Originally posted by princeoforangeGood point. That 'Party' ceased to exist as a serious contender for office way back in the 19th century.
I have found a lot of mistakes in media coverage of this, the most common one was mentioning "leadership" in the same sentence as "Liberal Democrat".
Give your thoughts.
Neil.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeTo be fair, they probably represent more than anything the spiritual anguish of the public-service middle classes, and indifference or apathy towards the solutions that would ultimately remove the need for that anguish. Based on the work of the Orange Book ideologues, replacing the Bird of Liberty with a wringing hand painting a strike through the word "redistribution" might be a more authentic look for them.
Do the Lib Dems stand for anything? Other than getting elected?
I think I despise them so much because I nearly joined them once, when I was sixteen. It was such a typical story...charismatic leader, new logo, obsession with mechanical democratic solutions: now they're up against two equally charismatic, ideologically shallow opponents with a smoke-filled-rooms-type leader, it's going to be interesting seeing just how stable their electoral base outside the South-West of England really is.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe Lib Dems' problem is that they stand for very little other than opposition for the sake of it and very obnoxious policies like 50% rate of robbery (tax) on high earners.
They should have elected Huhne. We already know far too much about Minge the Murderess, and the Lib-Dems are at their best when no-one knows what the hell they stand for.
1 edit
He was on Newsnight protesting that there was no point trying to be a managerial political party like Labour or the Conservatives, that the Liberals had to be inspiring and idealistic...good point, but I somehow don't think his kind of idealism is going to inspire anyone except the kind of people who twitch net curtains and think the Krankies are a bit risque (which, by the way, they actually are).
Originally posted by RedmikeYes. But it does not really matter whom they elect to lead the Lib.Dems since they will never have to face the resonsibility of being elected to govern. At least 'Mingy' is less objectionable than the sodomites who opposed him.
Yeah, 50% is way too low.
Originally posted by VargWell, given that the top rate used to be 98%, only a couple of decades ago, I think there is scope for it being higher than 40%.
What would you propose?
Of course, the earning bands would need to be sorted out, but I think a top rate of 60 or 70% for earnings over £100k wouldn't be too severe.
Of course, you'd need to address the ridiculously low levels of corporation tax as well, as well as the million avoidance schemes.
Originally posted by RedmikeSo it wasn't a sarcastic comment, oh dear.
Well, given that the top rate used to be 98%, only a couple of decades ago, I think there is scope for it being higher than 40%.
Of course, the earning bands would need to be sorted out, but I think a top rate of 60 or 70% for earnings over £100k wouldn't be too severe.
Of course, you'd need to address the ridiculously low levels of corporation tax as well, as well as the million avoidance schemes.
Why should we rob high earners of their hard earned salaries just to fund immigrants and those who are too lazy to work? Which is Lib Dem policy down to a tee.