Why the lib-dems are shit

[butchersapron]

Good stuff:

Clegg exemplifies this at the leaders' debates when he rebukes the other two as leaders of the "old parties."

This is simply annoying from the current leader of a party which took us into the first world war, presided over General Gordon's Sudan adventures and passed the despotic 1881 Irish Coercion Act.

 

[London_Calling]

The "Sudan adventures" and 1881 legislation?

Right . . . . that's more than enough for me!

 

[phildwyer]

Not that I'd wish to defend that public relations deisaster but techincally, if you are an MP, you ARE in government, are you not?

And you guys call Americans ignorant.

 

[danny la rouge]

And you guys call Americans ignorant.

Are Kabbes a multiple person? I had no idea. I suppose the plural was a give away, with hindsight.

 

[phildwyer]

Are Kabbes a multiple person? I had no idea. I suppose the plural was a give away, with hindsight.

It's not just her. You snobby Brits in general. At least Americans know what the gubmint is.

 

[kabbes]

Awesome.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's not just her. You snobby Brits in general. At least Americans know what the gubmint is.

a) Don't call me a Brit.
b) I have never called Americans ignorant.

 

[butchersapron]

To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Awesome.

Don't start getting smug, missus

 

[ymu]

Is that right? So you are in the legislature but not in the government?

You're a member of the government if you have a ministerial post or similar role (whips etc). Otherwise you're a member of the legislature, regardless of whether your party is in government or not. Ministers can't vote on private members bills, for example.

 

[butchersapron]

They can't introduce them - they can vote on them - if they're MPs.

 

[Corax]

To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.

I know he's been a tad flaky about it for sure, but I hadn't twigged this one. What's the score?

If you can't be arsed then I can google, but your take on it would be interesting.

Conventions are as binding as wet toffee of course. We saw that when Irvine was made a minister.

 

[danny la rouge]

I know he's been a tad flaky about it for sure, but I hadn't twigged this one. What's the score?

If you can't be arsed then I can google, but your take on it would be interesting.

Conventions are as binding as wet toffee of course. We saw that when Irvine was made a minister.

The leader of the largest party - that's most seats, not (necessarily) most votes- is expected to be the one who becomes PM, although the monarch actually can decide "in the interests of the country". (Read your Bagehot).

 

[Corax]

The leader of the largest party - that's most seats, not (necessarily) most votes- is expected to be the one who becomes PM, although the monarch actually can decide "in the interests of the country". (Read your Bagehot).

Ta Danny.

I know that bit, but it's not the most solid of conventions is it? Less concrete than the separation of legislative and judiciary for instance, which nu-lab have already cast down the shitter. Butchers' comment led me to believe that there was something more that I was missing.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ta Danny.

I know that bit, but it's not the most solid of conventions is it? Less concrete than the separation of legislative and judiciary for instance, which nu-lab have already cast down the shitter. Butchers' comment led me to believe that there was something more that I was missing.

The point is that it is currently expected, according to polls, that Labour will come third in votes, but top in seats, albeit short of a majority. Clegg says he won't prop up a Lab govt that's 3rd in votes. But that is irrelevant in our system. It's seats that count. We have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, and we have FPTP, (despite that the LibDems say they may introduce a referendum for PR, if the larger party of a coalition agrees, at some time during their time in office).

In those circumstances, the Queen would be within her rights to appoint Gordon Brown the PM of a minority Labour government.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

At least Americans know what the gubmint is.

It is the entity that wants to take their money and their guns. Fairly simple.

 

[tastebud]

well this whole thread has made for most interesting reading.

 

[Corax]

The point is that it is currently expected, according to polls, that Labour will come third in votes, but top in seats, albeit short of a majority. Clegg says he won't prop up a Lab govt that's 3rd in votes. But that is irrelevant in our system. It's seats that count. We have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, and we have FPTP, (despite that the LibDems say they may introduce a referendum for PR, if the larger party of a coalition agrees, at some time during their time in office).

In those circumstances, the Queen would be within her rights to appoint Gordon Brown the PM of a minority Labour government.

Yep.

I still don't see what point Butchers was making about Clegg not having "the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament."

That was the question.

 

[butchersapron]

Nick Clegg: My hero Samuel Beckett

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. But fail nonetheless

 

[cogg]

To be fair there is some constitutional ignorance over here - Nick 'Perot' Clegg for example doesn't seem to have the first idea of constitutional convention in the case of a hung parliament.

I don't think he's ignorant as such. He has just decided he will try to do something, i.e. try to form a coalition with the party with highest number of votes rather than seats, that is different to british political tradition.

The interesting question is why has he set out this idea when he did.
Has he already done a deal of some sort with cameron or has he just become delusional as in the interview where he apparently said, "I want to be prime minister?"
I don't know to be honest but as my missus said him and cameron (together, clegaron?) are peas in a pod.
Not that brown is any better, of course.

 

[little_legs]

vince cable was the interviewee of the q&a 'My London' column in the evening standard magazine on friday.

Q: What would you do as Mayor for the day?
A: I would try the Dutch experiment of switching off the traffic lights.

 

[speedstar]

At the weekend Clegg made it very clear that he would not prop up a Labour government should it receive fewer votes than the Lib Dems or Tories yet still emerge as the biggest party in a hung parliament.

Now that I didn't know, but Cameron has refused to go into coalition with anyone so it is very confusing. Why can't they all just be honest!

It's Green or Socialist for me.

 

[tastebud]

But they voted against Iraq.

I won't vote for anyone who refuses to admit that was a mistake.

And my Labour candidate is a full-on yes-woman who needs a proper kicking.

True. But given that NC is so 'I want to please everyone at all times if it means that I get closer to being leader of something', and the party seem to contradict themselves with every single policy, I can't help but wonder what they actually would have said/done if they were in power at the time.
It's easy to look at something past and say that you would have done it differently, if it is passed.... their dodgy policies (as outlined above) all relate to things that will happen in the future.

That said, this is also the reason i voted for them.

I certainly do not see them as any way 'radical' but I still cannot help but feel it might be a tiny bit better than NL or the Torys.

 

[butchersapron]

Hidden in a guardian Clegg puff piece on the cr figures

Support for Nick Clegg being in government has fallen dramatically. In mid April 64% of respondents said Clegg should play some part in the next government and only 23% disagreed. But now only 47% think he should have a government role, while 42% disagree.

Guardian and BBC spinning a clear narrative here. How are they getting away with it?

 

[Streathamite]

Ministers can't vote on private members bills, for example.

they certainly can, in that if (say) there was a private members bill on hanging, and a Min of State declared his intent to vote, then there is buggerall anyone could do about it. We have no wriiten constitution, just a Patchwork of individual bills, protocols and "it's not cricket" conventions.
However, there would be huge peer-pressure.

 

[butchersapron]

Colin Firth - need i say any more?

 

[kabbes]

You do need to say more, yes. Like: why have you said "Colin Firth"? Has he said that he is supporting them or something?

 

[butchersapron]

Smug lib-dem face, coat and cafe

 

[butchersapron]

This is how suicide bombs happen

Meanwhile Nick Clegg unveiled a list of Lib Dem celebrity supporters, including Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, actor Colin Firth, scientist Richard Dawkins, musician Brian Eno, campaigner Bianca Jagger and satirist Armando Iannucci - creator of the fictional political jungle of The Thick Of It.

 

[kabbes]

That's not a photo that does anyone any favours, really.