Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

Nick Clegg = TRAITOR

AGREE
22
55%
DISAGREE
18
45%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 24091
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Copehead » 09 May 2010, 19:46

Goat Boy wrote:If Clegg teams up with the Tories I won't vote for them again.


You voted Tory :o

Luckily for us Clegg has to get a deal with Cameron past 75% of his parliamentary group, without a commitment to an early plebiscite on PR that will not happen. If it is offered cameron will be thrown overboard by the tory party - ergo no deal.

The Lib Lab pact is non starter seat-wise, even though they have 50% more votes than the Tories together they can't muster a majority without giving Salmond the whip hand. that's no goer.

Outcome - Tory minority government.

This may have two outcomes:

Tories rule for good of the country and put forward an economic program all can agree on for the sake of the common good :lol: yeah sorry wipe those tears away.

Headbangers take over Tory party, vote for 0% tax rates for all members of the aristocracy instant death for all foxes and working class votes to count for half that of a normal person, they lose a vote in the house and lose a vote of confidence - new election in 3 months.
Nazi Punks, Nazi Punks, Nazi Punks, Fuck Off

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 24091
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Copehead » 09 May 2010, 19:52

Basically Clegg has to call Cameron's bluff.

Making the Tories run a minority government makes them open to scrutiny in a way that may destroy them.

Ruling in the national interest whilst trying to get through tax cuts for the rich will put the Tory party back into opposition for at least another 13 years.

Give them the rope, let them hang themselves, I feel there is absolutely no way the Tory party can rule for the good of the whole country, they don't even understand that question. For them it's L'etat c'est moi.
Nazi Punks, Nazi Punks, Nazi Punks, Fuck Off

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
La Denim
Posts: 2313
Joined: 18 May 2009, 20:18

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby La Denim » 09 May 2010, 20:16

Can anyone explain to me why the Libdems suffer because we don't have PR but Labour and the Tories don't?
mission wrote:As Brendan Behan said to the person talking about spiritualism, the Catholic Church has a much better class of ghost.

It's my class.

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Thesiger » 09 May 2010, 20:45

Betty Denim wrote:Can anyone explain to me why the Libdems suffer because we don't have PR but Labour and the Tories don't?


Basically it's because Labur and Conservative votes are concentrated in fairly homogeneous constituencies. So the Tories dominate the shires whilst Labour rules the inner cities. Lib Dems don't have that geographical concentration (except maybe in parts of the South West).
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
La Denim
Posts: 2313
Joined: 18 May 2009, 20:18

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby La Denim » 09 May 2010, 20:53

Thesiger wrote:
Betty Denim wrote:Can anyone explain to me why the Libdems suffer because we don't have PR but Labour and the Tories don't?


Basically it's because Labur and Conservative votes are concentrated in fairly homogeneous constituencies. So the Tories dominate the shires whilst Labour rules the inner cities. Lib Dems don't have that geographical concentration (except maybe in parts of the South West).


But couldn't you argue that it is then the Lib Dems' problem to either appeal to the shires and inner cities in the way that the other parties do, or accept that they will just never be as popular?

I'm probably being naive here :) but I don't really understand why it's the fault of the system and not of theirs?

Nor do I understand why Clegg pledged some kind of promise to talk to the party with the most votes, in the event of a hung parliament. Why would he not want to talk to the party with which he shares the most ideology or policies?
mission wrote:As Brendan Behan said to the person talking about spiritualism, the Catholic Church has a much better class of ghost.

It's my class.

User avatar
Samoan
Posts: 10243
Joined: 28 May 2008, 10:22
Location: still at Red Hen restaurant

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Samoan » 09 May 2010, 21:16

Betty Denim wrote:

Nor do I understand why Clegg pledged some kind of promise to talk to the party with the most votes, in the event of a hung parliament. Why would he not want to talk to the party with which he shares the most ideology or policies?

I think it's constitutional procedure that he had to.
Please correct me if that's inaccurate, anyone.
Nikki Gradual wrote: Santana is just lift music really, isn’t it ?

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51166
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Butch Manly » 09 May 2010, 22:03

Betty Denim wrote:
Thesiger wrote:
Betty Denim wrote:Can anyone explain to me why the Libdems suffer because we don't have PR but Labour and the Tories don't?


Basically it's because Labur and Conservative votes are concentrated in fairly homogeneous constituencies. So the Tories dominate the shires whilst Labour rules the inner cities. Lib Dems don't have that geographical concentration (except maybe in parts of the South West).


But couldn't you argue that it is then the Lib Dems' problem to either appeal to the shires and inner cities in the way that the other parties do, or accept that they will just never be as popular?

I'm probably being naive here :) but I don't really understand why it's the fault of the system and not of theirs?


To over-simplify things perhaps, it depends on whether you see the Lib Dems (or any other party, for that matter) as an entity that should attempt to gain political power no matter what the cost, or as a body which represents a certain political philosophy.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

Beebsy

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Beebsy » 09 May 2010, 22:04

Betty Denim wrote:
Thesiger wrote:
Basically it's because Labur and Conservative votes are concentrated in fairly homogeneous constituencies. So the Tories dominate the shires whilst Labour rules the inner cities. Lib Dems don't have that geographical concentration (except maybe in parts of the South West).


But couldn't you argue that it is then the Lib Dems' problem to either appeal to the shires and inner cities in the way that the other parties do, or accept that they will just never be as popular?

I'm probably being naive here :) but I don't really understand why it's the fault of the system and not of theirs?


It because of the spread of their vote. The don't have the same huge support but they generally get some variance of support in each constituency. So their share of the vote across the country is quite a lot but it's a little bit everywhere as opposed to the concentrated vote of Lab and the Conservatives.

That's why they argue for a change to the "first past the post" system. Their point being that their supporters are effectively disenfranchised by this system.

And Samoan is right - it is a "constitutional" procedure that the part with the greatest vote gets the first opportunity to form a government. Of course we have no written constitution but this is the general consensus based on hundreds of years of documentation.

User avatar
La Denim
Posts: 2313
Joined: 18 May 2009, 20:18

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby La Denim » 09 May 2010, 22:16

Beebsy wrote:It because of the spread of their vote. The don't have the same huge support but they generally get some variance of support in each constituency. So their share of the vote across the country is quite a lot but it's a little bit everywhere as opposed to the concentrated vote of Lab and the Conservatives.

That's why they argue for a change to the "first past the post" system. Their point being that their supporters are effectively disenfranchised by this system.

And Samoan is right - it is a "constitutional" procedure that the part with the greatest vote gets the first opportunity to form a government. Of course we have no written constitution but this is the general consensus based on hundreds of years of documentation.


I understand why they want PR, what you've said here. But I don't understand why it's not then their responsibility to seek and work for a concentrated vote and therefore win more seats? Are we not, after all, voting for individual MPs?

I thought it was the incumbent party who gets first opportunity to form govt in event of hung parliament? That's what they were saying all night on the BBC coverage, so all this 'moral' stuff was a bit academic and disingenuous.

What I meant (sorry might not be explaining it correctly) is not who gets first opportunity but why do the LibDems are obliged to - constitutionally - talk first to the party with most seats as Samoan seems to say (I think!). I would have thought the third party - or others - could or should talk to the one they feel most aligned with, if at all?

My head hurts :) .
Last edited by La Denim on 09 May 2010, 22:19, edited 1 time in total.
mission wrote:As Brendan Behan said to the person talking about spiritualism, the Catholic Church has a much better class of ghost.

It's my class.

User avatar
Butch Manly
Utter Cad
Posts: 51166
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Butch Manly » 09 May 2010, 22:19

Betty Denim wrote:I understand why they want PR, what you've said here. But I don't understand why it's not then their responsibility to seek and work for a concentrated vote and therefore win more seats?


Again....

:?

Oh, fuck it.
Goatboy to Belle:

"I suggest you retreat to the safety of your Facebook bubble. Griff has a post he needs you to like."

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23096
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Deebank » 09 May 2010, 22:24

i thought constitutionally, in the event of a hung parliament the PM has 'right' to try and form a govt first and if that fails the rest can have a crack at it.

So in effect, Clegg saying 'I will talk to the tories first' is flying in the face of convention.

I'd like to pose a question.

What percentage of people who voted Lib Dem wanted:

a) a Liberal government
b) a Lib Lab partnership (or co-elition)
c) a Lib Con partnership (or co-elition)
d) a Labour government
e) a Conservative government
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

Beebsy

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Beebsy » 09 May 2010, 22:31

Deebank wrote:i thought constitutionally, in the event of a hung parliament the PM has 'right' to try and form a govt first and if that fails the rest can have a crack at it.

So in effect, Clegg saying 'I will talk to the tories first' is flying in the face of convention.

The PM can only do that if his party has a majority of the vote and Brown does not. Without a written constitution, it's a grey area but apparently this is what the constitutional lawyers advised the parties to do - he didn't do if off his own bat.

Deebank wrote:
I'd like to pose a question.

What percentage of people who voted Lib Dem wanted:

a) a Liberal government
b) a Lib Lab partnership (or co-elition)
c) a Lib Con partnership (or co-elition)
d) a Labour government
e) a Conservative government

How could we ever know though?

Of course, the assumption is that Lib Dem supporters would support Labour as their second party but there's no way of telling what individual voters wanted when they cast their vote.

Beebsy

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Beebsy » 09 May 2010, 22:39

Betty Denim wrote:I understand why they want PR, what you've said here. But I don't understand why it's not then their responsibility to seek and work for a concentrated vote and therefore win more seats? Are we not, after all, voting for individual MPs?

On one level, I suppose, we are voting for individual MPs. If you have an MP who is locally very popular, they may win even if they're from a party not generally supported in that area and we have seen that this year. But in reality, we are voting for the party we want to have in government.

In a PR system, you would be able to spread your vote along your allegiances, so you might vote in general for left-leaning parties.

As to the Lib Dems themselves, they simply don't have the financial wherewithal to stand candidates across the country, which is why part of their electoral reform wishlist includes contributions and funding. They have to strategically plan their candidates according to where they are most likely to win.

Betty Denim wrote:I would have thought the third party - or others - could or should talk to the one they feel most aligned with, if at all?

Ideally yes, but in reality power is power and what the Lib Dems have to decide is whether or not they will get the power they want with the Conservatives.

User avatar
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16128
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 16:36
Location: ,Location, Location

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Corporate whore » 09 May 2010, 22:44

I recon about 20% of the electerate actually support the Lib Dems - Their vote seems to hover around that mark.

Everyone else apparently doen't think that liberalism has any value.
Image

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32441
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Goat Boy » 09 May 2010, 22:49

corporate whore wrote:I recon about 20% of the electerate actually support the Lib Dems - Their vote seems to hover around that mark.

Everyone else apparently doen't think that liberalism has any value.


I disagree. There are plenty people who would be better served by the Liberals but they aren't aware enough to realise that. If the media was less biased towards the right the Liberal vote would be higher.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:we have lost touch with anything normal

User avatar
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16128
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 16:36
Location: ,Location, Location

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Corporate whore » 09 May 2010, 23:02

Goat Boy wrote:
corporate whore wrote:I recon about 20% of the electerate actually support the Lib Dems - Their vote seems to hover around that mark.

Everyone else apparently doen't think that liberalism has any value.


I disagree. There are plenty people who would be better served by the Liberals but they aren't aware enough to realise that. If the media was less biased towards the right the Liberal vote would be higher.


Oh I agree - I am particularly frustrated by the way that civil rights have been totally ignored this election, and if eever you needed a stick to beat the Tories and Labour with thats it, but hey, no questions on it in the debates, funny that....

My post was more a dig at the 'my party, no matter what they do' brigade.
Image

User avatar
Fireplug
Posts: 3609
Joined: 23 Jan 2009, 18:59

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Fireplug » 09 May 2010, 23:07

corporate whore wrote:

My post was more a dig at the 'my party, no matter what they do' brigade.


Or Stockholm Syndrome as I refer to it, as it pertains to my constituency in the north east.

User avatar
Thesiger
Posts: 20156
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 17:12
Location: Old Meadow

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Thesiger » 09 May 2010, 23:19

Betty Denim wrote: What I meant (sorry might not be explaining it correctly) is not who gets first opportunity but why do the LibDems are obliged to - constitutionally - talk first to the party with most seats as Samoan seems to say (I think!). I would have thought the third party - or others - could or should talk to the one they feel most aligned with, if at all?


Well the maths show that adding Lib Dem seats plus Labour seats doesn't reach the threshold to guarantee a stable government (in terms of Votes of Confidence and Queen's Speech etc). Add Conservative seats to Lib Dem seats, however, and you've easily got that. The LIb Dem/Cons alliance is the only feasible two party coalition to guarantee a working majority in the House.
BCB Cup - R.U. 2010: W 2012

User avatar
La Denim
Posts: 2313
Joined: 18 May 2009, 20:18

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby La Denim » 09 May 2010, 23:34

Clint Planet wrote:
Betty Denim wrote:I understand why they want PR, what you've said here. But I don't understand why it's not then their responsibility to seek and work for a concentrated vote and therefore win more seats?


Again....

:?

Oh, fuck it.


Eh?
mission wrote:As Brendan Behan said to the person talking about spiritualism, the Catholic Church has a much better class of ghost.

It's my class.

User avatar
Errant Panda
Posts: 7883
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 12:07
Contact:

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Errant Panda » 10 May 2010, 09:04

It's important to realise quite how weak Clegg's position actually is.

As Thesiger noted, the rainbow coalition idea is a pipedream. Even if every non-Tory MP signed up, they would only have a majority of 4. And the various nationalists would take the exchequer to the cleaners when it came time to sort out the massive cuts needed to save the economy.

If Clegg can't deliver some kind of deal, there will be another election in a few months, and the LibDems will look like even more of a wasted vote as they can't even form coalitions when they have the balance of power.

Clegg is currently stood in the middle of a minefield.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%