Lord Duckhunter

Are you trying to say it came as a surprise to them? They knew allright and during the last election.

The state of his alcohol problem became apparent in the lead up to the last general election. The Lib/Dem establishment made a political calculation to cover it up, but leave him in place. The thinking behind it was he was popular with the voters, and therefore they left a seriously ill man, with an illness that affects people's judgment, to run for the highest office in the land.

I was trying to be polite. The Lib/Dem establishment including Clegg and Cable covered it up and let him lead the Party into the last election.A serious flaw in their judgement, as he could have ended up in a coalition govt.

Dont read the Mail. I just made it up, Kennedy was sober as a judge and when he wasn't none of the Lib/Dem establishment knew anything about it. His resignation citing his illness, that he struggled with for years, was a complete surprise to them And I'm the deluded one

It's a fact. The Lib/Dem establishment knew that Charles Kennedy had a serious illness. An unfortunate illness, but one that affected his judgement and fitness to be PM. They took the political decision that removing him so near to the election would do more damage than keeping him. So they covered it up and went into the election with him in tow. Clegg, Cable and Campbell were all in on this and part of the decision.They were quite prepared for the Country to be led by someone with this serious illness.Personally, I think that making a political calculation in that manner makes them unfit for office, you may disagree, but that hardly makes me "deluded".

Clegg and the Lib/Dems will be found out now there's more interest in them. Dont forget at the last election they covered up their Leaders illness, an illness that made him unfit for office, but Clegg and Cable covered it up for electrol advantage.

I never normally agree with Skates, but Lowe did exactly the same thing last year. I didn't feel we cheated and I dont think they've cheated on this narrow issue.

Their policies over defence are as barking as half their other policies. Trident will not be replaced, Eurofighter orders will be cancelled and military action against a nuclear-arming Iran is categorically ruled out. What will they replace Trident with? They dont know yet, so I presume they dont know how much it costs, however they've calculated the savings? NHS spending is not protected under the Lib/Dems, Tory and Labour policy is to protect it. They also have a policy that all Britain's energy should come from renewable sources within 40 years. The £10,000 tax bribe as well as being unfunded, will not help the pooerst in the Country, the poorest including pensioners, pay hardly any tax as it is. Who will benefit the most from it? The middle earners (who happen to be their target voters in Tory areas). Sit back and imagine the outcry if Camerons policies included not ringfencing NHS spending, tax bribes for middle income earners, and shutting down every nuclear reactor and dirty coal-fired station within 40 years. What would the outcry be if Labour were committed to the Euro, ruled out military action against Iran, no matter what they did,and had plans to slash our defence spending. As for their immigration policy, that truly is bonkers. This thread is "The truth about Nick Clegg", it should be "The truth about Lib/Dem policies". It sounds great in theory, this third force in UK politics, but in practise, they're half baked. Labour or Tory,is the only choice, I'm afraid.

Jack Straw's Dad was a Conscientious objector, who was sent to prison in 1939. Backgrounds dont matter, Churchill came from a very privilidged background. What matters is integrity and honesty.When you see Labour people going on about Eton and the like, they gloss over the fact that loads of them went to fee paying schools. Look at that great leftie Diane Abbott, opposed to private education, yet sends her child to a fee paying school. In the case of that great class warrior Prescott, the picture of him playing croquet on the lawns of Dornywood, sum him up more than words could ever do. The great class warrior, whose rallied against the establishment and yet now wants to join the house of Lords. Does it matter what Clegg's Dad did, of course not. However had David Davis' or William Hague's Dad been a banker you can bet your life the Labour spin machine would be ramming it down our throats

The big difference between the 1983 SDP and the Lib/Dems this time is that the SDP's gang of 4 were all respected Labour MP's who were fed up of the drift to the left.Therefore, a lot of Labour supporters would have followed them and transfered their vote. This time that isn't the case and nobody really knows who their going to take the most votes off. One thing for sure is their manifesto and beliefs will come under greater scrutiny, there normal policy of being all things to all men, will not go unchallanged, as in normal elections. The Tories can send out a powerful message "Vote Clegg, Get Brown", because that is what's going to happen in the event of a hung Parliament. The Lib/Dems loony Euro beliefs, opposition to defence spending, amensty for Illigal immigrants, PR (despite coming 4th in the PR elections we do have) and other wierd policies will be unpalatable to the Tory leadership. If we get a hung Parliament you'll see the Lib/Dems in all their hypocritical glory. You cant watch a programme with them on, without them banging on about their opposition to the "illigal war" in Iraq, and yet that subject, so dear to their hearts, wont stop them forming a Govt, with the administration that took us into it. They are for "every vote counts" of fairness in the electrol system, yet will still form a Govt with Labour even if the Tories poll more votes and gain more seats. The Tories will win England and win it big, and yet they wont mention giving us an English Parliament, fairness is for Scots, Welsh and Irish, not the English, because their Torys.

Not at all. I want strict controls on immigration, with a set number allowed in each year. I do not think restricting people to working in certain areas only is workable.I might be convinced if we had a robust policy of dealing with abuses of the system, but the Lib/Dems will not. In my opinon, like most of their policies, this has been written in a way to appeal to both right and left in this Country. The Lib/Dems are the most pro immigration party out of the main 3. However, they've watered down their views in light of the number of marginal seats they are fighting in Tory areas.

Thanks for the reply, I still think it's unworkable. One more question, is there a limit to immigration in these areas. Once the jobs are all filled I presume nobody else will be let in. Because that's what the Tories propose Country wide and the Lib/Dems attack them for it.

I think it's as bad, but the great African anti apartheid campaigners like Peter Hain are very quiet on the issue, despite having been in govt. Can it be white racism bad, black racism-turn the other way.

I dismiss it out of hand because it's unworkable. It's just an election ploy, to appeal to both sides of the debate (as they try to do with most issues). It seems you are for skilled workers from outside the EU, but not unskilled workers, I think even Dune will be in agreement with you on that one.

I suggest the logic at play here is an electrol one.They can tell the right, we want immigration controls and the left, we're for immigration. These areas that they are going to allow immigration in, once they've reached their quota of immigrants, I presume they'll shut off the tap in that area. For example if Dorset needs farm workers, they'll allow non EU people to fill the jobs. Once all the jobs are filled I presume they'll then stop Non EU workers working in Dorset. Isn't that a fixed number of allowed immigrants, something that they attack the Tories for? Is this policy to allow a certain amount of immigration in a certain area (a fixed number of Non EU workers can work in Dorset?) When the Tories propose a fixed number for the whole Country, the Lib/Dems attack it. Or are they saying no Immigration in London, but an open door policy in Dorset?

I want immigration strictly controlled, whether they are white, black, muslim, or whatever. I do not want millions of Australians or white Americans swamping this Country. It's funny how the lefties were all against South Africa, but we hardly get a peep out of them about Zimbabwe, and the treatment of the white population there.

I am no racist. Perhaps you could answer the questions. What happens if a worker has a permit to work in Dorset. Can he live in London and commute to Dorset? What happens if he starts work in Bristol, will he be forceable removed (ala BNP) from the Country? What if he's a roofer and his boss gets a roofing job in London, does the boss have to lay him off and employ someone with a permitt to work in London? If this man has a child, upon reaching 16 can the child work anywhere or does he have to stick to Dorset?

I presume there's no unemployment in these areas then and nobody on benefit, where is this Utopia? If they then move into the Cities, that are overcrowded, are the Lib/Dems going to deport them, or forceable move them back to their allowed zones?

It's like most of the Lib/Dems policies, unworkable. Can they live in another area and commute Mon-Fri? What if the firm they're working for relocates to an area where there are already too many immigrants, wont they lose their job?. If they've worked in this "allowed immigrant" area for 10 years, can they then be part of the amnesty, or do you have to be an illigal to take advantage of that? If they have children, do the children have to stick to these "allowed zones" or can they get jobs anywhere?

Just because you dont agree with them doesn't mean they've got no ideas. That's a rather simplistic approach to take. Is not cancelling the NI rise an idea?, what about cutting waste, what about elected Police Chiefs, what about referendum over council tax rises? The Tories have a whole raft of ideas and yet because you dont agree with them, seem to think they dont count. They're certainly better ideas than the Labour one , 5 more years of Gordon Brown.

There are plenty of people on benefits looking for work.

Sounds like a BNP policy to me. Will there be check points on the roads out of the areas they're allowed in? They only have to disappear for a few years, and they'll then get an amnesty The "policy" is just a way of "connecting" with voters that are both left and right.In reality it's unworkable

I find it strange that people who said Cameron was style of substance are now praising Clegg. With his writting down of the questioners name and uncosted back of a fag packet calculations, anyone unfamilar with who the 3 were would have thought he was the "aire to Blair" people keep talking about. The best thing about the debate is that the Lib/Dems policies will now be shone a light on. We'll see their uncosted tax bribe, the simplistic policy around Trident,the amensty for illigal immigrants and there flip flopping from left to right depending on which seat they're fighting. Their loony pro European policies, including joining the Euro, will be exposed. They are at the core further left wing than the Labour leadership (although you wont see that if you live in a Tory area). This is a Party, let us not forget, that went into the last election with a seriously ill leader. A leader that had an illness that however unfortunate affects people's judgement and ability to do the job of PM. The Lib/Dem leadership, including Saint Vince Cable, knew about this illness, yet covered it up for electrol benefit. It is also a Party that complains about the Tories style over substance, but ditched Sir Menzies Campbell for a more media friendly leader. They are a party that claim to be whiter than white and yet have taken dodgey money, and have had MP's caught up in the expenses row.

With the publics trust in Politics at an all time low, I can't believe they'll elect that proven liar Brown back to office. His list of mistakes is endless, raiding the pension funds, selling gold at rock bottom prices, and changing the bank regulations amongst them. However his willingness to throw money at unreformed public services was far and away the biggest. He blocked any reforms that were proposed by Blair and wasted millions and millions of our money. We've now got a massive bill to pay, but Doctors do less for more, you can't get an NHS dentist, and crime is up.There was a once in a lifetime chance to really make a difference to our public services. Thanks to the economy he was handed and the massive majority they had, real reform could have given us real change in the standard of our services. Yes they've gone up a bit, but nowhere near the amount they should have with the money spent.Our money, not Browns, our money, money that we will have to pay back long after Gordon Brown is a painful, but thankfully distant, memory.

If Pards turned Celtic down to stay at League one Saints, 99% of football supporters in the Country would think he was barmy. We know we're on the brink of something here, and let's hope Alan feels the same way. However, as much as I dont want to think about it, I dont think anyone managing in League 1 will turn them down (Let's assume Norwich are going up). At the end of the day it'll depend on what they want and what they can afford. They appear to be in the mire financialy, so will proberly wait to see whose available for free in the summer. I beleive the next month and a half is the most important in this Clubs history for many a year.If we can sneak into the play offs and win them, all talk of people leaving will go out the window. None of our players will attract bids from premier League sides, unless it's the Wigans and Boltons of the world, and I seriously think players would turn them down if we were one season away from the top flight ourselves. Same with Pards, with ML's money, the squad and support we have, in the CCC this is a great job.