Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

[free spirit]

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.

well he definitely didn't way it in the paxman interview, so where?

if you can still see the ft article, what source does it give?

 

[free spirit]

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....

I seriously doubt that.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think you're being overly harsh on tactical voting tbh dylans

The intended point of anti Tory tactical voting was to stop the Tories gaining more seats. Obviously that's failed , but given the pre election opinion poll levels (most polls, anyway) it wasn't such a fanciful notion that it would make a bigger difference.

In any case if you're anti Tory, it's madness to vote Labour in a Lib-Dem/Tory marginal where Lab have no chance, or to vote Liberal in a Tory/Labour marginal where the Libs have no chance.

And I'm as opposed to Clegg getting into bed with Cameron as you, but there is a wider arguement re tactical voting than you allow for.

 

[yield]

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

There's some problem with hotlinking to the FT.

link via google. Clegg open to talks with Cameron

 

[mauvais]

This is all a load of bollocks. He should never have said he'd deal with the largest party, and nor should he be doing it now.

If he can form an effective majority coalition from any bits and pieces then that is - at least in some way - what the majority have voted for. PR has no bearing on that - no party got a majority share of the vote either. There is no relevant reason whatsoever to back a philosophically opposed party simply because it had the largest minority share of either seats or votes.

 

[scifisam]

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"

Did people vote LibDem to keep the Tories out - except in a few seats where it was a close Tory/LebDem contest? I mean, it's not like anyone seriously thought the Libs were going to end up being the largest party, surely?

 

[scifisam]

This is all a load of bollocks. He should never have said he'd deal with the largest party, and nor should he be doing it now.

If he can form an effective majority coalition from any bits and pieces then that is - at least in some way - what the majority have voted for. PR has no bearing on that - no party got a majority share of the vote either. There is no relevant reason whatsoever to back a philosophically opposed party simply because it had the largest minority share of either seats or votes.

The problem is that, sadly, Labour and the LibDems CAN'T form a majority. Add in the SNP and Plaid and the Green MP and anyone from NI who'll join you and you'll end up with a horrendous mix-up that'll never agree on anything.

 

[big eejit]

"Phwoar, I'd give that one."

 

[mauvais]

The problem is that, sadly, Labour and the LibDems CAN'T form a majority. Add in the SNP and Plaid and the Green MP and anyone from NI who'll join you and you'll end up with a horrendous mix-up that'll never agree on anything.

True for seats, definitely not true for votes (the PR he believes in). Either way he didn't know it at the time.

I voted LD but I did it because the Labour incumbent was (and now is again) a line-towing arsehole, and the candidate appeared the most reasonable. Otherwise Clegg's choice in this regard would definitely have put pay to that.

 

[cesare]

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"

Yeah, I've been thinking that the liberal 'oh noes' have been quite funny today

But tbf, he hasn't quite stitched up the deal yet. What's going to be funnier, is how he tries to scoop some credibility over the next few days.

 

[scifisam]

True for seats, definitely not true for votes (the PR he believes in). Either way he didn't know it at the time.

I voted LD but I did it because the Labour incumbent was (and now is again) a line-towing arsehole, and the candidate appeared the most reasonable. Otherwise Clegg's choice in this regard would definitely have put pay to that.

Yes, they could form a majority of votes, but that would just be a majority in principle - not one that would actually mean they had more MPs to vote with them.

The only choices really available are to join up with the Tories and hopefully be some sort of moderating force, or let the Tories go it alone and mess it up alone. I can't decide which would be best.

 

[cesare]

Yes, they could form a majority of votes, but that would just be a majority in principle - not one that would actually mean they had more MPs to vote with them.

The only choices really available are to join up with the Tories and hopefully be some sort of moderating force, or let the Tories go it alone and mess it up alone. I can't decide which would be best.

If I were Clegg - I'd let the tories go it alone, and join with Labour in making it as difficult as possible for them & force another election. I hope so, but bet he won't though.

 

[free spirit]

The problem is that, sadly, Labour and the LibDems CAN'T form a majority. Add in the SNP and Plaid and the Green MP and anyone from NI who'll join you and you'll end up with a horrendous mix-up that'll never agree on anything.

not really.

plaid and snp have said they'll not join any coalition and vote on an issue by issue basis.

sdlp and alliance are effectively labour / liberal democrat partners, greens are largely aligned with the left wings of lib dem and labour on most issues, the independent left her party because she didn't agree with their tory alliance, and sinn fein never vote at all AFAIK.

I'm not sure how the DUP would go, probably would go in the the tory's if the right offer was made, but I doubt they're too happy about the conservatives failed link with the other lot, and it'd not get them a majority anyway.

even if the SNP joined with the DUP and conservatives they'd still be 1 short of lib / labour by themselves, 6 short of lib/lab/alliance/sdlp/green or 9 short if plaid came in with them.

 

[editor]

My comment:

 

[big eejit]

The problem is that, sadly, Labour and the LibDems CAN'T form a majority. Add in the SNP and Plaid and the Green MP and anyone from NI who'll join you and you'll end up with a horrendous mix-up that'll never agree on anything.

Debunking five Tory myths about the election result

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/government-party-parties

 

[scifisam]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/government-party-parties

...And?

 

[cesare]

not really.

plaid and snp have said they'll not join any coalition and vote on an issue by issue basis.

sdlp and alliance are effectively labour / liberal democrat partners, greens are largely aligned with the left wings of lib dem and labour on most issues, the independent left her party because she didn't agree with their tory alliance, and sinn fein never vote at all AFAIK.

I'm not sure how the DUP would go, probably would go in the the tory's if the right offer was made, but I doubt they're too happy about the conservatives failed link with the other lot, and it'd not get them a majority anyway.

even if the SNP joined with the DUP and conservatives they'd still be 1 short of lib / labour by themselves, 6 short of lib/lab/alliance/sdlp/green or 9 short if plaid came in with them.

... And Brown hands Clegg the poisoned chalice

 

[editor]

...And?

And it's an excellent article.

 

[free spirit]

The problem is that, sadly, Labour and the LibDems CAN'T form a majority. Add in the SNP and Plaid and the Green MP and anyone from NI who'll join you and you'll end up with a horrendous mix-up that'll never agree on anything.

also, if you take the SNP out of the mix, labour, lib dems, plaid, sdlp, alliance and greens have a lot more common ground than they do differences IMO.

the main differences being around support for neoliberalism, privatisation etc, where there's a hell of a lot of opposition to this within both labour and lib dems anyway, so any coalition involving the other parties ought to give more power to these forces within these parties, which can only be a good thing.

 

[free spirit]

... And Brown hands Clegg the poisoned chalice

well yes... presuming brown is still there.

 

[scifisam]

And it's an excellent article.

So it's just a random article that's got nothing to do with what I posted? OK.

@free spirit: yeah, they do have a fair amount in common, but I don't think enough to form a government together. Mind you, the Libdems and the Tories don't - on paper - have much in common at all.

@Cesare: I'm starting to lean towards that opinion too. Depends how good the 'comprehensive deal' is, I guess.

 

[cesare]

well yes... presuming brown is still there.

Tactical for Labour would be to get behind him now (even if shortlived).

Tactical for LibDems would be to ditch Clegg smartish.

 

[elbows]

This is the fate that awaits Clegg, its karma for his cactus-murdering past.

 

[Sgt Howie]

I voted tactically, against the Lib Dems, because I knew they'd do this.

To anyone who's fallen for their "left" pitch: you realise they tell Tory voters exactly the opposite of everything they tell you?

 

[gabi]

Sad but true

 

[cesare]

.

 

[editor]

This is more like it:

 

[Sgt Howie]

This is more like it:

 

[scifisam]

Tactical for Labour would be to get behind him now (even if shortlived).

Tactical for LibDems would be to ditch Clegg smartish.

Why?

I voted tactically, against the Lib Dems, because I knew they'd do this.

To anyone who's fallen for their "left" pitch: you realise they tell Tory voters exactly the opposite of everything they tell you?

Wow - they can tell what manifesto to show you, and direct people towards different versions of the website? High-tech.

 

[Sgt Howie]

Why?



Wow - they can tell what manifesto to show you, and direct people towards different versions of the website? High-tech.

It's deliberately full of shit so they can spin it however they want. Only the Lib Dems can beat Labour/the Tories here!