Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

[Proper Tidy]

I am genuinely shocked at how stupid some people are then.

Some people are hugely superficial when it comes to politics, they saw the Libs as shiny and fluffy but they won't see any sort of deal with the Tories in the same way. My mum, my three brothers and my sister all voted Liberal pretty much on these grounds. They're not stupid generally but their interest in politics is skin deep.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I was annoyed with him before. His praise of Thatcher and comparison of striking miners with bankers, things like that.

He compared the miners with the bankers? I always thought he was a fucking cunt, but more of a neckshot cunt than a bludgeon to death with a meat tenderizer cunt.

 

[fractionMan]

Well if you look at it from the POV of a proper LibDem (as opposed to a tactical one) then on the basis of the ideal of PR & being centrist; forming a coalition with Labour fits with that. Handing the Tories real power doesn't.

this

any deal with the tories will make them "new libdems", which is shit imo.

 

[cesare]

I voted Libdem tactically to unseat the Tory incumbent. This, it seems, was a waste of time.

A 'Tactical LibDem voters - how do you feel now?' poll would be quite interesting.

Sam, have you read Butcher's Why LibDems Are Evil thread? Cos if you see some of the posts on there about why voting for LibDem would be a good idea, you might get a flavour of why some people are upset.

 

[butchersapron]

Your point?

The fact remains the tories have not won because legally this is a hung parliament. It requires an overall majority to be considered as having 'won'.

As I said, it's down to them to bicker and make deals and decide who has a mandate to govern. It's likely this could include more seats than just the big three.

Spot on. Lot's of people who voted liberal would prefer a lab-lib minority govt rather than a tory minority govt or a con-lib majority govt. There's no reason why the whigs need to go with the latter two.

 

[audiotech]

A minority govt doesn't have complete power, it's got a tiny room for manouvere and very little power - that's why they die pretty quickly. To prop up a tory govt would be to hand them real power that they wouldn't have otherwise.

That's what the Liberals thought in 1974 and that turned out to be a wishful thinking on their part.

 

[fractionMan]

Because they thought they were voting for some sort of progressive vaguely lefty party which is now jumping in with the Tories.

You could certainly say that was naive to a huge degree, because it was. But that's why a lot of people are upset, at least the journo/Internet lot.

I think this is fairly accurate.

 

[butchersapron]

That's what the Liberals thought in 1974 and that turned out to be a wishful thinking on their part.

You've misread what i wrote there i think (and it contradicts the thousands of posts of mine that you've read over the last weeks on this )

 

[William of Walworth]

He compared the miners with the bankers? I always thought he was a fucking cunt, but more of a neckshot cunt than a bludgeon to death with a meat tenderizer cunt.

 

[fen_boy]

Spot on. Lot's of people who voted liberal would prefer a lab-lib minority govt rather than a tory minority govt or a con-lib majority govt. There's no reason why the whigs need to go with the latter two.

If they had got 80 odd seats there'd be more chance of a liblab pact happening. As things stand I can't see it.

 

[butchersapron]

If they had got 80 odd seats there'd be more chance of a liblab pact happening. As things stand I can't see it.

I can't either, but it's not something that they're not allowed to try.

Anyway, the Con/lab coalition is now taking form....

 

[scifisam]

I'm not -- never underestimate the limits to some peoples' political knowledge/awareness.

Some people are hugely superficial when it comes to politics, they saw the Libs as shiny and fluffy but they won't see any sort of deal with the Tories in the same way. My mum, my three brothers and my sister all voted Liberal pretty much on these grounds. They're not stupid generally but their interest in politics is skin deep.

See, the people I'm thinking of are intelligent - usually - and politically aware. Perhaps they just missed it when Clegg said he'd side with the biggest party (and the Tories are the biggest in terms and seats AND percentage of vote). It wasn't exactly a minor detail, though - it'd be hard to miss it.

@Cesare: Nope, haven't read it, and it's a bit long to go into now.

Anyway, the question I had at the start of the thread has been answered, at least.

 

[audiotech]

You've misread what i wrote there i think (and it contradicts the thousands of posts of mine that you've read over the last weeks on this )

Your writing style is bloated, bit like microsoft windows.

 

[gabi]

In what way? Who else are we hearing from right now? Journalists and people on the Internet.

Where else do you normally gather your news from?

'people on the internet' lol

 

[Tooter]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-want-a-coalition-between-Labour-and-the-Lib-Dems-Bye-bye-Tories/100549553324636?v=wall

 

[danny la rouge]

Spot on. Lot's of people who voted liberal would prefer a lab-lib minority govt rather than a tory minority govt or a con-lib majority govt. There's no reason why the whigs need to go with the latter two.

Exactly. Other than Clegg's utter ineptitude.

 

[fractionMan]

Where else do you normally gather your news from?

'people on the internet' lol

Considering I don't read the papers and don't watch the tv, for me it is 'people on the internet', lol or not.

 

[ska invita]

let me get all political comentator on you and start by saying "look its really simple ": Clegg had to open the door to talks with Torys first. LIbdems are commited to direct democracy, both within the party, where members vote on policy at conference, through to proporitonal representation. To ignore the fact that torys got the most votes and seats would be hypocrisy. So Libs had to acknowledge that, and did so by saying they would 'discuss' a coalition with them first, in keeping with the will of the majority of voters.

But im certain there are so many insurmountable differences between lab and con that no deal will be done, and libs can then go to labour, where there are far more similiarities, and make any deal without being accused of ignoring the electorate.

and the libdems are to the left or new labour and torys - sorry, its a fact. those who cant see that new labour are a centre right authoritarian party are truly 'stary eyed' and deluding themselves. were it only otherwise...

 

[gabi]

Considering I don't read the papers and don't watch the tv, for me it is 'people on the internet', lol or not.

Should we use telephones to communicate this kinda stuff?

'people on the internet' are also known as 'people'

 

[Proper Tidy]

LIbdems are commited to direct democracy

Hmmm. I suspect this definition of direct democracy might get called into question...

 

[ska invita]

Hmmm. I suspect this definition of direct democracy might get called into question...

fair enough - point made

 

[cesare]

let me get all political comentator on you and start by saying "look its really simple ": Clegg had to open the door to talks with Torys first. LIbdems are commited to direct democracy, both within the party, where members vote on policy at conference, through to proporitonal representation. To ignore the fact that torys got the most votes and seats would be hypocrisy. So Libs had to acknowledge that, and did so by saying they would 'discuss' a coalition with them first, in keeping with the will of the majority of voters.

But im certain there are so many insurmountable differences between lab and con that no deal will be done, and libs can then go to labour, where there are far more similiarities, and make any deal without being accused of ignoring the electorate.

and the libdems are to the left or new labour and torys - sorry, its a fact. those who cant see that new labour are a centre right authoritarian party are truly 'stary eyed' and deluding themselves. were it only otherwise...

No. The tories got the most seats - they didn't get the majority of votes. If the ideal of direct democracy was fundamental to the LibDem position, they would have talked to Labour first. Clegg didn't have to talk to the tories first - he chose to.

 

[butchersapron]

let me get all political comentator on you and start by saying "look its really simple ": Clegg had to open the door to talks with Torys first. LIbdems are commited to direct democracy, both within the party, where members vote on policy at conference, through to proporitonal representation. To ignore the fact that torys got the most votes and seats would be hypocrisy. So Libs had to acknowledge that, and did so by saying they would 'discuss' a coalition with them first, in keeping with the will of the majority of voters.

But im certain there are so many insurmountable differences between lab and con that no deal will be done, and libs can then go to labour, where there are far more similiarities, and make any deal without being accused of ignoring the electorate.

and the libdems are to the left or new labour and torys - sorry, its a fact. those who cant see that new labour are a centre right authoritarian party are truly 'stary eyed' and deluding themselves. were it only otherwise...

You've presented this lib-dems are left-centre nonsense on the basis of a ridiculously crude political compass model that also puts the BNP to the left of the lib-dems and labour - you never dealt with my question asking why we should accept this model or if you agreed then that the BNP are to the left of the lib-dems.

And what exactly are these similarities and differences you base your argument on? You've never manged to outline these either. Do you know what the orange book is? Do you know the people who wrote this 'break up the NHS', less regulation on finance piece of openly neo-liberal crap now own the lib-dems? maybe that's the similarities with labour you're talking about - unashamed neo-liberalism?

 

[Wolveryeti]

Clegg fucked up by endorsing the Tories. They won't cede him anything really valuable, certainly not PR. With a bit of wriggling he easily could have said something along the lines of Labour voters preferring the lib dems over the tories, which is probably true and would have allowed him to approach Labour whilst not losing too much face. Silly cunt was never going to be onto a winner after having sounded off so much in the build up though.

 

[scifisam]

No. The tories got the most seats - they didn't get the majority of votes. If the ideal of direct democracy was fundamental to the LibDem position, they would have talked to Labour first. Clegg didn't have to talk to the tories first - he chose to.

The BBC just said that they did get the most votes.

 

[cesare]

I'd love to be a fly on Paddy Ashdown's wall.

 

[free spirit]

Clegg fucked up by endorsing the Tories. They won't cede him anything really valuable, certainly not PR. With a bit of wriggling he easily could have said something along the lines of Labour voters preferring the lib dems over the tories, which is probably true and would have allowed him to approach Labour whilst not losing too much face. Silly cunt was never going to be onto a winner after having sounded off so much in the build up though.

when?

 

[quimcunx]

I'd love to be a fly on Paddy Ashdown's wall.

Keep your sordid sex fantasies out of this thread, please!

 

[cesare]

The BBC just said that they did get the most votes.

I said 'majority of votes' not 'most'.

 

[cesare]

Keep your sordid sex fantasies out of this thread, please!

Pantsdown