Clegg refuses to rule out long term deal with Tories-End of Libdems?

[truconstruct]

Really, I suspect you didn't read the manifesto of Labour or Libdems, they both opposed them now whereas the Tories argued for them.

 

Only around 24% of people voted Tory meaning a signifcant majority didn't vote for them.

 

Your talking through your aries, labour said cuts would have to be made but they didn't know what and where when questiond, libdems said something similar but EVERYONE recognised that cuts were coming befor the election.

[Titanic99]

It is not simply ok that electoral reform waits a little while it is imperative. The leaked Queens Speech has a great deal in concerning matters which need urgent attention and will keep Parliament very busy.

 

Electoral reform only needs to be in place for the next election there is no rush, fixing the black hole Labour have left in our nations finances however...

 

 

You are simply delusional, I don't see how you can possibly have honestly read the post you just quoted as a concession that your flat out false claims were correct or an apology of any kind.

 

So the reform of the House of Lords is a definite yes and is required within this Parliament, whereas the reform to the voting system can wait for the review to boundary changes which again must be essential.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought out of those three that the reform and vote on reforming the voting system would be the most important of them to Libdem supporters and as such, surely time could be found for that as opposed to the other two.

[plekhanov]

<snip your ideologically filtered 'transript' >

This is what was actually said:

 

NICK CLEGG: (over) I think one thing that's actually pleasantly surprised people is that there are some areas where as a coalition government we agree - and there's a great sense of unity - particularly the approach to freedom, enshrining more privacy …

 

ANDREW MARR: (over) Is there something called Liberal Conservatism?

 

NICK CLEGG: Well there's something … there's certainly something called …

 

ANDREW MARR: I mean is there the essence of something here which could lead to a longer term, more than five year arrangement?

 

NICK CLEGG: There is an approach to the state and to power which I do think unites the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat parties …

 

ANDREW MARR: That sounds like yes.

 

NICK CLEGG: Well but it doesn't mean there aren't major differences in other areas. But in this one important respect, I think there is a real glue, a real glue to this coalition government …

 

ANDREW MARR: So you could stick together beyond one parliament?

 

NICK CLEGG: Hang on, I'm not making this prediction. But can I just spell out what it is? And it is simply the view that trying to do everything from the centre - this top down centralising, slightly authoritarian approach of government from New Labour - hasn't worked, hasn't produced a fairer Britain, has encroached on people's civil liberties, hasn't reformed politics, hasn't delivered a balanced growing economy across the country. I think people do want something where power is more dispersed, more fairly dispersed across the country.

 

They were clearly talking about the possibility of the coalition being reformed in the next Parliament.

 

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.

Which just shows once again how far gone you are. Why would Lib Dems want Nick to sabotage the coalition by stating now that there is no chance that they will work with the Conservatives after the next election?

 

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.

He was talking about a coalition you buffoon, I no more want Nick to assure me that “no we aren’t joining either of the other parties" than I want him to reassure me that "no we won't tie you up place you on a giant catapult and fling you into the sun" as I haven't got the slightest concern that either will happen.

 

If your bizarre interpretation of the interview is valid when why didn't Marr pick up on what would be a sensational statement? Why hasn't the BBC's own reporting of the interview covered this at all? Wouldn't Nick saying he was going to merge the Lib Dems with the Tories make a better headline than "Nick Clegg says cuts move 'painful but necessary'"?

[HeadingNorth]

He promised to seek a deal with the party with the most seats, he didn't promise to do a deal with them at any cost.

 

And he hasn't done so. Large chunks of the LD's manifesto remain in place in the proposed Queen's Speech.

 

Chiefly, of course, the chunks dealing with the abolition of endless New Labour-introduced laws, but they've also successfully watered down a number of Tory economic policies.

[plekhanov]

So the reform of the House of Lords is a definite yes and is required within this Parliament, whereas the reform to the voting system can wait for the review to boundary changes which again must be essential.

This really isn't complicated, they are all required within this Parliament, it's just that the latter two can wait a little as they only need by on place for the next election.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought out of those three that the reform and vote on reforming the voting system would be the most important of them to Libdem supporters and as such, surely time could be found for that as opposed to the other two.

I want a reformed House of Lords elected and working within this Parliament as soon as possible. In contrast reviewing the boundaries and AV cannot possibly make a difference until the next election. Consequently I want the Lords dealt with 1st even though I think voting reform for the lower more powerful house is probably more important. How can you not understand this? It is very simple.

[Titanic99]

[quote=plekhanov;6277671

ANDREW MARR: I mean is there the essence of something here which could lead to a longer term, more than five year arrangement?

 

NICK CLEGG: There is an approach to the state and to power which I do think unites the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat parties …

 

ANDREW MARR: That sounds like yes.

 

 

 

 

No they are not at all, there is clearly more potential that the next parliament will have a decisive winner,yet you are assuming the above means another coalition government.

 

This looks more to me like a join-up to counter any Labour lead in the polls, it makes no reference to coalitions with the biggest party and only focuses on the commonality between the two with no mention of the same between Libdems and Labour.

[HeadingNorth]

This looks more to me like a join-up to counter any Labour lead in the polls, it makes no reference to coalitions with the biggest party and only focuses on the commonality between the two with no mention of the same between Libdems and Labour.

 

 

He wasn't asked about commonality between the Lib Dems and Labour. Perhaps when someone asks him about it, he'll have an answer, but attacking him for not answering a question that wasn't asked is a novel, and rather silly, way of going after a politician.

[Titanic99]

This really isn't complicated, they are all required within this Parliament, it's just that the latter two can wait a little as they only need by on place for the next election.

 

 

I want a reformed House of Lords elected and working within this Parliament as soon as possible. In contrast reviewing the boundaries and AV cannot possibly make a difference until the next election. Consequently I want the Lords dealt with 1st even though I think voting reform for the lower more powerful house is probably more important. How can you not understand this? It is very simple.

 

The reason I cannot understand it is because I don't accept your interpretation.

 

The question on reforming the House of Lords got a clear unequivocal response in that it would be implemented within this Parliament, whereas the question on reforming the Political Voting system got shoved behind a review of Boundary changes which even you accept isn't linked.

 

How difficult is it to arrange a referendum if both coalition members are committed to it.

 

All it requires is the same clear unequivocal message that this vote will take place within this Parliament, we didn't get it and I suspect there will always be more important things to legislate for (which I'm still waiting for).

[plekhanov]

He promised to seek a deal with the party with the most seats, he didn't promise to do a deal with them at any cost.

 

The fact that he has is a betrayal of all those who voted for your policies.

But the deal wasn't "at any cost" and a good many of Lib Dem policies have been taken on by the coalition, other have of course been conceded with the Tories meeting halfway on others.

 

Just as would have happened in any coalition with Labour - would you have been making all these hysterical accusations of betrayal at Nick if you were the partner?

 

Incidentally you seem to have somehow "missed" the 2nd half of the post you quoted so to remind you this is what it said:

 

Now if on the other hand he followed your delusional plan:

 

He should have entered into a deal with neither, forced another election and then entered into negotiations with Labour to get real and meaningful compromises on policy and then agreed that only one party would stand against the Tories.

 

That would have been double betrayal firstly it would be a betrayal of everything the Lib Dems had said about how they would conduct themselves after the election.

 

Secondly and more importantly it would be a betrayal of the national interest. At a time when your party's mismanagement has plunged the nation into financial crisis we need strong and effective government right now. We simply can't afford to have months of government paralysis whilst the nation hemorrhages money simply to try and keep your party in power.

 

Please do explain how you can accuse Nick of "betrayal" for doing exactly what he said he'd do whilst simultaneously demanding that he adopt a course of action which completely goes against everything he said? How could anything be a greater 'betrayal' than your delusional plan?

[Titanic99]

He wasn't asked about commonality between the Lib Dems and Labour. Perhaps when someone asks him about it, he'll have an answer, but attacking him for not answering a question that wasn't asked is a novel, and rather silly, way of going after a politician.

 

He was asked a question which if about a coalition at the next election would have afforded him the opportunity to respond with "We'll seak to form a Government with the highest party", instead he talked about commonality between the members of the coalition and this going beyond 5 years.