You're Missing Something

He gave his WORD. He put it in writing and signed a pledge. People believed him and voted for him because of that.

It's a principle.

But it turns out Clegg doesn't have any principles. Anyone with the slightest degree of personal honour couldn't U-Turn the way Clegg has done. He still holds the balance of power and he could still block this rise if he had the courage of his convictions. Yeah, it might mean that would lose his position as Deputy PM and force another election. The silly twat doesn't see that if he did force an election on a point of principle he'd stand an excellent chance of massively increasing his vote.

As it is, he'd rather cling to his moment in the Sun then watch his party go down into oblivion.

The twat.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 10:16, 3 replies)

A politician with principles?
They went out with Dennis Skinner.
If anything Clegg should be berated for making a promise that he obviously couldn't keep unless he was in absolute power. Which he isn't.
Effectively resigning any power he has out of principle on this one pledge would essentially mean letting the Tories have free reign on anything else. You may not like the situation, but do you really think ANYONE would reasonably expect him to lose the war just to win one battle?
I understand this is an emotional subject, and I'm not happy with it either, having children of 11 and 14 that are soon to cost me a small fortune to educate further. I just think the bile is being directed the wrong way. If Clegg had PROMISED to give everyone in the country a million pounds if he got in to power, would you expect him to keep that promise too?
There are far worse things going on that we should be angry about, that will be costing us a lot more in the long run.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 10:28, closed)

He Doesn't Have To Resign

All he has to do is to have the Lib Dems vote against the rise. He can't lose. If Cameron gets pissed and kicks him out of the cabinet, then Labour can force a no confidence vote that Cameron will lose. Then the Torys would be annihilated at the General Election, the Lib Dems would be seen as a party that sticks to it's promises and principles and would gain some decent credibility. Politically, it's a no-brainer. Clegg has the power to force Cameron to back down or face a General Election that he'd lose...

Sometimes, the tail can wag the dog. If the tail has the guts....

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 11:08, closed)

This

( Peej, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 11:13, closed)

Don't tell me...
Tell him. If it's that clear cut and a win-win situation.

The problem is that you're using logic. The masses don't run on logic. They do what the Sun/Mail et al tell them.

People are still blaming the Labour party for the "Global" Economic Recession. The fact that Brown kept us out of the Euro and hence (in hindsight) out of the really deep shit seems to go unnoticed.

I don't think anyone is clever enough to predict a general election outcome, and in politics there is never even enough information to make a really informed decision. People take sides depending on one or two issues that effect them, and bias their arguments to suit that stance. I've had people that can't even manage their own finances properly argue what Gordon Brown should have done to stave off a recession.

Your argument that the Lib Dems could force an election that gets Labour elected but some credibility for them doesn't seem to be a very good gamble. Lose power but gain intangible credibility... Hmmm.

Just look at how the Lib Dems had boundless credibility when they said they'd raise taxes by 1p to pay directly for schools and hospitals. Marvellous idea, showed guts too. Then they got wasted in the election...
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 11:30, closed)

^This
I think it's a fairly shitty policy decision as well, but the Lib Dems clearly got into the coalition in the hope that they could get some of their policies through or temper some of the Tory policies. I don't think that this is anything but a reality check for the voting public. The Lib Dems have never had this power before so their credibility and honesty haven't really been tested. The credibility that they are losing now is simply the credibility that the other two parties lost years ago.

One of the main policies that the Lib Dems want to get through is voting reform. If they can use this to get a share/chance of power that is actually proportional to their share of the vote, it would seem ridiculous to trade it in over a single issue. As KF points out, all the credibility in the world means nothing if you have sod all power.

Finally, the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) created the coalition on the basis of trying to create a stable government (while no doubt being happy to get their grubby paws on some power). Having pledged to try to make it work (which would obviously involve compromise) they risk looking immature and whiny if they destroy it within a year.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 12:29, closed)

^That
Mostly agree. The Holy Grail for the Lib-Dems is voting reform. BUT - they should have demanded that voting reform goes through BEFORE voting for measures that make then look like promise-breaking cunts. They could put a caveat on the bill - voting-reform doesn't come into effect until 2012. Or similar.

But until they've got that on the statute books they should be telling Cameron to act like a duck.

Stick his tuition-fees bill up his arse.

Cheer
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 12:48, closed)

Agreed
The Voting Reform bill will just mean that the Lib Dems end up with the same number of MPs - increasing their number by AV or whatever but then getting wiped out at the next election. Someone may have even crunched the numbers and realised that if the Bill goes through and the Lib Dems lose 50% (say) of their vote, it would still leave them with 2 or 3 MPs less overall and they can then begin the long road to building their voting base back up.

S
(Shamrock, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 13:48, closed)

That's the same Denis Skinner
who claimed thousands of pounds of our money to call his garage an "office" and has recently been booted out of the Labour party? He had principles, just not terribly good ones.

Scum, like the rest of them.
(Leonard Hatred briefly did some work on, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 12:50, closed)

Yes,
It was the last person that said he'd be a minister and not have any other jobs.
And yet he proved they are all just following human nature in the end.
I suspect a principled politician would never actually get into a position of power in the first place. That's why I'm amazed people think they would live up to their pledges.
When you do get someone that's principled, like Joanna Lumley, you know that if she got into power she'd be lost on anything other than her one cause.
If you take an overview of British political history, this wouldn't even get a footnote.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Sat 4 Dec 2010, 11:22, closed)

This ^
(clapping noise for Legless)
(SpangoTheWonderBadger is brewing beer, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 10:59, closed)

As Paul Vallely reminds us
One of the great stalwarts of 20th century British journalism, Louis Heren, was given a piece of advice when he was a reporter in Washington. He passed it on to me, over lunch at the Garrick, when I was a young reporter on The Times and he was its recently retired august Deputy Editor. Whenever you are interviewing a politician, a US veteran journalist told him, always keep at the front of your mind the question: “Why is this lying bastard lying to me”.
(unclestinky, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 3:30, closed)