilling to explain what you think would have happened to back up your assertion. You have also now completely disregarded the positive things they did have a hand in despite me briefly listing several above.
I think the Tories would have tried to run a minority government, it wouldn't have gone well for them and it's unclear how long Cameron would have lasted or how he would have looked at a next election. It's tough to say beyond that as it's all so speculative. What we have had for 7 years has been without doubt an absolute shit show though, so I'd be surprised if it could have been any worse.

Now what is clear to me is that there was no need to have a coalition to save the economy, which was the rhetoric being thrown around at the time. Austerity hasn't worked, and any good it has done has been far more than undone by Brexit. To be clear I'm not blaming Brexit on the Lib Dems here, but the idea that they saved the country is a joke.
 
Its not so much as misinformation campaign as the fact they did this exact thing in 2010. I'll be ever so happy if they keep an election pledge and don't form an alliance with the Tories, but I can see how it's believable.

Which is why I want Corbyn to carry on talking about how the LDs will secretly prop up the Tories, and then we absolutely do not for as long as it takes for people to learn to trust us at our word again. That could take two years or twenty, but it needs to happen.

But likewise I do not want us propping up Labour - as it stands my ideal arrangement with Labour would be them working as a minority government and having to shop ideas to us and the SNP, or a humbled Tory minority government also having to work with centrists on a case-by-case basis.

But what I want is for someone to crown Vince as king of Libtopia and he goes out there and gets all those moderate former LD voters back on side by building trust. I want us to figure out a tuition system that moves away from anything that looks like fees without punishing those that did not go to university, for example.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
The Lib Dem's frontman being the second most prominent Liberal Democrat member of the coalition will certainly be... interesting.
 
There are more ways of becoming a programmer without a compsci degree too, that doesn't mean its not helpful to doing so.

I know. I was responding to the idea that we would have a "society without art and poetry" if we charge £9k a year for art degrees.
 

Theonik

Member
But what I want is for someone to crown Vince as king of Libtopia and he goes out there and gets all those moderate former LD voters back on side by building trust. I want us to figure out a tuition system that moves away from anything that looks like fees without punishing those that did not go to university, for example.
Maybe we should be doing that. These people like having doctors. They like having a functioning economy. They enjoy the benefits of the education system even if they didn't use education themselves. The way we have moved higher education into a non-essential service status is harmful in the long run when it comes to securing funding for it.
 
The Lib Dem's frontman being the second most prominent Liberal Democrat member of the coalition will certainly be... interesting.

At this point I'd rather we own our history than run from it. I don't think Farron's leadership washed for that reason.

Maybe we should be doing that. These people like having doctors. They like having a functioning economy. They enjoy the benefits of the education system even if they didn't use education themselves. The way we have moved higher education into a non-essential service status is harmful in the long run when it comes to securing funding for it.

Give me a good reason why all that money should not be being spent on early years, primary, secondary and vocational education instead. That's the issue. Our universities are in a far better situation than our schools.
 

Rodelero

Member
I think the Tories would have tried to run a minority government, it wouldn't have gone well for them and it's unclear how long Cameron would have lasted or how he would have looked at a next election. It's tough to say beyond that as it's all so speculative. What we have had for 7 years has been without doubt an absolute shit show though, so I'd be surprised if it could have been any worse.

So, it's Autumn 2010. The Conservatives are trying to run a minority government but are being thwarted by the SNP, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats at every turn when they try to make the changes they think are necessary to clear up Labour's mess (their rhetoric, not mine). Labour have just gone through a difficult leadership election and, somehow, Ed Miliband has won it. The Conservatives call an election. The Liberal Democrats have made it clear they won't go into coalition. Labour are run by a man the media has taken an immediate disliking to. How confident are you the Conservatives wouldn't win that election?
 
Maybe we should be doing that. These people like having doctors. They like having a functioning economy. They enjoy the benefits of the education system even if they didn't use education themselves. The way we have moved higher education into a non-essential service status is harmful in the long run when it comes to securing funding for it.

While that's true for doctors, I think the main beneficiary for the majority of degrees is the degree-holder themselves, so it's fair for them to pay for it. Don't doctors and dentists get some sort of government funding anyway?
 
If you look at the situation now, where even with the government able to strike a deal with the DUP nobody seriously expects this government to last until 2019, and apply it to 2010, it's clear to me that you'd have got a snap election in 2011.

But I think had that happened the LDs might well have won it!
 
While that's true for doctors, I think the main beneficiary for the majority of degrees is the degree-holder themselves, so it's fair for them to pay for it. Don't doctors and dentists get some sort of government funding anyway?

i mean... the major beneficiaries for the majority of medical treatments are the treatment receivers themselves, so it's fair for them to pay for it.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Something else of note on how the Lib Dems might proceed: there are basically no Lib Dem/Labour marginals remaining after this election; essentially all the seats the Lib Dems narrowly missed out on are Conservative held.
 
If we really feel like deifying certain degrees like medicine then we can subsidise those with bursaries and the like. You know what I do for a living? Mostly make TV adverts for children's toys and very high end property. My job gives nothing to the world. You wanna pay for my degree?
 

Spuck-uk

Banned
Which is why I want Corbyn to carry on talking about how the LDs will secretly prop up the Tories, and then we absolutely do not for as long as it takes for people to learn to trust us at our word again. That could take two years or twenty, but it needs to happen.

I'm pretty sure he'll just go back to not talking about you at all.

Man, I should be the target market for the Independent, but they're almost as blatant in their party support as the Telegraph are, and it doesn't make it better because they support Labour.
 

Spuck-uk

Banned
If we really feel like deifying certain degrees like medicine then we can subsidise those with bursaries and the like. You know what I do for a living? Mostly make TV adverts for children's toys and very high end property. My job gives nothing to the world. You wanna pay for my degree?

Yes.

A university education is about a lot more than what you studied. It's useful way beyond that.

Hell, I work in a STEM field (coding) but have a Masters in 3d animation. There's no way I'd be able to have taught myself for my current job without having learned HOW to learn in university.

Beyond that, free university is a fantastic leveller. as long as admissions is fair, it gives the opportunity for everyone to do something great, not be stuck joining the Army because your family couldn't possibly afford it, like members of my family before me.
 
i mean... the major beneficiaries for the majority of medical treatments are the treatment receivers themselves, so it's fair for them to pay for it.

I think it's fair to make people pay for their own elective medical procedures.

Yes.

A university education is about a lot more than what you studied. It's useful way beyond that.

Hell, I work in a STEM field (coding) but have a Masters in 3d animation. There's no way I'd be able to have taught myself for my current job without having learned HOW to learn in university.

Beyond that, free university is a fantastic leveller. as long as admissions is fair, it gives the opportunity for everyone to do something great, not be stuck joining the Army because your family couldn't possibly afford it, like members of my family before me.

But under the current system no-one "can't afford" to go to uni. It's free at entry, but you pay it back. Which again is fair since you're the beneficiary!
 

Spuck-uk

Banned
I think it's fair to make people pay for their own elective medical procedures.



But under the current system no-one "can't afford" to go to uni. It's free at entry, but you pay it back. Which again is fair since you're the beneficiary!

If you're from a rich family the prospect of 30k plus debt doesnt affect your decision

If you're from a family where thats 3x your entire households income, it's a gigantic disincentive.
 
Yes.

A university education is about a lot more than what you studied. It's useful way beyond that.

Hell, I work in a STEM field (coding) but have a Masters in 3d animation. There's no way I'd be able to have taught myself for my current job without having learned HOW to learn in university.

I'm kinda with the person above, then, who said that we should be piling more into schools because it shouldn't be a three year bachelor's degree that comes at the tail end of 12 years of full time education that is when you learn to learn.

Incidentally, I also have that degree. Hertfordshire, 2009!

Beyond that, free university is a fantastic leveller. as long as admissions is fair, it gives the opportunity for everyone to do something great, not be stuck joining the Army because your family couldn't possibly afford it, like members of my family before me.

This is already not a problem though.
 
Why don't we make children pay for their schooling on the same basis?

It's mandatory for kids to go to school. If you make something mandatory, it stands to reason you've got to pay for it.

Edit:

I'm really all for banning private/public schools FWIW. Force all the Montgomerys and Jemimas to socialise with normal kids and vice versa.

Unrelated, but one time I was out walking on Hampstead Heath and a little boy ran off from his parents, and the dad shouted "MERLIN!" after him. I cracked up.
 
If you're from a rich family the prospect of 30k plus debt doesnt affect your decision

If you're from a family where thats 3x your entire households income, it's a gigantic disincentive.

According to what? Because there's never been more people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university. That trend's been going up ever since tuition fees were brought it.
 

Theonik

Member
While that's true for doctors, I think the main beneficiary for the majority of degrees is the degree-holder themselves, so it's fair for them to pay for it. Don't doctors and dentists get some sort of government funding anyway?
This is just an example. We actually benefit from most degrees if we assume people also pay their taxes! Doctors are massively subsidised it is true. International students can pay as much as 40k a year on some of those courses.

If we really feel like deifying certain degrees like medicine then we can subsidise those with bursaries and the like. You know what I do for a living? Mostly make TV adverts for children's toys and very high end property. My job gives nothing to the world. You wanna pay for my degree?
Sure. I don't particularly care. We have a progressive taxation system. If your education ends up making you earn more you also pay more in taxes which in turn is beneficial for everyone. A successful taxation system is one where the people who enjoy the benefits of society by being successful also pay more back.
 

Rodelero

Member
It's mandatory for kids to go to school. If you make something mandatory, it stands to reason you've got to pay for it.

It's only very recent that education has been mandatory until eighteen. The government still paid for seventeen and eighteen year olds to go to school/college. It's not 'because it's mandatory'.
 

Theonik

Member
It's only very recent that education has been mandatory until eighteen. The government still paid for seventeen and eighteen year olds to go to school/college. It's not 'because it's mandatory'.
It's only very recent that the government started charging for university education too. 1997. Just 20 years ago.
 

TimmmV

Member
According to what? Because there's never been more people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university. That trend's been going up ever since tuition fees were brought it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...es-more-likely-better-off-areas-a7584306.html

This article makes it sound like there are more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in an absolute sense going but but less as a percentage.


I'm really all for banning private/public schools FWIW. Force all the Montgomerys and Jemimas to socialise with normal kids and vice versa.

Agree.
 

Rodelero

Member
I'm really all for banning private/public schools FWIW. Force all the Montgomerys and Jemimas to socialise with normal kids and vice versa.

For what it is worth I never met anyone called Montgomery or Jemima at private school. I don't think banning private schools is a great idea on its own. Wealthy parents will do whatever is necessary to give their children the best chance in life - they will move to the areas with the best schools and, over time, you'll just end up with lots of state schools made up almost entirely of middle class students. This already happens a great deal as it is. Then there's the not inconsiderable issue of having to find places and money for a mass of extra students who currently don't cost the state.

As part of a large collection of policies private schools could be outlawed. On its own it just comes across as careless snobbery.
 

Theonik

Member
But that's just talking about comparisons between the wealthy and poor, no? Which isn't really the important thing. The important thing is how many poor people who are able to go are going? And that number continues to grow.
Enrolment would be expected to track population increases and possibly economic growth. Tracking demographics is a more useful measure to determine if there is factors that impact a particular group. If more people from a poor background are going but less as a percentage that is still a cause for concern.
 
Enrolment would be expected to track population increases and possibly economic growth. Tracking demographics is a more useful measure to determine if there is factors that impact a particular group. If more people from a poor background are going but less as a percentage that is still a cause for concern.

It would be, but that's not the case. It is more as a percentage too. Sorry - see the link I posted above, I should have included it before.
 

Theonik

Member
It would be, but that's not the case. It is more as a percentage too. Sorry - see the link I posted above, I should have included it before.
Trouble is no-one is tracking these statistics well. We are using very poor means of resolving background in economic terms in our reporting and most of these statistics are estimates and often self-reported.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
I find this radical attitude towards coalitions a bit funny. I guess it is the result of too many years of having a political scene with only 2 parties that matter. In many other countries a coalition is the facto mode of governing. Even a coalition between the main two (opposing) parties.

And honestly I don't understand how a Tory-LibDem coalition wouldn't be better than a Tory-DUP coalition.
 
I find this radical attitude towards coalitions a bit funny. I guess it is the result of too many years of having a political scene with only 2 parties that matter. In many other countries a coalition is the facto mode of governing. Even a coalition between the main two (opposing) parties.

And honestly I don't understand how a Tory-LibDem coalition wouldn't be better than a Tory-DUP coalition.

It would be better

At the same time if you campaign on the idea that the tories are unfit to govern, and generally wankers, you can't really go into coalition with them.

you especially can't if you campaigned on the promise that you wouldn't.
 

Beefy

Member
Ukip councillor calls homeless people 'detritus' who should be removed from streets to 'save the city'

Ukip councillor in Portsmouth has demanded the removal of homeless people from the city's streets, describing them as ”vagrants" who ”are beginning to dominate" the city.

Councillor Colin Galloway called for police to ”clean up" the ”unwelcome detritus" in order to ”save" the city, saying they must be ”placed in specific care whether they want to or not".

The motion claims Portsmouth ”is no longer a welcoming city to either business or tourist because it seems we prefer to have vagrants," and urges for a move away from taking a ”soft approach" to instead showing ”serious tough love".

”Sometimes it is not necessary to read the national newspapers to discover the truth. Sometimes it is right under our very noses," Cllr Galloway said.

”To say that homelessness has increased fivefold since two years ago is patently obvious with a cursory walk around our own city. Every day there are at least four or five beggars – yes beggars, note I didn't say homeless, who position themselves in shop doorways in Commercial Road precinct.

He continued: ”Walk down that same precinct at night and you will see a lot more taking up temporary residence in their preferred doorways. Portsmouth city is no longer a welcoming city to either business or tourist because it seems we prefer to have vagrants."

”It is time to get our police and crime commissioner to put pressure on his police force to help us clean up this unwelcome detritus. These beggars, vagrants, rough sleepers, homeless, troubled folks or whatever label you want to put on them must be removed from our city and placed in specific care whether they want to or not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eets-save-city-vagrants-council-a7822186.html

Dude needs to be sacked
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
It would be better

At the same time if you campaign on the idea that the tories are unfit to govern, and generally wankers, you can't really go into coalition with them.

you especially can't if you campaigned on the promise that you wouldn't.

And here is the problem actually. Like the Labour with SNP in this and previous elections. It's ridiculous that the need for such a campaign promise exists. It's ridiculous that coalitions are demonised in such a way. Coalition should bring more compromises and allow smaller parties to promote also their policies.
 

Theonik

Member
And here is the problem actually. Like the Labour with SNP in this and previous elections. It's ridiculous that the need for such a campaign promise exists. It's ridiculous that coalitions are demonised in such a way. Coalition should bring more compromises and allow smaller parties to promote also their policies.
It's only the LD that are committed to this, largely because last coalition fucked them politically. Labour simply is capable of and is therefore going after a majority with the SNP though they are actively disliked by a lot of people in England on the basis of being nationalists A LAB/SNP coalition is something people there legitimately fear. SNP doesn't care and stated they would consider working with labour based on the result.
 

Audioboxer

Member
If we really feel like deifying certain degrees like medicine then we can subsidise those with bursaries and the like. You know what I do for a living? Mostly make TV adverts for children's toys and very high end property. My job gives nothing to the world. You wanna pay for my degree?

Do you pay taxes? If so, you're giving back to the system that could've helped you, and above and beyond the income you have to spend will be spent within the country you live in, right? You're going to buy new cars, a house, gadgets, niceties and what not off of your decent salary? It's both healthy and productive to see expense going into the economy by helping get people into long-term, sustainable and decent earning careers. Whatever they may be. Sure you can play rate the profession and say "doctors are more valuable than marketing departments", but it's somewhat pissing in your own bed for the sake of being pedantic.

This is the same fallacies surrounding the reasons people think nothing other than austerity can work. Do you want to see more expense going out to certain sectors? Oh gosh, MORE EXPENSE? WE'RE IN SO MUCH DEBT! WE NEED CUTS NOT EXPENSE! Yeah, sensible, careful and well-invested expense can lead to a healthy ecosystem that funds and sustains itself. Both socially and down to the actual £££'s.

Funding higher education at the point of entry is arguably a wise investment for the payoffs it will produce in many skilled workers across MANY sectors. Things like PHDs/doctorates and private institutions may still require grants/student expense. Basic degrees, for the most part, can be subsidised. Scotland doesn't seem to have such a massive issue doing it. It's not without its challenge, but again, is anything? Too often the Conservative government shows extreme fear/disdain/apathy around trying to work with the population as they'd rather try and control/oppress than stimulate and invest in all the small cogs that turn the bigs cogs that keep society running.

When one can piss away billions to buy votes and refund Trident one can be challenged on University fees if the response is simply "but we cannot afford it!". Priorities, where do they sit?
 

Beefy

Member
David Cameron Under Fire From Labour As He Says Critics Of His Austerity Pay Cap Are ‘Selfish'

David Cameron has sparked an angry backlash from Labour after declaring that critics of austerity are ”selfish".

In a rare return to the political front line, the former Prime Minister said that those calling for an end to the 1% public sector pay cap would be ”spending money today that you may need tomorrow".

His remarks, aimed at both Labour and Tory MPs calling for an end to the seven-year wages freeze, triggered a swift response from Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

”Time and time again the Tories demonstrate they live in a different world from the rest of us," McDonnell told HuffPost UK.

Source: http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_595bb0cfe4b0da2c73257b96


Fuck Cameron
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom