Nick Clegg

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 that the coalition would collapse within a year?

The bitterness from the left is tiresome, but predictable. It is the main reason they aren't the natural party of government. The reality is that Clegg went with the Tories because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less. Any "Rainbow Alliance" would have collapsed within months as the numbers simply didn't add up. Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

The only bitterness on here seems to come from you, my Liberal friend.
You even manage to contradict yourself in epic fashion, stating that Clegg got into bed with the Tories 'because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less', then go on to say that naked power was his primary motive.
So which is it? - you can't have it both ways.
You love to trumpet the tired Liberal mantra of electoral reform, and that 'first past the post' is unfair, yet you finish a remote third and get to have a (nominal) say in things, yet the party who came a close second don't.
Do you call that fair?
Did you have a box on your ballot paper at the last election that said 'Tory/Liberal Sellouttwat Coalition Fudge', because I must have missed it when I voted.
The massive irony here is that the very electoral system you decry actually gave you the only whiff of superficial power that your party are ever likely to see.
You actually show your true colours in that most of your post is bitterness towards a Labour party that aren't even in office, rather than bemoaning the duplicity and shameless opportunism of Clegg and his cohorts that has branded your party as damaged goods for the foreseeable future, or a Tory party that has singularly ignored the party that allows them to (mis)rule the country.
I love you like a brother, but your observations regarding the potential state of the country under a different government are pure speculation, and there is no natural party of government in a democracy.

 

[Scareye]

Does he track back?

No but like all politicians he back tracks!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The only bitterness on here seems to come from you, my Liberal friend.
You even manage to contradict yourself in epic fashion, stating that Clegg got into bed with the Tories 'because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less', then go on to say that naked power was his primary motive.
So which is it? - you can't have it both ways.

They are not contradictory at all. One is concomitant of the other. Clegg's lust for office was best served by the electoral mathematics before his feet. He chose the path of least resistance to quench his 'will to power'.

I love you like a brother

Reciprocated :-)

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 that the coalition would collapse within a year?

The bitterness from the left is tiresome, but predictable. It is the main reason they aren't the natural party of government. The reality is that Clegg went with the Tories because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less. Any "Rainbow Alliance" would have collapsed within months as the numbers simply didn't add up. Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

The only bitterness on here seems to come from you, my Liberal friend.
You even manage to contradict yourself in epic fashion, stating that Clegg got into bed with the Tories 'because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less', then go on to say that naked power was his primary motive.
So which is it? - you can't have it both ways.
You love to trumpet the tired Liberal mantra of electoral reform, and that 'first past the post' is unfair, yet you finish a remote third and get to have a (nominal) say in things, yet the party who came a close second don't.
Do you call that fair?
Did you have a box on your ballot paper at the last election that said 'Tory/Liberal Sellouttwat Coalition Fudge', because I must have missed it when I voted.
The massive irony here is that the very electoral system you decry actually gave you the only whiff of superficial power that your party are ever likely to see.
You actually show your true colours in that most of your post is bitterness towards a Labour party that aren't even in office, rather than bemoaning the duplicity and shameless opportunism of Clegg and his cohorts that has branded your party as damaged goods for the foreseeable future, or a Tory party that has singularly ignored the party that allows them to (mis)rule the country.
I love you like a brother, but your observations regarding the potential state of the country under a different government are pure speculation, and there is no natural party of government in a democracy.

I( dont want to get in to an argument but what was the alternative to a tory/liberal party at the time. I seem to remember we couldn't afford to have a hung government at the time. Im not really in to politics that much I just remember the country being in a bit of turmoil back then

 

[Chris in London]

The only bitterness on here seems to come from you, my Liberal friend.
You even manage to contradict yourself in epic fashion, stating that Clegg got into bed with the Tories 'because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less', then go on to say that naked power was his primary motive.
So which is it? - you can't have it both ways.

They are not contradictory at all. One is concomitant of the other. Clegg's lust for office was best served by the electoral mathematics before his feet. He chose the path of least resistance to quench his 'will to power'.

I love you like a brother

Reciprocated :-)

Gordon's got a point, hasn't he Fetters?

The way the numbers stacked up, whatever sort of coalition was put together Clegg would have been part of it and was in many ways the kingmaker.

The only realistic alternatives to a coalition in 2010 were for Cameron to form a minority administration or for Brown to remain in office pending a further election, each of which would have put in doubt clegg's prospects of being in government.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

outright majority!!!! less than 30% of the eligible population voted ...which in my mind means that there were NO policies or beliefs that anyone wanted to vote for.

These people are just political whores who do nothing but feather their own nest and look out for their public school chums whilst lining up their next job and fat pay cheque.

the low turn out just suits their purpose

The population of this country need change and we need it fast.....but there will be no point in putting the same people back in the houses of parliament / who tell the same lies / who behave in the same way.

We need to kick out the public school career politicians (of whatever party) and put in place people who actually give a flyin fuk about what they do

 

[Balti]

the very essence of the modern politician

no morals or scruples
no genuine convictions to convey
no thoughts of public service
just a self-serving egotistical need for power, money and media exposure

viva la revolucion

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

outright majority!!!! less than 30% of the eligible population voted ...which in my mind means that there were NO policies or beliefs that anyone wanted to vote for.

These people are just political whores who do nothing but feather their own nest and look out for their public school chums whilst lining up their next job and fat pay cheque.

the low turn out just suits their purpose

The population of this country need change and we need it fast.....but there will be no point in putting the same people back in the houses of parliament / who tell the same lies / who behave in the same way.

We need to kick out the public school career politicians (of whatever party) and put in place people who actually give a flyin fuk about what they do

I thought voter turn out was 61% which is still fairly pathetic. Be interesting to know the age groups of those people as well. Im betting in 50yrs time voter turn out will be about 20%, the young just dont care about politics

 

[Skashion]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 that the coalition would collapse within a year?

The bitterness from the left is tiresome, but predictable. It is the main reason they aren't the natural party of government. The reality is that Clegg went with the Tories because of mathematics - nothing more nothing less. Any "Rainbow Alliance" would have collapsed within months as the numbers simply didn't add up. Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

I don't blame the Lib Dems for going into coalition with the tories. Although the 'bitter left' are entitled to their anger as in many parts of the country people voted Lib Dem thinking they were voting for the opposition to the tories. Indeed, pre-Clegg, the Lib Dems were left of Labour. It's not hard to fathom why some people feel betrayed. However, the main betrayal has come since then with breaking manifesto promises and even compromising with their long-standing support of proportional representation in order to support AV, which even the staunchest electoral reform advocates such as me, found very hard to support, and impossible to advocate to others.

Anyroad, the next election should be good for your favoured party. The Lib Dems shall be free of the 'bitter left' forever, and can rid themselves of the ridiculous Dems at the end of their name at the same time.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder how many posting on this thread predicted in 2005 Given the inevitable chaotic nature of that collapse, I am willing to wager that the Tories would have ended up with an outright majority at the consequent General Election, although that wouldn't have been Labour's fault of course, it never is.

I don't think for a minute that Clegg's primary motive was the good of the nation when he got into bed with the Tories, naked power was, but the best interests of the country were served by stable government at that time and subsequently. This country would be in a much worse state now if he hadn't followed the path he did.

outright majority!!!! less than 30% of the eligible population voted ...which in my mind means that there were NO policies or beliefs that anyone wanted to vote for.

These people are just political whores who do nothing but feather their own nest and look out for their public school chums whilst lining up their next job and fat pay cheque.

the low turn out just suits their purpose

The population of this country need change and we need it fast.....but there will be no point in putting the same people back in the houses of parliament / who tell the same lies / who behave in the same way.

We need to kick out the public school career politicians (of whatever party) and put in place people who actually give a flyin fuk about what they do

I don't entirely disagree with your analysis, however I was describing the situation - "outright majority" in factual terms, at least as I saw it panning out, rather than an opinion on our electoral system and politicians in general, both of which are piss poor it has to be said.