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

[Titanic99]

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.

 

 

 

There's no betrayal to the elctorate if a combined party had been able to stand on policies endorsed by all those standing, this could have been the case as opposed to the electorate voting for one thing and getting something totally different from the party they voted for.

 

If that is not betrayal in a political sense, then I've absolutely no idea what is.

[Titanic99]

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.

 

 

 

And these are?

[plekhanov]

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

Given your bizarre interpretation of practically everything said in the interview and the discussion surrounding it that's hardly a surprise.

 

Trying to discuss politics with you is like trying to discuss evolution with a young earth creationist, your ideology is so overwhelmingly powerful that it completely warps everything practically beyond recognition.

 

This is what was said concerning the referendum:

 

ANDREW MARR: Another big thing said to be a great victory for the Liberal Democrats in the negotiation is the referendum on the alternative vote, which we assume it'll be the alternative vote.

 

NICK CLEGG: Yes, it would be.

 

ANDREW MARR: How quickly can you introduce legislation for that and when will the referendum be?

 

NICK CLEGG: Well we're actively looking at that right now and I hope you know very shortly to be able to announce what sort of timetable we're working towards. But if you look at the coalition agreement, we are basically doing two things at the same time. We are legislating to bring about a referendum on an alternative electoral system, an alternative vote system where people rank their candidates in order of preference. It basically means that no MP is in the House of Commons unless they've got more than 50% of the support of people in their local areas, which I think is a good principle. But we're coupling that to - in precise parallel if you like - with a plan to equalise the boundaries of constituency, so that you don't have these … Some constituencies have got many more thousands of people in them than other constituencies and we're trying to work out exactly how you make sure that those two things work in parallel.

 

ANDREW MARR: (over) But there will be a referendum pretty quickly on this?

 

NICK CLEGG: Well we're looking at how we can make sure that the boundary review is launched as quickly as possible, so that we can also hold the referendum you know at the right time. But I'm not going to … I mean this is a little bit … it gets a little bit technical.

 

ANDREW MARR: (over) Because the Conservative … As you know, the Conservative Party is pretty much against the AV system, so you have to form in effect in the country a coalition with the Labour Party presumably to argue on this?

 

NICK CLEGG: We've been very, very open - David Cameron and myself right from the beginning - that of course there are things where we are in a coalition government but we are leaders of different parties, we have different and distinct identities and there are things which we won't agree on, and one of them is electoral reform. No-one should be surprised that as a Liberal Democrat I passionately believe that our electoral system at the moment doesn't work and it can be made fairer, so that people's views are more prom… you know are better reflected in the House of Commons. That's of course what we'll campaign on. And yes I will be reaching out to people from other parties - not just the Conservative Party but the Labour Party as well - saying if you believe in a different kind of politics, when it comes to a referendum, let's all join together to try and argue the case for change.

 

 

If you want to keep on pretending that means there won't be a referendum in this parliament go ahead but I don't think you'll convince anyone else but fellow Labour die hards of this.

 

Of course given Labour's disgraceful record of promises reforms and referenda and then refusing to stand by your promises I can understand why you might tend to think other parties are as bad as yours. The thing is they aren't, unlike Labour who are the chief beneficiaries of our rotten system the Lib Dems are passionately committed to voting reform and unlike the serial liars at Labour will go all out to deliver it.

[plekhanov]

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.

I put this to you before and you typically ignored an argument you couldn't handle so here is is again:

 

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'"?

[Titanic99]

Given your bizarre interpretation of practically everything said in the interview and the discussion surrounding it that's hardly a surprise.

 

Trying to discuss politics with you is like trying to discuss evolution with a young earth creationist, your ideology is so overwhelmingly powerful that it completely warps everything practically beyond recognition.

 

This is what was said concerning the referendum:

 

ANDREW MARR: Another big thing said to be a great victory for the Liberal Democrats in the negotiation is the referendum on the alternative vote, which we assume it'll be the alternative vote.

 

NICK CLEGG: Yes, it would be.

 

ANDREW MARR: How quickly can you introduce legislation for that and when will the referendum be?

 

NICK CLEGG: Well we're actively looking at that right now and I hope you know very shortly to be able to announce what sort of timetable we're working towards. But if you look at the coalition agreement, we are basically doing two things at the same time. We are legislating to bring about a referendum on an alternative electoral system, an alternative vote system where people rank their candidates in order of preference. It basically means that no MP is in the House of Commons unless they've got more than 50% of the support of people in their local areas, which I think is a good principle. But we're coupling that to - in precise parallel if you like - with a plan to equalise the boundaries of constituency, so that you don't have these … Some constituencies have got many more thousands of people in them than other constituencies and we're trying to work out exactly how you make sure that those two things work in parallel.

 

ANDREW MARR: (over) But there will be a referendum pretty quickly on this?

 

NICK CLEGG: Well we're looking at how we can make sure that the boundary review is launched as quickly as possible, so that we can also hold the referendum you know at the right time. But I'm not going to … I mean this is a little bit … it gets a little bit technical.

 

ANDREW MARR: (over) Because the Conservative … As you know, the Conservative Party is pretty much against the AV system, so you have to form in effect in the country a coalition with the Labour Party presumably to argue on this?

 

NICK CLEGG: We've been very, very open - David Cameron and myself right from the beginning - that of course there are things where we are in a coalition government but we are leaders of different parties, we have different and distinct identities and there are things which we won't agree on, and one of them is electoral reform. No-one should be surprised that as a Liberal Democrat I passionately believe that our electoral system at the moment doesn't work and it can be made fairer, so that people's views are more prom… you know are better reflected in the House of Commons. That's of course what we'll campaign on. And yes I will be reaching out to people from other parties - not just the Conservative Party but the Labour Party as well - saying if you believe in a different kind of politics, when it comes to a referendum, let's all join together to try and argue the case for change.

 

 

 

All that does is confirm exactly what I've said, unlike with reform of House of Lords there's no commitment to timescales, or that it will be in this Parliament.

 

Simple question, why can he commit to the House of Lords changes in this Parliament but not the vote on reforming the voting system.

 

Surely all it needs is a quick word with Dave to say this vote needs to take place in this Parliament and the issue is resolved.

 

He hasn't and my initial post on the subject is as accurate now as it was then.

 

So when do I get my apology?

[Titanic99]

I put this to you before and you typically ignored an argument you couldn't handle so here is is again:

 

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'"?

 

Perhaps the explanation is quite simple and similar to what happened on here.

 

Maybe there's a feeling amongst the media to give this coalition the chance to work and not to criticise it too much early on, very similar to why I cannot explain why the large and very reasonable thread about Clegg coming back to Sheffield was removed.

 

Could you explain either?

[HeadingNorth]

And these are?

 

Exactly the same as they have been every other time I've told you about the common policy on repealing huge amounts of New Labour-inspired laws, the common belief in the liberty of the individual, the holding of their policy on education instead of that of the Tories, forcing the Tories to abandon their inheritance-tax pledge ...

 

 

....but since you've always ignored this list every other time I've posted it, I have no doubt you'll ignore it again and continue to claim that the LD's got nothing out of this coalition.

[HeadingNorth]

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"

 

 

This is false. He was asked, specifically - and I quote from your own post:

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

 

He answered, quite reasonably, that there are some areas where they share common ground and others where they don't.

[plekhanov]

Perhaps the explanation is quite simple and similar to what happened on here.

 

Maybe there's a feeling amongst the media to give this coalition the chance to work and not to criticise it too much early on, very similar to why I cannot explain why the large and very reasonable thread about Clegg coming back to Sheffield was removed.

 

Could you explain either?

Oh I see it's a conspiracy involving Andrew Marr, the BBC and in fact the whole of the media (including the Lib Dem loving Mail) and Sheffield Forum

 

A conspiracy is the only explanation why you and you alone have seen this interview as the death knell of the Liberal Democrats.

 

It couldn't possibly be that your brain curdling hatred of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems for "betraying" you by doing exactly what they said they'd do has caused you to see what you want to see in the interview rather than what's really there now could it

[Titanic99]

Exactly the same as they have been every other time I've told you about the common policy on repealing huge amounts of New Labour-inspired laws, the common belief in the liberty of the individual, the holding of their policy on education instead of that of the Tories, forcing the Tories to abandon their inheritance-tax pledge ...

 

 

....but since you've always ignored this list every other time I've posted it, I have no doubt you'll ignore it again and continue to claim that the LD's got nothing out of this coalition.

 

Which laws are going to be repealed then?

Common belief is one thing, getting it into Law is another

Education spending is likely to be slashed, don't think that was a policy of yours

Tories giving up one of their policies is not the same as getting your own through as you stated