Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1275276278280281509

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    morstar wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Regardless just because Labour is sh!t doesn’t mean the Tories should *gain*.

    They should both lose since they are both being appalling. The fact they don’t suggests a proper problem with the system.
    What we need is a strong opposition to the Tories and Labour. I blame LibDems for the state of UK politics. If only they had a lot of MPs in Westminster like they used to have.

    If the two biggest parties are so bad then why is it the LibDems aren't in the news now often and doing some good instead of being anonymous like they are. Is their offer no better?
    I blame the Lib Dems for Brexit as well. Apparently Cameron could never go through with the referendum while in coalition, but then the Lib Dems reduced themselves to a fringe party at the 2015 GE.

    Ironically, the lib dem voters punished the party for going into coalition with the conservatives in 2010 by voting conservative in 2015. Go figure?
    I'm trying to figure out where Lib Dem voters said that. Can you help me out here?

    "Middle class guilt getting you down? Finding it difficult to enjoy the things you have worked so hard for? Why have ersatz Tory when have the real thing?!"
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    It does help you understand the mentality of May et al with regards to Brexitshambles. If dimwits like Suzanne Moore can keep carrying on like this you can understand why May would prefer to bring the entire country down rather than back down on "a promise" - eg witness Britains worst ever Prime Minister the other week saying he was unapologetic about the referendum because "he promised"; because, after all, his promise is the really important thing. Narcissistic tw@t.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Rolf F wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    It does help you understand the mentality of May et al with regards to Brexitshambles. If dimwits like Suzanne Moore can keep carrying on like this you can understand why May would prefer to bring the entire country down rather than back down on "a promise" - eg witness Britains worst ever Prime Minister the other week saying he was unapologetic about the referendum because "he promised"; because, after all, his promise is the really important thing. Narcissistic tw@t.
    Very selective about which promises are important as well. Which tells you it's just a cop out.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    It does help you understand the mentality of May et al with regards to Brexitshambles. If dimwits like Suzanne Moore can keep carrying on like this you can understand why May would prefer to bring the entire country down rather than back down on "a promise" - eg witness Britains worst ever Prime Minister the other week saying he was unapologetic about the referendum because "he promised"; because, after all, his promise is the really important thing. Narcissistic tw@t.
    Very selective about which promises are important as well. Which tells you it's just a cop out.
    As I mentioned above, if your lot had done better in 2015 none of this would have happened. Not that I'm blaming the Lib Dems of course... :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    You’re myopic if you can’t see the absolute shambles that the current U.K. government is.

    Regardless of political persuasion they are fundamentally sh!t at what they are supposed to do.
  • That's the joke.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    No sh!t Sherlock.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    It does help you understand the mentality of May et al with regards to Brexitshambles. If dimwits like Suzanne Moore can keep carrying on like this you can understand why May would prefer to bring the entire country down rather than back down on "a promise" - eg witness Britains worst ever Prime Minister the other week saying he was unapologetic about the referendum because "he promised"; because, after all, his promise is the really important thing. Narcissistic tw@t.
    Very selective about which promises are important as well. Which tells you it's just a cop out.
    As I mentioned above, if your lot had done better in 2015 none of this would have happened. Not that I'm blaming the Lib Dems of course... :wink:

    Not only that but having lost most of their seats, they decided the best way back was to go for Farron then Cable. I wasn't limiting my comment to the Tories by the way.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Cable looks increasingly like an actual cadaver.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Cable looks increasingly like an actual cadaver.
    Very representative of his party, don't you think? :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Probably.

    It’s not very in-vogue thinking.

    Why go for a sensible compromise between capitalism, personal liberties and ensuring the least well off still have a decent quality of life when you can gamble it all on fantasy ideas of sovereignty and bullying the world’s largest political union.

    I mean, which sounds more conservative to you?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Probably.

    It’s not very in-vogue thinking.

    Why go for a sensible compromise between capitalism, personal liberties and ensuring the least well off still have a decent quality of life when you can gamble it all on fantasy ideas of sovereignty and bullying the world’s largest political union.

    I mean, which sounds more conservative to you?
    That course was chosen by the electorate in the 2016 'People's vote'. Like it or lump it, that's democracy. Otherwise we'd have to ban voting Labour.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Wonder where the ~60,000 ex members will move to.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-stance
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Probably.

    It’s not very in-vogue thinking.

    Why go for a sensible compromise between capitalism, personal liberties and ensuring the least well off still have a decent quality of life when you can gamble it all on fantasy ideas of sovereignty and bullying the world’s largest political union.

    I mean, which sounds more conservative to you?
    That course was chosen by the electorate in the 2016 'People's vote'. Like it or lump it, that's democracy. Otherwise we'd have to ban voting Labour.

    That *was* the gamble.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rjsterry wrote:
    Wonder where the ~60,000 ex members will move to.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-stance

    Can't see how the EU loving young will be enamoured by views of their Messiah, seen here speaking to the Irish, prior to their second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

    https://videos.files.wordpress.com/i3QU ... 009_hd.mp4

    If it has been posted before, my apologies.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    Why? Unlike most changes governments make that one is hard to undo.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    Why? Unlike most changes governments make that one is hard to undo.

    What, you mean like Brexit? A pledge not to increase tuition fees that are funded by cheap loans that are only paid back by the relatively well paid is not remotely in the same scale as Brexit. If the Lib Dems are deemed not worth voting for on the basis of that pledge then the Tories should be deservedly out of power for the next few centuries.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but some people wanted Brexit. Not sure that's the same for tuition fees. Isn't that a factor in this?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    Why? Unlike most changes governments make that one is hard to undo.

    Why let it go or something else? The tuition fees infrastructure had already been in place for 12 years by 2010. Surely any difficulties in abolishing that system would have been more or less the same then as now. Pragmatically, I think the LibDems would have struggled to replace the system even if they had a parliamentary majority. Student numbers have increased from about 1.25M in '98 to nearly 1.9M now. Funding for that increase needs to come from somewhere.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Rolf F wrote:
    ...out of power...centuries...
    Now there's something where we really can learn from the Lib Dems :D
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    Why? Unlike most changes governments make that one is hard to undo.

    Why let it go or something else? The tuition fees infrastructure had already been in place for 12 years by 2010. Surely any difficulties in abolishing that system would have been more or less the same then as now. Pragmatically, I think the LibDems would have struggled to replace the system even if they had a parliamentary majority. Student numbers have increased from about 1.25M in '98 to nearly 1.9M now. Funding for that increase needs to come from somewhere.

    Why let it go? People don't, that's why some things are career suicide. The good thing is it is more likely to make today's politicians be held to account.

    Fees went from £3k to £9k, so hardly trivial. It would have been much easier to manage down to zero from £3k than £9k.

    The number of free places is a different argument. The government doesn't need to fund all places for every student. There could be a minimum standard.

    Ultimately, I wonder if I was 18 now and thinking about university whether I would have chosen to go. Therefore I'm happy to pay more tax to give others the opportunity that I had.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but some people wanted Brexit. Not sure that's the same for tuition fees. Isn't that a factor in this?

    It was an entirely explainable policy change given the situation. They made three political mistakes.

    1) Make a pledge not to do it, then do it.
    2) Vote for it, not abstain. They could have said "the nasty Tories want it, we've softened it as much as we can, but promised not to vote for it, so we are not voting for it".
    3) Get out in front of the cameras as the salesmen for it. That was just ridiculous.

    The Conservatives can't have believed their luck that the LibDems took them on good faith on so many things, but this was a miscalculation all of their own.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    Correct me if I'm wrong but some people wanted Brexit. Not sure that's the same for tuition fees. Isn't that a factor in this?

    It was an entirely explainable policy change given the situation. They made three political mistakes.

    1) Make a pledge not to do it, then do it.
    2) Vote for it, not abstain. They could have said "the nasty Tories want it, we've softened it as much as we can, but promised not to vote for it, so we are not voting for it".
    3) Get out in front of the cameras as the salesmen for it. That was just ridiculous.

    The Conservatives can't have believed their luck that the LibDems took them on good faith on so many things, but this was a miscalculation all of their own.

    I think another factor is the perception that they swapped it for the referendum on the alternative vote, and that this voting system would benefit the Lib Dems. Therefore it was seen as selling out students for their own benefit.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    This is uncanny. Does this mean Suzanne Moore reads BR?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pologising

    Sub heading: The ex-deputy prime minister broke his promise to the public with tuition fees...

    Let. It. Go.

    Why? Unlike most changes governments make that one is hard to undo.

    Why let it go or something else? The tuition fees infrastructure had already been in place for 12 years by 2010. Surely any difficulties in abolishing that system would have been more or less the same then as now. Pragmatically, I think the LibDems would have struggled to replace the system even if they had a parliamentary majority. Student numbers have increased from about 1.25M in '98 to nearly 1.9M now. Funding for that increase needs to come from somewhere.

    Why let it go? People don't, that's why some things are career suicide. The good thing is it is more likely to make today's politicians be held to account.

    Fees went from £3k to £9k, so hardly trivial. It would have been much easier to manage down to zero from £3k than £9k.

    The number of free places is a different argument. The government doesn't need to fund all places for every student. There could be a minimum standard.

    Ultimately, I wonder if I was 18 now and thinking about university whether I would have chosen to go. Therefore I'm happy to pay more tax to give others the opportunity that I had.

    To be clear I don't think the current system is particularly good but I think some form of contribution from students is not intrinsically wrong. I certainly remember some fellow students who were there by default rather than because they wanted to be. If fees filter out some of those that's no great loss. The student numbers suggest that fees have not been too much of a disincentive.

    But to take it back to the LibDems, their mistake was making an absolute promise when the reality of government is constant compromise. The pension triple lock will eventually bite the Tories in the arse when it becomes completely unaffordable. As alluring as the principled position is, politicians are not in a position to make absolute commitments and we should stop expecting them to.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean wrote:
    Correct me if I'm wrong but some people wanted Brexit. Not sure that's the same for tuition fees. Isn't that a factor in this?

    It was an entirely explainable policy change given the situation. They made three political mistakes.

    1) Make a pledge not to do it, then do it.
    2) Vote for it, not abstain. They could have said "the nasty Tories want it, we've softened it as much as we can, but promised not to vote for it, so we are not voting for it".
    3) Get out in front of the cameras as the salesmen for it. That was just ridiculous.

    The Conservatives can't have believed their luck that the LibDems took them on good faith on so many things, but this was a miscalculation all of their own.

    I think another factor is the perception that they swapped it for the referendum on the alternative vote, and that this voting system would benefit the Lib Dems. Therefore it was seen as selling out students for their own benefit.

    That's one of the good faith things they did. If they were going to swap it, don't swap it for a referendum, swap it for reform.

    My point is they could have done exactly the same, but still not voted for it, not advocated for it and not got anywhere near the blowback.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,349
    rjsterry wrote:
    The student numbers suggest that fees have not been too much of a disincentive.
    I'd agree with that, but that's partly because finishing university with debts of £40k has been normalised: in effect, the massive expansion of universities has been financed in large part by students borrowing the money to do it.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Correct me if I'm wrong but some people wanted Brexit. Not sure that's the same for tuition fees. Isn't that a factor in this?

    Nobody wants any form of effective taxation explicitly but they want the benefits. What do you think the outcome of a referendum on income tax (yes or no) would be?
    Faster than a tent.......
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Fees went from £3k to £9k, so hardly trivial. It would have been much easier to manage down to zero from £3k than £9k.

    The number of free places is a different argument. The government doesn't need to fund all places for every student. There could be a minimum standard.

    Ultimately, I wonder if I was 18 now and thinking about university whether I would have chosen to go. Therefore I'm happy to pay more tax to give others the opportunity that I had.
    Well, I do indeed pay more tax to fund free university places, 'cos that's what we do in Scotland.
    As has already been mentioned, fees haven't put students off in England, and the lack of them in Scotland hasn't increased the number of students from lower socio-economic groups.

    So free uni places are effectively a subsidy to the middle classes from all taxpayers, which means that TM's suggestion that no-one voted for tuition fees might not necessarily be true.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    bompington wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Fees went from £3k to £9k, so hardly trivial. It would have been much easier to manage down to zero from £3k than £9k.

    The number of free places is a different argument. The government doesn't need to fund all places for every student. There could be a minimum standard.

    Ultimately, I wonder if I was 18 now and thinking about university whether I would have chosen to go. Therefore I'm happy to pay more tax to give others the opportunity that I had.
    Well, I do indeed pay more tax to fund free university places, 'cos that's what we do in Scotland.
    As has already been mentioned, fees haven't put students off in England, and the lack of them in Scotland hasn't increased the number of students from lower socio-economic groups.

    So free uni places are effectively a subsidy to the middle classes from all taxpayers, which means that TM's suggestion that no-one voted for tuition fees might not necessarily be true.

    Quite. They've had two subsequent elections to make their feelings known if it was that objectionable.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition