Lib Dems in crisis

Nikel

blueboy43 wrote: »

Vince Clegg (their best asset before the election) has been worse than hopeless.

I had visions of a merged Cable/Clegg chimera there...

FTBFun

globalds wrote: »

I'll Vote UKIP next election.

Worth it just to see Farage rip into the trough feeders

Hmmm....think you should look at the reports into his expenses as an MEP before you vote for him for that reason.

StevieJ

blueboy43 wrote: »

They will reap what they have sown at the next local elections / and the AV referendum. I'd be betting on Clegg to lose his seat if there was an election tomorrow.

Not very adventurous are you, I make that about 1-100, so you might win one pence for your quid staked

The_White_Horse

the prime minister and cabinet should be in power for 1 year only, and it should be selected by lottery - like jury service. it is too short a period for any corruption to set in. also your current employer will have to continue to pay your salary.

the only criteria should be you have worked for more that 10 years and are over 40. these are just plucked from the air, but you couldn't have a cabinet of 18 year olds.

there are many bad points in this system but what can you do. at least it is fair(ish).

macaque_2

It is ironic that Labour who plundered the economy won the by election whilst the Lib Dems got trashed. Everyone is moaning at them but what were they to do? If they had done a deal with Labour, they would have been denounced as undemocratic and if they had refused to deal with the Cons, the country would have been without a government. Labour spent all the money (as they admitted themselves). Any government picking up this mess has no choice but to make some deeply unpopular decisions. Its a pity the electorate don't have the wit to blame the real culprits.

The_White_Horse

macaque wrote: »

It is ironic that Labour who plundered the economy won the by election whilst the Lib Dems got trashed. Everyone is moaning at them but what were they to do? If they had done a deal with Labour, they would have been denounced as undemocratic and if they had refused to deal with the Cons, the country would have been without a government. Labour spent all the money (as they admitted themselves). Any government picking up this mess has no choice but to make some deeply unpopular decisions. Its a pity the electorate don't have the wit to blame the real culprits.

this is how labour function. they spend like drunken sailors, ruin everything and get booted out.

the conservatives then have to sort out the mess - and are called nasty for doing so.

the people don't like the nasty party and vote the spendthrift morons in again.

and repeat....

Rochdale_Pioneers

macaque wrote: »

It is ironic that Labour who plundered the economy won the by election whilst the Lib Dems got trashed. Everyone is moaning at them but what were they to do? If they had done a deal with Labour, they would have been denounced as undemocratic and if they had refused to deal with the Cons, the country would have been without a government. Labour spent all the money (as they admitted themselves). Any government picking up this mess has no choice but to make some deeply unpopular decisions. Its a pity the electorate don't have the wit to blame the real culprits.

They did have a choice. They could have let Cameron form a minority government and support it on a confidence and supply basis. They could have agreed to form a coalition and continue to speak and act like a seperate party with their own ideas and views.

Instead Clegg has gone for the assimilation strategy where he supports absolutely anything the Tories say or do regardless of what he and his party said or supported prior to the election. Remember that the coalition was initially popular, so its not that forming a government did it for Clegg.

No, its how he's doing what he's doing. People have stopped trusting his party and he as been transformed into this anti-talisman figure who is responsible for everything people dislike.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

They did have a choice. They could have let Cameron form a minority government and support it on a confidence and supply basis.

Yes, that was an option, but not a very good one for the country to have such weak and uneasy governance at a time of financial crisis elsewhere in Europe. In all likelihood another election would have been called within a few months, which the Conservatives would almost certainly have won outright, mainly because they're the only party with the coffers to support another such undertaking.

Crucially, the LibDems' two core pledges were PR and tuition fees. Neither Tories nor Labour were at all likely to budge on these issues.

Interestingly, 58% of grassroots Tories are reported to be unhappy with what they perceive as Cameron pandering to the LibDems, while the latter probably feel equally aggrieved. Who's right? Neither Cameron nor Clegg can properly fulfil any of their pre-election promises as neither are fully in power.

StevieJ

I think the 'well we can't have everything we wish for in a coalition' is the get out of all get outs for both Tory and LibDem.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

StevieJ wrote: »

I think the 'well we can't have everything we wish for in a coalition' is the get out of all get outs for both Tory and LibDem.

Well, you can't. There's no escaping that fact.

How on earth can Clegg deliver everything in the LibDem manifesto when the party came third? How can Cameron appease everyone in his party when they didn't win?