egafd.com

Hi,
I was interested to see the quotes from Clegg where he said that if Labour got less votes than the Lib Dems and Tories, but the most seats, the Lib Dems would approach the Conservatives re. a coalition and not the Labour party. He categorically refused to prop up a Labour government.

Currently most, if not all of the polls are showing Conservatives in the lead followed closely by Lib Dems and Labour. All seem to be predicting a hung parliament.

So what appears to be clear is that a vote for the most "radical" according to some forumites and completely, untested Liberal Democrats could result in the Barmy Army getting in with Davey Cameron as Prime Minister and that other bloke, Osborne, that the Conservatives hide away in a wardrobe.

Cameron, who, I suspect, is a fair bit smarter than Clegg (that's why Cameron is dangerous), realised that Clegg had made a gaff by pointing out that he, Clegg, had not answered the question as to what the Lib Dems would do if Labour came second in terms of votes cast. Given Clegg's argument it would be just as daft to support Labour in this situation.

I'm beginning to regret offering, in the spirit of Cameron's Big Society idea, to be the street fireman because I have a hosepipe. I might be forced to use it. Clegg and Cameron in power, now there's an odd couple if ever I saw one. "Radicalism" with Thatcherism in drag!

D

Im sure a few left leaning people would be horrified if Clegg jumped into bed with a right wing tory just to get his hands on a bit of power,but thats what will probably happen if the tories are the largest party in a hung parliament.

If Labour get most seats but no overall majority, it is up to Brown and Labour to form a government if they can. They could work with anyone and not necessarily need Clegg at all if they can get a majority with the help of other parties.

Personally I hope that the Lib Dem vote collapses before May 6th and Clegg is left looking even more stupid than David "go back to your constituencies and prepare for government" Steel did. It would serve the arrogant cunt right. Clegg is up for sale in much the same way any corrupt MP on the take is. He'll go with whoever offers him the best deal, not based on what is best for the country but what is best for his party and him personally. He is deluding himself that he will be Prime Minister in a Lib Dem/Labour alliance, that's what all the talk about Labour not being in charge if they get a minority vote is all about.

[quote]I was interested to see the quotes from Clegg where he said that if Labour got less votes than the Lib Dems and Tories, but the most seats, the Lib Dems would approach the Conservatives re. a coalition and not the Labour party.[/quote]

I don't see anything wrong with that. He wants electoral reform with PR and so backing up a 3rd placed party would go against his, and his party's principles. He has since stated that he would consider backing the party that would promise electoral reform, though, so if Labour consented to this, and got rid of Brown, it might be the way he'd go. A little contradictory but we're going on two separate news articles and we know how journalists take things out of context. In any event, Clegg has the Tories warning 'vote Clegg get Brown' and Labour retorting with 'vote Clegg get Cameron'. Distancing himself completely from both could mean less influence in any future coalition and being too close to either party gives credence to the other two's scare tactics. A difficult position, politically.

[quote]So what appears to be clear is that a vote for the most "radical" according to some forumites and completely, untested Liberal Democrats could result in the Barmy Army getting in with Davey Cameron as Prime Minister and that other bloke, Osborne, that the Conservatives hide away in a wardrobe.[/quote]

See above. It's not 'clear' at all. I still think Labour policies are closer to the Lib Dems' policies so we'll just have to wait and see. You may not have seen the latest?:

[quote]Cameron, who, I suspect, is a fair bit smarter than Clegg (that's why Cameron is dangerous), realised that Clegg had made a gaff by pointing out that he, Clegg, had not answered the question as to what the Lib Dems would do if Labour came second in terms of votes cast.[/quote]

I don't think it's a gaffe. Neither Labour nor the Tories have laid out their plans regarding a hung parliament at all. He's just being a little more honest (imo).

[quote]Clegg and Cameron in power, now there's an odd couple if ever I saw one.[/quote]

As odd as a Brown and Cameron love affair? !shocked!

[quote]Clegg is up for sale in much the same way any corrupt MP on the take is. He'll go with whoever offers him the best deal, not based on what is best for the country but what is best for his party and him personally. He is deluding himself that he will be Prime Minister in a Lib Dem/Labour alliance, that's what all the talk about Labour not being in charge if they get a minority vote is all about.[/quote]

And he told you all this personally, did he?..........or are you just guessing?

"He wants electoral reform with PR and so backing up a 3rd placed party would go against his, and his party's principles."

There is obviously the implication here that electoral reform seems to be more important to the Lib Dems than the content of their coalition members' manifesto and track record. I do not see how anyone can argue that the Lib Dems are nearer to the Tories than Labour in terms of their manifestos and track record.

What Clegg said, as a matter of record on the Andrew Marr show was "It seems to me that it is just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has the right to carry on squatting in No. 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country" and later "I think a party which has got the most votes and seats - which in other workds has got the strongest mandate but without an absolute majority-should be given the chance to form the next government."

This seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that if Labour comes third in terms of votes, but wins the most seats, Clegg will not prop up Labour.
I can understand how Clegg may now wish to backtrack from this, but the above were his words.

"It's not 'clear' at all. I still think Labour policies are closer to the Lib Dems' policies so we'll just have to wait and see. You may not have seen the latest?: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 108545.ece"

Thanks for the link. Here Clegg appears to clearly state he will not work with Brown. This is an example of Clegg getting carried away with presidential politics. The poll boost that his first appearance in the tele debate seems to have gone to his head. What is quoted in the Times article completely contradicts what he said on the Andrew Marr show. On the Andrew Marr show he states that it would be preposterous to prop up a Labour party that came third. In the Times he is quoted as saying he would work with anyone even the man on the moon, but not Brown apparently. This is presidential nonsense. Each party has a manifesto and a track record as a party, you vote for that manifesto and track record or not. The Labour party have been in power for 13 years and Brown only recently became Prime Minister.

Clegg appears to be a very confused, young man.

"As odd as a Brown and Cameron love affair?"

It has not been discussed, but it is clearly highly unlikely, the idea of a Brown/Cameron coalition.
You could of course suggest to Paddy Power that they start a market in the possibility of a Brown/Cameron coalition. The idea doesnt seem to have crossed their minds so far!

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/ ... on-betting

Cheers
D

In my previous post I did say the latest comments were contradictory and this, to me, seems to be due to the scare tactics of the other two main parties. Both distancing himself from, or aligning himself too closely to either won't be beneficial. The old saying 'stuck between a rock and a hard place' cannot be more apt, here.

I suppose it does make him look more confused but at least he's putting out what he will do, unlike the other two (who's silence indicates more confusion). It's a precarious path for Cleggy and it will be fun to see how he treads it.

I don't see why you seem a little bitter over Clegg's tv success. Do you think him being good on TV automatically means his policies are silly?; Do you think any voters he's won over due to his persona and extra publicity don't have the nous to read up on his manifesto for themselves? It would be slightly arrogant to assume these voters are just thick 'X-Factor' bandwagon jumpers.

By the time the election approaches the Liberal Democrats might be in the lead despite the media and despite the corrupt opinion polls.
Mike Freeman.

Yes, he did.

He told everyone this by saying without electoral reform, there will be no deals, when he said he would work with whoever has the biggest mandate, but couldn't say whether that meant in terms of seats or votes cast. He will do a deal with whoever gives him the best deal for him and the Lib Dems, and the country can go and fuck itself.

Put it this way, his party is the party of no Trident, bending over backwards for the EU, going easy on criminals and illegal immigrants. It has nothing whatsoever in common with the Tories, but he will end up dealing with them if they grease his pole better than Labour do. You wait and see.

"The old saying 'stuck between a rock and a hard place' cannot be more apt, here."

He could have done with taking the advice of an elder statesman with a lot of experience of government, namely Gordon Brown, who said that it was arrogant to have such talk before the election e.g. setting detailed pre-conditions etc.


"I suppose it does make him look more confused"

Agreed. Very confused!

"I don't see why you seem a little bitter over Clegg's tv success. Do you think him being good on TV automatically means his policies are silly?; Do you think any voters he's won over due to his persona and extra publicity don't have the nous to read up on his manifesto for themselves?"

More amused than bitter. Here is a guy who a few weeks ago, most of the electorate, if polls are to be believed, did not know from the geezer who works down the road in MacDonalds. However as a result of a TV electoral debate appearance in which he came across as a kind of good guy who you wouldnt object to having a beer with, without going into much detail about specific Lib Dem policies, the Lib Dems got a huge jump in the polls.

Now I would like to think that this was purely down to the fact that people had read through his manifesto and weighed that against the arguments that the Lib Dems is a party that has had no experience whatsoever of running the British government themelves since Lloyd George, that they have expressed a desire to join the euro, have taken money from a major donor convicted of fraud and refused to give it back, appear to be the most fervent supporters of the federal EU and that though against Trident, have undertaken to replace it with an as yet uncosted replacement nuclear system and as a result of that decided to give the Lib Dems their vote.

However, you know I have that sneaking suspicion that although this might be the case for some voters, my guess and clearly it is only a guess is that a lot of people have decided: we have a bloody great recession and therefore it must be Labour's fault; my Mum and Dad have told me about Thatcher or I can remember myself what it was like with Thatcher; Nick Clegg has none of that baggage and seems a good, down to earth guy. I will vote for him. I could do with a change.

But like I said it's only a guess.

Cheers
D