General Election 2010 Page 111

Clegg is clearly in the wrong party, there's very little that's really Liberal about him, he's a left of centre Tory like Ken Clarke. I give him less than a year as Liberal leader, many of them will be horrifed to be seen mingling with the hated Tories. Which one of their policies do they think Cameron will accept as part of the deal, the environment, Cameron said, surprise, surprise, they're really giving away a lot there!

The Tories are desperate for power! But most real Liberals would want to just leave them languishing and powerless, and see them squirm like little maggots. Clegg is just another Tory. It's now looking like a Tory conspiracy to let him go years ago, knowing that he could come to their rescue one day. This is a farce - a ConDem alliance, that is nuts!

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 10:03 AM BST

The Tories are desperate for power! But most real Liberals would want to just leave them languishing and powerless, and see them squirm like little maggots.

View original

And if they did that it's be political suicide for them. They'd be forever known as the party that played party politics when the country needed stable government. Whatever these guys do now will reverberate for years to come.

But they are selling their souls to the devil himself. Liberals have nothing in common with the Tories, nothing. They are far closer to Labour, historically. So in one weekend an ex Tory can change the entire history of an old political party just for a morcel of power!

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 10:31 AM BST

But they are selling their souls to the devil himself. Liberals have nothing in common with the Tories, nothing. They are far closer to Labour, historically. So in one weekend an ex Tory can change the entire history of an old political party just for a morcel of power!

View original

Yes, but whatever happens this parliement isn't going to be a long one. It's certainly not going o go a full five years. And the Liberals can't work with labour because even though they agree with them on moire stuff it'll be seen as propping up an unpopular government and cost them in the long term. Far better to put pegs on their noses and try and get some concessions out of the Tories.

Meanwhile, Labour can ditch Brown and come out fighting at the next election with a shiny new leader. Which is worrying for the Tories since the main thrust of their campaign was Isn't Gordon Brown Useless And Horrible.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 10:03 AM BST

Clegg is clearly in the wrong party, there's very little that's really Liberal about him, he's a left of centre Tory like Ken Clarke.

View original

As was Tony Blair, and he seemed to have no problem taking the Labour Party with him.

For Clegg the important thing is to make a hung parliament work, as that kills off one of the key arguments for the first past the post voting system.

No one wants to frighten the voters, so there is very little in terms of declared policy that separates the Liberals form the Conservatives (or either of them from Labour.) In the debates they were really struggling to find points of substance to disagree on.

Cameron's three lines in the sand were Europe, immigration and Trident. Europe is a non-issue at the moment - the Tories are not proposing going back on the Treaty and the LibDems are (obviously) no longer proposing entry into the euro. On immigration the parties disagree about the means, not the ends. Trident is tricky, but the LibDems would be satisfied with it being included within the scope of the Defence Review (as it always should have been.)

On cuts they all agree it has to happen, but disagree about when. But the reality is that the Tories cannot cut as deep or as quickly as they say they can. On taxes they agree on NICS, and the Conservatives will happily concede the LibDems proposals for tax cuts for low earners; it will then be up to them to balance the rest of the Budget. If I was Osborne I would leap at the LibDem proposal for a cross party working group on the economy, to ensure that Labour also were implicated, and no-one could start making party political points when the riots start.

The big sticking point is electoral reform. If I was Clegg I would accept Cameron's call for a Commission, but insist that it had a Statutory basis and was under a legal obligation to submit proposals for a referendum on a form of proportional representation, and that in law this had to happen within two years.

On Cabinet posts, Clegg should demand the title of First Secretary, and Cameron could surrender Education and Environment without losing too much sleep (well, at least until they all realise how much a low carbon economy is actually going to cost.) The Lib Dems should also demand Scotland as the Tories do not have a power base there, and there should be a Cabinet level role for Vince Cable in the Treasury, with a brief to reform the City and rebalance the economy.

Much less than that on the table and Clegg should withdraw from the talks and prop up the Tory administration on a supply and confidence basis. The idea of keeping Gordon Brown in power is unthinkable; he just does not command enough seats for it to be workable. Also Brown is impossible to work with.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 11:05 AM BST

For Clegg the important thing is to make a hung parliament work, as that kills off one of the key arguments for the first past the post voting system.

View original

Yes he will probably put all his energy into that, or at least getting the Tories on board about electoral reform.

However, to have a successfully working hung parliament govt may actually mean his party just agreeing to everything the Tories demand. Who's really going to be fooled by a little environment policy given to the Liberals to make them happy in the corner? It's a bit of a con job just to get a non Labour govt in, and what worries me most is that Clegg is really a Tory, not a Liberal. The Tories can't lose, the Liberals could lose their very soul, and the working class people of Britain could stand to lose most of all.

Tony Benn said today he doesn't see a deal happening, - if Cable was the leader I'd agree with him. But Clegg is the leader, an ex Conservative who jumped ship to taste power. Liberals beware, you have an imposter as your leader.

I think Cameron and Clegg could do a deal, but the truth both of them are already heading up coalitions and bringing two existing coalitions together is going to be a challenge. I can't see them getting past the electoral reform question.

That's right really, both their parties have massive splits in them between left and right. But you'll always get this. Maybe instead of electoral reform the Liberals should just fold the party and all join the tories en masse. That way they'll have a much better chance of tasting power regularly, they can agree to get their two or three best fringe policies through to make the Tories more paletable to women and white men with beards (liberal voters) and of course as a two horse race it will mean no more hung parliaments and give Labour a tougher job of gaining power.

But this is as much fantasy as a happy and successful, smooth running Conservative/Liberal alliance govt.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 12:08 PM BST

I think Cameron and Clegg could do a deal, but the truth both of them are already heading up coalitions and bringing two existing coalitions together is going to be a challenge. I can't see them getting past the electoral reform question.

View original

They have to be very careful, though. If they appear to be too selfish or party political, they'll be punished in future elections. And Labour - led by somebody other than Brown - will suddenly look a lot more appealing.

And the bottom line is, they don't see eye to ye on a lot of things. Big f**king deal. We all have to work with people we don't like.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 11:05 AM BST

As was Tony Blair, and he seemed to have no problem taking the Labour Party with him.

For Clegg the important thing is to make a hung parliament work, as that kills off one of the key arguments for the first past the post voting system.

No one wants to frighten the voters, so there is very little in terms of declared policy that separates the Liberals form the Conservatives (or either of them from Labour.) In the debates they were really struggling to find points of substance to disagree on.

Cameron's three lines in the sand were Europe, immigration and Trident. Europe is a non-issue at the moment - the Tories are not proposing going back on the Treaty and the LibDems are (obviously) no longer proposing entry into the euro. On immigration the parties disagree about the means, not the ends. Trident is tricky, but the LibDems would be satisfied with it being included within the scope of the Defence Review (as it always should have been.)

On cuts they all agree it has to happen, but disagree about when. But the reality is that the Tories cannot cut as deep or as quickly as they say they can. On taxes they agree on NICS, and the Conservatives will happily concede the LibDems proposals for tax cuts for low earners; it will then be up to them to balance the rest of the Budget. If I was Osborne I would leap at the LibDem proposal for a cross party working group on the economy, to ensure that Labour also were implicated, and no-one could start making party political points when the riots start.

The big sticking point is electoral reform. If I was Clegg I would accept Cameron's call for a Commission, but insist that it had a Statutory basis and was under a legal obligation to submit proposals for a referendum on a form of proportional representation, and that in law this had to happen within two years.

On Cabinet posts, Clegg should demand the title of First Secretary, and Cameron could surrender Education and Environment without losing too much sleep (well, at least until they all realise how much a low carbon economy is actually going to cost.) The Lib Dems should also demand Scotland as the Tories do not have a power base there, and there should be a Cabinet level role for Vince Cable in the Treasury, with a brief to reform the City and rebalance the economy.

Much less than that on the table and Clegg should withdraw from the talks and prop up the Tory administration on a supply and confidence basis. The idea of keeping Gordon Brown in power is unthinkable; he just does not command enough seats for it to be workable. Also Brown is impossible to work with.

View original

Seems a very well put together statement.

Do you need Clegg's email address or has it already gone off?

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 10:31 AM BST

But they are selling their souls to the devil himself. Liberals have nothing in common with the Tories, nothing. They are far closer to Labour, historically. So in one weekend an ex Tory can change the entire history of an old political party just for a morcel of power!

View original

Clegg said he would first support the party with most seats and votes. He also knows how deeply, deeply unpopular Labour are in most parts of the country. I don't think that the electorate would forget if - despite all of that - he went running first to the Labour party.

Quote: chipolata @ May 8 2010, 10:37 AM BST

Meanwhile, Labour can ditch Brown and come out fighting at the next election with a shiny new leader. Which is worrying for the Tories since the main thrust of their campaign was Isn't Gordon Brown Useless And Horrible.

View original

Who would they replace him with? There are hardly any shining stars in the Labour party. All of the possible leaders who've been mentioned are even less likeable and more slimy than Gordon and Blair.

Quote: Aaron @ May 8 2010, 2:02 PM BST

Who would they replace him with? There are hardly any shining stars in the Labour party. All of the possible leaders who've been mentioned are even less likeable and more slimy than Gordon and Blair.

View original

I heartily agree with this. There's not a single member of the current cabinet I wouldn't gladly push under a train.

Can you imagine somebody as vacuous as Harman as PM? *shudders*

When, John Major became leader, a lot of people said 'who'? Maybe Labour have their own 'who'.

Quote: Nogget @ May 8 2010, 2:18 PM BST

When, John Major became leader, a lot of people said 'who'? Maybe Labour have their own 'who'.

View original

Yeah, but who?

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 11:39 AM BST

the Liberals could lose their very soul

View original

Which one; the Liberal or the SDP one?

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 11:05 AM BST

the LibDems are (obviously) no longer proposing entry into the euro.

View original

Well, Clegg is not proposing entry any time particularly soon.

Quote: Timbo @ May 8 2010, 11:05 AM BST

If I was Osborne I would leap at the LibDem proposal for a cross party working group on the economy, to ensure that Labour also were implicated, and no-one could start making party political points when the riots start.

View original

Definitely.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ May 8 2010, 11:39 AM BST

Clegg is the leader, an ex Conservative who jumped ship to taste power. Liberals beware, you have an imposter as your leader.

View original

Apart from the back-to-front notion of LEAVING the Conservatives in order to get power, did he really? Or is this your personal analysis of his politics?

Quote: chipolata @ May 8 2010, 12:49 PM BST

And the bottom line is, they don't see eye to ye on a lot of things. Big f**king deal. We all have to work with people we don't like.

View original

Yeah, but most of us don't have a major economy and the fate of millions of people relying on our working together, so your point is null and void.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ May 8 2010, 2:08 PM BST

I heartily agree with this. There's not a single member of the current cabinet I wouldn't gladly push under a train.

Can you imagine somebody as vacuous as Harman as PM? *shudders*

View original

Quite. It'd be absolutely horrifying. Ditto for Balls and the Milibeasts.