Why are lots of people annoyed at Nick Clegg today?

[moochedit]

Why not go immediately to Labour? Because there would be a huge backlash against them from all the people who wanted to see Labour, and especially Brown, thrown out, and because it would have gone against their pre-election statements.
FFS.

Also, by showing that they are prepared to talk to either party, they can get labour to agree to more. If they just said "we will only talk to labour" then labour would walk all over them in the talks, as what else could they do ?

(I don't like the Tory's by the way, just explaining what I think the libs are up to)

 

[moochedit]

hey, i don't support the lib dems. they piss me off, but this is an EXTREMELY stupid move on his part.

From the libs point of view, It's quite a clever move.

It's all a game. We are not used to hung parliaments in this country so most people don't understand how they work.

 

[free spirit]

Oh FFS! Nothing's happened yet! No deal has been made!

The single most important thing for the Lib Dems (and I think for the UK) is voting reform. If they sell out on that, then I'll be spitting blood. But there's not a shred of evidence at the moment that they're going to. It's inconceivable that they'd throw away the only chance they've had in decades, if not ever, to get a referendum on electoral reform.

Now - how likely are the Tories to cede to that demand? Considering that an alternate vote or PR system would effectively wipe out any chance of them governing again, very very little. So then the Lib Dems turn their backs on the Tories and strike up a deal with Labour. Job done.

Why not go immediately to Labour? Because there would be a huge backlash against them from all the people who wanted to see Labour, and especially Brown, thrown out, and because it would have gone against their pre-election statements.

Even if you think the above is wrong, until Clegg actually makes a deal with the Tories, maybe all you Labour premature ejaculators should go get a sock and lock yourselves in the bathroom FFS.

this

Also, by showing that they are prepared to talk to either party, they can get labour to agree to more. If they just said "we will only talk to labour" then labour would walk all over them in the talks, as what else could they do ?

(I don't like the Tory's by the way, just explaining what I think the libs are up to)

and also this

 

[elbows]

But loads of people in the Lib Dems and who were supporters and even campaigners for them will now leave the party if this happens.

Its a consideration, but if it was always the overriding factor for parties then we'd never see them compromise or risk losing some of their base when power beckons. Is it just a popularity contest or do they wish to achieve something? Risks will be taken in politics, especially if they believe that their views are important to help save the country, even at the expense of support for their own party.

 

[moochedit]

Also, by showing that they are prepared to talk to either party, they can get labour to agree to more. If they just said "we will only talk to labour" then labour would walk all over them in the talks, as what else could they do ?

(I don't like the Tory's by the way, just explaining what I think the libs are up to)

of course, many labour MP's were trade union leaders, so understand about "negotiation" tattics as well. could be interesting watching how this unfolds.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Check this out. What a blue-yellow coalition looks like in Ipswich. This is how the wibbuwals act when they're tory bitches:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/ipswich-coalition-election-tory-lib-dem

 

[elbows]

Why not go immediately to Labour? Because there would be a huge backlash against them from all the people who wanted to see Labour, and especially Brown, thrown out, and because it would have gone against their pre-election statements.

Even if you think the above is wrong, until Clegg actually makes a deal with the Tories, maybe all you Labour premature ejaculators should go get a sock and lock yourselves in the bathroom FFS.

You think that going to the Tories first with the expectation that they wont be able to make a deal, and then go to Labour, is going to be enough to prevent a backlash by all the people that want to see Brown thrown out?

Nah, the way the results turned out the Lib Dems have very limited choices, it will be much easier for them to compromise & go with the Tories than go with Labour because of the way the popular vote went.

 

[elbows]

Tory Lib Dem pact would be quite fitting really, considering how many people seem to have been blissfully unaware what either of those parties actually stand for when in power. Two reality checks for the price of one.

 

[buscador]

It was bad enough when the Liberals took in the SDP: if they now get in bed with the Tories they have no chance of ever retrieving my vote.

 

[elbows]

Look on the bright side, it has risks for the Tories too. There are enough Tories who arent super-keen on how wooly, modern & metropolitan Cameron appears to be, let alone a Tory party thats been very slightly diluted by wiberwuls. The potential for them to get their knickers in a twist over the EU increases.

So despite everything Ive said on this thread I dont take it as a complete given that a deal will be done, but both parties are much more likely to hold their noses and swallow it because power is so tantalisingly close, and because the economic woe will allow bloated ego beliefs along the lines of pulling together and being responsible for the sake of the nation.

 

[free spirit]

Check this out. What a blue-yellow coalition looks like in Ipswich. This is how the wibbuwals act when they're tory bitches:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/ipswich-coalition-election-tory-lib-dem

hmm, let's see now.

why might councils be having trouble funding bus services again? Oh yeah, it's because the labour government made an unfunded commitment to provide free bus travel for all over 60's, which had to be paid for out of the existing budgets for providing subsidised bus routes, subsidised kids fairs etc.

closing local housing offices to replace them with either telephone services or centralised offices... have you checked out what labour's spent the last few years doing to the job centres? most face to face stuff has now been replaced with call centres, and job search help has been effectively privatised.

sacking staff? IIRC labour nationally just finished sacking 30,000 staff from DWP in time for the recession to kick in, and given the huge increase in wage bills resulting from labour's ill thought out equal pay rules, and the central government funding restrictions placed on councils, I don't see how they'd have had much choice in the matter anyway.

basically, what point are you trying to make here? as far as I can work out, that story paints the lib dems as being as bad as labour when in coalition with the tories, whereas labour manage it all by themselves.

 

[redsquirrel]

while can believe Clegg and Cable would sell PR down the river for a sniff of power, I think he'd have a hard time getting it past the rest of the party.

 

[moochedit]

while can believe Clegg and Cable would sell PR down the river for a sniff of power, I think he'd have a hard time getting it past the rest of the party.

The libs would be very short sighted to drop PR.

The libs are only interested in PR for their own ends of course, but that doesn't mean PR is not a good thing as it could help "left of labour" party's as well.

Only labour will agree to PR, but they will try and go for AV first rather than STV, which is why the libs are playing these games.

 

[free spirit]

while can believe Clegg and Cable would sell PR down the river for a sniff of power, I think he'd have a hard time getting it past the rest of the party.

it would make no sense for clegg to even contemplate it. Without electoral reform, the chances are the lib dems would still be on 50-60 odd, or a few up or down next election, whereas with PR they'd almost certainly be on more like 150.

I guess it depends on how confident clegg is that he'd still actually be leading them at that point, but for the lib dems as a whole it definitely should apply.

 

[moochedit]

I guess it depends on how confident clegg is that he'd still actually be leading them at that point, but for the lib dems as a whole it definitely should apply.

it is a high risk strategy for the libs and could backfire on them.
it is like a game of poker.

 

[free spirit]

it is a high risk strategy for the libs and could backfire on them.
it is like a game of poker.

true, but then again, this is probably the worst time to be going into power for at least a generation, so the lure of power for power's sake is probably a lot lower than it might have been at other times.

the more I think about it, the more I do think that clegg's really got to pull off a blinder here, because this election result was actually a really shit performance by the lib dems under the circumstances, and once the dust settles some serious questions are likely to start being asked about his leadership.

 

[moochedit]

true, but then again, this is probably the worst time to be going into power for at least a generation, so the lure of power for power's sake is probably a lot lower than it might have been at other times.

the more I think about it, the more I do think that clegg's really got to pull off a blinder here, because this election result was actually a really shit performance by the lib dems under the circumstances, and once the dust settles some serious questions are likely to start being asked about his leadership.

yes the libs always intended to do this in a hung parliament, but were hoping for more mps and a much bigger share of the vote to give them stronger hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if the libs put the tories in "power" and then Secretly talk to labour about STV and if labour agree they call a vote of no confidence and switch sides.

 

[cesare]

true, but then again, this is probably the worst time to be going into power for at least a generation, so the lure of power for power's sake is probably a lot lower than it might have been at other times.

the more I think about it, the more I do think that clegg's really got to pull off a blinder here, because this election result was actually a really shit performance by the lib dems under the circumstances, and once the dust settles some serious questions are likely to start being asked about his leadership.

The serious questions are being asked now - when the dust settles will be too late. Is he going to take the party into satellite tory, or hold out for the Libs' only real USP; PR.

 

[Wolfie Smith]

yes the libs always intended to do this in a hung parliament, but were hoping for more mps and a much bigger share of the vote to give them stronger hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if the libs put the tories in "power" and then Secretly talk to labour about STV and if labour agree they call a vote of no confidence and switch sides.

Something along those lines will surely happen, as soon as Labour have a new more electable leader who is more genuinely committed to PR.

 

[moochedit]

Something along those lines will surely happen, as soon as Labour have a new more electable leader who is more genuinely committed to PR.

Alan Johnson is already talking about his support for PR

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The tories can't have complete power (or any power) without him. That's the point.

I'm not so sure that tactically at least it wouldn't be a bad thing long term to allow the entire country a quick reminder say for 6 months of why they should not vote tory before forcing another general election.

The damage they could do in that time would prove how utterly morrow bound they are as a party and put them out of office for a considerable time say like another 15 to 20 years.

By which point the world will have moved on and most of the current dogmatic ones will be dead or out of any significant power they will be the grumbling loony backbenchers which blight the current party but with a bit of luck eroded to the point of irrelevance.

that and we can but hope there'd be PR or some other better form of electoral reform which would mean minimal access to the reins of power ever again.

It would in effect be the last death rattle of the tory party.

it'd be an added bonus that the shock at the new's of the siwfth death of the party caused thatcher to have a stroke heart attacck and develope cancer, or become a sucide bomber...

But seriously, he's keeping his word, moreover he's keeping the word of his party.

Don't the Limb Dems have a different way of dictating policy it's about they leader being the spokesman for the party rather than it's CEO.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I kinda like the idea of a politician acting as they said they were going to act.

Clegg won't work with briown, and has said so publicly and privately more importantly neither will the party.

Polically he has to say he'll support the mandate given by the largest party becuase that's the will of the people.

So his choices are side with a party which for the time being at least has proven to be not represenative via majority of the countries politcal will or side with the ones who do and force electoral reform on the country and instantly call an election.

My biggest quesiton really is what's the reforms which need to be made to our system?

clearly both the process and the representative aspects need to be looked at.

 

[newbie]

The libs would be very short sighted to drop PR.

The libs are only interested in PR for their own ends of course, but that doesn't mean PR is not a good thing as it could help "left of labour" party's as well.

Only labour will agree to PR, but they will try and go for AV first rather than STV, which is why the libs are playing these games.

With the current balance of forces it's inconceivable that there will be any significant change to the electoral system without a referendum. So the current negotiations are about achieving that and establishing what options are to be put forward for parliamentary approval prior to asking the public.

Given that the majority of both major parties are strongly in favour of maintaining the direct link between MP and constituency (as, I suspect, is the vast majority of the population), there's little chance that the libdems can force full PR onto a referendum. They won't get it through parliament whatever 'nick' can agree with 'dave' or 'gordon' in the next couple of days. Even if they can it will be option 3, after fptp and whatever their senior partner's preferred option is.

The offers on the table are referendum/AV or commission of inquiry/long grass/rearranging the deckchairs.

 

[Kaka Tim]

If libs and lab had got a few more mps then an lib/lab coalition would look a lot more likely - but as it is they cant form a majority without either SNP or Plaid - who will want pork in return.

At the same time I really cant see the lib dems stomaching a deal with the tories (although Clegg would be up for it I'm sure). I cant imagine Cleggs position is that strong in his own party - he demonstrably fucked up in explioting the sucess of the TV debates (and dropping hints of working with the tories may have been a major reason why his poll rating evaporated). They must be thinking that pantsdown or the ginger pisshead would have done far better.

Clegg will be tempted by cabinet positions. But if he tries to force a fati compli on his party - would they revolt? Selling out on PR would likely see them lose a lot of seats in the next election (which could be very soon).

Posh Twat Mark 2 is in a tricky position isn't he?

 

[doddles]

With the current balance of forces it's inconceivable that there will be any significant change to the electoral system without a referendum. So the current negotiations are about achieving that and establishing what options are to be put forward for parliamentary approval prior to asking the public.

Given that the majority of both major parties are strongly in favour of maintaining the direct link between MP and constituency (as, I suspect, is the vast majority of the population), there's little chance that the libdems can force full PR onto a referendum. They won't get it through parliament whatever 'nick' can agree with 'dave' or 'gordon' in the next couple of days. Even if they can it will be option 3, after fptp and whatever their senior partner's preferred option is.

The offers on the table are referendum/AV or commission of inquiry/long grass/rearranging the deckchairs.

I think you're right here, though some combination of AV and PR might be on the table. The two most imortant things is not to allow:
i) the whole thing to get bogged down in committees as you mention and
ii) not to allow a 3-option referendum. When the republic movement in Australia couldn't sort out their differences over political reform there, the conservatives in power seized on the opportunity and held a 3-option referendum. The Monarchy option won, despite the combined vote for a republic being well over 50%. Clegg cannot allow PR and AV to split the reform vote on any referendum.

 

[_angel_]

I think they damn well did know but voted lib-dem nonetheless.

You can't under-estimate the niavety of some people. Some people really genuinely think/ thought Lib-Dems are to the left of Labour.

 

[Geri]

You can't under-estimate the niavety of some people. Some people really genuinely think/ thought Lib-Dems are to the left of Labour.

I have some friends who I suspect voted Lib Dem. I think they are probably fed up of Labour but don't want the Tories back. They're not stupid but they are not really interested in politics and they wouldn't have been following the coverage very closely so they would have had no idea about Clegg's intentions.

 

[Open Sauce]

I really hope we hear Thatcher or Tebbits opinion on this, not because I respect their opinions , but cause it will piss off both Cameron and Glegg

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I've done a fair bit of liberal voting in the past (not this time though) and for me they can probably just fuck right off if they think they are going to be getting any votes from me in the future. I wonder what would happen if we had another election right now?

 

[stethoscope]

"Could a Tory deal with Lib Dems really deliver a stable government"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...really-deliver-stable-government-1968192.html

Sums up my thoughts. Theres been so much hype of Clegg as the 'dealmaker' to inspire change to the system, but I really can't see it.

Cameron has so far not offered anything of merit (an all party committee into electoral reform is the most he has tabled) other than the dangling of carrots i.e. cabinet jobs and those issues that they agree on anyway - limit public sector pay, scrap Id cards, no to heathrow.

Electoral reform, europe, immigration, defence, public spending - I can't see any deals that would work for the Lib Dems or their principles.