Nick Clegg

[IC1967]

Mick

Go and read the articles again. You'll cotton on eventually.

I've just got one thing to say to you and that is ffs.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on! Toddle off and read them. It's really, really obvious.

[BobG]

He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.

BobG

[IC1967]

He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.

BobG

I don't think silly Billy will appreciate being called a pillock.


IC1967

[Glyn_Wigley]

He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.

BobG

I don't think silly Billy will appreciate being called a pillock.


IC1967

*yawn*

[BobG]

He proves the point time and time again doesn't he? Pillock.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well whaddya know?

I was on kids duty today and neither if them wanted to go to the match. So we went to Millhouses Park in Sheffield.

Who walks into the play park with his little daughter and 3 obvious minders but old Nick himself.

He looked haggard. Haunted. Not a smile for his daughter the whole time they were there. The look of a man staring at the accusing finger of history which will point him out as a spectacular failure.

As a fellow human being, I felt sorry for the man.

















Aye, like f**k. Nemesis time Nicholas. Nemesis.

[The Red Baron]

I don't know who I feel sorrier for BST, you for missing a stonking home win or the Cleggster. You need to set your young 'uns on the path of righteousness as soon as possible.

I wonder if he'd just had an earful from her indoors because in my experience politicians, like sportsmen, are usually pretty good at switching off when off duty. Cameron is very good at it, as an example. Maybe he'd forgotten to send his good lady her Valentines roses?

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.

As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.

[Filo]

TRB

They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.

As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.

Nothing more than he deserves in my opinion, he sold his party's soul and principles for his 5 minutes of personal glory!

[IC1967]

TRB

They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.

As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.

I wouldn't be so quick to write him off. The bookies now have the Tories at 4/6 to be the largest party (you could have got 2/1 if you'd taken my advice many months ago). So it is now very likely they will be the biggest party with a give away budget and improving economic fortunes between now and polling day. The LibDems are also likely to still be a major force in terms of number of seats they hold onto. I think the Tories will win an overall majority but the main consensus view is that there will be a coalition government. If this happens it will be another Tory and LibDem coalition.

So my advice would be to stop crowing about the demise of Nick Clegg. Just shows how out of touch you are.

[The Red Baron]

Obviously the opinion polls suggest that Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Tories was a poor one. But it is worth considering his other options. He could have formed one with Labour, but they would have to have made cuts and increased taxes as well - they admitted as much. So a Lab-Lib Coalition might not have been popular, and given the numbers of MPs involved might not have been very stable either.

Clegg's other option was to refuse to enter a Coalition and decide whether or not to support a minority Government (probably Tory) on a case by case basis. That would probably have been the best option for his party - with hindsight. They might have got squeezed a bit at the inevitable second election as voters felt they had to choose one of the "big" parties. But their vote wouldn't have fallen by as much as it has now.

I suppose Clegg's mistake was that he wanted a seat in Government and thought that the Lib Dems could really make a difference as a junior partner in a coalition. And maybe they have, but in doing so they have sacrificed some of their principles and a lot of their public appeal. It is a salutary warning to all "smaller" parties who may have to contemplate whether to join a coalition after this May's GE.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

He didn't have to enter into any coalition. He could have allowed the Tories to have a minority administration and picked and chosen which legislation to support.

He justified the coalition decision (which required his party to totally jettison it's economic policy) by a fallacious argument that we required strong Government to control the deficit or we would be at the mercy of the Bond Vigilantes. That was utter and complete nonsense. It was an argument that had no grounding in any empirical or theoretical economics.

He and his party made that decision. They are reaping the consequences. Amateurs playing a grown-up game.

[The Red Baron]

I did say that was one of his options and, as I said, in hindsight probably the best for the Lib Dems.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry TRB

I'm doing you the dishonour of scan reading before I jump into replying! You did of course point out that an informal support approach would have been the better outcome for them.

I think the crucial thing is that it isn't hindsight that is required to see the existential mistake that the LDs have made. Plenty of people (myself included) were predicting exactly this outcome 5 years ago. I find it incomprehensible that the LDs hadn't thought this through.  That they hadn't realised how serious was the trap that they walked into.

The key issue is that you CANNOT campaign on utterly fundamental issues such as your approach to macroeconomic policy, then throw the whole lot out within hours of attracting 6 million votes and sign up to support diametrically opposed policies.

THAT is the fundamental problem that the LDs face and it's one I was talking about back in May 2010. If you are a centre-left supporter who is being seduced by left-ish sounding LD policies, why vote LD and run the risk of having them decide AFTER the Election to support a right-wing Govt? And vice-versa.

The fact that around 3million people stopped supporting the LDs over Summer 2010 and have never gone back to supporting them shows the appalling scale of their existential problem.

In a nutshell, there is no point whatsoever to the LDs. A vote for them is a non-decision. Because you have no idea what they will stand for until the rest of the Election results are in.

[BobG]

As I live in the Tory south I have, often, voted tactically at pretty well all elections. That usually meant voting LibDem. Never did me any good as the Tories always sweep in very handsomely but it did at least leave me feeling that I tried. Well. Sod that. I will never, ever, do that again. I don't care what the circumstances are. I'm sticking to principle now.

A good mate of mine is a Tory Councillor in Milton Keynes. His Mrs is (or maybe it's was now?) Tory Mayor. Their next door neighbour is a lifelong, committed and hard working liberal democrat. A nice bloke and a bloke who put his all into his party at every single election. His house and my mates house were passionately contrasting neighbours. When I spoke to him a couple of months ago, it sounded to me like he'd given up. Even if he hasn't given up, it's clear his heart, his passion, has gone. Nick Clegg has done that. He's destroyed the very roots of his party. when you think of the political geniuses who have led the Liberal party over the centuries, Lloyd George, Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman, Gladstone, David Steel even, they must all be in despair at the antics of this clown.

He is not a politician. He doesn't have the judgement. He's an embarasment to the political process.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bob

I'm not sure that any of the main leaders are up to much. It's just that Clegg had a weaker hand to play.

All three main party leaders were in their 30s or early 40s when they became party leaders. That is ridiculously young, and means that they didn't have the time to develop their sophistication (ie, make mistakes under the radar) before being slammed into the public eye. It's hardly surprising that they have all either made enormous mistakes or not been able to capitalise on their opponents' weaknesses.

It's fascinating how times have changed. Harold Wilson was seen as a dynamic youthful leader when he took over as head of the Labour Party in 1963. He was pushing 47. Two of Clegg, Miliband and Cameron will have their political career over in May. Two of them are 48, the other is 45.

It's barmy. We're losing 20 years of experience in this daft cult of youth.

[BobG]

Judgement - the privilege of the old... You are right Billy. Age does bring a lot of things - some not so welcome but some bloody vital. Clegg's current inability to see beyond the end of his nose certainly does make him an embarrasment at the moment. He did have a weaker hand Billy. Yes. But he could have played it a lot better. Maybe he would have done better if he'd waited 20 years?

Incidentally, how old was David Steel when he became leader? He was pretty youthful I do believe.

Bob

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bob

Steel was 37 or 38 I think. But I'm not sure that he was such a great politician. He led the Liberals to a loss of 1/4 of their vote in 79 by supporting the Labour Govt. Then he reaped the benefit of a collapsing Labour Party in the early 80s. And he did bugger-all with it, other than allow Maggie to have uncontested power on historically low General Election vote shares. 

[BobG]

I suppose my lauding of Steel is more to do with his principles on things like abortion and the death penalty. I hope I at least slightly qualified the admiration. Of course he can't be compared with the greats of yesteryear. But he was a damn sight longer sighted than the current buffoon and he did have a few principles. Mind you, I'd forgotten the drop in their vote in 79 - so thanks.

Bob

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bob

I'd forgotten about the young firebrand Steel. I guess he was a genuine Liberal who helped to usher in the modern era. He deserves credit for that. Even if he effectively gave us the Govt that brought in Clause 28 two decades later.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Still not caught up.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/04/lord-ashcroft-clegg-is-two-points-behind-labour-in-sheffield-hallam-my-latest-lib-dem-marginals-polling.html

That's Clegg by the way, although I assume the same applies to Mick.

[GazLaz]

I was reading that earlier. He's still 4/7 to regain his seat though (or he was earlier).

[IC1967]

Clegg will win because the Greens will take enough votes off Labour to get him over the finishing line.

pmsl.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.

Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on  10%

Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.

As you were. Back to "Ignore"

[BillyStubbsTears]

Gaz.

And drifting quickly. He was 2/5 a few weeks back, last time I checked.

I still think he will win because the Right wing vote is crumbling and going to him.

In Nov, it was LD 27% Con 19, UKIP 13

Today it is LD 34, Con 16, UKIP 7

[IC1967]

Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.

Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on  10%

Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.

As you were. Back to "Ignore"

Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Clegg will win because the Greens will take enough votes off Labour to get him over the finishing line.

pmsl.

Another gem to memorialise.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.

Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on  10%

Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.

As you were. Back to "Ignore"

Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.

UKIP are taking 10% of their votes from Labour. 14% from Libdem.

[IC1967]

Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.

Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on  10%

Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.

As you were. Back to "Ignore"

Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.

UKIP are taking 10% of their votes from Labour. 14% from Libdem.

Us Ukippers aren't daft. If voting UKIP means Labour will get in we'll switch to Nick to keep them out.

Sorted.