clegg- sell out

[David Johnson]

I also look forward to the Blessed Cleggie's defence of the wonderful Trident system. Another part of the Lib Dems manifesto kicked into touch!

[Ned]

The wording is that they're committed to a replacement for Trident that will be scrutinised for value for money. In effect this is a total sign up to the replacement already planned, because a new system would cost far more as it would need developing from scratch, including development of a new warhead and testing (how you develop and test new nukes when you're signed up to the non-proliferation treaty is something Clegg will not be able to explain, but I look forward to him trying. He failed to even do that in the debates)

[David Johnson]

Good stuff!

[Sam Slater]

Please. Can you give any good reason why Labour baulked at PR? Can you?

Labour are the ones who backtracked. Any tactic designed to criticise Clegg is just to avoid this most unfortunate decision.

You voted Labour and feel let down. I understand that. But realise that Labour backed down on one of the fairest forms of democracy that we know. Don't beat yourself up about it. I don't feel any less of you for voting Labour. You don't need to defend your decision by ridiculing Clegg.

[number 6]

the liar is now on bbc news

[David Johnson]

"Please. Can you give any good reason why Labour baulked at PR? Can you?"

They didnt. This is a lie.


"You voted Labour and feel let down."

Not at all. At least I never had the total humiliaation that you have to deal with in trying to explain why the Lib Dems havje got in to bed with the Tories, a party that you would rather eat your face off than vote for.


There is absolutely no way that you can talk your way out of this humiliation.

D

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:

> Please. Can you give any good reason why Labour baulked at PR?


But did they???

We only have the word of some Lib Dems on that (who some voters, including a fair few Tories, would be wondering why they opened up talks with Labour when they were still negotiating with Cameron).

On the other hand, senior Labour MPs are saying the Lib Dems didn't really seem interested in negotiating with Labour when they did start talking to them.

Isn't it just possible that Clegg opened up "pretend" talks with Labour without ever really offering anything, and allowing the media to know these talks had been initiated, in order to get more leverage over the Tories? After all, propping up the largest party makes more sense than having to cobble together a rainbow coalition of 3, 4, maybe even 5 parties.

The only people who REALLY know are those who were around the table, and can we believe ANY of them?

[David Johnson]

Bob
Can you please stop trying to undermine Sam's argument about Labour and PR.

You are pulling the life raft away from a drowning man!

This is very cruel of you, but I suspect accurate.

CHeers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Isn't it just possible that Clegg opened up "pretend" talks with Labour without ever really offering anything, and allowing the media to know these talks had been initiated, in order to get more leverage over the Tories?[/quote]

Of course! They all could be lying for all we know. What's clear is that articles in the guardian, times, independent etc have gone from pointing out that Labour were, without much dissent, offering the Lib Dems PR, all while he was in talks with the Tories, yet, over the past 24 hours, once Lib/Lab talks began, many Labour MPs and ex-MPs have come out against PR and even any Lib/Lab coalition.

Also, it's thought that only 8% of Lib Dem MPs are more to the right, politically. In other words, 8% could be said to have Tory sympathies. The rest are way to the left of centre. Given this, Clegg would surely have had an easier time convincing the party to form an alliance with Labour compared to the Tories. Given the triple-lock system in place I think it less likely that Clegg is fucking around with 'pretend talks' and also lying to his party all the while. I don't see what would be in it for him unless he was some sort of Tory plant who'd infiltrated the party and planned this moment since the start of his political career.

No, it's more likely many Labour MPs didn't want to lose their seats and made their concerns known (many have, officially). Gordon Brown was for PR and this set him against the majority of his party, causing him to not only plan on resigning, but going early, after he said he'd stay on until a new leader was found.

Just my opinion, of course. But I see it more of a likely one than the conspiracy shiite some Labour supporters want to persuade themselves into believing.

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:


[quote]"What's clear is that articles in the guardian, times, independent etc have gone from pointing out that Labour were, without much dissent, offering the Lib Dems PR, all while he was in talks with the Tories, yet, over the past 24 hours, once Lib/Lab talks began, many Labour MPs and ex-MPs have come out against PR and even any Lib/Lab coalition."[/quote]


Yes some Labour MPs are against PR (just as some Tory MPs are pro Europe!). But I think you're clutching at straws saying that immediately the Lib Dems started talking to Labour, Labour went off the idea of PR. Indeed we didn't know about these talks until after the first round of "negotiations" had taken place. Maybe, just maybe, after realising that they were nothing more than a smoke screen employed by Clegg, Labour thought "fuck you, we're not budging on anything!" Seizing their chance to get a bit of face time on the telly, some of the anti-PR MPs and ex-MPs then came out of the woodwork to explain why a Labour/Lib Dem coalition wasn't on the cards.



[quote]Also, it's thought that only 8% of Lib Dem MPs are more to the right, politically. In other words, 8% could be said to have Tory sympathies. The rest are way to the left of centre. Given this, Clegg would surely have had an easier time convincing the party to form an alliance with Labour compared to the Tories.[/quote]

Yes it's true that on the whole Labour and the Lib Dems are more natural bedfellows. However, as I said earlier (and indeed you have made the point about Clegg sticking to his guns about talking to the party with the most number of seats and the most votes first several times in your discussions with David) a pact between two parties who came second and third, who the voters had plainly rejected, and needing other even smaller parties for help from time to time would not have gone down well with the electorate. If we're all being honest here, for all the talks that went on between Labour and the Lib Dems, there was always only ever going to be one result... a Tory/Lib Dem agreement at the very least.


[quote]Given the triple-lock system in place I think it less likely that Clegg is fucking around with 'pretend talks' and also lying to his party all the while. I don't see what would be in it for him unless he was some sort of Tory plant who'd infiltrated the party and planned this moment since the start of his political career.[/quote]

I never said Clegg lied to his party. But yes, the talks with Labour were a subterfuge. Nothing was ever going to come of them, and as soon as they realised this, Labour pulled up the baricades, so to speak, and decided not to bother even trying to offer deals and compromises. After all, would you in that position? As for Clegg being a Tory plant... well he may not be a plant, but he's not much different from, say, Hesseltine!


[quote]No, it's more likely many Labour MPs didn't want to lose their seats and made their concerns known (many have, officially). Gordon Brown was for PR and this set him against the majority of his party, causing him to not only plan on resigning, but going early, after he said he'd stay on until a new leader was found.[/quote]

As I've already said, yes there are Labour MPs who oppose PR, just as there are Tories who are pro Europe and, I dare say, some Lib Dems who are pro Trident!

The reasons and time scale of Browns actions regarding stepping down are fairly easily understood. Even to someone as notoriously thick skinned and controlling as Brown, it was obvious that for even an outside chance of a deal to be made with the Lib Dems he would need to stand down. Given it takes about 2 months for the process to be set up for a leadership election within the Labour party, he announced that if a pact could be agreed upon, he would step down in a few months once a new leader was in place.

Once it became clear that no pact with the Lib Dems was ever going to be forthcoming, disheartened after losing the election and clearly tired after 13 years in office and many more in opposition before that, he decided that the time was right, for him at least, to resign immediately and announce that he would also step down as an MP.

I can't see anything sinister in that, and to say that he has gone even earlier than he first said because of opposition in his party to PR is frankly ludicrous.

[quote]Just my opinion, of course. But I see it more of a likely one than the conspiracy shiite some Labour supporters want to persuade themselves into believing.[/quote]

You are of course entitled to your opinion... I just believe some of that opinion is misguided to say the least.

At least it's enjoyable to argue with someone who at least has the intelligence, knowledge and skills to postulate ideas... unlike some I'll try not to mention! !wink!