Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

I've just popped down to the shops and passed a bright orange Lib Dem campaign sign on the side of someones house which has already been daubed with 'Thatcher scum' :(:facepalm:

Oh nick.
 
Wolveryeti said:
All of his 'first right to seek to govern' stuff on Downing St.
Click to expand...
that's not an endorsement, just a nod in the general direction of democracy and common sense.

in political bargaining terms as well, it also allows him to say that he gave the tories the chance to compromise and form a coalition government, but they refused, labour then made the better offer so he went with them etc.

allowing labour first dibs simply because of convention when labour had got less seats and less of the popular vote would have entirely undermined the lib dems case for electoral reform. IMO it has no bearing on what the lib dems will actually do in the long run (unless cameron makes an offer that's too good to be refused of course)
 
cesare said:
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.
Click to expand...

and Brown hasn't make the same mistake as Heath did.
 
cesare said:
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.
Click to expand...

What?

The Tories got OVER TWO MILLION MORE VOTES than Labour and you think 'the ideal of direct democracy' would be better served by Clegg talking to Labour first? :facepalm: :D
 
claphamboy said:
What?

The Tories got OVER TWO MILLION MORE VOTES than Labour and you think 'the ideal of direct democracy' would be better served by Clegg talking to Labour first? :facepalm: :D
Click to expand...

Stick your facepalm up your arse.

The tories (a) didn't get the majority of votes; and (b) won't concede on the direct democracy point. Of course the the 'ideal of direct democracy' would have been better served by Clegg talking to Labour first. And that is (one of the reasons) why a lot of true LibDems are pissed off with him.
 
The tories and Liveral democrats are polar opposites.

Just see the Lib Dem voters rip the place to pieces if he continues with this line.

read Nick Clegg's facebook page. people are not happy.
 
cesare said:
Stick your facepalm up your arse.

The tories (a) didn't get the majority of votes; and (b) won't concede on the direct democracy point. Of course the the 'ideal of direct democracy' would have been better served by Clegg talking to Labour first. And that is (one of the reasons) why a lot of true LibDems are pissed off with him.
Click to expand...

But during the campaign Clegg said:

(a) he would talk to the party with the largest mandate first.

(b) electoral reform was NOT a precondition.

I take my hat off to Clegg to sticking to his election promises, so far, yet you seem to think he shouldn't. :hmm:
 
cesare said:
Stick your facepalm up your arse.

The tories (a) didn't get the majority of votes; and (b) won't concede on the direct democracy point. Of course the the 'ideal of direct democracy' would have been better served by Clegg talking to Labour first. And that is (one of the reasons) why a lot of true LibDems are pissed off with him.
Click to expand...

Cesare, where are you getting this? The Beeb are saying that the Tories got the majority of the vote.
 
claphamboy said:
But during the campaign Clegg said:

(a) he would talk to the party with the largest mandate first.

(b) electoral reform was NOT a precondition.

I take my hat off to Clegg to sticking to his election promises, so far, yet you seem to think he shouldn't. :hmm:
Click to expand...

I don't think he should hand the tories real power - no. Is that what you want him to do?
 
claphamboy said:
But during the campaign Clegg said:

(a) he would talk to the party with the largest mandate first.

(b) electoral reform was NOT a precondition.

I take my hat off to Clegg to sticking to his election promises, so far, yet you seem to think he shouldn't. :hmm:
Click to expand...
when / where?

I've seen him refuse to talk about any preconditions in an interview, and include electoral reform in that, but not to actually specifically state that it wasn't a pre-condition.

bottom line, it is a precondition as it's been a consistent party policy since it's formation, and would instantly transform the lib dems political position in this country into one that represents the will of the people much much better than at present - ie probably 3 times more seats even with votes cast as in this election.
 
free spirit said:
when / where?

I've seen him refuse to talk about any preconditions in an interview, and include electoral reform in that, but not to actually specifically state that it wasn't a pre-condition.

bottom line, it is a precondition as it's been a consistent party policy since it's formation, and would instantly transform the lib dems political position in this country into one that represents the will of the people much much better than at present - ie probably 3 times more seats even with votes cast as in this election.
Click to expand...

Paxman pushed him on both those issues (cheers for the reminder button) and he refused to be drawn.
 
cesare said:
I don't think he should hand the tories real power - no. Is that what you want him to do?
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want a zombie Labour government and so under the circumstances the LibDems keeping a Tory government under some sort of control is the best option available.

And for those that think a Tory/LibDem deal will break the LibDem party, think what happened after the Liberals got into bed with Labour back in the 70s - next election they lost votes, share and seats.

Labour split, the SDP formed, the SDP & Liberals joined together and lifted share to a miserable 3% - where they stayed until 1997 when they started their climb to 'success' in opposition to Labour governments.
 
free spirit said:
when / where?

I've seen him refuse to talk about any preconditions in an interview, and include electoral reform in that, but not to actually specifically state that it wasn't a pre-condition.

bottom line, it is a precondition as it's been a consistent party policy since it's formation, and would instantly transform the lib dems political position in this country into one that represents the will of the people much much better than at present - ie probably 3 times more seats even with votes cast as in this election.
Click to expand...

When / where?

All over the media at the time - did you miss it?
 
claphamboy said:
I certainly don't want a zombie Labour government and so under the circumstances the LibDems keeping a Tory government under some sort of control is the best option available.

And for those that think a Tory/LibDem deal will break the LibDem party, think what happened after the Liberals got into bed with Labour back in the 70s - next election they lost votes, share and seats.

Labour split, the SDP formed, the SDP & Liberals joined together and lifted share to a miserable 3% - where they stayed until 1997 when they started their climb to 'success' in opposition to Labour governments.
Click to expand...

But 'some sort of control' isn't really an option for Clegg now, is it?
 
cesare said:
I don't know. But in any event, is it clearer now why lots of people are annoyed at Nick Clegg today?
Click to expand...

Yes. They're being stupid.

Also: why are you keeping on saying that the Tories didn't get a majority of the vote when that's never going to happen anyway? It's a bit odd to criticise the LibDems for dealing a party that failed to achieve the impossible. Even odder to say that they should go with a party that got even fewer votes. Like I said, I'd rather see a Lab/Lib coalition, but I can't see it happening, or working if it does.
 
cesare said:
I don't know. But in any event, is it clearer now why lots of people are annoyed at Nick Clegg today?
Click to expand...

Who are these people? Where are they?

I only ask, because I was in a meeting this morning with several LibDem voters, members and councillors, including a former council leader, and they seemed very relaxed, nee pleased, with the idea they could be working with the Tories rather than Labour. :hmm:

BTW- before anyone starts screaming ‘Tory cunt’ at me, I voted Green.
 
claphamboy said:
Who are these people? Where are they?

I only ask, because I was in a meeting this morning with several LibDem voters, members and councillors, including a former council leader, and they seemed very relaxed, nee pleased, with the idea they could be working with the Tories rather than Labour. :hmm:

BTW- before anyone starts screaming ‘Tory cunt’ at me, I voted Green.
Click to expand...

I don't know - it's Sam's question, not mine. Ask her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
248
Views
9K
ghost boy
ghost boy
tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
P
In Blackpool South, did people vote because they are head over heals with Labour
Replies
27
Views
997
A380
A380
Boris Sprinkler
Why are people not rioting in the streets already?
Replies
18
Views
1K
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
Back
Top Bottom