Jump to content

Clegg says Tories should be given first chance of forming a government


trousers
 Share

Recommended Posts

Clegg was true to his word even though it ean't in his interests to do so. For that I applaud him.

 

It's a con (with a small 'c')

 

The conversation will go something like this:

 

Clegg (to Dave): "Can we have PR?"

Dave: "No"

Clegg: "Don't say we didn't give you the first chance"

 

Result = Electorate shafted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clegg has said he'll stand by his word and has just categorically stated that the conservatives won on both seats and votes so they must be the ruling party.

 

We shall see where this leads but on that initial clarification you can only respect him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to Clegg, especially after the unfair Tory instigated media backlash against him just before the third leaders debate.

 

I'm surprised he didn't consider shafting them after that.

 

All goes to show he's a decent man with morals unlike that c u n t Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to Clegg, especially after the unfair Tory instigated media backlash against him just before the third leaders debate.

 

I'm surprised he didn't consider shafting them after that.

 

All goes to show he's a decent man with morals unlike that c u n t Cameron.

 

So give us chapter and verse about where Cameron has lacked morals.

 

So the Lib/Dems failed to make the breakthrough because of the nasty Tory press? You have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal Democrats shouldn't HAVE to side with anyone really... they should represent the people who voted for them in a perfect world. Clegg won't go into formal coalition with conservatives or even an unofficial pact I don't think(not without substantial voting reform anyways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So give us chapter and verse about where Cameron has lacked morals.

 

So the Lib/Dems failed to make the breakthrough because of the nasty Tory press? You have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the electorate.

 

I never said they failed to make a breakthrough because of the Tory press, although I doubt it helped, just that Clegg had just cause to be hacked off with the Tories after their party orchestrated an unfair and unnecessary hatchet job on him.

 

But yes, some of the electorate are a bit dumb. Some people probably voted Tory because Simon Cowell did. Sadly that's true.

 

What is also true is that James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks burst into the Independent offices and had a huge slanging match with Simon Kelner over a piece his paper printed stating a vote for the Tories is a vote for Rupert Murdoch. Now, if papers weren't that influential then News International wouldn't have thrown their toys out of the pram due to an article in a paper read by only 200 000 people a day.

 

The fact he employs Andy Coulson shows his dubious morals, while aligning the Tories with the Polish Law & Justice Party isn't helping him take any moral highground. I disagree with some of his voting decisions in the House of Commons too:

 

Voted VERY STRONGLY AGAINST the hunting ban

Voted AGAINST removing hereditary peers from the House Of Lords

Voted AGAINST proposals for 100% elected House of Lords

Voted MODERATELY for equal gay rights

Voted VERY STRONGLY for the Iraq War

 

Good healthy political debate though eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clegg has said he'll stand by his word and has just categorically stated that the conservatives won on both seats and votes so they must be the ruling party.

 

We shall see where this leads but on that initial clarification you can only respect him.

 

That is not what he said at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so maybe someone can explain this, or point me to the post that explains it...

 

My general impression is that Lib Dem voters would, if pushed to decide, more likely favour Labour over the Tories. So if Nick Clegg decides to ally himself and the party with the Tories would that not in some way alienate the party's supporters?

 

And yes I am making very broad generalisations abovce, so if necessary I am happy to stand corrected.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so maybe someone can explain this, or point me to the post that explains it...

 

My general impression is that Lib Dem voters would, if pushed to decide, more likely favour Labour over the Tories. So if Nick Clegg decides to ally himself and the party with the Tories would that not in some way alienate the party's supporters?

 

And yes I am making very broad generalisations abovce, so if necessary I am happy to stand corrected.... :)

 

You are spot on. Clegg has a problem. Probably only solved by taking a PR bribe from either Lab or Con for the short term. Lab have offered the bribe, will the Conservatives follow suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said they failed to make a breakthrough because of the Tory press, although I doubt it helped, just that Clegg had just cause to be hacked off with the Tories after their party orchestrated an unfair and unnecessary hatchet job on him.

 

But yes, some of the electorate are a bit dumb. Some people probably voted Tory because Simon Cowell did. Sadly that's true.

 

What is also true is that James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks burst into the Independent offices and had a huge slanging match with Simon Kelner over a piece his paper printed stating a vote for the Tories is a vote for Rupert Murdoch. Now, if papers weren't that influential then News International wouldn't have thrown their toys out of the pram due to an article in a paper read by only 200 000 people a day.

 

The fact he employs Andy Coulson shows his dubious morals, while aligning the Tories with the Polish Law & Justice Party isn't helping him take any moral highground. I disagree with some of his voting decisions in the House of Commons too:

 

Voted VERY STRONGLY AGAINST the hunting ban

Voted AGAINST removing hereditary peers from the House Of Lords

Voted AGAINST proposals for 100% elected House of Lords

Voted MODERATELY for equal gay rights

Voted VERY STRONGLY for the Iraq War

 

Good healthy political debate though eh?

 

I'm sure that Clegg is a big enough boy to look after himself. He certainly had as expensive and good an education as Cameron did. The superficiality of the television debate is to blame for the other two leaders ganging up on him and Clegg made the most of the opportunity to be on the same stage as the other two, on an equal footing with them. So his boyish good looks and his ability to be all things to all men because he was unlikely to poll the majority vote, gave him an advantage over all other previous Lib/Dem or Liberal leaders. He was able to stand aloof from the other two arguing amongst themselves which was in his favour, as they did not place him or his party's policies under the spotlight.

 

When Clegg's performance gave the Lib/Dems a real surge in the polls, then it was not unexpected that the other two parties would seek to put him down. He would have expected it and knows that if one can't stand the heat in the kichen, one shouldn't be in politics. It isn't even as if they are innocent as a party of these things, urging tactical voting to achieve their own ends. There are some newspapers that blow the trumpet for the Conservatives, but Clegg had his fair share of good publicity from left-leaning publications too.

 

Some of the electorate are dumb enough to vote Labour because that bald-headed geezer from East Enders told them to do so. I can't think of any celebrities who urged the voters to switch to the Lib/Dems, but the usual media lefties gave Cameron a hammering.

 

I don't see that anything you have written illustrates any dubious morality on the part of Cameron. Perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper. As far as I'm concerned, those are all perfectly justifiable positions to hold on those issues if those are his beliefs. You might not agree with them, but they are not matters that are morally reprehensible.

 

And yes. Good healthy political debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Clegg is a big enough boy to look after himself. He certainly had as expensive and good an education as Cameron did. The superficiality of the television debate is to blame for the other two leaders ganging up on him and Clegg made the most of the opportunity to be on the same stage as the other two, on an equal footing with them. So his boyish good looks and his ability to be all things to all men because he was unlikely to poll the majority vote, gave him an advantage over all other previous Lib/Dem or Liberal leaders. He was able to stand aloof from the other two arguing amongst themselves which was in his favour, as they did not place him or his party's policies under the spotlight.

 

When Clegg's performance gave the Lib/Dems a real surge in the polls, then it was not unexpected that the other two parties would seek to put him down. He would have expected it and knows that if one can't stand the heat in the kichen, one shouldn't be in politics. It isn't even as if they are innocent as a party of these things, urging tactical voting to achieve their own ends. There are some newspapers that blow the trumpet for the Conservatives, but Clegg had his fair share of good publicity from left-leaning publications too.

 

Some of the electorate are dumb enough to vote Labour because that bald-headed geezer from East Enders told them to do so. I can't think of any celebrities who urged the voters to switch to the Lib/Dems, but the usual media lefties gave Cameron a hammering.

 

I don't see that anything you have written illustrates any dubious morality on the part of Cameron. Perhaps you ought to dig a little deeper. As far as I'm concerned, those are all perfectly justifiable positions to hold on those issues if those are his beliefs. You might not agree with them, but they are not matters that are morally reprehensible.

 

And yes. Good healthy political debate.

 

Personally I think that voting for a war in which a huge number of innocent people died is morally reprehensible, especially as the vote was cast under the extremely dubious '45 minute' guidelines. No point raking over that decision again though, as it's been done to death and all the arguments for and against are well known.

 

Aligning his party in Europe with, as Clegg called them "nutters" is too. Or maybe it's just stupid, but Cameron did little to distance the Tories from this.

 

As for tactical voting, well in our quite ludicrous system I don't understand why this isn't a lot more common and called for by a lot more people in politics. For example in Eastleigh, why would any Labour supporter vote for them when they know a vote for Lib Dems is likely to deny the Tories a valuable seat? There's plenty of constituencies where Tory voters could have cost Labour a seat too.

 

As for the print media, well they are a lot less effective than 10 or 15 years ago due to smaller circulations and the rise of digital media, however I still maintain that the coordinated attack on Clegg with a collection of spurious articles was out of order.

 

Maybe Cameron isn't actually a c u n t, that's a bit harsh - but it still baffles me that he seems so popular when a lot of his policy statements are less well thought out than those of the Lib Dems.

 

And jeez, anyone who thinks George Osbourne could do a job as Chancellor is severely deluded. Wonder why the Tories kept him out of the campaign? Considering he's their number 2 it speaks volumes!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think that voting for a war in which a huge number of innocent people died is morally reprehensible, especially as the vote was cast under the extremely dubious '45 minute' guidelines. No point raking over that decision again though, as it's been done to death and all the arguments for and against are well known.

 

Aligning his party in Europe with, as Clegg called them "nutters" is too. Or maybe it's just stupid, but Cameron did little to distance the Tories from this.

 

As for tactical voting, well in our quite ludicrous system I don't understand why this isn't a lot more common and called for by a lot more people in politics. For example in Eastleigh, why would any Labour supporter vote for them when they know a vote for Lib Dems is likely to deny the Tories a valuable seat? There's plenty of constituencies where Tory voters could have cost Labour a seat too.

 

As for the print media, well they are a lot less effective than 10 or 15 years ago due to smaller circulations and the rise of digital media, however I still maintain that the coordinated attack on Clegg with a collection of spurious articles was out of order.

 

Maybe Cameron isn't actually a c u n t, that's a bit harsh - but it still baffles me that he seems so popular when a lot of his policy statements are less well thought out than those of the Lib Dems.

 

And jeez, anyone who thinks George Osbourne could do a job as Chancellor is severely deluded. Wonder why the Tories kept him out of the campaign? Considering he's their number 2 it speaks volumes!!

 

Well, I don't think that you came up with anything yet that could be classified as morally reprehensible about Cameron. The decision on the Iraq war was taken by Labour with Conservative support and it is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight as to whether it was justified or not. I still think it was.

 

Which policy statements are less well thought out than those of the Lib/Dems? As far as I'm concerned, the most woolly Lib/Dem policy is on immigration and I think that Brown and Cameron exposed its weaknesses to the extent that many made up their minds about the Lib/Dems credibility on that.

 

The proposal to give an amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been here over a decade, was as they both said, an invitation for many more to be encouraged to come here, knowing that after a decade they could stay. As for the proposal that immigrants be spread more evenly throughout the country so as not to put undue strain on the local resources of housing, health and education, the idea sounds at first glance to be commendable. Until that is, one stops to consider how it could possibly be administered. Exactly how do you keep an immigrant, say in Penzance, when he really wants to be close to others from his country of origin who might be concentrated into a community, say in Leicester?

 

I was amazed to find from an AOL poll a few days ago that the number one issue in this election by some distance, was not the economy or Health, but Immigration. If that was correct, then it is possible that might be the reason for the Lib/Dems poor showing, when once it had looked so promising for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think that you came up with anything yet that could be classified as morally reprehensible about Cameron. The decision on the Iraq war was taken by Labour with Conservative support and it is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight as to whether it was justified or not. I still think it was.

 

Which policy statements are less well thought out than those of the Lib/Dems? As far as I'm concerned, the most woolly Lib/Dem policy is on immigration and I think that Brown and Cameron exposed its weaknesses to the extent that many made up their minds about the Lib/Dems credibility on that.

 

The proposal to give an amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been here over a decade, was as they both said, an invitation for many more to be encouraged to come here, knowing that after a decade they could stay. As for the proposal that immigrants be spread more evenly throughout the country so as not to put undue strain on the local resources of housing, health and education, the idea sounds at first glance to be commendable. Until that is, one stops to consider how it could possibly be administered. Exactly how do you keep an immigrant, say in Penzance, when he really wants to be close to others from his country of origin who might be concentrated into a community, say in Leicester?

 

I was amazed to find from an AOL poll a few days ago that the number one issue in this election by some distance, was not the economy or Health, but Immigration. If that was correct, then it is possible that might be the reason for the Lib/Dems poor showing, when once it had looked so promising for them.

 

At least Clegg had a specific plan for dealing with Immigration and could break it down. Brown had nothing. Cameron's plan for a cap was easily shot down when it was pointed out that the cap doesn't apply to immigrants from within the EU which makes up a considerable proportion of immigrant flow into the country this past two years. Cameron had NO explanation or response to this.

 

IMO the country did not vote on immigration policies ... unfortunately a lot of people still only believe in choosing between two parties and just as many will stick by the same party election after election because it's easier to do so. It ****es me off when someone votes Lab/Con "because my dad* does" [*substitute for mum/husband/wife/partner/uncle/whomever]

 

Although he started sounding repetitive, Clegg is right in that people do have another choice. And my opinion is that an amnesty is a fantastic idea, on the basis that it is a one off amnesty and it is followed swiftly by new immigration controls being put in place (note, NOT a fixed cap). These two activities combined is what is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})