Short Q: When was it?
Long Q: I've been reading and looking around at many of the different aspect in relation to Nick Clegg, on how he's been presenting himself across to the public, over the years. Mainly being to smug, and minaly disagreeing and stating everyone else is wrong. Of course you can’t write anyone off on day one, but 4 years have passed and it just seems what he’s actually saying sounds more like a conservative MP.
I could widen this to the lib dems as a whole, as it seems the party itself is also dealing with its own internal disagreement. Claims are being made Danny Alexander has gone native aswell, IE the lib dems are getting to cosy wosy with them.
You have to wonder how a so called left of centre party is able to pick up Tory seats.
Personnel, I think it was just after the vote on PR, which left a bitter man in its wake.
When did Nick Clegg lose it?
Did he ever have it? Despite good presentational skills around the last election, he has never been a credible force in British politics. It's quite clear now that the Tories have used the LibDems as a stool to prop up their hideous policies and that the coalition is that in name only - most of the parliamentary team are just the usual white-middle-class-pseudo-Tories who have been seduced by power. And in the process, decimated their vote so much that UKIP are seen as the third party alternative, after several years of the right wing being held to account by a selection of allegedly socially progressive parties. So no, I don't think he ever had it. He's trotted out to take the flak away from Scameron and Gideon, he's not so much the heir-to-Blair as the heir-to-Blair's trousers, and he's got all the charisma of a woodlouse with a heavy cold.
The day the coalition was formed. As you say, they're supposed to be left leaning... so why did the Liberal Democrats get into bed with the right wing Conservatives instead of left wing Labour? That will have alienated their voters and they're going to be losing plenty of MPs come the next election.
It was a simple game of maths, we all know that. But the lib dems could have tried a bit harder to stand their ground. About from the £10'000 threshold, what other Lib dem policy have actually appeared, I cant think of any.JAS84 wrote:The day the coalition was formed. As you say, they're supposed to be left leaning... so why did the Liberal Democrats get into bed with the right wing Conservatives instead of left wing Labour?
Bull. As the incumbent government, the Labour party had first dibs on forming a new administration. 258 + 57 vs the Tories 306 would have been enough for a minority government. Apart from a couple of equally rabid Ulster parties, the Tories would have had little support in opposition, so Lab/Lib could have muddled through for a few years. But no. Clegg thought "I know, we'll cosy up to the Tories, and if anyone blames us for policy, we'll deflect it onto them." Unfortunately for them, the British public won't get fooled again, and is blaming them for everything, and for propping up everything.barcode wrote: It was a simple game of maths,
The moment he lost it was the moment he did a U-turn on his pledge to vote against an increase in tuition fees.
It didn't matter where you stood on the tuition fee debate, it was Clegg's audacity and shamelessness at breaking his own promise that was the real issue.
It was a similar story with VAT rising to 20%. Clegg previously condemned the plan, calling it a regressive increase that would hurt the poor, then he had a change of heart and supported the idea.
Clegg has showed himself to be a soulless little snake. He's the epitome of the new breed of career politician: privately educated posh kids who decide on a career in politics before they've actually decided which party they're going to join. Clegg hasn't just damaged his party, he's further damaged whatever trust remained between the electorate and politicians in general. But I get the feeling that, like Cameron, he's not very bothered about the country or even his own party; he's got one eye on the next phase of his career which involves making a few million working for big business.
I'm depressed that we've got three identikit vacuous party leaders who don't seem to want to be different to each another. It's unrecognisable from the political landscape of Thatcher v Kinnock that I grew up with.
It didn't matter where you stood on the tuition fee debate, it was Clegg's audacity and shamelessness at breaking his own promise that was the real issue.
It was a similar story with VAT rising to 20%. Clegg previously condemned the plan, calling it a regressive increase that would hurt the poor, then he had a change of heart and supported the idea.
Clegg has showed himself to be a soulless little snake. He's the epitome of the new breed of career politician: privately educated posh kids who decide on a career in politics before they've actually decided which party they're going to join. Clegg hasn't just damaged his party, he's further damaged whatever trust remained between the electorate and politicians in general. But I get the feeling that, like Cameron, he's not very bothered about the country or even his own party; he's got one eye on the next phase of his career which involves making a few million working for big business.
I'm depressed that we've got three identikit vacuous party leaders who don't seem to want to be different to each another. It's unrecognisable from the political landscape of Thatcher v Kinnock that I grew up with.
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 2020
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
I can't say I've ever been able to understand the idea of the Lib Dems being left wing. I'd say that they have FAR more in common with the Tories than with Labour in terms of policy, certainly economically anyway.
I haven't got a problem with Clegg to be honest, I think he's a decent enough chap. The rest of his party are a nightmare though, and I find it hard to understand how the party that came third in the election has so much power, but the party that came second has none. The way they are now showing a bit of leg to Labour in a bid to retain some power is a disgrace, and I thoroughly hope that they get wiped out come election time.
I haven't got a problem with Clegg to be honest, I think he's a decent enough chap. The rest of his party are a nightmare though, and I find it hard to understand how the party that came third in the election has so much power, but the party that came second has none. The way they are now showing a bit of leg to Labour in a bid to retain some power is a disgrace, and I thoroughly hope that they get wiped out come election time.
-
martindtanderson
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
I voted LibDem in the hope that they would form a coalition with Labour against the Tories. So for me personally, the speech in the Rose garden was a moment of horror.
But I think the moment he lost it even with the more loyal LibDems, was the Tuition Fee "apology". A total betrayal.
But I think the moment he lost it even with the more loyal LibDems, was the Tuition Fee "apology". A total betrayal.
I dont think he did ever 'have it'. He is weak. I hate Cameron, Osbourne, Hague, May, Gove and the crew and Clegg just fits in. As well as being a liar he is a complete idiot. For example - The free school meals policy is ridiculous. Millions of pounds lost. This is for families who can afford to pay for it. I do not believe that the country's taxes should pay for school meals for familes who can afford it. I have no problem with taxes going to familes who can't afford it though.
On another note,is a conservative/lib dem coalition worse than a solely tory government? I think it could be. I think that this in itself is an interesting debate to have.
On another note,is a conservative/lib dem coalition worse than a solely tory government? I think it could be. I think that this in itself is an interesting debate to have.
I have a feeling Nick will regret every wanting a public debate with Nigel Farage. ( but that's for another thread) I can't see Nick winning his seat next time either, I wonder who take over the party if that happens.
At least the Tories of the 1980s, you know where there stood, I bet there would have actually cut spending, not like this bunch of upper class 1950's/60's Tories.
Alas a solely Tory government would be just a little bit worse then the current crop, but just more smug. The only real difference would be the Tax freehold would not have increase to £10'000 as fast, bar that I can't remember what else the lib dems wanted out of the coalition?On another note,is a conservative/lib dem coalition worse than a solely tory government? I think it could be. I think that this in itself is an interesting debate to have.
At least the Tories of the 1980s, you know where there stood, I bet there would have actually cut spending, not like this bunch of upper class 1950's/60's Tories.