Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:20 pm  

Dally wrote:

None of them. Ideally Labour if they can find a leader rather than a muppet. As things stand I would not vote for any of the 2 main parties, or the LibDems. All three have inept leaders who stand for nothing worthwhile. Unless there is a change in leadership of Labour then I'll vote for a party with no coherent policy but which has a primary point of principle - ie Green or UKIP.

It'll be a tough choice for you between the Green's and UKIP with them sharing such similarly aligned policies.
I'm sure you could probably talk yourself into becoming a tree-hugging racist.
I admire your diversification.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:56 pm  

Dally wrote: Here's Boris' take on it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... itics.html Boris has summed things up well. Summed things up well? You mean like this? ... two points, both wrong ... "The closer the election gets, the sharper the contrast will be – between a Tory party that has very largely addressed and rectified an economic disaster, and a Labour Party that had a large share in causing that disaster." What a windbag.

Dally wrote: Here's Boris' take on it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... itics.html Boris has summed things up well. Summed things up well? You mean like this? ... two points, both wrong ... "The closer the election gets, the sharper the contrast will be – between a Tory party that has very largely addressed and rectified an economic disaster, and a Labour Party that had a large share in causing that disaster." What a windbag.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:20 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Summed things up well?
You mean like this? ... two points, both wrong ... "The closer the election gets, the sharper the contrast will be – between a Tory party that has very largely addressed and rectified an economic disaster, and a Labour Party that had a large share in causing that disaster."

What a windbag.

I was referring to his take on Clegg (the subject of this thread).

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:11 pm  

Dally wrote:

I was referring to his take on Clegg (the subject of this thread).

Much as I dislike Clegg ... Boris is a dissembling, verbose, arrogant, low-achiever-in-office and an @rse.
For him to criticise Clegg is to ignore the reflection in the mirror.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:10 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

They're an utter irrelevance right now. Not a chance of having any say in 2015. They may as well start making up Monster Raving Loony policies for all the likelihood of any of them happening.

It looks unlikely that the tories will gain a working majority in 2015.

Labour might, but probably only if UKIP maintain their current poll ratings. Plenty of fringe parties do well in mid term polls only to disappear at the general election. Take out most of the current UKIP support and Labour's mid term lead in the polls is incredibly fragile.

So unless Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom can maintain their current popularity, the Lib Dems will be in the mix in 2015.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:25 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

It'll be a tough choice for you between the Green's and UKIP with them sharing such similarly aligned policies.
I'm sure you could probably talk yourself into becoming a tree-hugging racist.
I admire your diversification.

These foreign trees coming over here taking good British trees jobs

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:13 am  

WIZEB wrote:

It'll be a tough choice for you between the Green's and UKIP with them sharing such similarly aligned policies.
I'm sure you could probably talk yourself into becoming a tree-hugging racist.
I admire your diversification.

As I said they both have a primary point of principle behind them. Green - something we should all agree with (although their green policies are flawed) and UKIP - anti-EU and thereby anti-destruction of democracy.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:44 am  

Dally wrote:

... - anti-EU and thereby anti-destruction of democracy.

Or, rather, anti-foreigner and thereby .... er ... that's it.

Anyway, back to Clegg ... yesterday they were saying that they can't let the Tories take all the credit for the "economic recovery".
Let's just look at this ... right up to the last election, Clegg was criticising the Tories for an economic plan that would cut too deep and too fast.
This was probably THE most important issue of the day.
THE issue that decided many voters on which way they would vote.

After the election, he promptly did a 180-degree turn on that opinion after a 15 min phone chat with Mervyn King and agreed to support Cameron.
If he can so easily abandon an apparently firmly-held position on such an important issue - just like that - why should anyone (especially those who agreed with his stance before the election and gave him their vote) give him credit for it?

If he had agreed to abstain on it, in return for other LibDem aspirations such as constitutional and voting reform, we would have understood ... he had the whip hand (the Tories wouldn't have wanted another election there and then) but hadn't the cojones to use it, he just gave in, ensured the Tory plan would voted through and now he wants credit for capitulation.

Miliband comes in for some stick for not showing leadership and/or judgement but, compared to Clegg, he's a shining beacon.

Being of the slightly leftward persuasion myself, I had always regarded the Lib Dems as not-bad sorts ... but I cannot include Clegg in that view.
Hence, as long as a Tory such as he is leading the Lib Dems, they won't get my vote.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:06 am  

Chris28 wrote: They're an utter irrelevance right now. Not a chance of having any say in 2015. They may as well start making up Monster Raving Loony policies for all the likelihood of any of them happening. OY! I've voted MRLP for a few elections now. Only they have proper policies, and you could really on them to carry thse out of elected. http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/ For example, We will instruct the RSPCA to ensure that all meerkats come in twos to enable the public to effectively compare the meerkat. Can't understand why we failed to win Barking.

Chris28 wrote: They're an utter irrelevance right now. Not a chance of having any say in 2015. They may as well start making up Monster Raving Loony policies for all the likelihood of any of them happening. OY! I've voted MRLP for a few elections now. Only they have proper policies, and you could really on them to carry thse out of elected. http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/ For example, We will instruct the RSPCA to ensure that all meerkats come in twos to enable the public to effectively compare the meerkat. Can't understand why we failed to win Barking.

Re: Nick Clegg - why believe a word he says? : Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:48 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

OY! I've voted MRLP for a few elections now...

I'm thinking of starting a Vacillation, Ignorance and Total Capitulation Party.
The Manifesto will be comprised of iron-clad, red-line, unshakeable promises (for broader appeal and to save time these won't be written down and will be invented on the doorstep for whatever the voter fancies at the time).
These will, of course, be gaily jettisoned after the election in favour of meaningless ministerial titles all round.

Vince Cable will be the first to join.
Although he is capable of changing his mind three times in the same sentence, it's been a while since he actually changed parties, so it's due.
That's the Vacillation bit sorted.
Cleggster will handle the Total Capitulation brief and the other two or three members can be responsible for Ignorance, appearances on Question Time and claiming expenses.


STOP PRESS
Vince has changed his mind, he won't be joining.
Oh, hang on, ...