Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by SPG, Jul 23, 2019.
Extremist? Are you Emily Thornberry?
Personally happy with the libs revoking the article.
As said if they did get a majority it would be like saying the majority of the population want it.
But obviously this won't happen
The difficulty doesn't come with majority, it comes when it's time for coalition talks. History will tell you that revoking A50 will be taken straight off the table when government posts are up for grabs.
The Lib Dem manifesto isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The Lib Dems, as a minor party, did very well in getting many of their manifesto commitments into government.
The problem is people either focus on tuition fees or have a total lack of knowledge and understanding of what was actually in the 2010 lib dem manifesto, preferring to instead compare the version they made up in their head to what happened.
I'm sure there are many little Lib Dem policy pledges that came to fruition during the relentless austerity drive they enabled the Tories to inflict on the country, but we're talking about revoking A50 and the merits of the Lib Dems having that as a policy pledge in the next election, are we not? The fact is, no other party favours such a policy and as a consequence the Lib Dems will drop it when instructed. This policy is designed to scoop up the protest vote and should not be taken seriously; we know from experience how it will fare during coalition negotiations.
The actual path of 'austerity' that occurred was much more in line with the lib dem manifesto than the tory one. Remember, all major parties went into the 2010 election promising spending cuts and tax rises, the variance was in how it was structured and how fast it would be implemented.
I do expect, if there was negotiation for a coalition, that the revoke principle would be downgraded to a referendum, which is why you don't go with a referendum to start with, as you can't compromise then...
Then we are both in agreement? The Lib Dems have no intention of revoking A50 - this manifesto pledge is the election equivalent of "click-bait". Isn't that disingenuous at best?
Out of interest, why did you end your final sentance with 3 full stops? I'm not criticising that in any way, just genuinely interested.
I believe that if the lib Dems got a majority, they would revoke. The likelihood of this isn't relevant to that. The reality is that they would almost certainly not get a majority and have to compromise on it, but that doesn't change that I believe they would do it if they could.
The ellipsis was used to show the sentence trailing off rather than just ending. There's loads more that could be said, but time is limited.
It's more complicated than this though. The Tories offered Lib Dems more than Labour would, if that's down to Brown it his fault.
The second issue is talking about a proposed Labour-Lib Dem coalition. Why would Lib Dems accept Labour's number 1 choice of Chancellor? It's a decision for both to make comprimises
More fundamentally, in both 2010 and 2017, there was no majority available that didn't involve the Tories.
There was, it just doesnt make sense under FPTP with all the irrelevant politics that go into being "argumentative" rather than productively discussing in a manner befitting lawmaking.
In reality the optics of working with Labour, SNP and PC, will end up being utterly pointless as the SNP eventually took over Scotland and PC is increasing it's support base after the current shambles all because the Tories were allowed to rule. You could call it hindsight i guess, but i think we all knew deep down the rot of the system was going climax at some point, simply hoping it didn't isn't reasonable.
Whatever though, can't change the past and realistically this whole saga has opened people's eyes to the pointlessness of the system we live in, even if it it did embolden extremists.
Go on then, I'm curious. Show your workings.
For a reminder, here's 2010.
They only needed 321 no (5 SF)? 256 (assuming two MPs are on the speaker/deputy benches) +57 LD +6 SNP +3 PC is >321.
I'm not saying it was a good idea, but in retrospect... and frankly it just doesn't matter anymore and there is no way to realistically know how the 2014-5 election would have gone as it would depend on what happened, could very well have just meant the Tories won anyway off the back of events.
It's too cerebral to go into with no reward, so whatever, clearly in the time a coalition with the Tories was more sensible.
It wasn't compulsory to drop their main policies and enter a coalition with anyone.
No, but it would have likely ended up (with how unprincipled politicians are/were and a distinct lack of population knowing how terrible the situation actually was...) back in an election anyway considering the lack of FTPA.
The results of which were visible in 2015, all that would have happened is Cameron would not have been able to sideline his nutter wing as easily.
Regardless, too many variables to map out, it's pointless beyond teaching people that the whole thing is a mess and it always will be until the fundamentals change.
Oh that old chestnut, the Lib Dems were doing us all a favour by tempering the evil Tories; our Knights in shining armour. If they wanted to sideline their nutter wing that badly, they could have refused to put them in power and left them in the minority that they were in.
Which totally misses the point, that if instead of entering government, the lib Dems had instead forced a general election, they would have been wiped out for the same ultimate reasons they were in 2015, namely that their southwest seats would fall to the Tories, and the result would have been a tory government where the nutters had influence.
It's not a hypothetical, it actually happened, just much later on
It didn't happen because they stuck to their principles and refused to enable the nutters, it happened because they sold their voters out!
Separate names with a comma.