A Decent Man

pelirocco

JasonLVC wrote: »

Clearly Cleggs speach earlier was a clear indication that he's not prepared to form any kind of alliance with Labour - which leave Brown dead in the water.

That doesn't mean Clegg will form an alliance with the Tories either but if the Tories have the most seats, Cameron doesn't need Clegg - all Cameron needs is for Brown not to gain Cleggs support.

The other option is that Clegg's bluffing and appearing to be not making any deals with Brown in order to ensure the deal he does negotiate with Brown is a much sweeter deal for the LibDems, but I honestly believe Clegg when he says that the one with the most votes should win.[/QUOTE]


Considering he wants PR he would look a bit stupid saying anything tbh

PhylPho

chucky wrote: »

i don't know Clegg personally but wouldn't have thought he was a decent man at all.

nobody gets to that position in politics without being ruthless and not got there without stabbing a few people in the back here and there.

if people think Clegg is a decent man - they're thinking his media image is decent not the man himself.

<Sigh>

Clegg has repeatedly represented himself as an individual who believes in fair play.

Pretty obviously, fair play to him is not spinning, lying, finessing or deploying New Labour's Mandelsonian double-think.

Instead, fair play is to Clegg a recognition that in a democracy, if one political party wins more seats in a General Election than any other then ergo, that party is the majority choice of electors.

Which is exactly what he said.

He didn't say -- though could just as easily have done -- that he needed to consider his / LibDem options "in the best interests of stable and responsible government" so as to allow him the wriggle-room to validate New Labour's also remarkably New Democracy notion of electoral reform.

No. He called it as he saw it and he saw it as he believes it and I really, really don't care whether that might not have been tactically or strategically brilliant or even, personally / politically adroit.

What I do care is that Nick Clegg showed himself, at a moment of maximum political opportunity, to put politics second to honesty.

By contrast, your apparent preference for the reverse -- politics before honesty -- not only informs this latest comment of yours but so many that have preceded it.

But the vitriol doesn't work, for the simple reason that anyone vilified by Chucky must inevitably be one of the good guys.

Otherwise Chucky wouldn't be so worried about who they are. And what they stand for.

chucky

PhylPho wrote: »

But the vitriol doesn't work, for the simple reason that anyone vilified by Chucky must inevitably be one of the good guys.

Otherwise Chucky wouldn't be so worried about who they are. And what they stand for.

now that was a good dramatic post - i like it :T

i think that your post proves you're more worried than me :eek:

nickmason

PhylPho wrote: »

But the vitriol doesn't work, for the simple reason that anyone vilified by Chucky must inevitably be one of the good guys.

Oh, I enjoyed that! Good will to both of you....

michaels

Afraid I am in the 'its still politics camp' - jumping straight in to bed with Labour to keep the defeated GB in power would have played very badly for the lib dems especailly in any lib dem / tory marginals and given how weak such an alliance would be and thus an early election likely Clegg has to be seen to be talking to the Tories first. If labour realise the only possibility of a pact with the LDs is without GB (allowing Clegg to justify talking to them) then I am sure Mandelson will arrange it - don't forget he already owns Clowns !!!.

Harry_Powell

The tories only have to agree to have a referendum on Proportional Representation, they can then oppose it and allow the populous to decide whether to accept or reject based on the debate. As both the Cons & Labs are against it and as they have the most funding for 'No' vote advertising, I'd assume that the PR referendum would fail for the LibDems. However, the cons would have kept their side of the bargain up in having the referendum in the first place.

nickmason

Chucky's probably right - stand by for a lot of spinning, posturing now as the parties all start the private horse-trading and the public "honest Joe" facade. The only hope is that - very quickly - something sensible can be worked out. Otherwise we will see continued dark arts of "well, I really can't agree to [eg - boil babies], just so that I can get [eg - a fair system for everyone], and anyhow more people voted against 'them and their policies' than for, so I'm going to hold out for what's right for Britain"

It's basically going to be the sequel to the debates.

nickmason

Harry_Powell wrote: »

The tories only have to agree to have a referendum on Proportional Representation, they can then oppose it and allow the populous to decide whether to accept or reject based on the debate. As both the Cons & Labs are against it and as they have the most funding for 'No' vote advertising, I'd assume that the PR referendum would fail for the LibDems. However, the cons would have kept their side of the bargain up in having the referendum in the first place.

But if your analysis, is right, then the LDs surely just won't accept that offer?

JonnyBravo

Harry_Powell wrote: »

The tories only have to agree to have a referendum on Proportional Representation, they can then oppose it and allow the populous to decide whether to accept or reject based on the debate. As both the Cons & Labs are against it and as they have the most funding for 'No' vote advertising, I'd assume that the PR referendum would fail for the LibDems. However, the cons would have kept their side of the bargain up in having the referendum in the first place.

Only?

They'll not even agree to that.
They could be cute and realise it could all swing on the wording of said referendum if one was held anyhow.Consider these two options.

Referendum 1
If they offered
a) keep the system or b)change the system
Then if b) prevails a choice of
a) PR b)Second choice etc c)(some other system)

Referendum 2
a) Keep system
b) PR
c)Second choice
d)(some other system)


Much more likely to get change in 1 than 2 because of splitting the vote for change in Referendum 2.

Anyhow, how about Cleggy saying he tried to work with the Tories, they couldn't offer enough* and heading off to Labour and SNP/PC.

* Clearly he'd say couldn't offer enough for the change so demanded by the electorate.

Jonbvn

PhylPho wrote: »

<Sigh>

Clegg has repeatedly represented himself as an individual who believes in fair play.

So my guess that you were a LD supporter was spot on.;)

Enjoy your (only) day in the sun.