You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I didn't think I could loathe Clegg anymore than I did but after seing his ever so earnest apology I find I do.
There's no need to apologise for loathing Nick Clegg......it's quite normal.
How do you think i feel - the loathsome git has my surname!
What, your surname is Stinky-Bumface-Judas too?
What are the odds?
It would be easier to live down!
Got charity mugged a couple of months ago for Shelter, when giving my name to the young lady she replied "what, like the Deputy PM?" i could have cheerfully throttled her at that point..
i could have cheerfully throttled her at that point
She was a Chugger, so it would have been seen as a mercy killing and you've have got off lightly!
what a patronising **** he is.
It was for a charity i have a lot of time for so was willing to sign up for a small monthly amount.
Still hate that smug, smarmy two-faced swine though and the worst thing is, all people born with that name are pretty much related to each other even though it does go all the way back to a saxon hamlet just outside of Rochdale.
Not bad really, 1000yrs later and i've managed to move 4 miles down the road!
he most definitely is a giant tool.
he also is trying to get pally with labour (please mr milibland can we form a coalition PLEEESE!! 😡
he most definitely is a giant tool.
he also is trying to get pally with labour (please mr milibland can we form a coalition PLEEESE!!
He's a dead man walking it's just a matter of when imo
It's fine the Business Secretary cleared it all up on Newsnight with Paxman last night. And remember it was a collective decision, but he was sceptical, but still responsible because pledges differ from manifestos when they are unaffordable but supportable and would be repeated, never again.......oh, sorry......trust us, no me, no us, won't happen again until the next time when we seek power with the Tories, sorry Labour....oh forget it....
....sorry!
Excellent!!
Gareth Malone, X Factor winners, move over. Your time has gone.....here's a new number one single!!!
Must be great software - will this become like the Hitler spoofs?
Oh so you're sorry now that you've seen your poll ratings are you?
Do you intend to actually do anything, other than issue a pathetic apology, to rectify the situation?
No?
Then you're still a **** who's sold his soul, betrayed everyone who voted for you, and is going to see his party wiped out at the next election.
Close the door on your way out, there's a good chap
That's right Mr Clegg - it's easy to make fanciful promises when you've no chance of running the country - then oops, oh shit, you find yourself in charge (well sort off!*) and reality hits home.
*in charge of the Tea Trolley.
teamhurtmore - it was pretty poor, wasn't it. And Paxo wasn;t even in full attack mode..!
To paraphrase the Thick of It, Vince took a s--t with his trousers still on.
Biggest problem in all of this, is that the decision to try to distance themselves from the Tories has utterly backfired on the LibDems. They've been far too wet in the face of the blistering counter-briefing conducted by almost all of the the Conservative party (especially the more rabid back-benchers). Sure, the electorate have been duped by it, but where does that leave Cleggers - resign and the party's f---ed; stay and the party's f---ed.
And Vince has just talked himself out of the job.
Anyway, who thinks Andy Burnham's long game for Labour leader is going quite nicely?
"NONSENSE ON STILTS
Now let me get that straight. Nick Clegg isn’t apologising for his policies – in fact, he isn’t even apologising for breaking his promise. He is apologising for having made a promise, and is promising (yes, promising) not to make promises again. If you’re confused, don’t worry – so is everybody else, including Clegg himself."
I bet Paxo couldn't believe what was happening in front of his eyes. The In the Thick of It analogy sums it up. You could almost see Cables future evaporating in front of him, hence the painful squirming. I missed the opening of Full Metal Jacket just to watch that. A bit like watching someone else's dental surgery!!
Of course, that was then followed by the reality of when real austerity cuts kick in. Imagine being in number 10 when that actually happens. Playing a long game is probably the smartest political game in town right now - not that this helps the rest of us!
Everyone knows (or should know) that political promises are inherently rubbish anyway. You can't promise the kind of stuff they do, because in reality you have to be pragmatic.
I fully understand why Lib Dems did what they did. It's clear that they had to give up some promises to get other things done. It's a coalition, or had you forgotten that? Hardly fair to hold them to pledges that were made on the basis of forming a government themselves.
They simply were not in a position to follow through on tuition fees. It was impossible.
I fully understand why Lib Dems did what they did. It's clear that they had to give up some promises to get other things done. It's a coalition, or had you forgotten that? Hardly fair to hold them to pledges that were made on the basis of forming a government themselves.
All of which tells us that their promise was empty gesture politics. If they cared that much, they would've made it a condition of forming a coalition.
If they had any principles they would have bailed out long ago, truth is they are all alike, we can run capitalism better than them.......
None of them have much control, its only if you want to sweeten the pill a bit or make it taste more bitter, that seems the difference betwixt politrickcians at the mo.......
[i]What have I got to do to make you vote for me
What have I got to do to make you care
What do I do when opinion polls strike me
And I wake to find that you're not there
What do I do to make you vote for me
What have I got to do to be heard
What do I say when it's all over
And sorry seems to be the final word
It's sad, so sad
It's a sad, sad situation
And it's getting more and more absurd
It's sad, so sad
Why can't we start it over
Oh it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the final word[/i]
Apologies to Bernie Taupin.
It's a bit of a joke, but it's an apology.
Personally, I don't reckon anyone mocking this would ever have even considered voting Lib Dem anyway, so he's lost nothing.
In a strange way, it might appeal to the minority that are not sure whether he's as bad Cameron and Milliband, and work out ok for him.
And it's a real sign of the times when Conservatives are more concerned with mocking their Coalition partners before the term is up, than battling Labour.
Strikes me as an early White Flag for the next election, knowing there's a spanking coming but trying to deflect the blame and attention to a kid brother.
More youtube japes:
See if the x-factor version is any more pallatable.
Anyway, who thinks Andy Burnham's long game for Labour leader is going quite nicely?
I bloody well hope so!
LibDems have given the Poke permission to release it as a charity single!
+1 for molgrips, people appear to have forgotten that it's the conservatives who done this..
What choice does he have? Bring down the government and end up with a tory only government?
I fully understand why Lib Dems did what they did. It's clear that they had to give up some promises to get other things done. It's a coalition, or had you forgotten that? Hardly fair to hold them to pledges that were made on the basis of forming a government themselves.
Nonsense. Clegg et al knew that their only shot was with a coalition. He just had to make sure that they got enough of the vote at [b][u]any[/b][/u] cost. Hence the false promises.
Anyone remember Gidiot's speech where he laid out the depth of the austerity cuts? If the libdems are such unwilling bedfellows, why was that weasel Danny Alexander enthusiastically patting Gidiot's back in congratulation and generally fawning all over him like a ginger Gollum? They sold out for a place at the big table knowing that when they get booted out and the libdems, that they destroyed, crash and burn there will be a number of nice fact directorships waiting.
Andy Burnham is an interesting option. Don't know too much about him even though his constituency isn't too far from me. Certainly puts himself across better than many of the current shadow cabinet from what I have seen.
Steve Bell nails it once again
[img] 
[/img]
when it turns to ridicule, there's no way back. 5 yrs propping up an unpopular tory government = 50 yrs of oblivion.
Clegg et al knew that their only shot was with a coalition. He just had to make sure that they got enough of the vote at any cost. Hence the false promises.
I don't see it like that.
I doubt they made promises on the assumption of being in a coalition.
The question when placed in that position is this: do you stick do your guns and ultimately achieve nothing, or do you compromise so you can influence govt much more strongly than if you were the second opposition party?
It's a tough one, clearly.
I'm sure Nick said 'We don't want to increase tuition fees', what do you think Dave said? He said 'well we don't, so tough'. Would you have walked away from the chance to get other things implemented? Possibly one that should dramatically increase your party's share of the vote forever more (ie PR).
It's so easy to bay and jeer when you are just a spectator, isn't it? What great fun it is, we feel so clever too!
The question when placed in that position is this: do you stick do your guns and ultimately achieve nothing, or do you compromise so you can influence govt much more strongly than if you were the second opposition party?
It's a tough one, clearly.
Given how little influence they've had, it looks like they've achieved nothing. Consequently, it probably won't have been that tough to walk away. If there was a half-competent opposition, the threat of walking away might have been very powerful if it precipitated an election.
molgrips - Member
It's so easy to bay and jeer when you are just a spectator, isn't it? What great fun it is, we feel so clever too!
Is this the lesson for the Lib Dems? It certainly seems very apt!
It's a lesson for everyone!
Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.
I doubt they made promises on the assumption of being in a coalition.
A coalition looked quite likely at the time their manifesto was written. If you don't get concessions on matters you claim to believe in, what is the coalition achieving for you?
It's so easy to bay and jeer when you are just a spectator, isn't it?
I voted for them so when I see Danny Alexander all but blowing Gidiot I think I'm entitled to feel a little afronted. When "I agree with" Nick does a u-turn on one of their [b]core[/b] manifesto items and then issues a mealy mouthed half apology, then yes I feel I am justified in baying. They wanted the job, they walked right into coalition with eyes wide open. They then chose to roll over.
Let's put it another way. If I hire someone based on their CV and good interview, then once they get in they fail to deliver do I just toussle their hair and say "Oh, well. You probably didn't realise just how hard it was going to be." and leave them to it?
Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.
So why did he go into politics with a supposed manifesto and set of convictions if at the first hurdle he capitilates and lets the Tories carry on regardless.
I still think Nick Clegg did the right thing entering the coalition. So they overpromised on tuition fees and couldnt deliver, big deal. I will probably vote Libdem next time.
Lots of speculation that Balls is going to come out and say that Labour will match the Tory's tax and spend comitments into the next parliament. All you guys on the left are going to squeel when he does that, its coming.
They then chose to roll over
That's now how I remember it. They had to bargain their way into the coalition by dropping some of their pledges.
If I hire someone based on their CV and good interview, then once they get in they fail to deliver do I just toussle their hair and say "Oh, well. You probably didn't realise just how hard it was going to be." and leave them to it?
Totally different situation, obviously. You voted for them based on what they would do if they formed a government. They didn't form one. End of.
If I tell you I'm going to be home at 6pm, but there's a terrible accident on the M4, are you going to accuse me of lying or giving up when I'm home at 8?
You can't even blame them for overpromising since they dind't know there'd be a coalition.
Lots of speculation that Balls is going to come out and say that Labour will match the Tory's tax and spend comitments into the next parliament.
Green for Govt then!
If I tell you I'm going to be home at 6pm, but there's a terrible accident on the M4, are you going to accuse me of lying or giving up when I'm home at 8?
If you intentionally drive your car into the wreckage, yes. 8)
It's not as simple as "they didn't know there would be a coalition". The pledge on fees increasing was made "no matter who is in power, we will vote against it."
No argument can make what he did the right thing.
That's why he has had to apologise: he did wrong.
Luckily for Clegg, he's doing this in a government where U-turns are commonplace, and his isn't the biggest or worst.
IMO, this will work out ok for him.
Stretching it too far.
The pledges were made on a hypothetical basis. The reality was different. So he had to compromise to achieve what he could.
I'd have done the same I think. Otherwise I'd never ever have been in a position to change anything.
From their point of view, as the third party in a three/four party system, the biggest thing of all is PR. They need that, otherwise they are just wasting their time.
Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.
Rubbish. The LibDems would not have been damned if they had not helped the Tories form a government to push through Tory policies by all those people who are opposed to Tory policies.
Have you not heard ? ..... many people have voted LibDem [i]precisely[/i] to keep the Tories out.
Most people who want Tory policies vote Tory ...... not LibDem.
Except of course people like mcboo who now realise that they can vote LibDem safe in the knowledge that they are in fact voting for Tory policies. It takes away that terrible stigma of being a "Tory".
BTW I think Clegg should now apologise for this :
Look. In government, they have (or had) the chance to influence government. Out of it, they had nothing.
So again, it was a toss-up AT THE TIME
As it turns out they've been a damp squib. But it was not known at the time how effectively they'd be neutralised by wily tories, was it?
BTW I think Clegg should now apologise for this
TBH, it's not his turn any more.
Would be a lot more appropriate to see some Conservative and Labour apologies coming forth. They've both committed far worse crimes against this country.
When's that gonna happen?
I voted Lib dem as I was dismayed with the alternative choices. I can't see myself doing that again. MAYBE they have stopped/diluted some of the worst Tory policies but they have compromised too many of their own morals to be trusted by the public IMHO. If they believed what they stood for they should dissolve governemnt now on the basis that none of us seem to be getting what we voted for. Blue. Red or Orange. Although I suppose we'd be in a different but equally bad scenario after the next election. Vive la revolution anyone?
The pledges were made on a hypothetical basis. The reality was different. So he had to compromise to achieve what he could.
Its not a pledge then is it? Its a wish list. Up there with a free unicorn for every schoolgirl, and a beer fountain for every bloke. So communicate it as such, rather than being a sniveling spineless liar and stating it as a policy commitment
I'm also not buying the 'we didn't know we'd be in coalition' crap either. Most political opinion polls were predicting a hung parliament. I was actually hoodwinked, along with many others, into voting for the little weasel. A mistake, again with many others, I won't be repeating
They've both committed far worse crimes against this country.
And yet there is overwhelming evidence that the electorate particularly singles out the LibDems. The LibDems are on course to get their worse ever result next general election.
Nick was damned either way, whatever he did.
That's the feeling I got when I heard the results of the general election.
Forming a coalition with the Tories was the only way to get a government to get a workable majority but it'd obviously earn them the emnity of many protest voters and the left. Plus the right would paint them as the reason if any of their frothing policies weren't implemented, they'd end the parliament with no friends at all.
Any attempt to form a government with Labour plus every independent and minor party in sight would have been unworkable.
Refusing to co-operate with anyone would have resulted in a very unstable Tory government, political paralysis and the economy would probably have tanked even quicker than it has. The LibDems would have been vilified for not stepping up for the good of the country, for refusing to make the hard calls when the chips were down, etc.
I sort of suspect that Nick Clegg realised all of this fairly quickly, and not long after it started looking like a great night for the LibDems.
The coalition agreement seems to have been badly negoiated on the LibDems side, though. Several of the big things they thought they got out of it - the AV referendum and Lords reform being two that spring to mind - have backfired massively, yet the Tories have been able to get their favoured policies through seemingly without problem.
Raising the basic rate tax threshold seems to be about the biggest LibDem policy that's actually happened and for some reason nobody's been shouting about it. Instead things like the NHS reforms and tuition fees have ended up reflecting worse on the LibDems than the Tories, as nobody expects anything better from the Conservatives.
Some of the problem is I think that for years the LibDems could get away with sticking to their principles more than Labour and the Conservatives, after lots of turns in government could ever manage. They never had to take the hard decisions, compromises and u-turns so they came off as "nice". Now they've been lumbered with making difficult choices (and suffering from the choices made by their coalition partners) there's a lot of disillusionment going round as people discover that the LibDems are subject to the same political realities as the rest of them. It'll hurt them for years.
ChrisL,
Agree with a lot of what you're saying, They do seem to have "taken one for the team" in forming a poor coalition with the Cons for the sake of the country getting a government.
However, it wasn't quite [i]the only way to get a government to get a workable majority[/i].
IMO, Labour and Tory could have done the decent thing and formed the coalition together. Their policies are actually closer together, and there would have been fewer manifesto clashes. Unfortunately, they seem to define themselves as much by a mock hatred of the other as by anything they actually stand for.
Binners, you seem awfully naive on this thread. Government is always a chaotic mess of failure and bodges, but elections demand clear simple strong promises. I've said this before, but they always make promises like this and it always transpires that they are too difficult or expensive or whatever. Sticking to your guns regardless of how events turn out is romantic but not the smart thing to do. And yes, all political manifestos should be more honestly worded in this respect. But every time someone tries, they get the piss ripped even more for being vague and indecisive. Just don't join in the mud slinging, it's futile; instead look for the motives and competencies behind it all.
Forming a coalition with the Tories was the only way to get a government to get a workable majority but it'd obviously earn them the emnity of many protest voters and the left.
There was no need for a full coalition. In fact most people were surprised when it was announced that the Tories and the LibDems would form a full coalition.
The Tories could have formed a minority government. The LibDems and Labour could have voted budgets through (or abstained) in return for concessions.
Yes, it is very likely that a Tory minority government would not have lasted the full 5 year time - so what ? The Tories do not have a mandate from the British people to push through their highly controversial policies, it is not the duty of the LibDems to provide a stable Tory government - that's not what LibDem voters voted for, evidenced by the fact that half of them immediately deserted the LibDems when the formation of the coalition was announced.
And of course it would have meant that Nick Clegg and his cronies wouldn't have received nice posh chauffeur-driven ministerial cars, or nice handsome ministerial salaries - I suspect some consideration was possibly also given to that.
The Liberal Party was perfectly happy to pull the plug on a minority Labour government and force an early election, why now the commitment by the LibDems to support a stable Tory minority government ?
.
I've said this before, but they always make promises like this and it always transpires that they are too difficult or expensive or whatever.
This constantly gets dragged out that the LibDems are no different to anyone else when it comes broken pledges. And yet the truth suggests otherwise. A pledge isn't just any old promise, it is a solemn and binding promise. Let's see how New Labour kept to their pledges :
[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+election+pledge+cards/507807.html ]FactCheck: Labour's election pledge cards[/url]
So it would seem that New Labour pretty much delivered on their pledges (whether or not they were a good idea is another issue altogether) Some were rather vague and some had clear targets, and in some cases they actually exceeded their targets.
What New Labour don't appear to have done is diametrically opposed their own targets, eg, they didn't cut the number of nurses instead of increasing them. In the case of tuition fees the LibDems diametrically opposed their own pledge which they themselves made to the electorate (whether or not it was a good idea is another issue altogether)
instead look for the motives and competencies behind it all
I can see the motives:
- Ministerial salary
- Associated perks
- Guaranteed directorships
It's the competencies that I am struggling with.
It looks to me like he's just asked himself "What would Father Jack do?"
Anyone man enough to do that goes up in m y estimation.
Ernie
It does appear from your link that Labour were fairly successful in avoiding going back on their pledges.
But what it also states about labour's pledges is [i]"that Some pledges are so vague that some of them can't be factchecked or falsified"[/i].
To some people, that just reinforces an image that Labour success was more spin than substance.
Others feel that the bigger let down was the failure to stick to basic unwritten pledges normal people have a right to assume, like "we won't commit War Crimes".
What New Labour don't appear to have done is diametrically opposed their own targets
They had a majority though.
They had a majority though.
The LibDems pledge not to vote for any increase in tuition fees was not in anyway dependent on them being in a majority government. Although I am aware that they use that excuse in a desperate attempt to justify their deliberately broken pledge.
The LibDems made no reference to needing to be in government, let alone in a majority government, when they made their false promise which undoubtedly won them some electorate support, especially among students.
.
Some pledges are so vague that some of them can't be factchecked or falsified
Well yes, that is of course the whole point. New Labour fully realised the importance of not breaking solemn pledges made in writing which was then given to the electorate to keep and later hold them accountable, specially as Labour had first introduced the written pledge at elections to counter electoral cynicism resulting from broken promises.
And for that reason they made some of their pledges, particularly in the later years of New Labour governments, deliberately vague, so that they would not be be accused of breaking them. But most of their pledges, specially the early ones, where extremely specific with very clear and unambiguous targets, those were kept and in fact sometimes exceeded.
Refusing to make pledges which they cannot be certain of keeping is a very weak stick to beat New Labour with. Many people would praise them for doing precisely that.
You know ernie, I am very glad you are not in politics.
EL,
Your point about the pledge being non-dependant on being, or not being in power is very valid. It was a pledge to oppose tuition fee rises no matter who won the election.
They efffed up. They accept that, and they apologise.
And it is true that the Labour pledges became deliberately more vague as their terms progressed. So they couldn't be accused of breaking them, but IMO, that contributed to the electorate losing trust in them.
They were voted in because people knew what they stood for.
They were voted out because people no longer knew what they stood for.
And to me, it's more telling that the present New Labour are also conspicuously quiet wrt what they actually stand for. More in common with the failed New Labour that was voted out than the one which rose to power. It's as if they hope to get in through the back door, by being "not as bad as Them". It's massively negative politics but it may even work. But only once.
They were voted out because they were incompetent authoritarians. As for Clegg, his weasel words won't make a wet flap of difference now, he and the LDs have been seen for what they are.
Gosh molgrips, what an incredibly weak retort. Is that really the best you could come up with to counter my comments ? Well I draw solace from the knowledge that you are unable to offer anymore than a playground style quip. The truth can sometimes be a little tricky to counter eh ?
Gosh ernie, only want to talk to molgrips now? 😉
I'm not countering your comments. You've made your point five times over, and I have mine. Basically (correct me if I am wrong) you think that you have to stick to whatever you said up front, regardless. I think that you have to adapt and make compromises based on the best interests of yourselves and how you understand the majority of those you represent.
Fundamentally different positions, innit? Pragmatism versus principles. I am a pragmatist. The nature of politics is that the adaptable pragmatist is derided as being a weak flip flop, and the hard liner is derided as being inflexible and pig headed. All politicians are damned whatever they do. Simples.
I think the Lib Dem's mistake was making cast iron promises in the first place - as I said above. And you rightly pointed out that Labour became savvy enough not to do this, presumably from experience.
ohnohesback - Member
They were voted out because they were incompetent authoritarians. As for Clegg, his weasel words won't make a wet flap of difference now, he and the LDs have been seen for what they are.
You come across as someone who's next vote is cast already.
My abstention is cast already. I wouldn't vote for any of the three main parties, all are too dangerous to be in charge.
They were voted in because people knew what they stood for.
They were voted out because people no longer knew what they stood for.
I have the complete opposite opinion. Notwithstanding the policy pledges, New Labour were deliberately vague concerning what they actually stood for. In fact I'm sure they really didn't know themselves. New Labour was not an ideology, it was a project to achieve power. Tony Blair was, and is, an ideological airhead. New Labour MPs who obediently towed the party line line simply followed their leader. The only leading light in the New Labour project with some ideological commitment imo was Gordon Brown.
New Labour won the elections because they were supposedly not Tories, not because they were conviction politicians. They lost the last election because they had been in power for 13 years. Even Tory governments which in the 1950s proudly boasted "you've never had it so good" were kicked out of power by the electorate after 13 years.
New Labour was not an ideology, it was a project to achieve power.
Hang on - that's the entire point of political parties, isn't it? What else is there? The electorate gets what it wants. That's the whole point of democracy.
Basically (correct me if I am wrong) you think that you have to stick to whatever you said up front, regardless. I think that you have to adapt and make compromises based on the best interests of yourselves and how you understand the majority of those you represent.
I'll correct you as you're wrong 🙂
I am countering the claim that the LibDems are no different to anyone else when in comes to broken pledges. I have already very clearly stated, quote :
[i]"whether or not they were a good idea is another issue altogether"[/i]
Hang on - that's the entire point of political parties, isn't it? What else is there?
Well many people believe that there is more to politics than just achieving power. I can see that you don't though.
Hmm.. yes I see what you mean. But don't confuse my assessment of how things work with how I would LIKE them to work.
The reason we have elections is to decide who runs the country. End of. There are other forums for political theory and ideology, aren't there? Think tanks, universities, party conferences...?
The reason we have elections is to decide who runs the country. End of.
[tin foil hat on] nope, we have elections so that we [u]think[/u] we get to decide who runs the country...
at most, all we get to decide is which clique of public schoolboys get sent off to various posh dinners, and which side of the big shouting room they get to sit on.
[i'm not taking this hat off]
Politicians run the country?
I prefer to think that they run then offices of government. As such they are civil servants, although many mistake this for being self servants. Fortunately, many areas of the country are run outside government.
Interesting comment in one broadsheet this morning. There are apparently more members of the RSPB than there are members of political parties combined!
The RSPB's very high membership figure says more about the the RSPB's successful marketing strategy, which includes "gift membership", than it does about who runs the country.
So which broadsheet made this irrelevant comparison ?
E-L, you need ask? For once your preconceptions 😉 would be accurate although it's not the only paper I read online first thing 😉 * But the sport is good and the cryptic easier than the Times!
But I was obviously quoting it slightly out of context. I t goes back to (the attacks you make on me!!!) the idea that while people are political in the wider sense of the word, they have become increasingly apolitical in terms of being members of official political parties or feeling confident that any particular party genuinely represents their interests.
Or feeling the need to define themselves according to pre-determined political categories?
* Fraser Nelson (bias upfront) in the Torygraph.
your preconceptions
There weren't any. You claimed that it was broadsheet so I assumed that it was. It could have been any of the broadsheets as far as I was concerned. Despite doing a search I couldn't find it.
I fear that it is your own personal preconceptions which assumes that I am always guided by preconceptions.
😉