sandie Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Clegg deserves 30 pieces of silver, he has got his so called power what a Judas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Clegg deserves 30 pieces of silver, he has got his so called power what a Judas There is no betrayal in following the plan you told everybody that you intended to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 I can't think of any reason while large swathes of Lib Dem supporters would go over to either party especially if the coalition proves anything like succesful in reducing the deficit. Surely that would strengthen the Lib Dem hand in places where they'd finished second to Labour? Exactly what I was going to say. I was saying just yesterday how exciting it is now that as a lib dem we have actually got in to a position of influence where people actually take notice of what is now said and we have a real opportunity to bring about real change. I cant see how any of that can at all be seen as''Lib Dems jumping ship" I am so tired of the same people starting potentially explosive threads just because they want to stir things up and make any news story look negative when actually things are going so well. After all Cameron and Clegg are actually behaving like real people, how we have wanted politicians to behave for so long. They are accepting that they have to put differences aside to get the country back on track. They are doing this so please give them some credit,or perharps Titanic you dont like the idea of politicians co operating with each other. Maybe you would prefer to go back to the old ways:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 That you consider your absurdly gap laden & skewed summary to include the 'key points' tells us more about just how idealogically blinded you are than the interview you pretend to be summarising. Amongst other things you dismissed and distorted are: the initial discussion about how the Lib Dems said before the election that they'd try and from a government with the party that got the most votes. Discussion about how a coalition with Labour wasn't viable due to: Labour very internally divided about what to do prominent MPs knocking it in media during talks He refused to rule out forming another with the coalition in 5 years time, it would have been astonishing if he had ruled that out. Just as it would be astonishing if he ruled out working with Labour in 5 years time. As for 'Liberal Conservatism' Marr raised the term (which you'll find in any decent book on political theory alonside Liberal Socialism) & Nick correctly pointed out that Liberals & many Conservatives share a similar approach the relationship between the individual and the state & power which can help hold the coalition together. He contrasted this shared approach with New Labours top down authoritarianism, other Lib Dems have made the same point to you in the past and you didn't understand it then either. And then pointed out the coalition was then overwhelmingly approved, I guess you didn't have "space" for that bit eh? And Nick pointed out what groundless nonsense that is. Not just Greece the Eurozone in general combined with the fact that the books are even worse than they feared thanks to Labour's irresponsible unfunded spending commitments. Extended discussion on just how bad a financial state Labour have left the nation in and the difficult times with difficult & unpopular decision we have ahead. What complete nonsense there was zero indication that the referendum wouldn't be in this Parliament. It's a shame that you "missed" the discussion about how the "55% majority legislation" actually gives parliament a new power taking it from the Executive & how 55% is a low figure by international standards & lower for example than the figure Labour introduced in Scotland. All Nick did was not rule out working with the Conservatives again in 5 years time (something it would have been insane for him to do) & you leap from that to the Lib Dem being finished you trully have excelled yourself this time. Anyway if anyone would like to see the debate for themselves rather than getting it 2nd hand filtered through the delusional mind of a die hard Labour supporter it can be seen here & is about 20 minutes long. fantastic!! thanks so much for providing this. I was camping this weekend so I missed it. I am glad that the broadcast is here for all to see, and then ,as you say we can see it how it really was, not how Titanic wanted us to think it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 What complete nonsense there was zero indication that the referendum wouldn't be in this Parliament. Clegg on reform of House of Lords when questioned if it would happen in this Parliament “That’s certainly the intention yes” Clegg on reform of Parliament when asked on how quickly this can be introduced “We are actively looking at that now,” then lots of information on boundary changes Andrew marr pushes him on this and the response is “Well we are looking at how the bundary review is looked at as quickly as possible” Now this is not misquoting him, it is consistent with what I indicated earlier as below: · He was very firm about reform to the House of Lords in this Parliament with PR being the model to be implemented. · He was significantly less convincing that the vote on changing the voting system would be in this Parliament. Quite why we are having to have this boundary review before we decide to agree the reforms is bewildering to me, surely anyone with half a brain could see this is a waste of public money to initiate the boundary reviews whilst there is a strong likelihood that the public will vote no to the changes anyway. Surely it makes more sense to have the referendum to ensure the public wants change and then have the “reviews” to decide how it is to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Clegg deserves 30 pieces of silver, he has got his so called power what a Judas why? he did what was necessary to form the stablest government which the result of the election allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Quite why we are having to have this boundary review before we decide to agree the reforms is bewildering to me, surely anyone with half a brain could see this is a waste of public money to initiate the boundary reviews whilst there is a strong likelihood that the public will vote no to the changes anyway. The boundary review will take place in any event; it's long overdue, as constituencies at present come in widely varying sizes. (Indeed, it's because of these discrepancies, which at present happen to favour Labour areas, that a Labour vote of 36% would have been a sizeable majority but a Tory vote of 36% wasn't a majority at all.) I'm not sure why Marr, or Clegg, was trying to conflate the two issues. They both happen to concern Parliamentary practice, but they don't have to happen together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Quite why we are having to have this boundary review before we decide to agree the reforms is bewildering to me, surely anyone with half a brain could see this is a waste of public money to initiate the boundary reviews whilst there is a strong likelihood that the public will vote no to the changes anyway. Surely it makes more sense to have the referendum to ensure the public wants change and then have the “reviews” to decide how it is to be changed. the boundary review is totally separate to any change in the voting method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 All Nick did was not rule out working with the Conservatives again in 5 years time (something it would have been insane for him to do) & you leap from that to the Lib Dem being finished you trully have excelled yourself this time. Marr to Clegg on longer term deal “Is there the essence of something that could lead to longer than the 5 year term here” Clegg “There is an approach to the state that I do think unites the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats” marr “That sounds like Yes “ Clegg “Well there are differences in other areas” Marr “Would you stick together beyond this Parliament” Clegg “I’m not making those predictions” Now forgive me if I’m wrong but if I was a Liberal Democrat supporter I’d be a little concerned that he’s not ruling out a longer deal here and now. He didn’t differentiate between joining a coalition with the largest party at the next election and joining them at some point in the future. Surely supporters want to here him say emphatically “no we aren’t joining either of the other parties, but we will be prepared to work with them in the future to form stable governments” and not that he’s not making those predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 the boundary review is totally separate to any change in the voting method. So why is the referendum on changes to the voting method needing to wait for the review to boundary changes. It isn't coming in this Parliament, I know it, you know it and he has betrayed you once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.