[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 75779)
Message
File  []
close
hufflepuff pride.jpg
757797577975779
>> No. 75779 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 1:55 pm
75779 spacer
The Liberal Democrats have started a consultation process on what the parties next manifesto should look like. Its open to non-members and I thought everyone could benefit from you lads giving views.

https://libdems.getfeedback.com/r/jKh47Fw8

It asks an interesting question: What would you spend £2 billion on?

I thought about putting the money towards adult education programs. Things like the Open University are fundamentally good ideas that gives people who otherwise can't study because of career and family commitments the chance to learn new skills and achieve lifelong learning. It sounds non-controversial but I'm sure there is ample chance to start a cunt-off on that idea.

Another interesting question is that it asks whether the Lib Dems should focus on staying in the European Union or on what Brexit should now be. An interesting option given the party is fervently pro-EU and I wonder what will fill the vacuum if its abandoned.
Expand all images.
>> No. 75780 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 2:59 pm
75780 spacer
>>75779
The Lib Dems are the only true 'protest' party as they define themselves solely by not being Tories or Labour. They need to actually build a platform or they don't deserve to exist.

The Lib Dems should pay attention to the second part of their name when referring to brexit.
>> No. 75781 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 3:03 pm
75781 spacer
They should distribute it evenly amongst those who vote for them.

And, to start the derailing early: Doesn't an Open University tuition cost as much as real university tuition now?
>> No. 75782 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 3:31 pm
75782 spacer
>>75780
Why not build on the first part. This country and the west in general is in sore need of a party based on protecting civil rights. Both Labour and the Tories have an authoritarian streak and its to the Lib Dems credit that they have tried to fight against this.

That said I don't think the party should adopt a platform to stand out for its own sake. People want public services and they want sound finances the question is in how to achieve an acceptable balance.

>>75781
>Doesn't an Open University tuition cost as much as real university tuition now?

It looks to work out at about 5k a year (for full time) which is lower but I agree its still far too high. Adult education is an important source of advancement and I feel the government should definitely subsidize its costs more than it does so it remains viable for the working poor.

Of course an advantage of the OU is that students can pick and choose what they study so in theory you can take up one module purely to gain knowledge of an area that is useful to your career. For instance 'Finance for non-financial managers' is a short course offered to give someone knowledge they can use in their job for a fairly modest fee of £300~.
>> No. 75783 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 3:43 pm
75783 spacer
>>75779
Done.

It seems like they are striking the iron while it's hot. Good on them.
>> No. 75784 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 3:46 pm
75784 spacer
>>75780
Things a bit quiet in the UKIP press office today?
>> No. 75785 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 3:49 pm
75785 spacer
>>75780
If the Lib Dems campaign on a platform of staying in the European Union, and then they win the next general election, what would that tell you? Would democracy have failed somehow?
>> No. 75787 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:00 pm
75787 spacer
>>75785
That a plurality of the country wants a Lib Dem government and a majority wants out of the European Union.
>> No. 75788 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:28 pm
75788 spacer
>>75784
Pardon?

>>75785
It would tell me that the results of the general election and referendum are non congruent. I consider direct democracy to trump representative democracy when direct democracy is given the opportunity to occur.

Not that we'll ever be allowed to vote on anything again.
>> No. 75789 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:33 pm
75789 spacer
>>75779

>What would you spend £2 billion on?

Pokemon cards from Ebay and all the cancer causing Kinder chocolate I want.
>> No. 75790 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:49 pm
75790 spacer
>>75788
>I consider direct democracy to trump representative democracy
That's now how the parliamentary system works.
>> No. 75791 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 6:59 pm
75791 spacer
>>75790
Hate to break it to you, but Parliament is not a highly democratic institution.
>> No. 75792 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:20 pm
75792 spacer
>>75791
Somewhere there's a parallel universe where that post was relevant.
>> No. 75793 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:36 pm
75793 spacer
>>75790
No, it's not, that's why I said 'I consider'.

Parliament is being dishonest if it dismiss referenda results.
>> No. 75794 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:45 pm
75794 spacer
It's no wonder they prefer being called the LibDems.

It starts to look a bit dodgy when you have the word "democrat" in your name but you directly oppose the result of a referendum.
>> No. 75795 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:47 pm
75795 spacer
>>75793
I could happily dismiss the referendum result if I was in Parliament elected with a mandate to do so, or at least rerun the referendum. Leaving the EU based on that result is highly questionable: the majority was paper-thin; the public were lied to again and again; reports have come out about many people regretting their vote. These are the same reasons Scotland wants another referendum, effectively, and the SNP have an electoral mandate to deliver one.
>> No. 75796 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:48 pm
75796 spacer
>>75793
The referendum was not binding. Parliament could have made it so, but chose not to. There is a clear majority for remaining. If those members stand again and are elected again, then they have a new mandate that supplants the prior. If Parliament is hung and the coalition is formed by remainers, then they clearly have a mandate to remain. The electorate is entitled to change its mind and express this through the ballot box.
>> No. 75797 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 7:49 pm
75797 spacer
Oh and let's not forget the fact that the UK's relationship with the EU cannot be democratically decided with a yes or no question alone. For instance, if the government keeps us in the single market, as it probably will, does that mean it is 'dismissing the result of the referendum'?
>> No. 75798 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:17 pm
75798 spacer
>>75796
>The referendum was not binding. Parliament could have made it so, but chose not to.
No, they couldn't have.
>> No. 75799 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:37 pm
75799 spacer
>>75780
>The Lib Dems should pay attention to the second part of their name when referring to brexit.

Well there seems to be a cunt off rumbling in this thread for no reason. The Lib Dems are campaigning for a second referendum. I don't think Parliament would dare ignore the referendum result entirely not least because it would only create bigger problems a few years down the line for the entire EU.

If they do well enough in a general to be able to demand one fair enough. If that referendum gives the right answer (remain) then regardless it invalidates the first result. Nothing undemocratic about it.

None of this will ever happen. The Tories will stay in power until 2020 without a snap election and will have engaged and completed Article 50 by then. This means any future membership will involve Schengen and the Euro.
>> No. 75800 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:45 pm
75800 spacer
>>75798
Yes, they could have.
>> No. 75801 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:50 pm
75801 spacer
>>75799
>Well there seems to be a cunt off rumbling in this thread for no reason.
It's not for no reason. It's for the reason that some people have difficulty in accepting what "democracy" means. If the electorate votes in a referendum to leave, then that's a mandate to leave. If the electorate subsequently votes to overturn that result, whether by a second referendum or an election returning a pro-remain majority, then that's a mandate to remain.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that we have not democratically decided to leave, since democracy is based on consent and clearly nobody can legitimately call any endorsement of the Leave campaign to be informed consent.
>> No. 75802 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:50 pm
75802 spacer
>>75800
The HoL Select Committee on the Constitution would disagree with you.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99.pdf

>We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.
>> No. 75803 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 8:57 pm
75803 spacer
>>75802
Perhaps they should have spoken up during the passage of the Scotland Act 1978 or the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, each of which created a binding referendum.
>> No. 75804 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:01 pm
75804 spacer
>>75795
No, the mandate is clear.


All this fucking squirming is making me sick.
>> No. 75805 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:04 pm
75805 spacer
>>75801
What makes a leave vote uninformed and a remain vote informed? Is the end of Western civilisation actually happening?
>> No. 75806 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:05 pm
75806 spacer
>>75804
>No, the mandate is clear.
Which one? The mandate to leave certainly isn't clear. It's an ill-informed 52%. An informed majority with a larger proportion would be a clear mandate, but we didn't get that. Nobody can say with any seriousness that the British public have given their informed consent for their government to extricate the country from the EU.
>> No. 75807 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:05 pm
75807 spacer
>>75803
Those weren't binding referendums. Parliament passed legislation which was conditional on the result of a referendum. That doesn't mean that Parliament was bound by the result. That might seem like an academic distinction, but it's an important one with regard to the EU referendum, because Parliament doesn't pass legislation to invoke article 50, that's done by a communication from the government to the European Council.
>> No. 75808 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:06 pm
75808 spacer
>>75805
>What makes a leave vote uninformed and a remain vote informed?
You do not have informed consent if you had to lie to get it.
>> No. 75809 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:12 pm
75809 spacer
>>75807
>Those weren't binding referendums. Parliament passed legislation which was conditional on the result of a referendum.
Or, in other words, the referendums were binding. It's really not that hard to grasp.

>Parliament doesn't pass legislation to invoke article 50, that's done by a communication from the government to the European Council.
No. That communication would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and the government doesn't get to do that without Parliament's permission.
>> No. 75810 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:22 pm
75810 spacer
>>75809
>Or, in other words, the referendums were binding. It's really not that hard to grasp.
No, they weren't. You can't have binding referendums with a sovereign Parliament. Your contention is clearly too hard for every constitutional authority in the UK to grasp. Or... Maybe you're wrong!

>No. That communication would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and the government doesn't get to do that without Parliament's permission.
And?

All that means is that Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result. That's not the same thing the invocation itself being triggered by the result.
>> No. 75812 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:36 pm
75812 spacer
>>75799
>This means any future membership will involve Schengen and the Euro.
Ohhhh fuck. I hadn't thought of that. Fuck fuck fuckity fuck.
>> No. 75813 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:42 pm
75813 spacer
>>75810
>No, they weren't.
Yes, they were. Which part of this are you having trouble with? Those Acts contained legislation which would come into effect or not based on the results. Therefore they were binding. They were only not binding in the sense that Parliament could subsequently amend or repeal the legislation, but that would be a silly position to take given that it implies that no legislation is binding.

>You can't have binding referendums with a sovereign Parliament.
Yes, you can. We've had them before, and we can have them again. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 could have contained language which would have authorised the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which would have allowed the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament) to engage 50 TEU. Parliament chose not to include such language. As such, the Government requires the approval of Parliament to send the letter of intent, and cannot do so without that approval. To do so would be to use prerogative powers to overrule an Act of Parliament, and it is clearly established that that is not lawful.
>> No. 75814 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:43 pm
75814 spacer
>>75810
Also:
>Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result
It's arguable that they did, given that they passed legislation necessary for the referendum to go ahead knowing that the govt. intended to abide by the result.

>Mr Hammond: The Government’s position is that the referendum is an advisory one, but the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, but if there are any consequential considerations, they will be dealt with in accordance with the proper constitutional arrangements that have been laid down.
>> No. 75815 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:48 pm
75815 spacer
>>75813
>Yes, they were. Which part of this are you having trouble with?
Again, the same trouble that every constitutional authority in the UK has.

>Those Acts contained legislation which would come into effect or not based on the results. Therefore they were binding. They were only not binding in the sense that Parliament could subsequently amend or repeal the legislation, but that would be a silly position to take given that it implies that no legislation is binding.
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

That is correct. Parliament cannot be bound, by referendums, by prior legislation, by anything. That is Parliamentary sovereignty in a nutshell.

>Yes, you can. We've had them before, and we can have them again. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 could have contained language which would have authorised the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which would have allowed the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament) to engage 50 TEU. Parliament chose not to include such language. As such, the Government requires the approval of Parliament to send the letter of intent, and cannot do so without that approval. To do so would be to use prerogative powers to overrule an Act of Parliament, and it is clearly established that that is not lawful.
See:

>All that means is that Parliament could have given approval for the invocation, conditional on the result. That's not the same thing the invocation itself being triggered by the result.
>> No. 75816 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:53 pm
75816 spacer
>>75813
>the Government (which is not the same thing as the Parliament)
Wow, I'm glad to see someone's been paying attention in A level politics. Your vast knowledge will certainly enrich all political discussion.
>> No. 75817 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:56 pm
75817 spacer
>>75815
>Parliament cannot be bound, by referendums, by prior legislation, by anything.
That's a twisted reading of it. As I said, the referendums were only not binding in the sense that technically no law ever passed by Parliament was binding. This absurdity aside, there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those referendums were, in fact, binding, and that Parliament could have chosen to make this one binding too but chose not to.
>> No. 75818 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 9:58 pm
75818 spacer
>>75816
Yet apparently this constitutional expert who keeps quoting random bollocks about a soverign Parliament doesn't seem to understand the distinction.
>> No. 75819 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:01 pm
75819 spacer
>>75817
>technically no law ever passed by Parliament was binding
Isn't that the point he's making? Parliament can rewrite any law they like with no constitutional limitations, including ones that come from itself.
>> No. 75820 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:02 pm
75820 spacer
>>75808
Who lied again?
>> No. 75822 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:07 pm
75822 spacer
>>75820
Not him but '£350m' was as misleading as you can get without technically being a lie. Though I guess it is a lie since I found out the rebate is applied before the money is sent to the EU.
>> No. 75823 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:12 pm
75823 spacer
>>75817
>That's a twisted reading of it
... No, that's the standard reading of it.

>there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those referendums were, in fact, binding
Er yes, there can be. The experts consulted by the Constitution Committee had doubt. The Constitution Committee concurred with those doubts. You're really in no position to act is if disagreeing with you is out of the question when Parliament itself doesn't.

I suggest you actually take a look through it this time.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99.pdf

Some choice quotes:

>It is notable that British referendums are formally advisory which means that the power to legislate remains exclusively in the hands of the parliamentary majority. The advisory character of referendums appears to be congruent with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. However, based on the experience on national level referendums in established democracies, it seems to be very diffcult for parliamentarians to vote against the result of an advisory referendum.

>As a matter of constitutional law a referendum cannot be binding in this country

>Given the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, referendums should be indicative in law

>In the UK system arguably all referendums are indicative, since each would need parliamentary ratification by way of legislation to become law. This could come before the referendum takes place (1978–79) or afterwards (1997–98). Even a referendum on Scottish independence would need negotiation, and presumably UK legislation, to be accepted by the UK Parliament as having lawful force.

>and that Parliament could have chosen to make this one binding too but chose not to
No. They could not have. YET AGAIN, at most they could have included a legislative trigger to approve of the invocation in the case of a leave victory. Do you understand the distinction between the government having approval to invoke article 50 and the government being bound to invoke article 50?
>> No. 75824 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:14 pm
75824 spacer
>>75818
Talking about Parliamentary sovereignty isn't random bollocks, mate, it's the precise reason why referendums CANNOT be binding.
>> No. 75825 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:16 pm
75825 spacer
>>75822
That plus the implication that by not paying that money out we'd have more money to spend. Then there was the very heavy implication that five nations, including Turkey, were going to join the EU imminently, and that their populations were coming here. Or the insinuation on their leaflet (by way of highlighting that Turkey shared borders with Iraq and Syria) that ISIS were coming. A non-trivial number of people believed that a vote to Leave would mean a reversal of mass immigration, and they must have formed that idea from somewhere.
>> No. 75826 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:20 pm
75826 spacer
>>75823
>>75824
Which part of "Parliament is not the same as Government" are you having difficulty with?
>> No. 75827 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:20 pm
75827 spacer
>>75825
>(by way of highlighting that Turkey shared borders with Iraq and Syria) that ISIS were coming.

What a terrible, terrible lie.
>> No. 75828 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:23 pm
75828 spacer
>>75827
I wasn't aware we were suddenly in Schengen.
>> No. 75829 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:23 pm
75829 spacer
>>75826
Please go on. What exactly makes you think I'm having difficulty?
>> No. 75830 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:49 pm
75830 spacer
>>75829
The part where you seem to think that Parliament being unable to bind itself means that it is unable to bind the government.
>> No. 75831 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:58 pm
75831 spacer
>>75830
Where did I say that, sunshine?
>> No. 75832 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 10:59 pm
75832 spacer
>>75831
All those times where you said that referendums that were in fact binding were somehow not binding.
>> No. 75834 Anonymous
20th July 2016
Wednesday 11:12 pm
75834 spacer
>>75832
Again, this isn't just me saying referendums aren't binding. Highly recommend you actually look at this this time and stop making yourself look like a total arse:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99.pdf

I'm not quite sure how you got "parliament is unable to bind the government" from me saying "referendums can't bind parliament" (or government, to be clear). You're going to have to dive a little deeper there.
>> No. 75837 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 12:00 am
75837 spacer
>>75834
>"parliament is unable to bind the government" from me saying "referendums can't bind parliament"
It's from the part where you say referendums can't be binding. Parliament's inability to bind itself does not mean referendums can't be binding any more than it means drink-drive laws can't be binding. Down a bottle of wine, go for a drive, then try telling the magistrates that s.8 Road Traffic Act 1988 is not binding because Parliament can't bind itself. They will of course tell you where to go (namely the Crown Court).

Parliament is the legislature. Government is the executive. In our system, they're intertwined, but they're separate entities. HMG can legislate on its own initiative (through Statutory Instruments) only when Parliament has authorised it to do so. Parliament can without doubt bind the Government, because the Government is not sovereign. The AV referendum was undoubtedly binding. Anyone who says otherwise is just engaging in constitutional wankery. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government had no choice in the matter - having held the referendum, it was bound (by section 8 of the Act) to make an order in accordance with the result. The Act made provisions for AV and amended the Representation of the People Act. If the question had passed, the Government would have had to put down a commencement order to bring them into effect. The question did not pass, and so the Government had to (and did) put down an order repealing them. Having carried out the referendum, the Government had to lay down an order based on the result. I fail to see how anyone could seriously suggest that was somehow not binding.
>> No. 75838 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 12:39 am
75838 spacer
>>75837
>Parliament's inability to bind itself does not mean referendums can't be binding any more than it means drink-drive laws can't be binding.
Yes it does.

One more time!

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99.pdf

>We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory.

>neither Parliament nor government can be legally bound by a referendum result

>The advisory character of referendums appears to be congruent with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty

Don't argue about constitutional law and then complain about "constitutional wankery", you huge fucking idiot.
>> No. 75839 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 12:47 am
75839 spacer
>>75838
Brexit voter logic: vote to leave EU in a misguided attempt to reclaim national sovereignty; complain when said sovereignty could prevent us from actually leaving the EU.
>> No. 75840 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:00 am
75840 spacer
>>75839
I am a brexiteer and voted in favour of Leave for the purposes of national sovereignty (along with other reasons). I know full well that legal sovereignty still resides with Parliament but in practical terms it does not as we've outsourced a chunk of it.
>> No. 75841 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:02 am
75841 spacer
>>75838
>neither Parliament nor government can be legally bound by a referendum result
This is manifestly wrong, given I've provided no fewer than three examples where the government was legally bound by a referendum result.
>> No. 75842 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:06 am
75842 spacer
>>75841
It is but government also has the power to revoke previous laws binding itself. Overturning Acts that bind Parliament such as the Fixed Term Parliaments Act can be revoked anyway without any such kerfuffle as having two thirds of MPs.
>> No. 75844 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:15 am
75844 spacer
>>75842
>It is but government also has the power to revoke previous laws binding itself.
Only if Parliament has given the government that power.

>Overturning Acts that bind Parliament such as the Fixed Term Parliaments Act can be revoked anyway without any such kerfuffle as having two thirds of MPs.
Unless the Act itself says otherwise, it can only be overturned by another Act passing through both Houses as normal. The government can't simply lay down Regulations to repeal the FTPA.
>> No. 75845 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:29 am
75845 spacer
>>75840
You say 'we', and that little pronoun encompasses the length and breadth of these isles. The hipsters of Bristol and Norwich, the Asian communities of Bradford and Birmingham. The flatcapped farmers, the flatcapped ex-miners. The Jocks and the Geordies, the Welsh, the Cornish, the Provos of Northern Ireland, the mutants of Wight. The Labour Party of Stoke, the Lib Dems of Cambridge, the Greens of Brighton, the Tories of Buckinghamshire, the Kippers of Kent. The Highlands, the Lowlands, the Midlands. Land's End and John o' Groats. Go fifty miles in any direction and you can find people using completely different words and pronouncing things in completely different ways.

But Europe is 'they'. Because they are so different to that monolithic 'we' in your mind that to share a government with them makes you sick to the back teeth.

It boggles my mind, frankly.
>> No. 75846 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:34 am
75846 spacer
>>75845
Yes, they are British, the others are not. That's the shared basis of the country in which we live.
>> No. 75847 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:42 am
75847 spacer
>>75846
>Yes, they are British
Apart from, you know, all those ones that aren't.
>> No. 75848 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 1:59 am
75848 spacer
>>75846
And that sort of arbitrary line-drawing is why nationalism deserves to die an undignified death.
>> No. 75849 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 2:06 am
75849 spacer
>>75848
It's not arbitrary at all.

Anyway, now we are leaving the EU, better scurry off to your corporatist superstate quick globalistlad.
>> No. 75851 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 2:17 am
75851 spacer
>>75849
Of course it isn't poppet. It's past your bedtime now, don't have nightmares about Tusk and Juncker.
>> No. 75852 Anonymous
21st July 2016
Thursday 2:33 am
75852 spacer
>>75851
They'll stop soon.
>> No. 82061 Anonymous
13th April 2017
Thursday 9:41 am
82061 spacer

Listening to the Voters.jpg
820618206182061
To give you lads an update: It turns out that an open consultation has proven to be really successful idea. Not just because its free advertising but the public have some good ideas that the party is starting to harness.

This has led them to now open a more in-depth consultation that is broken into a number of topics for the September conference. I don't intend to bombard you lads with advertising, I just thought you might enjoy me involving you in Liberal Democrat things.

If you want to have a go:

Britain in the World:
https://libdems.getfeedback.com/r/JIT04vx6/

Education:
https://libdems.getfeedback.com/r/etaKYI6Y/

21st Century Economy:
https://libdems.getfeedback.com/r/YlPmqMm8/

Rural Communities:
https://libdems.getfeedback.com/r/PUE7bVmB/

They have annoyingly put an email field at the end of the consultations but you can submit a fake email as there is no registration. I've sent angry messages as to why this is a stupid idea.
>> No. 82102 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 8:33 pm
82102 spacer

150724-tweet.jpg
821028210282102
You've still got a homophobic evangelical Christian as leader, though.
>> No. 82103 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 8:52 pm
82103 spacer
>>82102

Fucking hell, when was that?

I still remember when he was elected leader that he was unable to bring himself to say he supported abortion, something which seemed fairly fundamental to the Liberal bit of his party's name.
>> No. 82104 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 9:44 pm
82104 spacer
>>82103

Honestly, it makes me respect him more. His voting record has been largely pro-LGBT. Someone who is privately conservative but publicly liberal is surely the very embodiment of liberal values. Liberalism counts for nothing if you're only liberal when it suits you.
>> No. 82105 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 10:15 pm
82105 spacer
>>82104
>His voting record has been largely pro-LGBT.

Apart from the whole abstaining on gay marriage vote thing.
>> No. 82106 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 10:15 pm
82106 spacer
>>82104

I currently vote tory and couldn't give one tenth of a fig about whether somebody is gay or not. I've never met a tory who does.
>> No. 82108 Anonymous
17th April 2017
Monday 10:29 pm
82108 spacer
>>82106

Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.
>> No. 82111 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 2:48 pm
82111 spacer
I wonder if the Liberal Democrats had already gotten wind of the snap election and that is why they called for a new round of consultations over Easter.

>>82102
This is rather bottom of the barrel stuff. The Lib Dem platform is clear on LGBT issues and Farron's faith is not something that should be called into question both because it doesn't matter what you think at home and because he is up against Theresa May.

>>82105
He has publicly stated many times that he regrets the decision and that he abstained over concerns of religious protection. I don't think you can really pull this one over us.
>> No. 82112 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 3:30 pm
82112 spacer
>>82111
>concerns of religious protection.

What does that actually mean when it's at home, then?
>> No. 82113 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 4:03 pm
82113 spacer
>>82112
Not him, but I imagine it's something to do with the ham-fisted way the government put it through, which might have either forced the Church of England to accept it or alternatively prohibited them from doing it. Personally I was opposed to the measure on constitutional grounds, since we're an old country with old law. Ireland was a good example of how to do it properly. They undertook a review of the law and made the necessary changes rather than rushing a bill through. The referendum wasn't so much to gauge public opinion but rather because it was necessary for the constitutional amendment that was needed to make it happen.
>> No. 82114 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 9:59 am
82114 spacer
>>82111

I want to know if a "Liberal" politician thinks being gay is one of the "sins" we're all committing. I mean, he's borderline mentally ill for thinking that anyway, but it's good to have specifics.
>> No. 82116 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 3:40 pm
82116 spacer
>>82114
We all know he is an evangelical Christian and the faith establishment whether it be CoE, Catholic or indeed Buddhist views homosexuality (or rather sex outside of procreation) as a sin. This shouldn't come as a surprise as it is just part of a manichaean outlook the major religions share with Farron quite right to try to avoid a theological debate on the issue - unless you would rather he just lie to keep the misinformed happy.

The fact that we do not live in a theocracy renders the point moot and like the liberal elements of all faiths he does not seek to impose his faith on others. A similar situation would play out if Theresa was asked if homosexuality is a sin. Today he pointed out he was in full support of LGBT+ issues and that should be the end of it.
>> No. 82117 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 3:44 pm
82117 spacer
>>82116
>that should be the end of it.
Farron doesn't get a free pass because you like him mate.
>> No. 82118 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 4:32 pm
82118 spacer
>>82117
He gets a free pass because he is not looking to force his religion on people. That was the central point of my post.
>> No. 82119 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 5:04 pm
82119 spacer

lets-celebrate-brand-shelf.png
821198211982119
>>82118
He shouldn't have a free pass because he's clearly the bloke off Let's Celebrate and Razzle Dazzle on Cbeebies yet doesn't acknowledge his pre-politics career in children's entertainment.
>> No. 82120 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 5:15 pm
82120 spacer
It's over.

>Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has come under fire this evening after he again refused to say if he thinks homosexuality is a sin.

http://metro.co.uk/video/tim-farron-refuses-clarify-thoughts-homosexuality-1449615

>Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to say whether he believes homosexuality is a sin

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-homosexuality-sin-general-election-liberal-democrat-leader-refuse-confirm-a7690546.html

>Farron SQUIRMS over question on whether homosexuality is a sin in car crash interview

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/793647/Tim-Farron-Lib-Dem-election-homosexuality-election-interview-Brexit

>'Absolute disgrace': Tim Farron under fire for refusing to answer when asked if being gay is a sin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/absolute-disgrace-tim-farron-fire-refusing-answer-asked-gay/

>Lib Dem leader Tim Farron won't say if he thinks being gay is a sin

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/lib-dem-leader-tim-farron-10251384

Shit sticks. He'll be forever known as the queer bashing religious zealot now.
>> No. 82121 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 7:03 pm
82121 spacer
>>82120

>Tim Farron: I don't think being gay is a sin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39644939
>> No. 82123 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 7:16 pm
82123 spacer
>>82121
It only he'd given a straight answer to Channel Four last night.

They'll be asking him whether women who have abortions are sinners next.
>> No. 82127 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 7:26 pm
82127 spacer
>>82121
You never know he might get away with it. All he needs is for Corbyn to say something daft as usual.
>> No. 82128 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 7:31 pm
82128 spacer
>>82127

No, Corbyn's problem is that he doesn't really say much of anything. I think people thought they were getting one of those grandstanding European socialist types, but he's just not that guy.

Sage for wrong wonk.
>> No. 82153 Anonymous
20th April 2017
Thursday 6:59 pm
82153 spacer

General-Election-Tim-Farron-Liberal-democrats-Ther.jpg
821538215382153
>Farron 'welcomes challenge' of fish finger
>Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron has said he "welcomes the challenge" posed by 'Mr Fish Finger', who has pledged to stand against him in the General Election.
>However, the Westmorland and Lonsdale MP told ITV Border he is "more of a chips and mushy peas man".
http://www.itv.com/news/border/2017-04-20/farron-welcomes-challenge-of-fish-finger/

The man of God goes up against the man of Cod.
>> No. 82215 Anonymous
23rd April 2017
Sunday 10:05 pm
82215 spacer
>Tim Farron under fire over his views on homosexuality AGAIN after Lib Dem leader refuses to say if gay sex is a sin

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3393817/tim-farron-under-fire-over-his-views-on-homosexuality-again-after-lib-dem-leader-refuses-to-say-if-gay-sex-is-a-sin/

>Churchgoer Michael Gove slams Tim Farron for hiding behind his faith after the Lib Dem leader fails AGAIN to say gay sex is not a sin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4437562/Churchgoer-Gove-slams-Farron-hiding-faith.html

That's from Peston today. A gay hating Liberal Democrat, who'd have thought it?
>> No. 82216 Anonymous
24th April 2017
Monday 12:50 am
82216 spacer

This is the future you chose.png
822168221682216
>>82215
>who'd have thought it?

Lads, Liz Kendall talked about sex on live television whilst sat next to a bunch of bananas and it did nothing for me. What is the world coming to?
>> No. 82228 Anonymous
26th April 2017
Wednesday 3:10 pm
82228 spacer
>The Liberal Democrats have barred former Bradford East MP David Ward from standing again for the party, after Tim Farron said his comments about Jews had been “deeply offensive, wrong and antisemitic”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/26/lib-dems-criticised-over-reselection-of-ex-mp-censured-for-antisemitism

>The Liberal Democrat running to become MP for Luton South has been dramatically suspended by the party after a MailOnline investigation revealed that he made a series of disturbing anti-Semitic posts on social media.

>Mr Ahmed posted a series of posts comparing Jews to Nazis, suggesting that Zionists controlled 'half the world' and claiming that Labour and the Conservatives were controlled by 'Zionist paymasters'. Among the offensive posts and shares, which were made in 2014, were images of the Israeli prime minister eating children and the slogan, 'blood sucking leech'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4443446/Lib-Dems-forced-suspend-anti-Semitic-candidate.html

Unsurprising, really. If you've got a religious fruitcake for a leader then it's to be expected that nutters will be drawn in.
>> No. 82229 Anonymous
26th April 2017
Wednesday 4:54 pm
82229 spacer
>>82228

>If you've got a religious fruitcake for a leader then it's to be expected that nutters will be drawn in.

Yeah, I heard before the snap election Farron was going to start his own Jonestown, but there weren't enough Lib Dem members left.
>> No. 82230 Anonymous
26th April 2017
Wednesday 6:02 pm
82230 spacer
>>82228
Well he is the former MP of Bradford East. Its simply a politicians job to represent the views of their constituents.
>> No. 82327 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 6:54 am
82327 spacer
>Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has admitted in an ITV interview he had a picture of Margaret Thatcher above his bed as a schoolboy.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-07/tim-farron-denies-he-was-a-thatcher-fan-as-a-teenager/

He's clearly a wrong 'un.
>> No. 82329 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 11:24 am
82329 spacer
>>82230

It's a politician's job to grab votes in general elections and then vote as they're told to in parliament.
>> No. 82336 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 11:05 pm
82336 spacer
>>82228
It just occurred to me reading this just how much of a current licence for discrimination in the modern world it is to have some historical discrimination you can tack on to.

David Ward's anti sematic remarks were to describe Israel as an apartheid state, whilst not technically apartheid it runs the line so fucking close that only a shill or the pedantically obtuse wouldn't acknowledge it.
It doesn't matter how badly behaved Israel is because there was a genocide that is barely in living memory. Even when they are systematically rounding up the Palestinians into ghettos denying them the basic needs for life, and culling them every couple of years.

It's like the world is children that don't understand that when someone says 'don't pick on X or bully Y' what the moral is. That the lesson is there is some sort of special quality to X and Y and not 'that you shouldn't pick on or bully anyone'. It's a fucking embarrassment we've taken a step backwards from being able to understand why things are right and wrong to just simply parroting the circumstances they were applied in the past. I can’t stand how much Israel hides behind this shit, and they get away with it.
>> No. 82924 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 6:47 pm
82924 spacer
Farron's resigned. The question marks over his views on homosexuality and abortion have finally done him in.
>> No. 82925 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 7:19 pm
82925 spacer

I've come to collect.jpg
829258292582925
>>82924
There bloody better not be a leadership election coming up where I have to choose between Jo Swinson and Vince Cable. I don't care how well Vince can wear a hat he's still a shitstain.
>> No. 82926 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 7:33 pm
82926 spacer
>>82924
It's almost as if people don't understand that he can have a life outside work. He leaves his personal views at the door when it comes to party business, in much the same way that I don't watch porn at work.
>> No. 82927 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 7:39 pm
82927 spacer
>>82926

I don't care, if you think like he does at all you're a bit nuts. Fortunately nothing he nor his party of verminous collaborators does matters.
>> No. 82928 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 7:42 pm
82928 spacer
>>82926
>In a statement, he said he was "torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40281300

Lad. He clearly couldn't reconcile front line politics with backwards religious views.

His bizarre comments earlier today about wanting a deputy leader show he's clearly a dinosaur.
>> No. 82931 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:11 pm
82931 spacer
>>82928
>Lad. He clearly couldn't reconcile front line politics with backwards religious views.

Not him but I have trouble accepting someones private faith as a point of interest for 'front line politics'. It is nothing but an ad hominem designed in this instance to cynically exploit the pink vote.
>> No. 82932 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:13 pm
82932 spacer
I'm glad he has stuck to his views. The fact the liberal party is crushing him for it is shameful on them.
>> No. 82933 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:18 pm
82933 spacer
>>82931
If he'd simply given a straight answer then the spectre of homosexuality wouldn't have lingered around him like a bad fart. His failure to deal with this made it an issue.
>> No. 82934 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:33 pm
82934 spacer
Funny how the leader whose father was a vicar and presumably has similarly backward views didn't get pulled up on it.
>> No. 82935 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:53 pm
82935 spacer
>>82934
Similar backwards views as in she was the first prominent Tory to support Out4Marriage?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTsXoNkiY3g

Similar backwards views that she, together with Gideon and Hague, wrote a letter in The Telegraph in 2013 telling other Tories to back same sex marriage?

Similar backwards views that it was Theresa May herself who wrote a foreword to the 2010 Tory manifesto pledging to look into expanding civil partnerships into gay marriage?

Please don't tell me you're basing your opinion on Theresa May on social media memes.
>> No. 82936 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 9:54 pm
82936 spacer
>>82935
Sorry, you're right. When Tim Farron publicly supports same-sex marriage, he's betraying his religion, whereas when Theresa May publicly supports same-sex marriage, she really means it.

I've got a bridge you might be interested in.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password