Be Excellent To Each Other

But the Lib Dems have influenced plenty of policies near the cameras - it's just that it's convenient for people to ignore that and look for a scapegoat.

If implementing 75% of your manifesto isn't a success as the minor partner in a coalition, I don't know what is.

It makes no odds. Labour's going to destroy the Lib-Dems in 2015, simply by banging on about student fees (which Labour introduced and has said it will only slightly revert anyway) and the NHS (which the Lib-Dems have somewhat fought for, although the capitulation in the Lords was disgraceful).

As for the EU, I've been hearing some interesting stuff, not least that the demands might be incompatible with the constitutions of some countries, not least the Scandinavian ones. They might be forced to opt out and join the UK, or end up in a constitutional crisis. It's also notable that German demands are largely incompatible with the economies of the Swedes and Danes, and so that could also point to some other countries saying no.

List this 75%.

Pupil premium
Banking levy
Take low income earners out of income tax by raising threshold
Ban on any new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture
Ensured overseas aid budget was not cut
Increase to Capital Gains Tax
No replacement of Trident
Respite care for care workers
Lots of other stuff

I admit that some things aren't so great, like the VAT rise and tuition fees, and others like Trident have been put off until the next parliament, but I honestly think there's plenty to be proud of. They haven't got everything right, but I honestly believe having the Lib Dems in this government has made things more palatable than if they were not. Remember they're the minority party so they can't have everything their own way. The Tories had a lot more seats, hence a lot more say.

Probably also worth noting many Tories are going batshit crazy, arguing the tail's been wagging the dog since 2010. Still, I really wish Lib-Dems had the balls to essentially kill the NHS bill. That's the one they really need to scupper—and I'm pretty sure the electorate would remember that in 2015.

The problem is that people are stupid, and easily manipulated by rich people.

Every single unpopular thing done by this government has been by the Tories. Every single one. And half of those were toned down by the Lib Dems.

And yet the Tories will win seats from Lib Dems. It's like the populace are saying, "Well, we don't want a semi-skimmed evil party running things. We want full-on evil in the Tories, or bumbling incompetence and Orwellian policing from Labour."

It's almost as if the average person in this country is a brain dead, knuckle dragging credulous fucking moron.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I love this guy:

He's eloquent, all right.

Until he goes on Fox News and says the NHS is communist and Britain should adopt the US healthcare system because it works so well. They love him over on Fox.

I wonder how the translators handled that.

"Blah blah racist drivel, blah blah uninformed nonsense, blah blah I'm a twat that likes to eat poo and fondle donkeys"

Hannan's always worth listening to, even if you don't agree with him. His blog on the Torygraph site is often well written too.

Being against the EU doesn't automatically mean someone's racist

Racist.

This is, #occupy

Kern is right, of course. However, just because Hannan isn't necessarily a racist because he doesn't like the EU (he may well actually hate black people and believe Jews control the NHS, of course, but just does it on his own time and not in front of a camera), it doesn't mean he's not a fucking moron, for the reasons Plissken has mentioned.

...except for the ones who had pensions funds tied up in banks as "shareholders and bondholders". Which would be most of them, guy.

Heh.

And I'm sure the government guaranteeing deposits is "communist" in his world, so he'd want to do away with that for good measure.

Being a sarcastic bastard doesn't make me a comedian either.

Also, claiming capitalism has improved Britain since 1066 is a bit of a stretch.

And the repeated call for a flat tax and the "rich paying 40% of the tax" canard fucks me off as well.

A system where people can not work for 3 months, but sleep in a tent and communicate with the world through $1,000 technology would, I'd suggest, show some signs of it 'working'.

That risk is spread across many investments, though.

Which bit of that, other than the avaiblility of an iPhone and a tent for purchase with money, is due to capitalism?

I rather think Plissken's point may have been that we didn't have capitalism in 1066, as such.

Would that have happened though? Or would we have had a run on all banks, a general collapse of the entire banking industry and everyone being screwed totally? If we had had a true, free-market, laissez faire, non-interventionist system I think we'd have been really bodged.

The capitalist society that we live in, which has clearly empowered people to take 3 months off and live in a tent with $1,000 communications equipment that has existed since 1776?

Again, in what way has "capitalism" "empowered" them to take 3 months off? Especially if they're all tramps on the dole as the Mail says.

Also, consider that a pure capitalist society wouldn't have any regulatory restrictions on it, e.g. employent law protections. So any ability to waft around in tents on benefits is due to socialist democracy, not capitalism. And is in fact in spite of the capitalism.

I'm also not sure where 1776 came from.

'Cos otherwise they'd be dead due to not eating and shit like that.

1776 - Adam Smith's the 'Wealth of Nations' was published.

Well, quite. Given that the entire problem with the near banking collapse was the interconnectedness of the banking system, there wouldn't be any "more efficient competitors" left.

Capitalism didn't feed them.


Ahhhh, I see. That still doesn't help with 1066.

Even if it could be demonstrably proven to increase the overall revenue achieved from taxation, particularly at the highest levels? That would be a baffling opinion to hold if so. Note that I'm not speaking up in favour of a flat tax there, merely that it would be odd to oppose a measure that could achieve something you thought was desirable, particularly if it's based on a historical viewpoint that 'blararagh, a flat tax is EVIL', without really thinking about the potential reality.

I certainly reject the unqualified notion that Hannan is a 'fucking moron'. He's the rarest of politicians in that he's capable of speaking with great articulation, but also always conveys a detailed understanding of the subject he's talking about. I can't help by find myself agreeing with the vast majority of what he says about europe, and enjoying listening to him even when I don't agree with his views.

Note that Hannon is careful not to claim this. He claims it will increase the proportion of tax paid by the rich; he doesn't talk about the actual overall revenue at all.

He's just a slightly less swivel eyed version of Nigel Farage. Yes, he can be eloquent, but that doesn't stop him being flat wrong about things and demonstrating that he can't think things through. He's a moron.

Well yes, I'd always want to see the figures as real numbers stacked a few different ways. But I was talking more of a principal on the general point - disagreeing with things you have previously believed to be 'bad' without actually having investigated or thought about them any time recently.

I can't begin to name of number of people I know who pay no attention to politics, and can barely name a politician who isn't David Cameron, but despite that will forcibly tell you that the Tories are 'evil', because they were once told that by someone else, and so they're sticking to it indefinitely. Whether they're evil or not is almost immaterial, but if you consider the majority of people will align themselves politically without even thinking about or examining it, then fuck me, I wonder what the point of all this democracy is.

Feex.

Oddly I really dislike Nigel Farage, despite his terrifying ability to survive plane crashes.

The Tories being evil is an objective fact, though.

Intellectually you know that all political views are subjective so if you are genuinely trying to say the Tories are inarguably evil, that's just.... silly.

Yeah, they're like the Empire in Star Wars, or the Germans in 'Allo, 'Allo.

Whether you think, I dunno, gays should marry in church or not is of course subjective opinion, but it is objective fact that, e.g. Thatcher ate children, after weakening them by stealing their free milk.

The difference is that yes, political views can be subjective (some are objectively wrong, of course), but the EFFECTS of the policies that flow from those views are not.

Actually I disagree. He isn't a moron, he's much more dangerous than that because he can debate and he is very eloquent. He'll steal your money and persuade you he is right to do so.

Fox love him because Americans love a well spoken British guy even if he is doing evil. See Alan Rickman.

There is a reason he is in Europe and not Westminster - and that is to keep his extremist views as hidden away as possible.

I agree he's eloquent, but he's still flat wrong on stuff, and has such way off-base views that I can only assume that he's, at heart, a fucking moron.

Effects are entirely arguable, however. 'Blahblahblah the cuts are making me poor' vs 'Long term econominic stability for UK, we'll all be better off in the long run'. Both of which could be true to varying degrees. People are merely predisposed towards thinking about only themselves in the very short term, so an angry reaction to the cuts is understandable, but short-sighted.

I'm sure I've said it before but had it not been for Thatcher, matey, you'd currently have euros in your wallet. Her refusal to agree a timetable for joining it was ultimately what got her kicked. The momentum of that sentiment remains to this day. I don't know about you, but I'm bloody glad for it.

Effects are entirely arguable, however. 'Blahblahblah the cuts are making me poor' vs 'Long term econominic stability for UK, we'll all be better off in the long run'. Both of which could be true to varying degrees. People are merely predisposed towards thinking about only themselves in the very short term, so an angry reaction to the cuts is understandable, but short-sighted. /[quote]

Hang on - the "I'm poorer" is objective, verifiable, present fact. The "we'll all be better off in the long run" is a subjective forecast.

Yes, you won't necessarily know what the effect of a policy will be at the time it's implemented (although often you will), but we know the effects of lots of Tory policies in the past. And they're TEH EVILZ.

He's not a moron, he's just drunk the kool-ade. All these wingers love to believe in their true "pure" free market, fairness for all, and doing away with strong government, but where's it ever been or going to be tested? It's just a fantasy.

MORONS.

FAOD, "moron" is being used in the correct sense applicable for discourse on matters political - i.e. "someone who doesn't agree with me".

I see your Conversative stance and raise you one Labour government.

It's almost pointless following politics in Scotland unless you're a mouth-foaming nationalist, or possibly worse, Labour. There might be a Tory around here somewhere but I think he just spends all his time whizzing around on a Segway bought on expenses*.




* possibly not true.

The original iPhone was released in 2007!

"Look at them with their iPhones! I didn't have an iPhone when I was their age!"


BECAUSE IT HADN'T FUCKING BEEN INVENTED YOU FUCKING PRICK.

Edit: Not aimed at anyone, BTW.

The attitude that you can't be protesting your lot in life unless you're barefoot and wearing sackcloth is indeed highly irritating.

Now, I think we can agree that all Republicans are evil though, yes?

I think every single one of them wants to ban same sex marriage (effectively saying that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals) and believe that full human rights should be granted at the moment of conception, thus making miscarriage a potential crime, and the use of the morning after pill or various other forms of contraception (such as IUDs) first degree murder.

Because you can uninvent abortion.

Bill Maher summed it up best. "Teabagger Congress voted on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. If you're going to take innocent life it had better be by gun."