Okay, but I suspect if the Lib Dems got Cameron to take away all the parts of the Tory manifesto that were diametrically opposed to what is in the Lib Dems manifesto e.g. immigration, foreign policy, defence, timing of cuts, attitude to the euro, fairness to all and perhaps most important of all, electoral reform, what would the Tories have left?
Secondly given Cameron cannot get an overall majority in the first past the post system even with the conjunction of a perfect storm for Labour such as worst recession since 30s, unpopular Prime Minister, horrendous mistake of Iraq, MP expenses etc etc, do you really think it is likely that rank and file Tory supporters hacked off with the failure to get an overall maj. will allow Cameron to give way to an electoral reform which is much fairer to the Lib Dems in terms of translating votes into seats?
I can't see it happening, end of. Otherwise the Tories may never ever get an overall majority again.
Cheers
D
Why Cleggie bombed
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam/Bob
[quote]Okay, but I suspect if the Lib Dems got Cameron to take away all the parts of the Tory manifesto that were diametrically opposed to what is in the Lib Dems manifesto e.g. immigration, foreign policy, defence, timing of cuts, attitude to the euro, fairness to all and perhaps most important of all, electoral reform, what would the Tories have left?[/quote]
I don't think Clegg will ask for all that. I'd be content with Tory policies on the Euro, immigration and foreign policy and would think the Lib Dems would agree too, for now. After all, all main parties weren't entirely open on cuts, all wanted to slow immigration and even an overall Lib Dem majority wouldn't have meant us ditching the pound. Fairness and electoral reform are the big two (for me at least). If Cameron doesn't go for it then I don't see what the Lib Dems will gain from a Lib/Con agreement apart from cabinet seats, but that sort of power-lust would outrage Lib Dem back-bentchers for surer. The party would be ripped apart. Lets remember that Clegg can't make any agreement with anyone without taking the party with him. And Cameron needs the whole Lib Dem party anyway to get a working majority.
Lots of people (me included) think the Tories will never go for PR because of fears they'll never get a working majority again, but when Labour are dangling PR in front of Clegg's face then they might not be able to stop it. This is why I'm glad we've forced a hung parliament. Any overall majority for the Tories or Labour would have meant us keeping FPTP.
It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds, that's for sure. The worst-case scenario, for me, is it dragging on with no deals done and the Murdoch/Tory press pressurising Brown to quit, leading to a Tory minority government and another election where they scrape a majority. To get electoral reform we need deals done by one party or another and since coalitions are more common on the mainland maybe Clegg has slightly more experience in how all the back-room wrangling goes down.
What are your preferences and thoughts on where we go from here, David?
I don't think Clegg will ask for all that. I'd be content with Tory policies on the Euro, immigration and foreign policy and would think the Lib Dems would agree too, for now. After all, all main parties weren't entirely open on cuts, all wanted to slow immigration and even an overall Lib Dem majority wouldn't have meant us ditching the pound. Fairness and electoral reform are the big two (for me at least). If Cameron doesn't go for it then I don't see what the Lib Dems will gain from a Lib/Con agreement apart from cabinet seats, but that sort of power-lust would outrage Lib Dem back-bentchers for surer. The party would be ripped apart. Lets remember that Clegg can't make any agreement with anyone without taking the party with him. And Cameron needs the whole Lib Dem party anyway to get a working majority.
Lots of people (me included) think the Tories will never go for PR because of fears they'll never get a working majority again, but when Labour are dangling PR in front of Clegg's face then they might not be able to stop it. This is why I'm glad we've forced a hung parliament. Any overall majority for the Tories or Labour would have meant us keeping FPTP.
It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds, that's for sure. The worst-case scenario, for me, is it dragging on with no deals done and the Murdoch/Tory press pressurising Brown to quit, leading to a Tory minority government and another election where they scrape a majority. To get electoral reform we need deals done by one party or another and since coalitions are more common on the mainland maybe Clegg has slightly more experience in how all the back-room wrangling goes down.
What are your preferences and thoughts on where we go from here, David?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam/Bob
Hiya,
Your quote
"I don't think Clegg will ask for all that. I'd be content with Tory policies on the Euro, immigration and foreign policy and would think the Lib Dems would agree too, for now."
I know he won't ask for all that. The point that I am making is that there are enormous differences between these two parties.
Your quote
"Fairness and electoral reform are the big two (for me at least). If Cameron doesn't go for it then I don't see what the Lib Dems will gain from a Lib/Con agreement apart from cabinet seats, but that sort of power-lust would outrage Lib Dem back-bentchers for surer. The party would be ripped apart. Lets remember that Clegg can't make any agreement with anyone without taking the party with him. And Cameron needs the whole Lib Dem party anyway to get a working majority. "
Agreed! There is a sense that Cameron is going through the motions here. His party would not allow a firm commitment to any system which results in Lib Dem votes being converted into a fair proportion of seats. WIthout this concession, the Lib Dems are totally wasting their time. And potentially missing out on a once in a generation opportunity for them to get a fairer system. Moreover, the Lib Dems "triple lock" system to prevent their leadership doing dodgy deals would only allow a firm commitment which I can't see the Tories giving.
What I see happening is as follows:
1. Talks between Conservatives and Lib Dems continue. If a deal is reached, I repeat it will be one of the greatest political betrayals by the Lib Dems in British politics.
2. The Tory press and the Conservatives will try to generate an air of panic by using "National interest" analogies to argue that the country is close to collapse in economic terms and that it is the Lib Dems duty to step up to the plate in order to allow the Tories to save the country. In return of course, the Lib Dems will have to drop most of their aspirations, particularly meaningful election reform. If they do, this coalition government would be so hugely unpopular that it woud set the Lib Dems back decades anyway.
3. I still can't see a sensible deal being done so I suspect that there will be a start of talks between Lib Dems and Labour who have in policy terms far more in common.
4. The Centre Left parties got a huge voting majority compared to the Tories so I don't see why in legitimacy terms, a coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP (who take the Labour party whip I think), Alliance party (who take the Liberal whip, I think and would give 319) with support as and when from SNP and Plaid Cymru which would easily give them an overall majority, should occur. There is only a need to get about 323 to have an overall majority because Sinn Fein (5 MPs) typically don't take their seats.
5. I can't see Cameron struggling along on his own without any alliance.
As to what actually is going to happen your guess is as good as mine!! But I can see another election within a year.
Cheers
D
Your quote
"I don't think Clegg will ask for all that. I'd be content with Tory policies on the Euro, immigration and foreign policy and would think the Lib Dems would agree too, for now."
I know he won't ask for all that. The point that I am making is that there are enormous differences between these two parties.
Your quote
"Fairness and electoral reform are the big two (for me at least). If Cameron doesn't go for it then I don't see what the Lib Dems will gain from a Lib/Con agreement apart from cabinet seats, but that sort of power-lust would outrage Lib Dem back-bentchers for surer. The party would be ripped apart. Lets remember that Clegg can't make any agreement with anyone without taking the party with him. And Cameron needs the whole Lib Dem party anyway to get a working majority. "
Agreed! There is a sense that Cameron is going through the motions here. His party would not allow a firm commitment to any system which results in Lib Dem votes being converted into a fair proportion of seats. WIthout this concession, the Lib Dems are totally wasting their time. And potentially missing out on a once in a generation opportunity for them to get a fairer system. Moreover, the Lib Dems "triple lock" system to prevent their leadership doing dodgy deals would only allow a firm commitment which I can't see the Tories giving.
What I see happening is as follows:
1. Talks between Conservatives and Lib Dems continue. If a deal is reached, I repeat it will be one of the greatest political betrayals by the Lib Dems in British politics.
2. The Tory press and the Conservatives will try to generate an air of panic by using "National interest" analogies to argue that the country is close to collapse in economic terms and that it is the Lib Dems duty to step up to the plate in order to allow the Tories to save the country. In return of course, the Lib Dems will have to drop most of their aspirations, particularly meaningful election reform. If they do, this coalition government would be so hugely unpopular that it woud set the Lib Dems back decades anyway.
3. I still can't see a sensible deal being done so I suspect that there will be a start of talks between Lib Dems and Labour who have in policy terms far more in common.
4. The Centre Left parties got a huge voting majority compared to the Tories so I don't see why in legitimacy terms, a coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP (who take the Labour party whip I think), Alliance party (who take the Liberal whip, I think and would give 319) with support as and when from SNP and Plaid Cymru which would easily give them an overall majority, should occur. There is only a need to get about 323 to have an overall majority because Sinn Fein (5 MPs) typically don't take their seats.
5. I can't see Cameron struggling along on his own without any alliance.
As to what actually is going to happen your guess is as good as mine!! But I can see another election within a year.
Cheers
D
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam/Bob
David Johnson wrote:
[SNIP]
> What I see happening is as follows:
>
> 1. Talks between Conservatives and Lib Dems continue. If a
> deal is reached, I repeat it will be one of the greatest
> political betrayals by the Lib Dems in British politics.
>
> 2. The Tory press and the Conservatives will try to generate an
> air of panic by using "National interest" analogies to argue
> that the country is close to collapse in economic terms and
> that it is the Lib Dems duty to step up to the plate in order
> to allow the Tories to save the country. In return of course,
> the Lib Dems will have to drop most of their aspirations,
> particularly meaningful election reform. If they do, this
> coalition government would be so hugely unpopular that it woud
> set the Lib Dems back decades anyway.
>
> 3. I still can't see a sensible deal being done so I suspect
> that there will be a start of talks between Lib Dems and Labour
> who have in policy terms far more in common.
>
> 4. The Centre Left parties got a huge voting majority compared
> to the Tories so I don't see why in legitimacy terms, a
> coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP (who take the Labour party
> whip I think), Alliance party (who take the Liberal whip, I
> think and would give 319) with support as and when from SNP and
> Plaid Cymru which would easily give them an overall majority,
> should occur. There is only a need to get about 323 to have an
> overall majority because Sinn Fein (5 MPs) typically don't take
> their seats.
>
> 5. I can't see Cameron struggling along on his own without any
> alliance.
>
> As to what actually is going to happen your guess is as good as
> mine!! But I can see another election within a year.
>
> Cheers
> D
I broadly agree.
Cameron's total of seats includes the Speaker (as he was a Conservative MP before being elected Speaker) so in fact the Tories have (from a voting point of view) one fewer seat than every talks about.
As for a Con/Lib Dem alliance, Cameron has made an offer he knows will eventually be refused but which makes him look "statesmanlike" for offering it in the first place. The differences on Europe, defence and PR are too big a gap to bridge, and Clegg cannot agree to any terms without the backing of his party (which he'll never get as grassroots Lib Dems tend to be far more to the left of centre than the right of centre Clegg).
At the same time, however inclined Cameron himself may be to seeing PR introduced (and I don't think he is in any way, shape or form) the Tory party as a whole (the vast majority of MPs and almost 100% of the grass roots members) is opposed to electoral reform.
Impasse reached, Clegg will then listen to whatever Brown has to say. There is far more common ground between Labour and the Lib Dems, and as you rightly point out, the SDLP takes the Labour whip and the Alliance party takes the Lib Dem whip. This gives the "Progressive Alliance" of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP & Alliance 319 seats to Cameron's 306 (with one result to come, a safe Tory seat, but with the Speaker to be taken into consideration, this is the most number of seats he can command) and 26 others. The new Green MP would no doubt back, or at least abstain from voting against, the Progressive Alliance on most matters, and the same could be said of the SNP and Plaid Cymru who tend to abstain from things that don't immediately affect their own countries. Meanwhile Cameron could possibly look for support from the Ulster Unionists, and as Ken Clarke himself said, "...in the end you can always do a deal with an Ulsterman, but it's not the way to run a modern, sophisticated society". Like the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Unionists tend not to vote on matters that don't directly affect Northern Ireland.
This scenario would allow the "Progressive Alliance" to have a working majority for most day-to-day business, the only concerns being the Queen's Speech and The Budget.
What would the price be for such an alliance? Certainly I can see Clegg asking that Brown step down as Labour leader. Given his overtures towards the Lib Dems regarding PR, Alan Johnson would possibly be an acceptable candidate to lead the new Government (and before some of you say "oooh but he wasn't elected", we have a Parliamentary Democracy NOT a Presidency. Gordon Brown was not the first person to become PM "mid term" and certainly not the first leader of a party who rose to the position without being elected. Churchill in 1940 is a famous example.)
The drawback, of course, is that no party would allow another party to dictate who should be its leader, so it's possible that the Progressive Alliance would be dead in the water before it even started... which leaves us with Cameron forming a minority Government, with an early election in mind.
Should Cameron undertake to lead a minority Government he will immediately be faced with a major dilemma. He has gone on record to say that there would be an emergency budget in July. With a minority of seats, he either cannot implement the drastic cuts he wants to in case the budget is defeated, or he can dare the other parties NOT to vote down the budget and still try and stick to his plans. Either way he loses.
If he waters down his budget he'll be accused by all sides, Opposition as well as many in his own party, of not having the balls to do what he set out to do. If he pushes through the savage cuts that the Tories have been trying to hide from everyone, there will be widespread industrial action, and he dare not hold another election for fear of being wiped out (though a vote of no confidence would see to that).
Either way Cameron is fucked.
I say let him be PM for a few months... it's a small price to pay for the utter and long-term destruction of the Conservative party.
[SNIP]
> What I see happening is as follows:
>
> 1. Talks between Conservatives and Lib Dems continue. If a
> deal is reached, I repeat it will be one of the greatest
> political betrayals by the Lib Dems in British politics.
>
> 2. The Tory press and the Conservatives will try to generate an
> air of panic by using "National interest" analogies to argue
> that the country is close to collapse in economic terms and
> that it is the Lib Dems duty to step up to the plate in order
> to allow the Tories to save the country. In return of course,
> the Lib Dems will have to drop most of their aspirations,
> particularly meaningful election reform. If they do, this
> coalition government would be so hugely unpopular that it woud
> set the Lib Dems back decades anyway.
>
> 3. I still can't see a sensible deal being done so I suspect
> that there will be a start of talks between Lib Dems and Labour
> who have in policy terms far more in common.
>
> 4. The Centre Left parties got a huge voting majority compared
> to the Tories so I don't see why in legitimacy terms, a
> coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP (who take the Labour party
> whip I think), Alliance party (who take the Liberal whip, I
> think and would give 319) with support as and when from SNP and
> Plaid Cymru which would easily give them an overall majority,
> should occur. There is only a need to get about 323 to have an
> overall majority because Sinn Fein (5 MPs) typically don't take
> their seats.
>
> 5. I can't see Cameron struggling along on his own without any
> alliance.
>
> As to what actually is going to happen your guess is as good as
> mine!! But I can see another election within a year.
>
> Cheers
> D
I broadly agree.
Cameron's total of seats includes the Speaker (as he was a Conservative MP before being elected Speaker) so in fact the Tories have (from a voting point of view) one fewer seat than every talks about.
As for a Con/Lib Dem alliance, Cameron has made an offer he knows will eventually be refused but which makes him look "statesmanlike" for offering it in the first place. The differences on Europe, defence and PR are too big a gap to bridge, and Clegg cannot agree to any terms without the backing of his party (which he'll never get as grassroots Lib Dems tend to be far more to the left of centre than the right of centre Clegg).
At the same time, however inclined Cameron himself may be to seeing PR introduced (and I don't think he is in any way, shape or form) the Tory party as a whole (the vast majority of MPs and almost 100% of the grass roots members) is opposed to electoral reform.
Impasse reached, Clegg will then listen to whatever Brown has to say. There is far more common ground between Labour and the Lib Dems, and as you rightly point out, the SDLP takes the Labour whip and the Alliance party takes the Lib Dem whip. This gives the "Progressive Alliance" of Labour, Lib Dems, SDLP & Alliance 319 seats to Cameron's 306 (with one result to come, a safe Tory seat, but with the Speaker to be taken into consideration, this is the most number of seats he can command) and 26 others. The new Green MP would no doubt back, or at least abstain from voting against, the Progressive Alliance on most matters, and the same could be said of the SNP and Plaid Cymru who tend to abstain from things that don't immediately affect their own countries. Meanwhile Cameron could possibly look for support from the Ulster Unionists, and as Ken Clarke himself said, "...in the end you can always do a deal with an Ulsterman, but it's not the way to run a modern, sophisticated society". Like the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Unionists tend not to vote on matters that don't directly affect Northern Ireland.
This scenario would allow the "Progressive Alliance" to have a working majority for most day-to-day business, the only concerns being the Queen's Speech and The Budget.
What would the price be for such an alliance? Certainly I can see Clegg asking that Brown step down as Labour leader. Given his overtures towards the Lib Dems regarding PR, Alan Johnson would possibly be an acceptable candidate to lead the new Government (and before some of you say "oooh but he wasn't elected", we have a Parliamentary Democracy NOT a Presidency. Gordon Brown was not the first person to become PM "mid term" and certainly not the first leader of a party who rose to the position without being elected. Churchill in 1940 is a famous example.)
The drawback, of course, is that no party would allow another party to dictate who should be its leader, so it's possible that the Progressive Alliance would be dead in the water before it even started... which leaves us with Cameron forming a minority Government, with an early election in mind.
Should Cameron undertake to lead a minority Government he will immediately be faced with a major dilemma. He has gone on record to say that there would be an emergency budget in July. With a minority of seats, he either cannot implement the drastic cuts he wants to in case the budget is defeated, or he can dare the other parties NOT to vote down the budget and still try and stick to his plans. Either way he loses.
If he waters down his budget he'll be accused by all sides, Opposition as well as many in his own party, of not having the balls to do what he set out to do. If he pushes through the savage cuts that the Tories have been trying to hide from everyone, there will be widespread industrial action, and he dare not hold another election for fear of being wiped out (though a vote of no confidence would see to that).
Either way Cameron is fucked.
I say let him be PM for a few months... it's a small price to pay for the utter and long-term destruction of the Conservative party.
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee
Re: Sam/Bob
Im not so sure camerons offer will be refused.im starting to think clegg wants a taste of power so much he will sell his party down the river for it. If he does,he would have lost all faith of the people who voted for him and most of his grass roots party.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Bob/Sam
Hi
Gentlemen, to be perfectly honest I am absolutely gobsmacked that neither of you have come out with any vitriol WHATSOEVER directed at Nick Clegg re. his discussing a coalition/agreement with Cameron's Tories.
You both despise the Tory party. You both said you would be voting Lib Dem and hear you are in the process of potentially seeing your vote being used to prop up the party you despise. Neither of you have even condemned Clegg for trying to arrange this deal.
If it had been me, I would be:
1. Fuming that conversations were even taking place.
2. Vowing never ever to vote Lib Dem again.
Having done a quick trawl on the interweb, I see that apparently this bizarre relationship, Lib Dems and Tories getting together to force through cuts is in no way as rare as I would have thought.
Maybe you two gentlemen are typical Lib Dems then? Say you despise the Tories, pontificate about the Lib Dems being the only "radical" party, but once you get a sniff of power, raise your skirts, spread your legs and think of the national interest.
Like to comment on why you are not feeling any disgust?
Cheers
D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... b-dem-pact
[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/ ... ncils.html[/url]
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/ ... gressives/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/ma ... ntre-leeds
Gentlemen, to be perfectly honest I am absolutely gobsmacked that neither of you have come out with any vitriol WHATSOEVER directed at Nick Clegg re. his discussing a coalition/agreement with Cameron's Tories.
You both despise the Tory party. You both said you would be voting Lib Dem and hear you are in the process of potentially seeing your vote being used to prop up the party you despise. Neither of you have even condemned Clegg for trying to arrange this deal.
If it had been me, I would be:
1. Fuming that conversations were even taking place.
2. Vowing never ever to vote Lib Dem again.
Having done a quick trawl on the interweb, I see that apparently this bizarre relationship, Lib Dems and Tories getting together to force through cuts is in no way as rare as I would have thought.
Maybe you two gentlemen are typical Lib Dems then? Say you despise the Tories, pontificate about the Lib Dems being the only "radical" party, but once you get a sniff of power, raise your skirts, spread your legs and think of the national interest.
Like to comment on why you are not feeling any disgust?
Cheers
D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... b-dem-pact
[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/ ... ncils.html[/url]
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/ ... gressives/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/ma ... ntre-leeds
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Bob/Sam
Clegg wants electoral reform; he wants a fairer system. Denying the party with the most votes a chance to put across any compromises would go against his idea of a fairer electoral system. He can't bang on about fairness and then just ignore the fact that the people of this country have cast more votes for the Tories than any other party. I don't like it, but that's democracy for you.
Now, if the Tories won't yield on what he thinks is important he can make an alliance with Labour, the SNP and the others and rightly say that though the Conservatives were the party with the most votes, only 36% of us want a Conservative government.
You've not told us who you've voted for, David. I don't think you're a Tory and I doubt you've voted Lib Dem; you'll be glad to know I don't see you as a BNP or UKIP voter, either so I don't think I'm being overly presumptuous in stating you went Labour? Given my (maybe erroneous) presumption, what do you think about a Lib/Lab pact? Considering you've bashed Clegg from pillar to post this past month how do you feel about Mr. Brown snuggling up to the Cleggmeister?
Now, if the Tories won't yield on what he thinks is important he can make an alliance with Labour, the SNP and the others and rightly say that though the Conservatives were the party with the most votes, only 36% of us want a Conservative government.
You've not told us who you've voted for, David. I don't think you're a Tory and I doubt you've voted Lib Dem; you'll be glad to know I don't see you as a BNP or UKIP voter, either so I don't think I'm being overly presumptuous in stating you went Labour? Given my (maybe erroneous) presumption, what do you think about a Lib/Lab pact? Considering you've bashed Clegg from pillar to post this past month how do you feel about Mr. Brown snuggling up to the Cleggmeister?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam/Bob
He can't do anything without the party's say-so. He said he was going to give the party with the most votes (not seats) first refusal and he's stuck to his word. The party were aware of this before the election.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Bob/Sam
David Johnson wrote:
> Hi
>
> Gentlemen, to be perfectly honest I am absolutely gobsmacked
> that neither of you have come out with any vitriol WHATSOEVER
> directed at Nick Clegg re. his discussing a coalition/agreement
> with Cameron's Tories.
>
> You both despise the Tory party. You both said you would be
> voting Lib Dem and hear you are in the process of potentially
> seeing your vote being used to prop up the party you despise.
> Neither of you have even condemned Clegg for trying to arrange
> this deal.
>
> If it had been me, I would be:
> 1. Fuming that conversations were even taking place.
> 2. Vowing never ever to vote Lib Dem again.
>
> Having done a quick trawl on the interweb, I see that
> apparently this bizarre relationship, Lib Dems and Tories
> getting together to force through cuts is in no way as rare as
> I would have thought.
>
> Maybe you two gentlemen are typical Lib Dems then? Say you
> despise the Tories, pontificate about the Lib Dems being the
> only "radical" party, but once you get a sniff of power, raise
> your skirts, spread your legs and think of the national
> interest.
>
> Like to comment on why you are not feeling any disgust?
>
> Cheers
> D
>
I may have said I'd be voting Lib Dem this time, but that doesn't actually make me a Lib Dem!
Clegg can talk to whoever he wants. It really doesn't bother me. Why not? Because I know that any deal he wants to do has to be ratified by his party, and given the majority of his party is to his left, the chances of a deal being struck with the Tories is slim. If he does do a deal, as you quite rightly point out elsewhere he will have lost the faith of anyone to the center left.
As for me pontificating "about the Lib Dems being the only 'radical' party" we both know that that's not entirely true. I said I'd be voting Lib Dem this time because I felt them to be, currently, more radical than Labour. I think I may have only posted this once... so hardly pontificating. Indeed, I believe you'll be hard pressed to find many posts where I've trumpeted the Lib Dem cause other than that one admission to considering voting Lib Dem this time around.
The reason I'm not up in arms about the Lib Dems potentially siding with the Tories is simple. The Tories are going to make a complete balls up of the economy, and piss off millions of people in the process by swingeing cuts that affect 90% of the country while giving even bigger tax breaks to the richest 10%. They will be hounded out. If the Lib Dems are their allies, they too will be hounded out. Hopefully by then, Labour will have returned to more socialist roots now that the membership realise New Labour was nothing more than Tory Lite, and a fairer society will then ensue unhindered.
As the meerkat says... simples!
> Hi
>
> Gentlemen, to be perfectly honest I am absolutely gobsmacked
> that neither of you have come out with any vitriol WHATSOEVER
> directed at Nick Clegg re. his discussing a coalition/agreement
> with Cameron's Tories.
>
> You both despise the Tory party. You both said you would be
> voting Lib Dem and hear you are in the process of potentially
> seeing your vote being used to prop up the party you despise.
> Neither of you have even condemned Clegg for trying to arrange
> this deal.
>
> If it had been me, I would be:
> 1. Fuming that conversations were even taking place.
> 2. Vowing never ever to vote Lib Dem again.
>
> Having done a quick trawl on the interweb, I see that
> apparently this bizarre relationship, Lib Dems and Tories
> getting together to force through cuts is in no way as rare as
> I would have thought.
>
> Maybe you two gentlemen are typical Lib Dems then? Say you
> despise the Tories, pontificate about the Lib Dems being the
> only "radical" party, but once you get a sniff of power, raise
> your skirts, spread your legs and think of the national
> interest.
>
> Like to comment on why you are not feeling any disgust?
>
> Cheers
> D
>
I may have said I'd be voting Lib Dem this time, but that doesn't actually make me a Lib Dem!
Clegg can talk to whoever he wants. It really doesn't bother me. Why not? Because I know that any deal he wants to do has to be ratified by his party, and given the majority of his party is to his left, the chances of a deal being struck with the Tories is slim. If he does do a deal, as you quite rightly point out elsewhere he will have lost the faith of anyone to the center left.
As for me pontificating "about the Lib Dems being the only 'radical' party" we both know that that's not entirely true. I said I'd be voting Lib Dem this time because I felt them to be, currently, more radical than Labour. I think I may have only posted this once... so hardly pontificating. Indeed, I believe you'll be hard pressed to find many posts where I've trumpeted the Lib Dem cause other than that one admission to considering voting Lib Dem this time around.
The reason I'm not up in arms about the Lib Dems potentially siding with the Tories is simple. The Tories are going to make a complete balls up of the economy, and piss off millions of people in the process by swingeing cuts that affect 90% of the country while giving even bigger tax breaks to the richest 10%. They will be hounded out. If the Lib Dems are their allies, they too will be hounded out. Hopefully by then, Labour will have returned to more socialist roots now that the membership realise New Labour was nothing more than Tory Lite, and a fairer society will then ensue unhindered.
As the meerkat says... simples!
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee