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
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16267
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: 32974
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:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism

User avatar
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16267
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: 3613
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%

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

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby La Denim » 10 May 2010, 09:19

Thesiger wrote:
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.


Ah, I see; thanks for explaining it :) . If, just out of interest, there was less of a gap between the number of seats the first two parties had and he would be able to form a majority coalition with either, is he constitutionally obliged to talk to the one with the most seats first or is it just something he decided he would do?
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, 09:21

Betty Denim wrote:
Thesiger wrote:
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.


Ah, I see; thanks for explaining it :) . If, just out of interest, there was less of a gap between the number of seats the first two parties had and he would be able to form a majority coalition with either, is he constitutionally obliged to talk to the one with the most seats first or is it just something he decided he would do?


He's not constitutionally obliged to talk to anyone.

So far as the constitution says anything, Brown has first go at getting a majority. That doesn't mean that Clegg has to listen to him or negotiate with him if he chooses not to.

Clegg had already made clear that he won't work with Brown and would work with the party with most seats and votes, so when Brown ceded first go to Cameron, he was really making a virtue out of necessity.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 24658
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Copehead » 10 May 2010, 09:24

Errant Panda wrote: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.


If a rainbow coalition runs for 2 reasons - economic stability and a referendum on PR - it has a chance because all those parties support some form of PR.

The stumbling block would be getting every labour MP onside which may prove impossible
Dancing in the streets of Hyannis

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 » 10 May 2010, 09:25

Errant Panda wrote:
He's not constitutionally obliged to talk to anyone.

So far as the constitution says anything, Brown has first go at getting a majority. That doesn't mean that Clegg has to listen to him or negotiate with him if he chooses not to.

Clegg had already made clear that he won't work with Brown and would work with the party with most seats and votes, so when Brown ceded first go to Cameron, he was really making a virtue out of necessity.


I'm thoroughly confused now as you seem to be saying the opposite of what Beebs and Samoan are saying. Samoan seemed to be saying he had to talk to the party with the largest majority first because of the constitution and Beebsy said the party with the largest number of seats gets first go at forming a majority.

Although I thought your perspective was right.

:|
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, 09:32

Copehead wrote:
If a rainbow coalition runs for 2 reasons - economic stability and a referendum on PR - it has a chance because all those parties support some form of PR.

The stumbling block would be getting every labour MP onside which may prove impossible


Quite a lot of Labour MPs are just as wedded to FPP as the Tories. There's also more than a few who would welcome some time in opposition to have a nice internicine battle.

And the SNP, PC and DUP would make sure the deficit was born by England and England alone.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%

User avatar
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16267
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 16:36
Location: ,Location, Location

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Corporate whore » 10 May 2010, 09:33

Betty Denim wrote:
Errant Panda wrote:
He's not constitutionally obliged to talk to anyone.

So far as the constitution says anything, Brown has first go at getting a majority. That doesn't mean that Clegg has to listen to him or negotiate with him if he chooses not to.

Clegg had already made clear that he won't work with Brown and would work with the party with most seats and votes, so when Brown ceded first go to Cameron, he was really making a virtue out of necessity.


I'm thoroughly confused now as you seem to be saying the opposite of what Beebs and Samoan are saying. Samoan seemed to be saying he had to talk to the party with the largest majority first because of the constitution and Beebsy said the party with the largest number of seats gets first go at forming a majority.

Although I thought your perspective was right.

:|


I think that the confusion might be that it is Gorden Brown who constitutionaly gets first shot at forming a government.
If in response Clegg says 'piss off Gordo, I'm going for a Latte with Diamond Dave' then there is nothing that Gordo can do about it, and Clegg is not bound by any convention - he is after all not the only party leader.

I think its emerging that Clegg has absolutely no time for Brown (and/or vice versa) as a man, and that is one of the obsticles. I can't wait for the story to emerge on that one.
Image

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 24658
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Copehead » 10 May 2010, 09:34

Errant Panda wrote:
Copehead wrote:
If a rainbow coalition runs for 2 reasons - economic stability and a referendum on PR - it has a chance because all those parties support some form of PR.

The stumbling block would be getting every labour MP onside which may prove impossible


Quite a lot of Labour MPs are just as wedded to FPP as the Tories. There's also more than a few who would welcome some time in opposition to have a nice internicine battle.

And the SNP, PC and DUP would make sure the deficit was born by England and England alone.


I'm not sure nationalists are as stupid as you make out. PR is massively to their benefit why would they scupper their long term electoral chances for a short term financial benefit?
Dancing in the streets of Hyannis

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

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

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Errant Panda » 10 May 2010, 09:36

Basically the incumbent stays on until someone else demonstrates that they have a majority.

This can be interpreted as saying that Brown has first dibs at forming a coalition, but this does not extend to obliging any other party to deal with him if they don't want to. He can try all he wants but if they won't take his calls (figuratively speaking) he can't make them.

Brown has tried to make it look better by explicitly ceding to Cameron the 'right' to talk to Clegg first, glossing over the fact that Clegg had already said he won't deal with Brown, and would deal with the party with most votes and most seats.

There is no constitutional reason for him to do either - it's just politics - though the moral case for talking to Cameron first is fairly strong.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%

User avatar
Corporate whore
Genuine and Authorised Pope
Posts: 16267
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 16:36
Location: ,Location, Location

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Corporate whore » 10 May 2010, 09:37

Errant Panda wrote:And the SNP, PC and DUP would make sure the deficit was born by England and England alone.


At least until the next election - when the vengance of the ruling party would be swift (at least if its Tory).
Image

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

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Errant Panda » 10 May 2010, 09:39

Copehead wrote:
I'm not sure nationalists are as stupid as you make out. PR is massively to their benefit why would they scupper their long term electoral chances for a short term financial benefit?


Because their countries are economic basket-cases entirely dependent on public largesse?

The SNP would also hold out for a referendum on independence or my name is Hamish McTavish.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 24658
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Copehead » 10 May 2010, 09:42

Errant Panda wrote:
Copehead wrote:
I'm not sure nationalists are as stupid as you make out. PR is massively to their benefit why would they scupper their long term electoral chances for a short term financial benefit?


Because their countries are economic basket-cases entirely dependent on public largesse?

The SNP would also hold out for a referendum on independence or my name is Hamish McTavish.


There is nothing stopping the SNP from holding a referendum on independence now apart from the knowledge that they would lose it, they don't need our permission to run a plebiscite.
Dancing in the streets of Hyannis

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
doctorlouie
AKA Number 16 Bus Shelter
Posts: 23160
Joined: 03 Oct 2004, 18:24
Location: In a library, probly.
Contact:

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby doctorlouie » 10 May 2010, 09:43

Errant Panda wrote:The SNP would also hold out for a referendum on independence or my name is Hamish McTavish.


And of course if the Tories take a pragmatic view, they might grant them this. Then they would probably stay in power in England for my lifetime.

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

Re: Nick Clegg = TRAITOR?

Postby Errant Panda » 10 May 2010, 09:48

They'd have to change their name from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
As I am right 98% of the time I see no point in quibbling over 3%