My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Politics

The Lib Dems have shown themselves to be untrustworthy charlatans indifferent to the national interest

30 replies

longfingernailspaintedblue · 11/05/2010 14:33

Discuss.

OP posts:
jackstarbright · 11/05/2010 18:09

I now think he had to open talks with Labour, if only to prove to his own party that LibLab could never work (cue Labour party walking away from deal).

Not sure it bodes well for PR in the future! And his MP's cooperation comes at a high personal cost to his golden boy image.

Just my current opinion which changes by the hour!

anastaisia · 11/05/2010 18:12

That's been my opinion all along Jackstarbright.

And I suspect that the Tories were fully aware of the talks.

largeginandtonic · 11/05/2010 18:14

I can't discuss yet am too incensed by the whole affair

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 18:15

Untrustworthy... for doing exactly what he said he'd do before the election? 'Seek to form a government with the party with the most votes/seats'?

You can hardly blame him for talking to Labour as well, what if the talks with the Tories had fallen apart and he'd had to start from scratch with Labour/ An extra 3-4 days of no government.

What exactly do you think is untrustworthy?

MintHumbug · 11/05/2010 18:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 18:17

Oh, are you talking about the Mail headline today, "OMG, NC talked to Labour over the weekend too! What a slag!"

Er... the BBC was reporting on Saturday morning that LDs were talking to both Lab and Con, not sure why this is a shock to everyone?

dollius · 11/05/2010 18:18

What a load of rubbish. What else could Nick Clegg have done.
Labour is now saying Clegg was clearly never serious about talks and suspiciously quiet from the Tories.
Suspect is grandstanding to keep the left-wingers in the Lib Dems happy (ish)
Exciting stuff - not sure why G&T is so angry - what on earth about??

OrmRenewed · 11/05/2010 18:19

I don't find it shocking. He was trying to get the best deal possible and was very keen to get voting reform. Which may benefit the entire electorate.

MintHumbug · 11/05/2010 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jackstarbright · 11/05/2010 18:20

anastaisia - I've always thought you bright.

I'd love to think Mandy was a pawn in Clegg's game. .

dollius · 11/05/2010 18:20

And this is not what PR will bring each time because under PR we would have proper processes in place to cope with a hung parliament. It is the first-past-the-post system which has left us whistling in the wind. Is actually why we need electoral reform

It cannot be right that one party gets 36% of the votes and nearly 50% of the seats, while another gets nearly a quarter of the votes but only 8% of the seats

expatinscotland · 11/05/2010 18:21

It's going to probably cost the few LibDem MPs up here their jobs.

stripeyknickersspottysocks · 11/05/2010 18:22

I predicted this on another thread. That he would play one off againbst the other and tell the public one thing and do another.

MintHumbug · 11/05/2010 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dollius · 11/05/2010 18:22

It's also rubbish to say that "a party with 23% of the votes will decide what to do". Cameron and his gang will decide what to do but they did not have enough votes or seats to allow them to do it alone.
What else should Nick Clegg have done except strike an agreement with the party with the most votes? He could have told them to stuff it - that would not have been in the national interest at all.

MrsWobbleTheWaitress · 11/05/2010 18:22

Um, why, exactly, OP?

What other options are there? A tory government without a majority - unstable. He kind of has to forge an alliance with one party and he's just trying to work out which will be the best outcome.

JustMyTwoPenceWorth · 11/05/2010 18:23

Politicians are untrustworthy charlatans indifferent to the national interest

Hardly breaking news.

tbh, I've long thought you had to prove yourself to be exactly that before they'd let you be a politician.

TheFallenMadonna · 11/05/2010 18:26

I'm not at all sure that a Con - Lib Dem coalition is the best thing for the Lib Dems (it will alienate quite a lot fo their core support, especially the grass roots activists), and certainly not for Nick Clegg's standing in the party.

Not sure how it makes them untrustworthy or charlatans though.

anastaisia · 11/05/2010 18:26

(eeep, sounds like I was saying ooooh, look at me I knew all along - I wasn't - I was saying I thought it was quite obvious that he would have to show he had investigated all the possible paths before the Lib Dems would vote for him to make an agreement with either)

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 18:27

Ah, I don't really watch the TV news. Just been checking the BBc website occasionally; no deal yet, fair enough. And all I've heard from the politicians themselves is non-committal stuff about doing their best and making important decisions.

Who was shouting at each other or speculating on deals then?

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 11/05/2010 18:30

Speaking as a LD member (and a left-winger), just signing a deal with the COnservative party doesn't alienate me. Am willing to see how it runs, and judge a year or two down the line.

minipie · 11/05/2010 18:40

As an LD voter I don't have a problem with it.

At least this way some LD policies might come through. And some of the more objectionable Tory policies be axed.

The alternative to a deal (i.e. a minority government) would have meant a pretty painful few months of nothing getting done, followed by another election which, I suspect, the Tories would have won outright.

TheFallenMadonna · 11/05/2010 18:42

Well, me too. But people in my local party, my mum, my stepfather (both councillors), my dad, their local activists , - not so much...

animula · 11/05/2010 18:47

I'm not sure imputing such personal and emotional descriptions into political actions really gets to the heart of what politics is about.

NC is a seasoned negotiator; he was arguing for GB's interests in his earlier career.

He, and his team, brought those skills here, and so did the other parties. His aim was to come out with a good compromise, that, ideally, won't fall apart. Involving Lab in that was important. His party would have been surprised had he not.

"Untrustworthy" and "charlatan" are descriptions derived from personal relationships, not the terrain of politics - which is all about attaining stable(-ish) power blocs, in fluid, dispersed situations.

I really don't think applying the logic of a soap opera to this situation does anything to further the political education and understanding of the electorate. Which is why I have been seething today when looking at the newspapers. Whose interest does it serve to trivialise politics like this?

And, you know, I'm one who is mourning the exit of Labour from No. 10. And I'm not thrilled about the Lib-con deal. So, you know, I think I'm being objective here ....

jackstarbright · 11/05/2010 18:51

anastaisia - it does look pretty obvious in hindsight. But most of us Brits aren't used to all the political ranglings of 'consensus' politics. Still, maybe LibCon will deliver a reasonable government and we'll be converted!

  • And how do you like the prospect of Ed Balls as Leader of the opposition?
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.