Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

[cesare]

Well, the alternatives are voting for really small parties that have even less chance of any power, voting for more right-wing parties, or not voting. I can understand why people would go for the former and latter, but personally I voted for the least-bad party that had a chance of getting in - and there weren't any socialist candidates or anything like that standing here anyway. (There was no way I was going to vote for Respect).

I could never see LibDems as a 'least bad' option. Remember this? http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr168/nineham.htm

 

[the button]

I didn't realise the lib-dems supported pass laws!

Hadn't thought of it like that, but yes.

Immigration into a specific area would presumably entail some sort of internal pass otherwise it couldn't be policed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Blimey, how did i let that one go!

I'm disappointed in you, frankly.

Although tbf, like the Tories' idea of an annual cap, it isn't something anyone was ever going to actually do. Pre-election woo-the-bigots fluff.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I realised after I posted that it was slightly ambiguous. I mean, as right-wing as the other parties. Not more right-wing than the Tories and Labour.

I find the regional work permit thing a terrible idea. Some of it is spun in a 'progressive' way, but when you think about the implications of restricting groups of workers to one particular area, all that will happen is more division - pockets of angry local people who see out of work furriners everywhere, more justification for the line that 'they come over here and take all our jobs', and a new even more disenfranchised layer of immigrants who can't get work because they aren't allowed to move around to find it.

I wasn't aware of these proposals - I'll have to look that up, ta.

Generally the impact of restricting people's ability to work to a certain company or area is to hugely increase the relative power of employer by restricting the worker's alternatives if they want to eat. It doesn't sound like it would be too practical within the EC though, and there are already sponsors required for many types of work visa.

 

[elbows]

Blimey, how did i let that one go!

Cameron took the piss out of it at the time, started going on about internal border police.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Blimey, how did i let that one go!

Same debate where he supported a border police force, I do believe.

 

[scifisam]

I could never see LibDems as a 'least bad' option. Remember this? http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr168/nineham.htm

TBH, I don't have the energy to go into it in detail, but I probably have a different perspective on some (not all) aspects of those accusations than you do. And it still doesn't make Labour or the Tories better than them - remember, I was talking about them being the least bad out of the major parties.

 

[Acolyte]

Clegg went on about it a lot in one of the debates, in relation to immigrants.

But he cited Canada and Australia I find a huge geographical difference between them and the UK I feel his reliance on the idea of employers being the 'enforcement authority' would be scarcely different from the current system and would simply create a new grouping of illegal workers

 

[Vintage Paw]

The unworkability of that policy is of course important, but doesn't erase the fact he still proposed it, in the televised debates. I am surprised it had passed so many people by, actually. It was one thing that made my jaw drop when he said it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Those stoopid apolitical middle class twats at that demo were a fecking waste of space. The thick fucking scum should've been more concerned about preventing an alliance with the tory vermin than P fucking R - the fucking tossmonger cretins.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

P fucking R?



The lack of PR gave us a decade of Thatcher when over half the population hated her.

 

[cesare]

TBH, I don't have the energy to go into it in detail, but I probably have a different perspective on some (not all) aspects of those accusations than you do. And it still doesn't make Labour or the Tories better than them - remember, I was talking about them being the least bad out of the major parties.

My perspective is borne out of long familiarity with the area together with my mother working for the council and hating every second under LibDem control (for the reasons set out in that link). And they haven't changed their spots either - as per Butcher's observations. Just because they haven't had a chance (yet) to carry out their out-torying the tories local politics at national level, doesn't mean that they wouldn't - and it certainly doesn't mean that people should trust Clegg as far as they can throw him.

edit: As far as 'least bad' is concerned, personally I don't think any of the major 3 will change whilst they are endorsed by voting them in.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

We've just had a fucking election - a bit late crying for PR now, and too early to be the primary concern with respect to the next one. Now the primary task is to prevent the tory vermin government and its program of savage cuts. By focusing on PR rather than substantive politics the purple mob are preparing the ground for some piss weak pledge from Cameron about "looking very seriously at voting reform" and then he and his sadistic cabal of sexual perverts will gang rape the working class the hardest it ever has been since the early 80s with tactic lib dem backing.

 

[scifisam]

My perspective is borne out of long familiarity with the area together with my mother working for the council and hating every second under LibDem control (for the reasons set out in that link). And they haven't changed their spots either - as per Butcher's observations. Just because they haven't had a chance (yet) to carry out their out-torying the tories local politics at national level, doesn't mean that they wouldn't - and it certainly doesn't mean that people should trust Clegg as far as they can throw him.

Yeah, I've been familiar with the borough for a fair while too - I'm not exactly a newcomer!

 

[Vintage Paw]

TBH, I don't have the energy to go into it in detail, but I probably have a different perspective on some (not all) aspects of those accusations than you do. And it still doesn't make Labour or the Tories better than them - remember, I was talking about them being the least bad out of the major parties.

I really do sympathise with the 'least bad' argument. It's natural to look for the best of a bad bunch in these circumstances. But I think in a lot of people's cases (and I'm not saying you're doing this), any policies seen as socially progressive are being used as apologism for the neo-liberal economic policies that go alongside them. Or, in other words, just because they have some socially progressive views, it doesn't mean they are any better than the other parties, and it doesn't mean they should be tacitly accepted.

But I do understand that takes us back to 'well who out of the big three do you vote for then?' question. And, again, I understand why people justify their vote by saying they're the best of a bad bunch. But that's entirely a matter of perception, because they are just as bad as the other two, in my eyes.

One interesting thing, both unrelated and not entirely unrelated: I saw voting stats on gay rights issues the other day (I can't remember where, I'll try and hunt them down if anyone is bothered), which actually said Labour had voted for gay rights 1% more than the LibDems. 1% isn't a lot, of course - it'd be ridiculous to say 'Labour care about gays more than the LibDems' based on that. But what it does illustrate is that the perception of the LibDems being the socially-progressive gay-friendly party, ahead of the others (of course the Tories came woefully short of both Lab and LD's voting record) is disingenuous.

 

[Acolyte]

P fucking R?



The lack of PR gave us a decade of Thatcher when over half the population hated her.

And, even worse, a totally unprincipled capitalist New Labour

 

[scifisam]

edit: As far as 'least bad' is concerned, personally I don't think any of the major 3 will change whilst they are endorsed by voting them in.

(That appeared while I was posting just now).

It's possibly true about them not changing, but still, you're not actually saying they're better or worse than either of the other two big parties, just that they're all bad.

In most areas of the country there aren't any left-wing politicians standing at all. I can understand people choosing not to vote in those circumstances, but the problem with a lot of left-wing people choosing not to vote is that we then all end up with a government that's even more right-wing than the alternative.

 

[Zabo]

Today

"In the first indication of how the Liberal Democrats are progressing with a deal with the Tories, Lib Dem negotiator David Laws says they "endorsed fully and completely" their leader's strategy. He spoke after a meeting of the party's cabinet and parliamentary members, but he wouldn't give a timetable for any deal nor details of negotiations."

2004

"Mr Laws also calls for more competition and choice in public services such as health.
He says some Liberals wrongly shunned economic liberalism when Margaret Thatcher embraced a free market approach because they no longer thought it compatible with a "social liberal agenda".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3621340.stm

So speaketh the pseudo Tory "Orange Book" cabal of LD's.

May they blow themselves into fucking oblivion - which they will if they bed down with the Tories.

How sad that the tripehounds Owen, Williams, Jenkins and Rogers put the knife in all those years ago.

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

 

[Vintage Paw]

(That appeared while I was posting just now).

It's possibly true about them not changing, but still, you're not actually saying they're better or worse than either of the other two big parties, just that they're all bad.

In most areas of the country there aren't any left-wing politicians standing at all. I can understand people choosing not to vote in those circumstances, but the problem with a lot of left-wing people choosing not to vote is that we then all end up with a government that's even more right-wing than the alternative.

That, to some respect, comes down to conscience, doesn't it? Whether you can live with yourself voting for a party who will fuck you over and who you fundamentally disagree with, in order to avoid a party who will fuck you over slightly more. A lot of people can't, and so won't vote for any of the three. It depends how much stock you place in you being 'left-wing'. There are those who are left-wing who would never, ever consider voting for the LibDems. Because despite any facade of progressive social policy, they know that economically they are not left wing in any way, shape or form. Arguing whether they are 'more left wing' than any of the other two is pointless, because even if they are that doesn't actually make them left wing. And for a lot of left wing voters, that is key.

 

[scifisam]

That, to some respect, comes down to conscience, doesn't it? Whether you can live with yourself voting for a party who will fuck you over and who you fundamentally disagree with, in order to avoid a party who will fuck you over slightly more. A lot of people can't, and so won't vote for any of the three. It depends how much stock you place in you being 'left-wing'. There are those who are left-wing who would never, ever consider voting for the LibDems. Because despite any facade of progressive social policy, they know that economically they are not left wing in any way, shape or form. Arguing whether they are 'more left wing' than any of the other two is pointless, because even if they are that doesn't actually make them left wing. And for a lot of left wing voters, that is key.

Oh yes, like I said, I can understand why many people make the personal decision not to vote (or to spoil their ballot papers). But it's not without its consequences. You can't win either way.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Today

"In the first indication of how the Liberal Democrats are progressing with a deal with the Tories, Lib Dem negotiator David Laws says they "endorsed fully and completely" their leader's strategy. He spoke after a meeting of the party's cabinet and parliamentary members, but he wouldn't give a timetable for any deal nor details of negotiations."

2004

"Mr Laws also calls for more competition and choice in public services such as health.
He says some Liberals wrongly shunned economic liberalism when Margaret Thatcher embraced a free market approach because they no longer thought it compatible with a "social liberal agenda".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3621340.stm

So speaketh the pseudo Tory "Orange Book" cabal of LD's.

May they blow themselves into fucking oblivion - which they will if they bed down with the Tories.

How sad that the tripehounds Owen, Williams, Jenkins and Rogers put the knife in all those years ago.

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

edit - that was a bit rich. I meant it though, but probably best that it's airbrushed.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Whether you can live with yourself voting for a party who will fuck you over and who you fundamentally disagree with, in order to avoid a party who will fuck you over slightly more.

Well, I voted Labour to avoid a Tory win. I can live with that despite hating Labour.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Well, I voted Labour to avoid a Tory win. I can live with that despite hating Labour.

And I too voted Labour, to ensure the Labour vote in my constituency was strong in the face of rising right-wing support around here.

As it turns out, Labour lost a share of the votes, but retained all their MPs in Stoke. I can live with myself for that.

I think, in terms of the original question Sam asked at the beginning of this thread (which she's said she's had answered), there are a lot of people who did actually buy in to the vision of the LibDems as being the party for 'change' - but they were duped. How or why comes down to their own willingness to ignore certain issues, their own political illiteracy, and a whole host of other reasons, but they are the ones hurting now.

Of course, there are some that are getting very defensive now as well. Because the only way to save face is to still look for reasons to call Clegg progressive, to insist he's standing by his 'principles', and to delude themselves that he's actually a progressive guy. It's all pretty sad.

 

[doddles]

I think, in terms of the original question Sam asked at the beginning of this thread (which she's said she's had answered), there are a lot of people who did actually buy in to the vision of the LibDems as being the party for 'change' - but they were duped.

Oh bollocks. Many of us voted LibDems for one reason - voting reform. We might still get that. The LibDems have made no deal yet.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Oh bollocks. Many of us voted LibDems for one reason - voting reform. We might still get that. The LibDems have made no deal yet.

I don't believe I ever said 'everyone voted LD because ...'.

Voters aren't one homogeneous mass.

 

[trevhagl]

Oh bollocks. Many of us voted LibDems for one reason - voting reform. We might still get that. The LibDems have made no deal yet.

if he sucks up to Cameron WITHOUT voting reform then he's a bigger tosser than we all thought!

 

[doddles]

if he sucks up to Cameron WITHOUT voting reform then he's a bigger tosser than we all thought!

That I agree with.

 

[FiFi]

if he sucks up to Cameron WITHOUT voting reform then he's a bigger tosser than we all thought!

My worst fear atm.
If he does have to deal with the Torys he MUST at least try and get PR.

 

[TAE]

if he sucks up to Cameron WITHOUT voting reform then he's a bigger tosser than we all thought!

Yeah but he'd need to carry 75% of his mates along with it. Lets hope THAT does not happen.

I mean people that weren't annoyed with him before. I see lots of people saying that they're disgusted with Nick Clegg, won't get fooled again, etc. etc., and I get the impression that he's said or done something specific that's getting everyone riled up.

Has he kicked a puppy or something?

He's doing what he said before the election that he would do (talk to the biggest party first) and people are just not used to that.

 

[butchersapron]

It's great how propping up tories can be twisted into a point of honour isn't it?