Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Lib Dems are the correct party to win the 2019 UK election vs Labour [OPPONENT AGREED EXPLICITLY]

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
Evidence of acceptance of this debate: https://web.archive.org/web/20191202221906/https://www.debateart.com/debates/1698/lib-dems-are-the-correct-party-to-win-the-2019-uk-election-vs-the-party-you-name-no-arguments-from-win-feasibility-allowed?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=1
1) Comment the UK Party of this upcoming 2019 general election on 12th December you will back.
2) You can argue all kinds of feasibility and such but NO REFERENCE TO THEIR LIKELIHOOD TO WIN THE ELECTION IS ALLOWED this is about which party should win.
3) Don't think I will slip up.
Round 1
Published:
I will be honest, real life got in the way and I am also unsure where exactly the Lib Dem vs Labour clash occurs from Labour's perspective so this wil be a rant. I made this four rounds as I felt five was too long and wanted two real 'back and forth' Rounds between the into and conclusion. I will just post a rant here and see where it goes.

To begin with, Labour's ethics in the past have been wavy. While it's true that Lib Dems were originally a Labour off-shoot and that the original Labour was morally superior to the original Conservatives, being responsible for public healthcare, education and many other 'provide for the poor' initiatives in the UK, over time the Conservatives have swayed more to the centre and so did (not at present but they did up to and including Tony Blair) Labour. When the most centrist prime minister they ever had came to power, there were unforgivable crimes against humanity done in Iraq (not just killings, how soldiers were tortured etc. For sometimes a pure thrill and to scare others). This war resulted from falsified evidence that Blair provided Bush based on what I assume is MI6's non-findings: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-inquiry-tony-blair-iraq-war-weapons-of-mass-destruction-evidence-verdict-a7122361.html I don't 100% know who told who what and I have no doubt that Bush was actually more in on the lie than Blair but the end result is that Blair certainly had a hand in it, objectively, since it was he who initiated it. When a party has leaders who do this, we can then sit and ponder about how suddenly an 'angel' has taken over.

The problem with this 'angel' depiction of Corbyn is that he can stick to 'omg look how dirty David Cameron is!!' 'Oh gosh, Theresa May, evil! evil!' 'Boo, Boris!' and we are left to ask okay so what makes you so good? Whether or not we believe in the anti-semitic constructive dismissals going on (that means where you tactically make work so socially and physically unpleasant for the worker without technically breaking any rules as their bosses or coworkers, so that they quit rather than you fire them) we still need to look at Corbyn overall and see that his tactics revolve 90% around 'the others are worse, vote Labour'.

When Brexit was going on (pre-vote) Lib Dems were the only party other than SNP to actively take on UKIP. You can go ahead and 'prove me wrong', but not even Green Party took head-to-head debates to UKIP on the matter. Nick Clegg (leader of Lib Dems back then) went toe to toe with them and exposed all the lies, doing his level best to explain why it absolutely is incorrect to vote Leave and why Leave isn't what the Leave-voters even thought it would be. Farage 'outplayed' Clegg with his lies on both debates and it seems since the other parties danced around nervously that only in Scotland (since SNP also directly took it on) that Remain was voted while the rest of UK was generally pro-Leave (northern Ireland have since become brutally Remain despite being slightly Leave-majority in the original vote). We can simply sit and wonder why, or how, Corbyn is there sitting like Labour neither contributed to the absolute catastrophe of Leave winning nor why he himself went 'hip hip hooray let's make Leave happen absolutely, the will of the people will be carried out Leave EU now!!!' (disclaimer: paraphrasing) when the result came out.

In fact, let me expose just how fake this guy is:
The Labour leader ruled out support for a second referendum on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal, adding: “You have to respect the decision people made.”
The position stands in contrast to that of the challenger to his leadership, Owen Smith. The former shadow welfare secretary wants the British people to have another chance to back the case to either leave or remain in the European Union once the government’s proposals for the future terms of trade are laid out.

Now he is the only candidate other than Green Party who explicitly is pushing for a second referendum (Plaid Cymru and SNP are saying they want it but not making clear if they actually will or won't explicitly have one happen, SNP are almost identical to Lib Dems in flat out wanting to revoke Article 50 but are quieter about it, in my opinion, instead hinting at a referendum being more desirable and falling back on the 'we won't win, we only run in Scotland' excuse to not have to have that in their manifesto).


That's right, this guy who is 'oh so honest' is explicitly spearheading a second referendum when he was the first to alienate Lib Dems by saying 'how dare you want that' when the vote result originally was Leave, and also alienated members of Labour who wanted that only to later be the one saying it's best for the nation.

It's not undemocratic for Lib Dems to push for revoking Article 50. If they win the election, it's very blatantly democratic, since Lib Dems are the only party honest enough to admit they will make Remain happen when in charge. Leave is a lie. Until you understand this, you won't comprehend the beauty of Lib Dems. 

Let's look away from Brexit for a second though. When Lib Dems and Labour clash it is Labour who always says they are the 'more left wing' party but it's a lie. Lib Dems are actually as centrist as Labour (not more centrist or less Left Wing) where they differ is that Labour goes for immediate solutions, while Lib Dems like long-term solutions. Recently Labour has attacked Conservatives over lack of police funding and also said we need to better treat children who were abused as children for mental health stuff provided by NHS as well as remove them from their parents so they don't end up like that lunatic who stabbed everyone very, very recently.

Lib Dems came up with that attack and stance 20 years ago. It wasn't until this election that Labour have ever had making all mental health facilities maximised in efficiency and provided 100% publicly. Lib Dems did. The 'mental healthcare' NHS currently provides (and did provide under labour) is only for severe depression or something, Lib Dems have always backed up having all kinds, even high functioning autism and ADHD, be things that qualify you for NHS therapists and psychiatrists to see. This then could mean any child acting up could confess to them about the abuse at home really being behidn their 'off' behaviour (or maybe they really have the disorder) and a lot more would be solved. Labour called that a waste of money or left it out of their manifesto for decades since the NHS's origin until this election.

This habit of Labour watching Lib Dems' policy changes and mimicking what appeals to people, leaving out what seems too risky, is seen time and time again. Do you know the Lib Dems who broke off of Labour originally were the ones who were the most caring for the poor and vulnerable, not the 'centrists'? Labour lie to you about Lib Dem ethics a lot. What is true is that at times Lib Dems are more practical than Labour, more willing to balance public services with privately-run provision, than Labour is. What you will find is that the end result of that is more gets done, Labour don't help the country more and the reason why the nation keeps swinging back to Conservatives when Labour are in charge is that they tend to leave the economy in poor shape each and every time. Labour blames this on 'crashes' and other stuff, but why is it a coincidence that Conservatives never leave it like that? It's because it's not to do with that, it's about having impractical policies that make everything either 100% Socialist in provision or 100% corporatist. Lib Dems know how to 'mix it up', that doesn't make them less moral it makes them pragmatic about how to enact ethical policy.
Published:
Preamble
Hi RationalMadman! Great to have this vital debate with the 2019 GE only being 8 days away! 

Definitions:
Labour: The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists. [1]
Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems): The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are a liberal political party in the United Kingdom and are positioned in the centre-ground of British politics. [2]
Correct Party: The party that should be elected to Government in the United Kingdom

Structure:
In this round, I will set out why Labour is a superior party and the "correct party" to win the 2019 General Election. I suggest we both use the next round for rebuttals of these arguments.

Arguments

Record in Government:

Labour's record in Governments over the years has been nothing less than amazing. Under the last Labour Government during the premierships of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown,
  • the average wait for hospital inpatient care fell from just over 13 weeks to four weeks. [3] [4]
  • 79,000 new nurses and 48,000 new doctors/GPs in the National Health Service (NHS) [4]
  • 76% of English pupils were achieving 5 good GCSEs, compared with 45% under the Conservative Government preceding it [4] [5]
  • Introduced National Minimum Wage [6]
  • Passed the world's first-ever Climate Change Act [7] [8]
  • Cut overall crime by 32%.[9] [10]
  • Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission [13]
  • Scrapped Section 28 (Anti-LGBTQ+ law) and introduced Civil Partnerships. [11] [14]
  • Free TV licences for over-75s. [12]
  • Free eye tests for over-60s. [15]
Compare this to the Liberal Democrat's record in the Coalition government with David Cameron's Conservative Party of 2010 - 2015 which presided over:
  • Introduction of austerity, which caused a significant increase in child poverty, a decline in people's mental health conditions, a significant decline in LGBTQ+ support, an increase in violent crimes such as murder and robbery and even had a significant impact on life expectancy.  [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
  • Introduced the bedroom tax, causing those affected "stress, anxiety, hunger, ill health and depression." as well as "embarrassment" and a "sense of isolation" [21] [22]
  • Voted in favour of fracking, which comes at "significant environmental cost" [23]
The list could go on, but these are clear enough examples of the Liberal Democrat's lack of principles. 

Manifesto Pledges:
Although party policy is worlds apart from New Labour and Blairite ideology, Labour under Corbyn has some exciting and productive policies that, if implemented, would truly help the people of this county. Just a few policies include:
  • Re-implementing Sure Start in "every community" [24]
  • Free School Meals for all primary school children [25]
  • Provide an extra £1.6 billion a year to ensure new standards for mental health are enshrined in the NHS constitution [26]
  • 150,000 additional Early Years staff [27]
  • Move support for autistic people  "inappropriate inpatient hospital settings" [27]
Brexit:
Both the Lib Dems and Labour agree that Brexit done poorly would have extreme and negative impacts on society and the British economy, however, the Labour Party is the only major UK political party still fighting to bring people together to attempt to solve this political divide. Without getting into rebuttals, although it is not undemocratic to revoke article 50 if the Liberal Democrats secured a democratic mandate for such action at an election - that's an absurd proposition - it is, however, deeply divisive. 

Having a second referendum with a sensible leave option against remain would help heal divides and exclude from the start a no-deal (or WTO) Brexit or the universally hated deals of Prime Minister Johnson and former Prime Minister May. Labour's plan allows for the issue to be put to rest in a simple way with all relevant precautions taken, rather than heating up tensions in an already divided nation. An MP, Jo Cox, lost her life during the Brexit referendum by a far-right attacker, who was inflamed by these divisions. [28] We must not exacerbate them.

Jeremy Corbyn vs Jo Swinson

Jeremy Corbyn would make a much better Prime Minister and is an even better activist for the causes he champions. Even a polemical article by a conservative admitted "Look at what he’s campaigned for in the past, because his views haven’t changed. [29] He is a principled politician. Even if you disagree with his policies and politics, nobody can credibly or accurately accuse him of being inconsistent.

On the other hand, Jo Swinson has flipped opinions at the drop of a hat to suit the political winds. Her current policies include the abolition of the bedroom tax (after she voted 9 times to implement), scrap benefits tax ( after she voted to introduce it), roll back NHS health reforms (voted 3 times to implement them) and to invest in Sure Start (after she was a Minister in the Government and the Deputy Leader Ed Davey was a member of the Cabinet of, that cut £900m from the service). [30] This is the definition of a political opportunist. Seeing popular Labour policies, trying to include them and having very few core principles.

Conclusion:

In closing R1, thank you for taking this debate up, and please vote Labour on the 12th of December!
 


Sources




Round 2
Published:
Warning: I am very furious over this topic and say rude things. I don't care if I lose the conduct point.

The Consistency of Corbyn? I annihilated that in Round 1.

Consistency is much stronger in Lib Dems because they are the ones who openly admit they will switch (and justify why) on certain issues while making crystal clear when they have a strong view on something and never wavering on it, such as Brexit. Corbyn went from outright calling a second referendum outrageous to suggest and vilifying Lib Dems and Labour members who wanted that, to now being the most prominent Party Leader championing it. That is only the most blatant example of his pussyfooting and flip-flopping.

Corbyn is very proud of being part of the politicians that were making peace with IRA, even though they have ended up with terrorists not just free but able to run for and hold office in Ireland. He also has 'indirect' ties to Hamas and Hezbollah which, again, he says calling them 'friends' and sympathising with their cause (which is to annihilate Israel and own the Palestinian people as their own slaves, not at all to free anyone from anything). This is also what was the strongest supporting evidence that led people to believe the multiple stories from Jewish ex-employees of Labour on the idea that Corbyn would enable constructive dismissal (and also be reluctant to hire people of their faith).

Corbyn isn't just inconsistent, he's pretty much amoral (as opposed to immoral). He flows with the path of least resistance over and over again to maintain power no matter what the voting base wants. This is why he went from being diehard Leave-supporting post-referendum and calling a second referendum an abhorrent way to violate democracy and any Labour members who supported it soon found themselves to be alienated by him, to now being the single most prominent British Politician championing this solution to a dilemma resulting from a most idiotic and detrimental thing to the British people as leaving the EU even being up for discussion. It isn't 'democratic' to let people choose something that will hurt the vast majority of them economically, environmentally and socially (it will only benefit the rich, it's a fact there's not even room for debate, Brexit is a disgusting vile option that people are being conned into and it makes me sick that it persuaded enough people to even count as a valid thing for the government to consider and has been nothing but a series of stupid ideas meeting a majority-sane-and-kind bunch of MPs from either side of the political aisle stopping it moving forward).

Why can't, even now, Corbyn be consistent in changing his mind? Can he not finally admit that Leave was wrong? Is there no right or wrong? Is whatever the majority happen to tick the automatic right option? If he really believes that then he's the wrong candidate since Theresa May beat him. I will tell you straight there's fuck all to his validity in stance or morality. He's literally what he says Boris is; a populist going with any slogan and stance that will gain him the most votes.

I can tell you the reason why he won't say whether he wants Leave or Remain; it's so that no matter what the result is, he won't have to step down like David Cameron did after the other option got voted in. This is the real power-hungry reason that Corbyn won't utter a stance on the very thing that he is going to be the head negotiator to the EU of the 'Leave' side of if he wins the election.

He can do what he wants to be frank, because I don't doubt he will be a better leader than Boris, so I do hope Labour wins and coalitions with SNP (despite any promises of not coalitioning) but the real optimal end result is a Lib Dem and SNP coalition.

A manifesto is nice. It doesn't mean it will be done. Lib Dems too have been forced to break promises since they were severe minority in a coalition government with Conservatives 2 terms ago (as of this election's result it will be 2 terms ago that they were voted in).

If we go by promises and manifesto and ignore practicality or the fact that Labour consistently screw up the economy time and time again to lead people into voting Conservatives (in all UK countries except Scotland which was heavily Labour and Lib Dem pre-SNP0era, NI votes in their version of Conservatives when this happens; the DUP).

I mean laying out a manifesto isn't reason to vote for a Party but let's just show you how brilliant, both in pragmatism and idealism that the Lib Dem manifesto is, this election:

  • Stop Brexit and invest the £50 billion Remain Bonus in public services and tackling inequality.
  •  
  • Tackle the climate emergency by generating 80% of our electricity from renewables by 2030 and insulating all low-income homes by 2025.
  •  
  • Give every child the best start in life by recruiting 20,000 more teachers as part of an extra £10 billion a year for schools.
  •  
  • Build a fairer economy by providing free childcare from 9 months and giving every adult £10,000 to spend on skills & training throughout their lives.
  •  
  • Transform our mental health services by treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health.

So, I'm not sure what Con was trying to achieve with his too-good-to-be-true manifesto of Labour but here's Lib Dems, it doesn't exactly mean you should or should not vote for them in itself.


Published:
Hi, thanks for your response. For clarity, I will split your argument up into sections and prove wrong each one under its own heading. I will only be giving rebuttals for your R1 arguments in this round. I note that it is very hard to verify many of your claims as you have only cited a couple of sources. I will take all definitions as accepted as PRO has not argued against them.

Ideology

Over time the Conservatives have swayed more to the centre
I would disagree with this. Iain Duncan Smith was not towards the centre, he was much more to the right than that. His views on immigration [32]. the welfare state [33] and social policy [34] make him certainly not a centrist, but a New Right theorist. This is very similar for David Cameron. The Conservative Party now has gone more towards the right, with policies of Theresa May and Boris Johnson pushing away from centre-ground politics.


Iraq War and the Chilcot Inquiry

The Iraq War was absolutely dreadful and indefensible. It was not the right thing to do, as the Chilcot Inquiry concluded. [31] However, its clear that Labour and its leader have accepted this. Corbyn was campaigning to stop the war long before any other mainstream members of the Labour Party.  He has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. [35] That is why we need a Prime Minister that will be principled like this and help all those in need by increased humanitarian work.

Taking on UKIP Pre-Referendum
When Brexit was going on (pre-vote) Lib Dems were the only party other than SNP to actively take on UKIP. You can go ahead and 'prove me wrong', but not even Green Party took head-to-head debates to UKIP on the matter. 
Labour engaged with all the major debates with UKIP at the time, the same as the Liberal Democrats. PRO has offered no evidence that the Lib Dems have done more to tackle the lies of Nigel Farage.

Corbyn's Stance on a Second Referendum

Corbyn has historically been a Brexiteer and leads a party that is majority remain. [36] [37] The fact that Jeremy has adapted his policy against what he truly believes shows how much of a leader he is. He isn't going to lie or go against his principles, but to remain neutral in the proposed second referendum. [38]
 
"Undemocratic" to want a Second Referendum

As I said in R1, " although it is not undemocratic to revoke article 50 if the Liberal Democrats secured a democratic mandate for such action at an election - that's an absurd proposition - it is, however, deeply divisive." This claim has only ever been said by members of other parties, not the Labour Party.

More to the Left of the Political Spectrum
 Labour who always says they are the 'more left wing' party but it's a lie. Lib Dems are actually as centrist as Labour (not more centrist or less Left Wing) where they differ is that Labour goes for immediate solutions, while Lib Dems like long-term solutions. 
This is completely polemical conjecture. Not only has PRO not provided any evidence, but has given false information.

Orange Book Liberal Democrats such as Sir Nick Clegg and current Deputy Leader Ed Davey support classical liberalism which is to the right of the political spectrum in comparison to democratic socialism and social democracy which are the two most prominent factions of the Labour Party. [39] [40]

Labour Copying Liberal Democrat Policies
 Recently Labour has attacked Conservatives over lack of police funding and also said we need to better treat children who were abused as children for mental health stuff provided by NHS as well as remove them from their parents so they don't end up like that lunatic who stabbed everyone very, very recently.

Lib Dems came up with that attack and stance 20 years ago. It wasn't until this election that Labour have ever had making all mental health facilities maximised in efficiency and provided 100% publicly. 
Labour has recently attacked the Conservative Party, and rightly so, over their failures in police funding and mental health provision. However, the history of the policies surrounding this pre-dates the Lib Dems. In the 2010 Labour manifesto, one section read "We will pioneer better mental health care and tackle the scourge of mental illness. Over the next Parliament more than 8,000 new therapists will ensure access to psychological therapy for all who need it as we seek to change our society’s attitudes to mental illness." [41] Compare this to the Liberal Democrat Manifesto of the same year, where it declares the parties aim for mental health to be "Cut the economic costs of mental health problems", without care or consideration to the need to help shape society. [42] When in Government, elected on this manifesto, they were apart of a Government that cut access to mental health dramatically with their policy paper of "No Health Without Mental Health" failed. [43]

 Do you know the Lib Dems who broke off of Labour originally were the ones who were the most caring for the poor and vulnerable, not the 'centrists'?
"In 1981, an electoral alliance was established between the Liberal Party, a group which was the direct descendant of the 18th-century Whigs, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a splinter group from the Labour Party." [2] The SDP was centre-left and the Liberal Party were centre-right which brought them into the centre-ground. 

Also, I proposed the definition of the Liberal Democrats to be  "The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are a liberal political party in the United Kingdom and are positioned in the centre-ground of British politics." to which you did not object to in R2.

Labour called that a waste of money or left it out of their manifesto for decades since the NHS's origin until this election.
That is not true and you have yet again provided no evidence. Labour created the NHS and since moving away from Blairism, has always supported the inclusion of mental health provisions - particularly under the leaderships of Ed Milliband and interim leader Harriet Harmon.

Pragmatism

Lib Dems are more practical than Labour, more willing to balance public services with privately-run provision
This is not true. Labour abolished Clause IV of its constitution under Blair to move towards a healthy mix, including the introduction of PFIs. [44]

Labour blames this on 'crashes' and other stuff,
The 2008 Global Financial Crash was not caused by the British Labour Party. Even then Conservative Shadow Chancellor George Osborne admitted this. [45]

Lib Dems know how to 'mix it up', that doesn't make them less moral it makes them pragmatic about how to enact ethical policy.
Pragmatism is a virtue, but it can also be an excess vice, as Aristotle would say. [46] Having very few core principles makes the Liberal Democrats in different constituencies pretend to be different things to different people to gain votes. They are not wanting to change the country, but gain popularity and power and their only motivation, particularly the likes of Jo Swinson and Sir Nick Clegg, seems only to be greed.

Sources
[40] Wickham-Jones, Mark (1996) The Nature of Social Democracy and the Labour Party. In: Economic Strategy and the Labour Party. Palgrave Macmillan, London 
Round 3
Published:
This is a set of nonsense from Con. Lib Dems are social democrats and their polar opposite enemy is the Classic Liberal (AKA Right-wing Libertarian) group that formed UKIP and now the Brexit party. To suggest that leaders of Lib Dem are that is nonsense.

I am probably going to say vote Labour because the corrupt 'first past the post' voting system of UK will punish splitting up Lib Dem and Labour votes but I still stand by what I said. Con is now saying that the inconsistency of Corbyn is what makes him a great leader. I can't be bothered with this debate anymore, it just showed me that there is even more lies and stupidity on the side of Labour supporters than I first thought.


Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
Well it's too late now.
Forfeited
Added:
I already knew they will lose. Even Lib Dems knew they would lose. When you say 'lose' you do know SNP has a very similar manifesto to Lib Dems right? so really all SNP seats would be Lib dem and Scotland used to be extremely Lib Dem and Labour-heavy until 3 elections ago.
I'm not complaining, SNP and Labour coalition was indeed viable had Labour won more seats. Lib Dems would have happily given Labour the edge this election offering a 3-way coalition but still not enough seats to beat the Conservatives.
Instigator
#2
Added:
they lost
#1
No votes yet