Has Clegg sold his soul for the political equivalent...
![[Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86e4f6c75d1774ee457a88d6d914b41f.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 12,830 Forum Member
✭✭
...of a packet of **** ? That is, something which is seriously endangering his political health ? Should a coalition with the Tories have a government health warning on it, with pictures of all the dreadful diseases it could lead to ?
0
Comments
Bitter LDs and Labourites just can not get over the fact that the real world is not at all like the world they build for themselves in their minds.
Clegg did what he had to do to uphold the promise he made to the WHOLE ELECTORATE that he would not support a political party that had lost the democratic mandate.
That promise to all of us has to take precedence over any promise he made to smaller section of the electorate.
Well thank you for speaking on my behalf - perhaps you could get my opinion next time because I fear I do not share the sentiments of your latest pontification
At this point in the Parliament how can you tell?
It's just another chance for all the LD-haters to have their day in the limelight again to see who can be more hyperbolic than everybody else.
This thread holds no value - but I'll leave it to others to prove me right or wrong on that one
In a word, No! He sold it for two fancy titles (Deputy Prime Minister & Lord President of the Council), a rather large ministerial salary and a nice limo.
So we have:
Supreme Chancellor Osborne
Emperor Cameron
and
Lord President of the Council Clegg
but who is playing Darth Sidious
Having said that, I think he's doing a fine job and all this hate he's getting is undeserved imo. In a coalition, he can't possibly implement every one of his promises. Even Cameron can't and his party is the bigger partner in the coalition. That's what happens in a coalition. Do people still not get it?! Precisely, completely agree. He had to do a difficult balancing act and imo he's made the right decisions overall.
By joining the coalition, he took the only sensible choice available to him.
Yet, it's difficulty not to lose some respect for the Libs or at least Cleg with the way the Student fees debate has gone. I watched the Lib MP who was clear on breakfast news this morning he did not support the vote and wanted a postponement of it. He made alot of sense with his views and certainly won my respect for saying he could not back a policy which is so contrary to what the Libs campaigned on. There will undeniably be others of his ilk.
Nevertheless, it's difficult to have respect for the leadership when they are aligned with a party which in some respects is so anti what they campaigned on.
As for opinions on how the coalition are doing as a government, everyone is entitled to their opinion though I definitely do not agree with you.
Dealing with the tuition fees issue, the lib dems said they wanted to phase out fees within 6 years. Now since they are in a coalition, there has to be a compromise and therefore, there was a large possibility that it wouldn't happen. That's fine. Most people would have understood this.
However, the issue is that each lib dem MP made a personal pledge to vote against any increases in tuition fees in the next parliament (this personal pledge didn't say that they would abolish fees in the next parliament, it was to vote against any increase; most people understand that.).
The pledge didn't mention any conditions of being in government or in opposition or anything like that. It was a pledge as an MP.
To be honest I think he could have gathered far more public support if he had done the opposite.
One of the things I'm sure of with Britain following long term New Labour rule, and having experienced the tories who proceeded them is that Britain is generally disullusioned with politics and politicians. So much of the last decade such as the expenses scandal, the credit crunch and the Iraq War is indicative of this.
If Clegg had stuck up for his principles and refused the coalition or refused to back policies which are contrary to his parties doctrine and manifesto but still taken part in the coalition, I think overall his party would long term be alot stronger. Politicians have been viewed as weak and untrustworthy for a long period of time and the two main parties seem to swap places as the dominant party.
Clegg had and still has an opportunity to make a real difference to the British political landscape, as a real alternative to Labour and Tory would IMO be beneficial. He's not helping his cause much by sacrifing things some of the things his party stand for though.
Quite agree. Self gain and self importance always comes above political allegiance.
I do agree with you, but that doesn't negate The Turk's point: in fact, it highlights it. Those Lib Dem candidates were foolish to sign such a pledge in the first place - as Charles Clarke noted (on This Week, I believe). Others have made the same observation.
However, there were two parts to the pledge: the second part was to campaign for a fairer alternative. The argument amongst (some) senior Lib Dems is that the alternative - not only campaigned for but officially proposed under the auspices of this Government - is fairer. That may be contentious, especially amongst those who might be predisposed to view any Government proposal with hostility, but if they honestly believe that then it could be said that they've at least kept half their pledge.
And whilst the pledge didn't mention any conditions, I think it would be silly to think that those signing it didn't make a few assumptions when they did so. I doubt too many Lib Dem candidates envisaged being in a position where they'd be forced to choose between breaking a personal pledge and breaking a coalition agreement - the latter of which may be less damaging to one's personal reputation (though that in itself might be an assumption, the evaluation of which may be subjectively influenced heavily by one's own political leanings), but has far wider consequences.
(i) Light the oven and leave for two hours, then turn it off for a further two hours, then light it again. The decision making process has then been gone through and cooking may commence:)
From Daily Mail.
Not really Windy no............
I still can't believe we are still having this asked, 6 months after the election. It's always the same posters asking the same question but in new threads.
Either way if they had jumped in bed with Liebour the Dems would of caught whatever the political equivalent is of AIDS.
You don't catch AIDS - you catch HIV which develops into AIDS
I suggest he starts in the whips office.
Still my point stands.
Whomever the Dems jumped in bed with they would of caught something "Nasty". The Tories were the lesser of the 2.
There's no such thing as "Liebour" either.. as any liberal neutral would know
What about "Nasty" Tories? or ConDems?