|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:51 am
Invictus_88 I heard him being very scathing about the 2005 tory manifesto and the most violent and right-wing manifesto evar, or some such rubbish.
I can't find a copy of his exact words, but I know the manifesto really wasn't that bad. Well, Cameron put it together. It's just your standard politican assasination. If he could say that "Duplicitous" Dave Cameron eats babies and that "Teflon" Tony Blair has a Baby Jesus butt-plug then he would.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:04 am
As long as the Lib-Dems don't get into power, they can have all the amusingly named leaders they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:47 am
and_solo_said As long as the Lib-Dems don't get into power, they can have all the amusingly named leaders they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:59 pm
Nebelstern and_solo_said As long as the Lib-Dems don't get into power, they can have all the amusingly named leaders they like.
If not, I might give it a go. Ha, a party that small how hard can it be to get to the top?
wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:56 pm
Nebelstern and_solo_said As long as the Lib-Dems don't get into power, they can have all the amusingly named leaders they like. I recon you'll lose seats. What with our great revival and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:53 am
My experience (which may be atypical) is that the Lib Dems tend to attract the protest vote; a rebellion against the current major parties. However, do Lib Dem supporters actually support Lib Dem policies?
So, the question is - for you Lib Dems out there - which Lib Dem policies do you support (and which do you not)? Positive reasons for Lib Dem support, rather than negative reasons against the other parties.
A proviso or two however - the voting system (Lib Dems pro-PR) tends to overwhelm responses to this kind of question, so let's exclude that for now (it could have it's own thread). Also, as Gaia population appears heavily weighted towards student-aged users, let's exclude "no university fees" as well - on the whole "Governance of the UK" front, it's not a really big issue and it would smack of a payroll vote anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:00 am
[Finrod] A proviso or two however - the voting system (Lib Dems pro-PR) tends to overwhelm responses to this kind of question, so let's exclude that for now (it could have it's own thread). Also, as Gaia population appears heavily weighted towards student-aged users, let's exclude "no university fees" as well - on the whole "Governance of the UK" front, it's not a really big issue and it would smack of a payroll vote anyway.
As a libertarian tory, I support the Lib Dems' opposition to the erosion of Civil Liberites. However, I still won't vote for them because the party hasn't yet matured into something capable of forming a competent government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:12 pm
Invictus_88 [Finrod] A proviso or two however - the voting system (Lib Dems pro-PR) tends to overwhelm responses to this kind of question, so let's exclude that for now (it could have it's own thread). Also, as Gaia population appears heavily weighted towards student-aged users, let's exclude "no university fees" as well - on the whole "Governance of the UK" front, it's not a really big issue and it would smack of a payroll vote anyway.
As a libertarian tory, I support the Lib Dems' opposition to the erosion of Civil Liberites. However, I still won't vote for them because the party hasn't yet matured into something capable of forming a competent government.You've got fairly good precedent as a Liberal Conservative, of course. The Liberal Unionists at the turn of the 19th-20th century were a fairly strong precedent; the National Liberals (1930's - 1950's - when they were absorbed by the Conservative Party as a whole) more recently. But the greatest precedent of all was the man who walked from the Tories to the Liberals and back again, who said when he was Conservative Prime Minister "I have always been a Liberal" and seemed to find no discrepancy between that and leading the Tories, the man who was the last man in history to be offered a Dukedom (he turned it down) - the great Winston Churchill himself. For me, the Lib Dems are still too much a combination of protest-vote dustbin, coupled with a fanatical devotion to the EU. ("No one expects the Yellow Peril! Our main weapon is the protest-vote and PR. Okay, our two main weapons are the protest vote and PR and a fanatical devotion to the EU. All right, our three main weapons are the protest vote, PR, a fanatical devotion to the EU and muesli. Okay then, our four main weapons ..."). Their latest crime and punishment policies do show genuine signs of common sense - Nick Clegg is one to watch - but while PR and EU-fanaticism remain on the agenda, I won't be voting for them. Again*. However, there may well be common ground (especially in the field of liberty) for the Tories and Liberal Democrats to work together at the next election. (* Okay, I voted Lib Dem in 1992. It was my first General Election, I wasn't going to vote Labour (I could still - just - remember the Winter of Discontent and the Labour implosion in the Eighties), voting Tory was just too conformist for me at age 19, and everyone likes the underdog. It was only afterwards that I read the manifestos and realised that actually I really didn't agree with much that the Lib Dems were proposing. Oops.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:23 am
Out of interest, who held the constituency in 1992, if you can remember?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:08 pm
Invictus_88 Out of interest, who held the constituency in 1992, if you can remember? Oh, it was a Conservative hold, by well over 20% majority as I recall. Lost to the Lib Dems in 97 (Colchester) - when I did not vote at all. That's 4 GEs and 4 different decisions by me now. The last one was the first time that I voted for a winner (Maidenhead - Theresa May). But that's the way that the system goes: it tends to be the best way to sack a Government - which, for me, is the entire core of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:10 pm
Boolean Julian Invictus_88 A Lost Iguana Are the Lib Dems a liberal party or a socially democratic party?
The lib/dems seem to be a mix of socially democratic and transient petty vote-hunting.
Outside of the Tories, I root for the Greens. Which is unorthodox, I know.Liberal is the most misunderstood word in politics. For a start, there are two very different kinds of liberalism, economic liberalism and social liberalism. The two concern totally different things and are not particularly closely related. Social liberalism = people should be free to make choices about how to live their lives. Eg, no laws concerning wearing car seatbelts, or excessing drinking. Economic liberlism = generally rather right wing. People should be free to make as much money as they choose without interference from the state. Shouldn't have to use money to benefit anyone except themselves unless they want to. Apologies for the gross over-simplifications, couldn't be bothered to write much more. If you think about it, "liberal" as a word simply means "freely; in abundance". It's interesting that it's come to connotate a strictly political definition as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:50 am
Well, the political definitions do follow logically from common usage to an extent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foetus In Fetu Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Finrod]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/0b/d32f5ec460b23_flip.png?t=1206406066_6.00_00)
