Lord Duckhunter

Did anyone see Cleggy's press conference on BBC News this morning, fair play to him for having one but he was waffling and not giving any answers. Looks like he's been practising the Blair hand movements to back up his points. That jock with the wig,Andrew Neil, was giving him some stick about his expenses. He's cleaning up politics and whiter than white, but there as bad as the others. His spin and hypocrisy over cleaning up politics is sickening, given that he claimed he'd spent "all his political life trying to change the expenses system".. In the Party leaders TV debate Nick Clegg declared: There are MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit. They got away scot-free. There are MPs who avoided paying Capital Gains Tax. Of course, you remember, what was it, the duck houses and all the rest of it. But actually, it's the people, the MPs who made these big abuses, some of them profiting hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have to stress, not a single Liberal Democrat MP did either of those things, but they still haven't been dealt with. We can only turn round the corner on this until we're honest about what went wrong in the first place" Lib Dem MPs Richard Younger-Ross, John Barrett, Sandra Gidley and Paul Holmes were ordered to apologise and repay a total £16,500 as they were paid a lump sum in return for paying higher rent at flats in Dolphin Square apartments near to parliament. The MPs personally received the lump sum, whilst the taxpayer paid the higher rent. Perhaps Mr Cegg could explain how that's whiter than white, how thats any different? What about MPs claiming for food on expenses? David Cameron acted quickly once the scandal broke to ban his MPs from continuing to claim for groceries from the taxpayer. Clegg dithered - perhaps because his snout was in the trough. In one four month period alone he claimed £1,657.32.for his food When Clegg was a Euro MP he used to fly economy but was paid travel expenses for business class. In January last year Clegg called for tough action on Labour peers found to have accepted offers of payments to seek changes in the law. "I am also now calling on the Government to introduce urgent new legislation to change the rules so that peers found guilty of wrongdoing are expelled from Parliament," he said. But Clegg's tough stance does not extend to Lord Rennard who claimed £41,000 in expenses he was not entitled to as his main home was in London. Rennard has resigned as Chief Executive of the Lib Dems continues to sit as a Lib Dem peer. During the height of the expenses row Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems Home Affairs spokesman, was puffing with indignation at the greedy expenses claims by his fellow MPs. "If the reports are in all cases correct, then there clearly are instances where MPs have lost contact with the difference between right and wrong," he told the BBC. "I think we need to make sure we're saying that loud and clear because, frankly, the voters are not going to be at all sympathetic if we don't." Days later it emerged that Huhne claimed for a £119 trouser press that was delivered to his main home rather than his designated second address. He agreed to pay back the money. He also claimed for fluffy dusters and the upkeep of his “pergola cross beam”. Then there is the Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik, £2,499 for a TV set. He even claimed a £40 court summons on expenses and couldn't understand why anyone should think that he was wrong to do so. Both Opik and Huhne are Lib Dem candidates in this election. Does that mean Clegg believes their conduct was acceptable? EVERY party has had issues with expenses, but only one is claiming this moral high ground, whilst being as bad as the "old parties". Neil also pointed out that Clegg had consistantly claimed more in personal expenses than Brown or Cameron. All Cleggy could do was invite him round his house to see how "normal" it was. When Neil pressed him for a time and date for the visit, Clegg moved on.

Wasn't that wonderful whiter than white party the Lib/Dems an option? They voted against the war, and had that wonderful Mr Clegg and Mr Cable as part of their team. Why didn't they pick up many more seats, how did they end up 4th behind UKIP in the European elections? If it mattered that much to the British people, they'd have got loads more votes. I love the way the Lefties try to spin Tory support for the British PM as being comparable to the decision to invade.When a British Prime Minister stands up in the house and tells MP's that the war is legal and that SH has WMD's then he should expect support. The fact that it turned out to be a tissue of lies is Blair and Brown's legacy, not the Torys.

Labour was the horse. The Torys backed the UK Prime minister when he declared the war was legal and that SH had WMD's. A throughly prinicpled and consistant line to take. It couldn't have bothered the British people that much, otherwise they'd have chucked the Govt out.It obvioulsy didn't bother the Lib/Dems much either, otherwise they wouldn't consider forming a Govt with the major players of that decision (blair excluded)

Our only hope is if one of Huddersfield or Charlton eneter admin and get -10. We still have to win all 4 games, a tough ask. Charlton should get 2 points and I cant see Huddersfield failing to get 5 from their remaining fixtures. The onll hope we have is that the presure gets to them. That win against Wallsal, was a turning point, had they lost that against 10 men, they'd have really been nervous.They are on a good run now, and Colchester are pants, if they cant get 2 points from stockport and Exeter I'll be amazed. If it's going to be anyone it'll be Charlton, but that's slim.

So why was Labour re elected then, it obviously didn't matter that much to the 63%

Strange then with 80% of the public sussing him out, that Blair got re elected in 05

Correct. The Torys voted in the mistaken belief that the UK PM would not lie over such things. The Sexed up dossier, Dr David Kelly, The changing of the legal advise given by Lord Goldsmith, were all Labour issues. I have no problem with the Lib/Dems constantly going on about this "illigal war", but would find it strange if they then jumped into bed with the Labour leaders who took us into it. I also find it strange that being the party of "fairness , every vote counts and change" could form a Govt with a Labour administration that's been in power 13 years, and might not be the largest party. My personal belief is it wont come to that, their policies will fall apart long before 6th May. There is another question for Clegg to answer, but he refuses to answer that one as well.To pay for their last General Election campaign the Lib Dems accepted £2.4million from 5th Avenue Partners, a company they believed to be trading in the UK. It subsequently emerged that 5th Avenue Partners was part of a complex operation run by Michael Brown, the donor and now a convicted criminal, and was not a UK investment company in the way they thought. If Mr Clegg wishes to pose as the white knight out to clean up British politics he should start by repaying this dubious money the Lib Dems took.

A little? It would be massively hypocritical. He will be seen as someone who believes in every vote counting, who says "let the people decide", more people then decide they want a Tory administration, and they are kept out of office by backroom deals and trading off of policies. The bias against the Torys in the system, means that this senerio is highly likely if there's a hung parliament. If Labour poll most votes, they'll win outright. A hung Parliament will almost certainly mean the Torys have polled more votes. Propping up Brown is not a good career move for Clegg, he will be tarnished with any failure and Brown is a very very smart political operator. He'll make sure he gets credit for any sucsess, whilst trashing Clegg in the event of failure. Look what he did to Blair, and they were on the same side.They'll also lose one of their main attack wapons The Iraq war. You can not have a Lib/Dem on any programme without bringing up The "illigal" Iraq war. The first response will be, "if it means so much to you, how can you form a Govt, with the people who took us into it"? It will silance them over PR as well, how can a spokesman go on about them being the party of fairness in voting, when they've denied the most popular party the chance to govern. The best bet for the Lib/Dems is to come a close 3rd, with about 100 seats in a Tory majority of a dozen or so.They can then bang on and on about electrol reform, whilst watching the Labour Party tear itself apart. The next few years are going to be tough, whoever wins. Clegg is young enough to be around for the next election, which will be fought on the back of massive cuts and unrest.

I thought they were different, I thought Clegg was whiter than white, stright with the public and answering their questions. Not not trying to tell us that St Nick has made a political calculation and therefore aviods answering the question. You'll be saying the LIb/Dems have had dodgy donations next.

Some people, including the Torys, believe our system is just fine and doesn't need changing.Even when they were losing election after election they believed in our system, unlike Mr Brown, who seems to have had a death bed conversation since he looks like losing power. We do have PR elections in this Country, for the European elections. The Lib/Dems came 4th.

They wont answer the question not out of any principle just an electrol judgement. If they say they are prepared to work with Labour, then that'll scare off Tory voters and if they say they'll work with Torys vias-versa. This is how the conduct their campaigns locally, right wing agenda in Tory areas, left in Labour. They try to be all things to all men. As a Party that was so oppossed to the "illigal" (their words) Iraq war, then surely they wont form a coalition with the Party that took us into it. If their mantra of fairness, of every vote counting, and PR, then surely they will only offer to share power with the Party that polled the most votes, not gained the most seats.

Are you trying to say it came as a surprise to them? They knew allright and during the last election.

The state of his alcohol problem became apparent in the lead up to the last general election. The Lib/Dem establishment made a political calculation to cover it up, but leave him in place. The thinking behind it was he was popular with the voters, and therefore they left a seriously ill man, with an illness that affects people's judgment, to run for the highest office in the land.

I was trying to be polite. The Lib/Dem establishment including Clegg and Cable covered it up and let him lead the Party into the last election.A serious flaw in their judgement, as he could have ended up in a coalition govt.

Dont read the Mail. I just made it up, Kennedy was sober as a judge and when he wasn't none of the Lib/Dem establishment knew anything about it. His resignation citing his illness, that he struggled with for years, was a complete surprise to them And I'm the deluded one

It's a fact. The Lib/Dem establishment knew that Charles Kennedy had a serious illness. An unfortunate illness, but one that affected his judgement and fitness to be PM. They took the political decision that removing him so near to the election would do more damage than keeping him. So they covered it up and went into the election with him in tow. Clegg, Cable and Campbell were all in on this and part of the decision.They were quite prepared for the Country to be led by someone with this serious illness.Personally, I think that making a political calculation in that manner makes them unfit for office, you may disagree, but that hardly makes me "deluded".

Clegg and the Lib/Dems will be found out now there's more interest in them. Dont forget at the last election they covered up their Leaders illness, an illness that made him unfit for office, but Clegg and Cable covered it up for electrol advantage.

I never normally agree with Skates, but Lowe did exactly the same thing last year. I didn't feel we cheated and I dont think they've cheated on this narrow issue.

Their policies over defence are as barking as half their other policies. Trident will not be replaced, Eurofighter orders will be cancelled and military action against a nuclear-arming Iran is categorically ruled out. What will they replace Trident with? They dont know yet, so I presume they dont know how much it costs, however they've calculated the savings? NHS spending is not protected under the Lib/Dems, Tory and Labour policy is to protect it. They also have a policy that all Britain's energy should come from renewable sources within 40 years. The £10,000 tax bribe as well as being unfunded, will not help the pooerst in the Country, the poorest including pensioners, pay hardly any tax as it is. Who will benefit the most from it? The middle earners (who happen to be their target voters in Tory areas). Sit back and imagine the outcry if Camerons policies included not ringfencing NHS spending, tax bribes for middle income earners, and shutting down every nuclear reactor and dirty coal-fired station within 40 years. What would the outcry be if Labour were committed to the Euro, ruled out military action against Iran, no matter what they did,and had plans to slash our defence spending. As for their immigration policy, that truly is bonkers. This thread is "The truth about Nick Clegg", it should be "The truth about Lib/Dem policies". It sounds great in theory, this third force in UK politics, but in practise, they're half baked. Labour or Tory,is the only choice, I'm afraid.

Jack Straw's Dad was a Conscientious objector, who was sent to prison in 1939. Backgrounds dont matter, Churchill came from a very privilidged background. What matters is integrity and honesty.When you see Labour people going on about Eton and the like, they gloss over the fact that loads of them went to fee paying schools. Look at that great leftie Diane Abbott, opposed to private education, yet sends her child to a fee paying school. In the case of that great class warrior Prescott, the picture of him playing croquet on the lawns of Dornywood, sum him up more than words could ever do. The great class warrior, whose rallied against the establishment and yet now wants to join the house of Lords. Does it matter what Clegg's Dad did, of course not. However had David Davis' or William Hague's Dad been a banker you can bet your life the Labour spin machine would be ramming it down our throats

The big difference between the 1983 SDP and the Lib/Dems this time is that the SDP's gang of 4 were all respected Labour MP's who were fed up of the drift to the left.Therefore, a lot of Labour supporters would have followed them and transfered their vote. This time that isn't the case and nobody really knows who their going to take the most votes off. One thing for sure is their manifesto and beliefs will come under greater scrutiny, there normal policy of being all things to all men, will not go unchallanged, as in normal elections. The Tories can send out a powerful message "Vote Clegg, Get Brown", because that is what's going to happen in the event of a hung Parliament. The Lib/Dems loony Euro beliefs, opposition to defence spending, amensty for Illigal immigrants, PR (despite coming 4th in the PR elections we do have) and other wierd policies will be unpalatable to the Tory leadership. If we get a hung Parliament you'll see the Lib/Dems in all their hypocritical glory. You cant watch a programme with them on, without them banging on about their opposition to the "illigal war" in Iraq, and yet that subject, so dear to their hearts, wont stop them forming a Govt, with the administration that took us into it. They are for "every vote counts" of fairness in the electrol system, yet will still form a Govt with Labour even if the Tories poll more votes and gain more seats. The Tories will win England and win it big, and yet they wont mention giving us an English Parliament, fairness is for Scots, Welsh and Irish, not the English, because their Torys.

Not at all. I want strict controls on immigration, with a set number allowed in each year. I do not think restricting people to working in certain areas only is workable.I might be convinced if we had a robust policy of dealing with abuses of the system, but the Lib/Dems will not. In my opinon, like most of their policies, this has been written in a way to appeal to both right and left in this Country. The Lib/Dems are the most pro immigration party out of the main 3. However, they've watered down their views in light of the number of marginal seats they are fighting in Tory areas.

Thanks for the reply, I still think it's unworkable. One more question, is there a limit to immigration in these areas. Once the jobs are all filled I presume nobody else will be let in. Because that's what the Tories propose Country wide and the Lib/Dems attack them for it.

I think it's as bad, but the great African anti apartheid campaigners like Peter Hain are very quiet on the issue, despite having been in govt. Can it be white racism bad, black racism-turn the other way.

I dismiss it out of hand because it's unworkable. It's just an election ploy, to appeal to both sides of the debate (as they try to do with most issues). It seems you are for skilled workers from outside the EU, but not unskilled workers, I think even Dune will be in agreement with you on that one.