Nick Clegg stil doesn't get it
06 May 2011, 08:45 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Clegg stil doesn't get it
The Lib Dems have taken an expected hammering in the council elections and today Nick Clegg says 'it's because the public blame us for the cuts'.
How deluded is he to say that?
Newsflash Clegg, it is nothing to with the cuts, it's to do with the fact that you and your party abandoned your principles and your manifesto for a few poxy cabinet posts and so you could swan around being deputy PM. You cannot campaign on several fronts and then throw them away the second you get a sniff of the big time without expecting your supporters to give you a good kicking when they can. You conned them, now they are telling you what they think of you. You have 4 years left max. Enjoy them!
How deluded is he to say that?
Newsflash Clegg, it is nothing to with the cuts, it's to do with the fact that you and your party abandoned your principles and your manifesto for a few poxy cabinet posts and so you could swan around being deputy PM. You cannot campaign on several fronts and then throw them away the second you get a sniff of the big time without expecting your supporters to give you a good kicking when they can. You conned them, now they are telling you what they think of you. You have 4 years left max. Enjoy them!
06 May 2011, 08:55 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
What else could he have done?
If he'd chosen not to go into the coalition, would he then have been blamed for giving up the only real chance the Lid Dems will ever have of getting into No. 10.
Still, a bit silly to make unrealistic promises that could never be delivered. It was pointed out right at the beginning of the coalition that all the failings of the current government will be focused onto the Lib Dems.
I also think AV was a complete waste of time. Proportional Representation would have been a better alternative.
If he'd chosen not to go into the coalition, would he then have been blamed for giving up the only real chance the Lid Dems will ever have of getting into No. 10.
Still, a bit silly to make unrealistic promises that could never be delivered. It was pointed out right at the beginning of the coalition that all the failings of the current government will be focused onto the Lib Dems.
I also think AV was a complete waste of time. Proportional Representation would have been a better alternative.
06 May 2011, 09:05 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Personally, I think the issue is that the Lib Dems were put in place (by us, the voters indirectly) to keep the Conservatives in check - to at least challenge some of the policies etc...
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
06 May 2011, 09:05 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clegg has made a huge mistake IMO.
AV was a non starter, no one wanted it. He should never have accepted that as a compromise. It should have been PR or nothing.
The Referendum was a joke, so much money spent but they should have asked people if they wanted AV, or PR, hanging, The EU, etc etc.
Politicians who think they know better than the electorate deserve everything they get.
A coalition, under the current circumstances, should mean that both partners recognise the need for mutual support to hold it together. I can't help thinking that Dave has done a number on him.
The only honourable thing for Clegg to do now is to leave the Govt. That might save him some face. The longer he stays there, taking it up the backside from Dave, the worse it will inevitably be for the Lib Dems. I think political vanity will make Clegg stay, he is no different to any other egotistical politician. Oh well.
Asif
AV was a non starter, no one wanted it. He should never have accepted that as a compromise. It should have been PR or nothing.
The Referendum was a joke, so much money spent but they should have asked people if they wanted AV, or PR, hanging, The EU, etc etc.
Politicians who think they know better than the electorate deserve everything they get.
A coalition, under the current circumstances, should mean that both partners recognise the need for mutual support to hold it together. I can't help thinking that Dave has done a number on him.
The only honourable thing for Clegg to do now is to leave the Govt. That might save him some face. The longer he stays there, taking it up the backside from Dave, the worse it will inevitably be for the Lib Dems. I think political vanity will make Clegg stay, he is no different to any other egotistical politician. Oh well.
Asif
Trending Topics
06 May 2011, 10:11 PM
#8
Found out, big time.
Been promising the moon for years, knowing they would never have to deliver.
Suddenly, they are in power..and he CAN'T deliver.
Could be the cleverest thing CamMoron has ever done. Lib Dems in the wilderness from now on.
I can hardly wait for Clegg to have his Portillo moment at the next election.......
Been promising the moon for years, knowing they would never have to deliver.
Suddenly, they are in power..and he CAN'T deliver.
Could be the cleverest thing CamMoron has ever done. Lib Dems in the wilderness from now on.
I can hardly wait for Clegg to have his Portillo moment at the next election.......
06 May 2011, 10:15 PM
#9
all a load of nads . i would like to see everyone have 2 votes
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
06 May 2011, 10:16 PM
#10
Personally, I think the issue is that the Lib Dems were put in place (by us, the voters indirectly) to keep the Conservatives in check - to at least challenge some of the policies etc...
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
07 May 2011, 10:55 AM
#12
all a load of nads . i would like to see everyone have 2 votes
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
and then we'd end up with a government with no opposition and no debate. Sounds perfect
07 May 2011, 11:16 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All he has got out of the whole situation so far is a gross loss of respect for his party including himself of course, and a referendum on a voting change which the vast majority of the country rejected out of hand.
Les
Les
07 May 2011, 11:19 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all a load of nads . i would like to see everyone have 2 votes
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
1 for your local mp whoever party he or she may represent
2 for the party to be in charge
then the local mp you voted for must convert to the leading party if different
if they wanted to keep thier seat .
that would make it fair , and you could choose your favorite local candidate based on how good they are for your area
Can't do better than to vote for the candidate and his party that you want to win the election.
What on earth is the point of complicating the affair?
Les
07 May 2011, 11:56 AM
#17
not if like our area the local mp is lib dem and good ,(thier job is to represent local area after all ) our local conservative mp is a very wealthy ponce, but i would want conservatives in total charge so he(the lib dem ) would have to convert , the rest arnt needed after elections so could all join the dole masses or get a real job until next time
07 May 2011, 11:59 AM
#18
1st past the post ignores the wishes of those 60-70% of people who didn't vote for the government.
Proportional representation seems inherently fairer. It works well in Scandinavia (who have something close to PR) and other places.
07 May 2011, 12:03 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think the issue is that the Lib Dems were put in place (by us, the voters indirectly) to keep the Conservatives in check - to at least challenge some of the policies etc...
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
Instead, they've been motor-boated by Cameron et al and have done nothing. Just not powerful enough to stand up to the Tories imho.
The Lib Dems were given a chance to do something good - they've squandered that chance and are now paying the price.
It won't happen again.
All imho.
Camaron spends half his time keeping the Libs sweet, he should tell them to **** off and start being a Tory leader rather than a psuedo-liberal
07 May 2011, 12:10 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with 1st past the post is, as you know, that a government can have overall majority in the house of commons when e.g. only 30-40% of people actually voted for them (the ones that bothered to vote at all, that is).
1st past the post ignores the wishes of those 60-70% of people who didn't vote for the government.
Proportional representation seems inherently fairer. It works well in Scandinavia (who have something close to PR) and other places.
1st past the post ignores the wishes of those 60-70% of people who didn't vote for the government.
Proportional representation seems inherently fairer. It works well in Scandinavia (who have something close to PR) and other places.
07 May 2011, 12:10 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
OK, the Libs may have had more of their manifesto implemented, but it's kind of like bringing a knife to a gun-fight.
Yey - the Libs have lots of policy from their lightweight manifesto to into play.
The Tories less, but there's a lot more gravity and repercussions behind their policies.
Lots of minor stuff, vs less major stuff. Woo Hoo.
Now, as a caveat, I'm quite willing to back down on this, as this is the IMPRESSION that has been portrayed to me: the Lib Dems and Clegg are too weak to stand up to the Tories.
Yey - the Libs have lots of policy from their lightweight manifesto to into play.
The Tories less, but there's a lot more gravity and repercussions behind their policies.
Lots of minor stuff, vs less major stuff. Woo Hoo.
Now, as a caveat, I'm quite willing to back down on this, as this is the IMPRESSION that has been portrayed to me: the Lib Dems and Clegg are too weak to stand up to the Tories.
07 May 2011, 12:12 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 May 2011, 12:48 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
The problem with 1st past the post is, as you know, that a government can have overall majority in the house of commons when e.g. only 30-40% of people actually voted for them (the ones that bothered to vote at all, that is).
1st past the post ignores the wishes of those 60-70% of people who didn't vote for the government.
Proportional representation seems inherently fairer. It works well in Scandinavia (who have something close to PR) and other places.
1st past the post ignores the wishes of those 60-70% of people who didn't vote for the government.
Proportional representation seems inherently fairer. It works well in Scandinavia (who have something close to PR) and other places.
they included London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and two others
maybe the intellectual heavyweights favour AV
07 May 2011, 01:03 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 May 2011, 01:06 PM
#26
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
