The bitter vitriol being poured on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in today's Tory Supporting Papers is incredible
The Sun:
NOW we see the Lib Dems for what they are... double-crossing, two-faced shysters who would sell their mothers for political gain.
Daily Mail:
In public, Nick Clegg, that supposed torch carrier for the ‘new’ politics, insisted it was his duty to first hold coalition talks with a Tory party given by far the strongest mandate to govern.
In private, the man who is emerging as the Madame Fifi of British politics was soliciting for the highest bid.
Telegraph
Mr Brown’s actions may tempt us to joke about Robert Mugabe stealing an election, with Nick Clegg in the role of Morgan Tsvangarai seduced into shaking hands with the man responsible for his nation’s misfortunes.
Comments on Tory blogs are even more bitter.
I suspect that the Lib Dem conversations with Labour were intended to be just a means of bringing extra pressure to bear on the Conservative party. But the over reaction of Tory supporters to the first minor difficulty in the negotiations might have made a Lib Con pact or coalition totally unobtainable and unsustainable. The Tory press' overreaction may well have cost David Cameron the keys to No10.
Showing posts with label Hung Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hung Parliament. Show all posts
09/05/2010
Nationalist Should Let the Tories Govern England
A number of bloggers and commentators have suggested that Labour should try to form a grand alliance with the Lib Dems, the Ulster parties and the Nationalists. I think that such an idea is absolutely stupid, unsustainable and reeks of desperation to hold / gain power for power's sake. Such a deal would be heavily punished in the ballot box in the next election.
As I noted a few days ago the only really sustainable deal that the Celtic Block could offer would be a supply and confidence agreement to a Conservative minority Government based on abstaining from English only issues with an agreement that the knock on effects of such issues would not impinge on Welsh/Scottish/NI consequentials.
The maths is there for such an agreement, and it wouldn't involve jumping into bed with the Hairy Arsed Tory Monster, just agreeing not to disagree on English Votes for English Issues, if they contained a Celtic caveat.
Of course such an agreement would allow some policies on Education or Health etc that we find objectionable to be passed for England – but England voted Tory so So What?!
England voted Conservative by a fair majority, the best option for the Celtic Block is to agree to enable the Conservatives to govern England, in exchange for a deal that is beneficial to Wales, Scotland and NI!
If I was one of the big guns in Plaid the DUP or the SNP I would be on the phone offering such a deal to Cameron, before a Lib /Con deal was brokered!
As I noted a few days ago the only really sustainable deal that the Celtic Block could offer would be a supply and confidence agreement to a Conservative minority Government based on abstaining from English only issues with an agreement that the knock on effects of such issues would not impinge on Welsh/Scottish/NI consequentials.
The maths is there for such an agreement, and it wouldn't involve jumping into bed with the Hairy Arsed Tory Monster, just agreeing not to disagree on English Votes for English Issues, if they contained a Celtic caveat.
Of course such an agreement would allow some policies on Education or Health etc that we find objectionable to be passed for England – but England voted Tory so So What?!
England voted Conservative by a fair majority, the best option for the Celtic Block is to agree to enable the Conservatives to govern England, in exchange for a deal that is beneficial to Wales, Scotland and NI!
If I was one of the big guns in Plaid the DUP or the SNP I would be on the phone offering such a deal to Cameron, before a Lib /Con deal was brokered!
06/05/2010
A pedant writes....
A bit of pedantry for those media outlets who insist on using a picture of a noose to create scare stories about a balanced parliament.
Criminals are HANGED
Pretty things like pictures are HUNG! This is what a hung parliament would look like:
Criminals are HANGED
Pretty things like pictures are HUNG! This is what a hung parliament would look like:
29/12/2009
Lib Dems - Abiding by the will of the people?
In a comment on his blog regarding which party the Liberal Democrats might support if there is a hung parliament after the next Westminster elections Peter Black says:
Liberal Democrats have said that they will abide with the will of the British people *if* there should be a hung Parliament, in deciding what our role in it will be
This strikes me as an odd, new management speak, gobbledygook phrase, which sounds good but means nothing!
The term abide is an odd one for a party with Democrat in its name to use. Abide means to live with in the sense of put up with something unpleasant or to accept through gritted teeth. For the Liberal Democrats to say that they will abide with the will of the British people is akin to them saying that they will look at the election result as one of the people have spoken – the bastards!
If there is a hung parliament, how will the Liberal Democrats decide what the will of the British people is? Will they ask a focus group? Will they ask a polling company? Will they go on the number of seats won or the number of votes cast? (If there is a hung parliament, there is a fair chance that Labour will have the most seats but that the Conservatives will have the most votes.)
Would a hung parliament mean that the people have rejected the outgoing Labour Government or that they have refused to endorse a change to a Conservative Government?
Perhaps the best interpretation of the Liberal Democrats wily words is we don't know - depends what we are offered after the event; not a good election slogan, perhaps, but at least an honest one, and one which is more straight forward than a sound bite that means that they can spin their choice, either way, as the cast iron guarantee given before the event.
Liberal Democrats have said that they will abide with the will of the British people *if* there should be a hung Parliament, in deciding what our role in it will be
This strikes me as an odd, new management speak, gobbledygook phrase, which sounds good but means nothing!
The term abide is an odd one for a party with Democrat in its name to use. Abide means to live with in the sense of put up with something unpleasant or to accept through gritted teeth. For the Liberal Democrats to say that they will abide with the will of the British people is akin to them saying that they will look at the election result as one of the people have spoken – the bastards!
If there is a hung parliament, how will the Liberal Democrats decide what the will of the British people is? Will they ask a focus group? Will they ask a polling company? Will they go on the number of seats won or the number of votes cast? (If there is a hung parliament, there is a fair chance that Labour will have the most seats but that the Conservatives will have the most votes.)
Would a hung parliament mean that the people have rejected the outgoing Labour Government or that they have refused to endorse a change to a Conservative Government?
Perhaps the best interpretation of the Liberal Democrats wily words is we don't know - depends what we are offered after the event; not a good election slogan, perhaps, but at least an honest one, and one which is more straight forward than a sound bite that means that they can spin their choice, either way, as the cast iron guarantee given before the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)