Anyone else going off Clegg?

[dinosaurinmybelly]

I thought he was very cocky last night, interrupting the others several times to slag off their debating style rather than their policies. It was probably justified in one instance, but certainly not the 4 or so times that he did it - in fact it was annoying that he interrupted what was good quality debate at times.

I'm starting to worry about exactly how much he would listen to the public if he were elected. I didn't like his comment that he was a negotiator "on behalf of all of us" in his early career. How much do we know about this guy? Who would be his key advisors if he were to govern, and how much would he actually listen to them? I love the idea of electoral reform and a fresh new government, but is this really the time to be electing someone with less experience, who is pro-Europe, sketchy on defence, and populist on the economy?

I couldn't understand that at all? What does he mean?

Who are the people with families who want to buy a house but have done the wrong thing?

Who knows hundredtimes

Well I do know: he wants people to devise a basic schemata in their heads where people consist of those who have done the right thing = successful (polish those halos guys) and those who ahven't = leeches (can't you get medicine for those?)

If peopel start taking the rest of us into consideration then things get a bit complicated after all

Longfingernails, there is something to be said about our systemm though. I like the fact that we get a pm who is vetted by qualified individuals, given that everyone has the right to vote, even idiots

Remember how the American system landed them with George Bush and could still land them with Sarah Palin? That could never happen here. Our leaders tend to go through a more rigorous process to become pm, and in my view are better qualified/experienced than American leaders.

I like William Hague too, I think it's his accent.

100x - no I would want someone quiet and unassuming but there is something very petty in his dismissing the other two as he did.

If the Lib Dems did win a majority, who else would we get. Vince as Chancellor, and then who?

Dittany, I would forget about them and focus on the policies we cann hold them accountabble for.

It's nonsense isn't it?

And actually exactly the same X and Y dichotomy everyone wants us to believe in re politics generally.

Clegg can't be elected, the liberal party don't exist that's why we've never talked about them - Get real. Oh sorry about that, after the debate perhaps there is a third party. Still, get real, you've only got one other choice

Yeah, right. You wish.

I missed that final smile

I get the impression that's A Good Thing

can accountable
I do know how to spell?

ahundredtimes I agree that you need to have drive and confidence if you are running for the position of prime minister, however there is a world of difference between having those qualities, and being cocky.

A true leader needs the humility to listen to his voting public and those around him, then make a decision and ensure that the implications of that decision are followed through with confidence and accountability. Nick Clegg does not strike me a listener - at times last night he interrupted the others at what I felt were quite interesting debate points.

Whifflegarden - totally agree.

The problem with this election campaign more than any other is that it focuses on the appeal and personailty of the leader, as opposed to the policies which is what we should be concentrating on.

So you end up in a situation where people decided 'ooh Nick Clegg is good' after an hour of polished performance, then 'oh Nick Clegg is crap now' after a less assured act on camera. It is utterly absurd.

I never have taken any notice of Clegg as fundamentally the Lib dems have one policy - election reform - and anything else they say can be discounted as it will mean nothing in reality. The only important thing is who they will 'team' up with in a hung parliament.

However, each election the Lib Dems deem to have their place in the sun. IMO they are the most underhand and vitriolic of the main 3 parties.

Yes, I know what you mean by petty.

but I still read the 'oh isn't Nick Clegg arrogant' to mean 'how dare he assume, it's ours all ours'

and I think, thank god he DOES assume tbh

We can't have a Chancellor called Vince fgs. You may as well have a PM called Kev.

oh whifflegarden Will Hauge is our MP, has been for 21 years! quite a nice chap actually

lol

Gideon is pushing it too though

You see GetOrf i've been involved with the LD's since I was ten with brief forays in other directions and theya re far from the most vitriolic party.

That is from direct experience.

And certainly when I have approached them alongside the other big parties for policy clarification it is the LD's that have responded an taken my points on board.

They do have policies, of course they do; increasing council housing stock for example is central to meeting a great many people's needs. But until the PR gets through they have zero chance of enacting anything else. More's the bloody pity.

Was about to mention gideon and george just makes me think of peppa pig's brother!

I don't know if he's a good listener or not dinosaur, I suppose I think he is.

I have no idea how to judge this actually! I've never spoken to any of them and been able to judge their listening skills.

ALL of them keep showing us what great listeners they are

'I hear this on the doorstep'

I think it is a shame that William Hague was leader in 1997. If he had waited 10 years until the tories stopped pulling theirselves to pieces, he would be a heavyweight leader of the party.

Not that I would vote for them Icouldn't imagine, but Hague is very intelligent and has depth. Not like the vast majority of the tory front bench, most of whom are hideous and/or transparent.

whifflegarden

True - Parliament is a very good proving ground for political skills - much more so than the US Senate, let alone the House of Representatives.

Our executive has always been part of our legislature - but if the legislative body is determined exclusively by the executive's performance, as with the 3 debates, then we will have a disturbing lack of checks and balances.

I am an out and out Tory supporter but I disagree with them about the need for Constitutional reform. Our political system is completely broken.

That said, I am glad people are starting to see through Nick Clegg. His face when he got asked about the Euro, and his plan to put VAT on new houses, was a picture.

I don't think he was at his best last night - it felt as if he was sticking to the script too much.

However, I've heard him so many times at his best that I know there's no competition. The radio interviews/phone-ins - and he's had some tough ones - have been best this week for getting into things in more depth, and you get his liberal philosophy coming through much more.

But whatever - undecided voters after last night said they were 32% more likely to vote Lib Dem according to Angus Reid (18% Tories, 15% Labour). Whereas Cameron managed to put off 46% of voters from voting Conservative.

GetOrf I still think that Hague will be PM one day, but in the meantime he would make a fantastic Foreign Sectretary.

sorry, Cameron managed to put off 46% of undecided voters!

I don't like any of them crumpette for PM!!!

Well I was verging on being in love with Clegg before the first debate and after, and even after the second debate but, sorry Cleggy, last night was a real turn-off! I hated the way he consistently tried to deflect attention from his own immigration points by asking Cameron an academic and irrelevant question about EU and caps. And the way he repeated these two are political point scoring.. over and over... I think I fell asleep v disappointed, actually.