Nick Clegg's Pledge

[Wildcat]

If you are really that upset about him, why not call a vote to get rid of him?

See if we have got a real democracy or just a pretend one.

 

I think that is what the NUS is doing. unfortunately despite all CLegg.'s talk of promises and rights of recall they will find Clegg's version of democracy and accountability is rather different from theirs

[espadrille]

I don't know - and never said I did - all I know is that it is better to judge someone by what they do rather than what they say

 

That woud be true if Lib Dems were the majority government. But what they do in a coalition is hampered by the other party.

So what they do is not what they want to do, but what they have to do to make an agreed compromise.

[sccsux]

We are only a few months in to a 5 year agreement.

 

An agreement that can be cancelled at any time by a vote (no confidence) in parliament.

 

i'll soon be able to buy proper cheese again.

 

Move to Ireland, they're giving cheese away to the poor:D.

 

It'll be worth it.

 

In your opinion.

 

As I have said already being principled doesnt always get you what you want.

 

Sticking to those principals will gain you much more public support though, and may have even resulted in an eventual LibDem government in it's own right. What's more likely is that the LibDems will be consigned to the political dustbin (just like the Liberals were before them).

 

That woud be true if Lib Dems were the majority government. But what they do in a coalition is hampered by the other party.

So what they do is not what they want to do, but what they have to do to make an agreed compromise.

 

Or they could withdraw their support and let the Tories form a minority government instead. At least they (the LibDems) would have saved a modicum of public support and goodwill.

[harvey19]

Maybe the Lib Dems have just decided to do what is in the best interests of the country disregarding what some critics may think of them.

A truly patriotic action.

[Boblet]

That woud be true if Lib Dems were the majority government. But what they do in a coalition is hampered by the other party.

So what they do is not what they want to do, but what they have to do to make an agreed compromise.

 

I can understand your desire to defend Nick Clegg's position on this issue, but I am talking about Nick Clegg as a person, not the Lib Dems as a party.

 

I fully accept, and agree with, the concept of compromising on some matters to enable others to be achieved, but it was my understanding that the coalition agreement allegedly (and I only use that word because I haven't read the agreement) says something along the lines of the Lib Dems being able to abstain on fundamental policy disagreements.

 

Even if it doesn't, there has to be issues on which the only agreement is the freedom to disagree.

 

As I and others have said previously on other threads, Nick Clegg doesn't have to support this policy - he could easily have said "I accept that this policy has to be introduced, but, because I actively campaigned against it, and encouraged people to vote for me and my party on that basis, I cannot vote in favour, and will, therefore, abstain"

 

That position would not have prejudiced the coalition, and would, in my opinion, have been more honourable (leaving aside the right of anyone to change their mind)

[harvey19]

I can understand your desire to defend Nick Clegg's position on this issue, but I am talking about Nick Clegg as a person, not the Lib Dems as a party.

 

I fully accept, and agree with, the concept of compromising on some matters to enable others to be achieved, but it was my understanding that the coalition agreement allegedly (and I only use that word because I haven't read the agreement) says something along the lines of the Lib Dems being able to abstain on fundamental policy disagreements.

 

Even if it doesn't, there has to be issues on which the only agreement is the freedom to disagree.

 

As I and others have said previously on other threads, Nick Clegg doesn't have to support this policy - he could easily have said "I accept that this policy has to be introduced, but, because I actively campaigned against it, and encouraged people to vote for me and my party on that basis, I cannot vote in favour, and will, therefore, abstain"

 

That position would not have prejudiced the coalition, and would, in my opinion, have been more honourable (leaving aside the right of anyone to change their mind)

 

There has not been a vote yet.

[taxman]

There has not been a vote yet.

 

He is actively campaigning on behalf of the coalition policy - he's hardly likely to vote against it is he?

[Boblet]

There has not been a vote yet.

 

True, but he has already said he supports the policy.

[espadrille]

An agreement that can be cancelled at any time by a vote (no confidence) in parliament.

 

 

 

Move to Ireland, they're giving cheese away to the poor:D.

 

 

 

In your opinion.

 

 

 

Sticking to those principals will gain you much more public support though, and may have even resulted in an eventual LibDem government in it's own right. What's more likely is that the LibDems will be consigned to the political dustbin (just like the Liberals were before them).

 

 

 

Or they could withdraw their support and let the Tories form a minority government instead. At least they (the LibDems) would have saved a modicum of public support and goodwill.

 

And that wouldnt have lasted and there would have had to be another election which only the conservatives could have afforded and the markets would have gone in to freefall.

[espadrille]

Maybe the Lib Dems have just decided to do what is in the best interests of the country disregarding what some critics may think of them.

A truly patriotic action.

 

Not everyone wants to see it like that. It is much more important to have a scapegoat and someone to blame for the ess that the country is in.