Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

[scifisam]

Who are these people? Where are they?

Mostly friends of mine on Facebook.

 

[free spirit]

I think your being unrealistic to think any one party is gonna get more than 50% of the vote!

in which case, in a democracy they should need to be in coalition with enough other parties to take them over the 50% margin, which is where PR comes in.

 

[claphamboy]

link

afaik he didn't, you misinterpreted it, probably helped by the media.

Yes he did, I watched him fucking say it.

ETA:

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, on Monday held open the prospect of talks with David Cameron in a hung parliament after he said that a commitment to electoral reform was not a “precondition” to any deal.

Source - FT

 

[free spirit]

Yes he did, I watched him fucking say it.

ETA:



Source - FT

any chance of a source that's not behind a pay wall?

 

[Sgt Howie]

Really enjoying watching the liberal apologists squirm today.

 

[cesare]

Just seen your edit:

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.

I think you're misinterpreting my explanation to answer the question of your thread, by interpreting that as criticism of what Clegg did/didn't do. I've felt all along that Clegg would jump into bed with the Tories at the drop of a hat - I didn't need to say the obvious (to me) on this thread. I can't stand the LibDems, but I'm not annoyed with Clegg at the moment; more like 'well that was predictable wasn't it, sell out PR for semblance of power'.

But if he was really going down the route of PR (which is pretty fundamental to what the LibDems ostensibly stand for), he had enough wriggle room in his (misjudged: see PA's intervention) statements to get out of them - but he chose not to exercise that ... and that's why some misguided LibDem voters might be annoyed with him, together with senior members of the Party.

 

[cesare]

in which case, in a democracy they should need to be in coalition with enough other parties to take them over the 50% margin, which is where PR comes in.

And parties that support PR, if it's ever to be more than short lived.

 

[free spirit]

Yes he did, I watched him fucking say it.

ETA:



Source - FT

is this what you're on about?

In an interview with GMTV, Mr Clegg said: “I have never talked about preconditions between talks. I have talked about the things I want to fight for, the changes I want to fight for. Yes I want a new political system, because the old one is bust, a two party stitch up.
“I have always said that if you want to have new politics in this county one of the things you want is a system where politicians have to listen to you all the time.
“Not as, in the case at the moment, where you get just 20 or 30pc of the vote in a constituency and ignore you the rest of the time.”
Mr Clegg was speaking after a leaked document emerged which appeared to detail the party’s demands in the case of a hung Parliament.
One demand was that a move towards a proportional representation voting system had to be a must for any Lib Dem involvement in a coalition government.

 

[Tooter]

Gid there are some fucking idiots around.....no wonder the whole thing is such a farce.

And to think...we had visitors to look at 'how its done'

 

[scifisam]

Just seen your edit:



I think you're misinterpreting my explanation to answer the question of your thread, by interpreting that as criticism of what Clegg did/didn't do. I've felt all along that Clegg would jump into bed with the Tories at the drop of a hat - I didn't need to say the obvious (to me) on this thread. I can't stand the LibDems, but I'm not annoyed with Clegg at the moment; more like 'well that was predictable wasn't it, sell out PR for semblance of power'.

But if he was really going down the route of PR (which is pretty fundamental to what the LibDems ostensibly stand for), he had enough wriggle room in his (misjudged: see PA's intervention) statements to get out of them - but he chose not to exercise that ... and that's why some misguided LibDem voters might be annoyed with him, together with senior members of the Party.

This:

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.

... very much looks like criticism. You're saying Clegg's not serving direct democracy. That can hardly be a compliment.

BTW, I happen to have voted LibDem in all the national elections where I had the chance, and I was even once a member of the LibDems. Any 'true LibDem' would have been aware that Clegg said he'd deal with whichever was the biggest party.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Nick Clegg is an ubercunt isn't he

 

[scifisam]

Nick Clegg is an ubercunt isn't he

Oh yeah, absolutely. He's a fairly senior politician - it's rare to find one that isn't a bastard. But I don't think sticking to his promises is a cuntish action.

 

[cesare]

This:



... very much looks like criticism. You're saying Clegg's not serving direct democracy. That can hardly be a compliment.

BTW, I happen to have voted LibDem in all the national elections where I had the chance, and I was even once a member of the LibDems. Any 'true LibDem' would have been aware that Clegg said he'd deal with whichever was the biggest party.

I meant that I hardly had to come on here to spend time answering your question, when I've never been a fan of the LibDems - quite the reverse. I'm offering you an explanation of why some LibDem supporters might be annoyed with Clegg. It's up to you whether you think that's a plausible explanation, no skin off my nose. They're a bunch of lily livered cunts, no news there.

 

[Vintage Paw]

BTW, I happen to have voted LibDem in all the national elections where I had the chance, and I was even once a member of the LibDems. Any 'true LibDem' would have been aware that Clegg said he'd deal with whichever was the biggest party.

But 'true libdems' aren't the only people who voted for him.

 

[claphamboy]

any chance of a source that's not behind a pay wall?

It's viewable to me - I haven't paid.

 

[scifisam]

I meant that I hardly had to come on here to spend time answering your question, when I've never been a fan of the LibDems - quite the reverse. I'm offering you an explanation of why some LibDem supporters might be annoyed with Clegg. It's up to you whether you think that's a plausible explanation, no skin off my nose. They're a bunch of lily livered cunts, no news there.

I do think it's a plausible explanation; I've already said a couple of times that my question had been answered.

It's disappointing, both because I'm shocked at the stupidity of some usually intelligent people, and because I was kinda hoping there would be a better reason - if Clegg had turned round and said 'let's extend section 28! More ID cards!' then I'd be happier about them not doing very well.

But 'true libdems' aren't the only people who voted for him.

No - but cesare was talking about 'true LibDems.'

 

[free spirit]

This:



... very much looks like criticism. You're saying Clegg's not serving direct democracy. That can hardly be a compliment.

BTW, I happen to have voted LibDem in all the national elections where I had the chance, and I was even once a member of the LibDems. Any 'true LibDem' would have been aware that Clegg said he'd deal with whichever was the biggest party.

no he didn't (eta - did he?), IIRC, he's said that he'll speak to them first, not that he'd automatically support them, which is an important difference.

 

[DotCommunist]

today? I've been calling liberals cunts since I first learned thier MO. Via Hunter S Thompsons disgust at them I looked at how they operate. Nobody likes lying slags who will sell your vote to the very people you were voting to avoid.

 

[cesare]

No - but cesare was talking about 'true LibDems.'

I emphasised 'true LibDems' in relation to the PR sell-out. Tactical LibDems would be annoyed on the immediate Tory sellout point.

 

[scifisam]

no he didn't (eta - did he?), IIRC, he's said that he'll speak to them first, not that he'd automatically support them, which is an important difference.

I said 'deal with,' which is a pretty wide-ranging term.

BTW, Claphamboy's link was visible to me before but now now it's requiring me to register.

 

[free spirit]

It's viewable to me - I haven't paid.

odd. anyway, is it drawn from the same source interview as the telegraph quote I gave above?

if so, do you see what I mean about him talking generally about not wanting to talk about preconditions, and this then being spun as him saying he'd abandoned electoral reform as a precondition?

 

[scifisam]

I emphasised 'true LibDems' in relation to the PR sell-out. Tactical LibDems would be annoyed on the immediate Tory sellout point.

And long-term LibDem voters who aren't actually strong supporters would think 'oh, right, he's doing what he said he would, OK.' Well, at least one of them would.

 

[cesare]

I said 'deal with,' which is a pretty wide-ranging term.

BTW, Claphamboy's link was visible to me before but now now it's requiring me to register.

free spirit's subsequent link was from a day later (4th May) once he'd wriggled again. (Clegg, not free spirit)

 

[scifisam]

odd. anyway, is it drawn from the same source interview as the telegraph quote I gave above?

if so, do you see what I mean about him talking generally about not wanting to talk about preconditions, and this then being spun as him saying he'd abandoned electoral reform as a precondition?

I can't see that article again now, but IIRC it was actually pretty unambiguous, no spin required.

 

[cesare]

And long-term LibDem voters who aren't actually strong supporters would think 'oh, right, he's doing what he said he would, OK.' Well, at least one of them would.

Aye. Not all of them would be annoyed.

 

[cesare]

And long-term LibDem voters who aren't actually strong supporters would think 'oh, right, he's doing what he said he would, OK.' Well, at least one of them would.

Did you see that Paxman interview with him? Where Paxman was trying to pin down exactly what he meant by what he was saying?

 

[lopsidedbunny]

The real reason Nick Clegg lost those five seats it simply due to the Nuclear issue. If you know Labour are beaten then what would an average joe blogg do with a single vote a weaken nuclear deterrent or a new and "strong" deterrent. (Remember that Maggies political broadcast and Labour lost because they planned to get rid of them?) As for Nick listening to the Tories dreads me with fear....

 

[claphamboy]

odd. anyway, is it drawn from the same source interview as the telegraph quote I gave above?

No, I don't watch GMTV - FFS

I saw him make it clear in a speech or interview, but it certainly wasn't the one given to GMTV.

 

[free spirit]

I said 'deal with,' which is a pretty wide-ranging term.

BTW, Claphamboy's link was visible to me before but now now it's requiring me to register.

I know it may appear to be a minor difference, but the tory press are all spinning it as nick clegg saying the conservatives have the right to govern, when what he's actually saying is that they should have the first right to seek to govern, which is a major difference.

And Nick Clegg, leader of the third biggest party, the Lib Dems, said he believed the result gave the Tories the right to seek to govern first.

[bbc]

Mr Clegg said: "I have said that whichever party gets the most votes and the most seats has the first right to seek to govern, either on its own or by reaching out to other parties and I stick to that view," said the Lib Dem leader.

[torygraph - title "Nick Clegg says Conservatives have the right to govern"]

allowing cameron first right to attempt to make a deal in no way endorses him, or implies that clegg (or the rest of the lib dems) would prefer to work with the conservatives, merely that they should be given first chance to make a deal. IMO, it's unlikely that a lib dem / tory deal will be done, therefore, if any deal is to be done, it's at least as likely (probably more) to be done with labour, cleggs just going through the motions of doing the logical democratic thing.

 

[dylans]

today? I've been calling liberals cunts since I first learned thier MO. Via Hunter S Thompsons disgust at them I looked at how they operate. Nobody likes lying slags who will sell your vote to the very people you were voting to avoid.

I think it funny. For weeks we have heard the bleating "vote tactically to keep out the tories" blah blah, and so people vote lib dem to keep out the tories and what do lib dem do? They stitch up a deal with Cameron. It would be laughable if it wasn't so predictable. Remember this next time you are presented with Clegg the "radical"