Why Won't The Liberals Answer The Question?

[dune]

It's not up to the Lib Dems. If Labour get the most seats then they have the right to try and form a government. Likewise the Tories. Both would have to ASK the Lib Dems to join them. If Tories are 20 or so seats short they won't even ask the Lib Dems and will do a deal with UUP, SNP and Plaid.

 

Clearly, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

It's a simple question. Clegg has stated he would support the party with the mandate. So is the mandate the most votes or the most seats. Which party has the mandate to govern out of the two?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Would sideing with Brown (even if the Torys received more votes) be hypocritical? A little, but not hugely. .

 

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.

[View From The Top]

because we keep a seat at the worlds top table and influence world politics more

 

It's really paid dividends in the last decade! A permanent seat on the security council means nowt now. We are a small, broke, island off Europe and should stop trying to be anything more than that. Germany hasn't done too badly not having a seat. We can still be a nuclear power we just don't need a submersible delivery method designed for a conflict long passed.

 

and the fact we have not used them could mean they have worked..

 

MAD. Hard to argue against it.

 

mean while, more nations are developing nukes

 

So we need to spend billions and billions on a replacement for Trident to deliver mega ton payloads ballistically despite there being cheaper and just as effective delivery methods? It's a blunt weapon where a rapier is required.

[View From The Top]

It will be. The labour vote will split and the Tories will capitalise.

 

So your mithering about nowt Stanley.

[dune]

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.

 

Good post. But by the very fact the Liberals won't say they believe proportional representation is the mandate it's little wonder that political commentators are suggesting the Liberals would side with Labour. The hypocrisy of the Liberals is amazing.

[TopGun]

Good post. But by the very fact the Liberals won't say they believe proportional representation is the mandate it's little wonder that political commentators are suggesting the Liberals would side with Labour. The hypocrisy of the Liberals is amazing.

 

Clegg has a dilemma with a hung Parliament because his MPs are divided.

 

I would imagine that Vince Cable is a pragmatic and will view the situation equally and advise Clegg.

 

I would think that prob most LDs ar more Lab than Con.

 

Prob the most high profile leaning-right is Chris Huhne and he will lose Eastleigh to the Tories anyway.

 

I would think that if it is very tight after the election Clegg will support Brown. But if the Tories have a definite advantage over Labour Clegg may feel forced to deal with Cameron first of all.

 

That's politics!

[Joensuu]

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.

 

Not at all. Whoever wins most seats will have the opportunity to approach Clegg for a deal. It is not hypocritical of him to attempt to form a parliament, especially if he forces the hand of the bigger party into agreeing to introduce PR.

 

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.

 

I disagree that there is significant bias in the system. The main reason behind this myth is due to a significant reduction in the number of Labour votes polled in safe Labour seats. For example, Liverpool, is still as much a Labour seat as it ever was, but yet between the 1992 election and 2001 the number of Labour votes cast in Liverpool dropped from c. 140,000 to c. 100,000. Did those 40,000 people up sticks and switch party? Or did they realise that their vote didn't matter a jot, as Labour would win the seat comfortably, so there was little point in them leaving the house? Of course if we were to make the votes of the people of Liverpool count again (PR?) the Labour vote would massively increase.

 

In other words, there isn't a bias favouring Labour over the Tories. If each vote counted on a national and not local level there would be a massive increase in the number of votes cast, most of the increased vote would be polled in large Labour strongholds. By and large, dedicated Torys already tend to get themselves to the polling booths. So the increased Tory vote wouldn't be significant.

 

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..

 

To be fair, both Brown and Cameron backed Iraq. If the Lib Dems wanted to make a point (and cut their own nose off in the process) they could stamp their feet, get to change nothing, and force another election in Aultumn (in which their arrogant refusual of coalition will no doubt lose them votes). As such, if the govenment is hung, Clegg has to back one of the two. The Tory's will bleat about having the majority of the votes (NB, see Liverpool above), but Clegg would be crazy if he went with anyone other than Labour (unless of course Torys hold both the majorty of seats and votes).

 

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.

 

On this you could be right. Whoever makes up the next government will be in for a tough ride. Few governments gain in popularity, so the Lib Dems would lose much of their edge. However, while they'd loose a bit of the protest vote, they might start to be considered as a real force in Government. It's a tough call, but the Lib Dems could do a lot worse than third place with increased numbers of MPs, in a outright Tory majority.

[dune]

Clegg has a dilemma with a hung Parliament because his MPs are divided.

 

Not to mention the rank and file "peace man" activists. The Liberals and The Conservatives are like chalk and cheese in this context.

[CB Fry]

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.

 

 

And how do you know they won't do that? There are more options than a straightforward coalition.

 

And you can't throw Iraq hypocrisy at the Liberals as Labour and Tories all voted for it, with the Conservatives easily as "up for it" as Labour. So the Liberals have to work with a pro-war party because they both were, it's hardly hypocrisy when there is no choice.

 

And I think a stance of "vote for us, not anyone else" is a reasonable thing to say in an election campaign.

 

You can't attack them for using "electoral judgement" by saying "vote for us".

 

What kind of "principle" would be being upheld by a party saying "a vote for us actually means a vote for x party"?

 

You're seeing some conspiracy when the Liberals doing what you're suggesting would be completely absurd.

[Johnny Bognor]

And you can't throw Iraq hypocrisy at the Liberals as Labour and Tories all voted for it, with the Conservatives easily as "up for it" as Labour. So the Liberals have to work with a pro-war party because they both were, it's hardly hypocrisy when there is no choice.

 

You seem to be forgetting that the Tories "who were up for it", weren't exactly in possession of the facts. They were lied to by a Bliar and Fraudon who wanted to prove their worth to the good old US of A.

 

If you have to choose between siding up to a party that knowingly took us to war illegally or a party that voted for it because they were lied to, then it is an easy choice to make.

[Joensuu]

You seem to be forgetting that the Tories "who were up for it", weren't exactly in possession of the facts. They were lied to by a Bliar and Fraudon who wanted to prove their worth to the good old US of A.

 

If you have to choose between siding up to a party that knowingly took us to war illegally or a party that voted for it because they were lied to, then it is an easy choice to make.

 

Strange how naive the Tory's were in 2003, how could those innocents ever have thought there was something dodgy going on? Strange they couldn't see the wood for the trees and trusted Blair implicitly, when 80% of the public had sussed it out.

[Johnny Bognor]

Strange how naive the Tory's were in 2003, how could those innocents ever have thought there was something dodgy going on? Strange they couldn't see the wood for the trees and trusted Blair implicitly, when 80% of the public had sussed it out.

 

 

I must have missed the 48 million people marching on London.

 

Therefore I think you are making that up. After 911 we were living in a world of fear and the reason why 80% (more likely) who were in favour, were so, because of the lies of the Labour government. Still if the Libs want to turn a blind eye, that's up to them.

Edited 19 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Lord Duckhunter]

You seem to be forgetting that the Tories "who were up for it", weren't exactly in possession of the facts. They were lied to by a Bliar and Fraudon who wanted to prove their worth to the good old US of A.

 

If you have to choose between siding up to a party that knowingly took us to war illegally or a party that voted for it because they were lied to, then it is an easy choice to make.

 

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Strange how naive the Tory's were in 2003, how could those innocents ever have thought there was something dodgy going on? Strange they couldn't see the wood for the trees and trusted Blair implicitly, when 80% of the public had sussed it out.

 

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

[Joensuu]

I must have missed the 48 million people marching on London.

 

Therefore I think you are making that up. After 911 we were living in a world of fear and the reason why 80% (more likely) who were in favour, were so, because of the lies of the Labour government. Still if the Libs want to turn a blind eye, that's up to them.

 

You've only gone an made me look it up, I was wrong, only 63% opposed the war in March 2003 according to MORI.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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

[Joensuu]

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

 

1) Only 9 million voted for Labour in 2005 - (under 15% of the total population (or about 20-25% of the voting population). It says a lot about our turnouts, when this pitiful number of votes is about 35% of the votes cast.

 

2) After the war began the number of people supporting the action increased (? nobody knows why, but it has been partially explained by the need to 'back the boys' etc).

 

3) People don't just vote on single issues. Many voters are so entrenched in a single party that they couldn't consider voting for anyone else.

 

My point still stands, the majority of the country could see the wood for the trees, but the Torys (like Labour) backed the wrong horse.

Edited 19 April, 2010 by Joensuu
spelling...

[Lord Duckhunter]

1) Only 9 million voted for Labout in 2005 - (under 15% of the total population (or about 20-25% of the voting population). It says a lot about our turnouts, when this pitiful number of votes is about 35% of the votes cast.

 

2) After the war began the number of people supporting the action increased (? nobody knows why, but it has been partially explained by the need to 'back the boys' etc).

 

3) People don't just vote on single issues. Many voters are so entrenched in a single party that they couldn't consider voting for anyone else.

 

My point still stands, the majority of the country could see the wood for the trees, but the Torys (like Labour) backed the wrong horse.

 

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)

[View From The Top]

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

 

Because the tory leadership in 2005 made Blair look like King Solomon. The choice was Howard or Blair and you wonder why Blair won?

 

Many Labour supporters, myself included, didn't vote from them in 2005 because of the war issue.

 

Only the extremely naive believe that the tories weren't keen for the war. The fact that the government of the day believed that they were going to have to rely on the tories to get the vote through the Commons speaks volumes.

 

Neither red nor blue come out of the Iraq fiasco looking good.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Because the tory leadership in 2005 made Blair look like King Solomon. The choice was Howard or Blair and you wonder why Blair won?

 

Many Labour supporters, myself included, didn't vote from them in 2005 because of the war issue.

 

Only the extremely naive believe that the tories weren't keen for the war. The fact that the government of the day believed that they were going to have to rely on the tories to get the vote through the Commons speaks volumes.

 

Neither red nor blue come out of the Iraq fiasco looking good.

 

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.

[Johnny Bognor]

You've only gone an made me look it up, I was wrong, only 63% opposed the war in March 2003 according to MORI.

 

Here, I'll help:

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1743/268/

 

80% of the population thought Blair had lied..........taken at the time of the Chilcot enquiry.....some time after the war. Anyone with a brain cell would realise this once no WMD were found, this was obviously the case.

 

The revised info you were referring to is here:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/ca.aspx?oItemId=287

 

It does not say 67% were opposed to the war full stop, it is that 67% would be against the war if no proof or security council resolution was sought. For many, the sexed up dossier was proof and so without a poll taking this into account, your ascertations are meaningless.

 

As it happens, 75% would have supported the war with 'proof' and/or a resolution and for many the sexed up dossier constitituted proof and so you could claim that only 25% were against.

 

One thing I am sure we can agree on is that Labour are a bunch of ****ing liars, Fraudon signed the cheques and old Cleggy is going to get into bed with them.

 

Bully for you, I say.

Edited 19 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[dune]

The war in Iraq is such a non issue to most voters. If Tony Blair was still PM he'd win this election IMO because for all his faults he had a good image and could comunicate with people. Fair enough we all care about British soldiers losing their lives but as to the legality/moral justification it's all very boring and very irrelevent unless you're a leftie. Just look at those on the marches and it was muslims and ANL/UAF types.

[Matthew Le God]

If Tony Blair was still PM he'd win this election IMO because for all his faults he had a good image and could comunicate with people.

 

Using that logic and based on the leaders debate are you saying Nick Clegg will win the election?

[dune]

Using that logic and based on the leaders debate are you saying Nick Clegg will win the election?

 

Not a prayer.

[CB Fry]

You seem to be forgetting that the Tories "who were up for it", weren't exactly in possession of the facts. They were lied to by a Bliar and Fraudon who wanted to prove their worth to the good old US of A.

 

If you have to choose between siding up to a party that knowingly took us to war illegally or a party that voted for it because they were lied to, then it is an easy choice to make.

 

 

Oh give over. If you think a Tory administration would have said no to a Republican president about a war on Saddam you're out of your mind. Don't remember seeing Thatch and Tebbit on many CND rallies in the eighties.

 

The tories were peace-loving hippies hoodwinked into a war by bloodthirsty Blair were they? Diddums.

 

There was far more anti-war dissent on the labour ranks than on the tory side.

Edited 19 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[CB Fry]

....

Edited 19 April, 2010 by CB Fry

[CB Fry]

The war in Iraq is such a non issue to most voters. If Tony Blair was still PM he'd win this election IMO because for all his faults he had a good image and could comunicate with people. Fair enough we all care about British soldiers losing their lives but as to the legality/moral justification it's all very boring and very irrelevent unless you're a leftie. Just look at those on the marches and it was muslims and ANL/UAF types.

 

 

Correct. The tories were up for it, Blair was up for it. It would have happened regardless of who was PM and we would have been there regardless.

 

Like it or not the Brits love a bit of a war and we love being side by side with the Yanks.

[View From The Top]

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.

 

Whoooooooooosh.

[View From The Top]

The war in Iraq is such a non issue to most voters. If Tony Blair was still PM he'd win this election IMO because for all his faults he had a good image and could comunicate with people. Fair enough we all care about British soldiers losing their lives but as to the legality/moral justification it's all very boring and very irrelevent unless you're a leftie. Just look at those on the marches and it was muslims and ANL/UAF types.

 

So going to war based on lies, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, making the UK more unsafe only matters if your politics is left of centre?

 

Please tell me that you've not found a amoeba to breed with?

[View From The Top]

Oh give over. If you think a Tory administration would have said no to a Republican president about a war on Saddam you're out of your mind. Don't remember seeing Thatch and Tebbit on many CND rallies in the eighties.

 

The tories were peace-loving hippies hoodwinked into a war by bloodthirsty Blair were they? Diddums.

 

There was far more anti-war dissent on the labour ranks than on the tory side.

 

 

Please, don't confuse them anymore.

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh give over. If you think a Tory administration would have said no to a Republican president about a war on Saddam you're out of your mind. Don't remember seeing Thatch and Tebbit on many CND rallies in the eighties.

 

The tories were peace-loving hippies hoodwinked into a war by bloodthirsty Blair were they? Diddums.

 

Had all the Tories that voted 'for' actually abstained, there were more than enough Labour MP's to carry it through regardless.

 

There was far more anti-war dissent on the labour ranks than on the tory side.

 

See my point above.

[View From The Top]

Had all the Tories that voted 'for' actually abstained, there were more than enough Labour MP's to carry it through regardless.

 

Wrong.

 

The "rebels" on the government side backed down when they realised how it would look if the government of the day had to rely on opposition votes to push through a policy.

 

Gutless fookers for backing down. They put their seats before their principals.

[Joensuu]

Had all the Tories that voted 'for' actually abstained, there were more than enough Labour MP's to carry it through regardless.

 

 

Had

[CB Fry]

Had all the Tories that voted 'for' actually abstained, there were more than enough Labour MP's to carry it through regardless.

 

 

 

See my point above.

 

 

 

Wrong, as above. There was far more anti war dissent on the Labour side than the Tory side.

 

If you are looking for a flowers-in-their-hair Woodstock anti-war CND party I really don't think the Conservative party of the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s is the party for you.

 

Sorry to shatter an illusion for you.

[JackFrost]

LOL since when has any politician answered any question

[Johnny Bognor]

Wrong.

 

The "rebels" on the government side backed down when they realised how it would look if the government of the day had to rely on opposition votes to push through a policy.

 

Gutless fookers for backing down. They put their seats before their principals.

 

Had

 

Wrong, as above. There was far more anti war dissent on the Labour side than the Tory side.

 

If you are looking for a flowers-in-their-hair Woodstock anti-war CND party I really don't think the Conservative party of the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s is the party for you.

 

Sorry to shatter an illusion for you.

 

Look we could go on forever, but as it happens, that war is over and Bliar is no longer.

 

So lets move on....to Afghanistan.

 

Now, shall we discuss how many MP's of any political affiliation voted for, against or abstained with regards to the war in Afghanistan?????

[Johnny Bognor]

What, you mean we are at war and not one MP voted for it???

[Johnny Bognor]

..... and Cleggy wants to get into bed with those warmongerers that don't even put it to parliament?

[Johnny Bognor]

With body bags arriving back on a daily basis?

[View From The Top]

What, you mean we are at war and not one MP voted for it???

 

You do know why that is don't you? I wouldn't want you to get confused to why any MP of any colour isn't up in arms about not having a vote on it and why it isn't an issue at this election.

[Johnny Bognor]

You do know why that is don't you? I wouldn't want you to get confused to why any MP of any colour isn't up in arms about not having a vote on it and why it isn't an issue at this election.

 

Well, with all these peace loving CND badge wearing socialists in the labour party, only 23 asked for a debate on it last year.....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-appeals-to-labour-mps-over-afghan-war-1824121.html

 

Still, Clegg hasn't got a problem with it as he slide's under Fraudon's duvet.

 

Spin it how you like comrade, but you can't blame the tories for this one.

[dune]

So going to war based on lies, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, making the UK more unsafe only matters if your politics is left of centre?

 

Saddam needed removing and he was removed. He was a tyrant that killed people. He was a threat to the region and the country was a safe harbour for Terrorists. The people of Iraq now have a better country and democracy. I think the war was justified and the result is a better country.

[Thedelldays]

the Iraq war did not make a difference in the votes of the nation...or Blair would not have got re-elected

[dune]

the Iraq war did not make a difference in the votes of the nation...or Blair would not have got re-elected

 

Precisely. As i've said it's a non issue.

[View From The Top]

Well, with all these peace loving CND badge wearing socialists in the labour party, only 23 asked for a debate on it last year.....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-appeals-to-labour-mps-over-afghan-war-1824121.html

 

Still, Clegg hasn't got a problem with it as he slide's under Fraudon's duvet.

 

Spin it how you like comrade, but you can't blame the tories for this one.

 

Answer the question comrade. Why aren't ANY MPs, of ANY party up in arms about not voting on it? Why aren't the tories or Liberals shouting about it from the rooftops?

 

You don't know do you and it's making you look rather silly.

[View From The Top]

Saddam needed removing and he was removed. He was a tyrant that killed people. He was a threat to the region and the country was a safe harbour for Terrorists. The people of Iraq now have a better country and democracy. I think the war was justified and the result is a better country.

 

So out of your depth it's scary.

[dune]

So out of your depth it's scary.

 

You might think you know it all, but you don't.

[Johnny Bognor]

Answer the question comrade. Why aren't ANY MPs, of ANY party up in arms about not voting on it? Why aren't the tories or Liberals shouting about it from the rooftops?

 

You don't know do you and it's making you look rather silly.

 

It's a Nato commitment, so technically we have to, but our involvement does not HAVE to be to the level provided.

 

But Cleggy doesn't have an issue with it, so don't worry about it.

[View From The Top]

It's a Nato commitment, so technically we have to, but our involvement does not HAVE to be to the level provided.

 

But Cleggy doesn't have an issue with it, so don't worry about it.

 

Thus no vote needed.

 

Next.

[SuperMikey]

Any opportunity eh Dune? If Clegg has said they'll side with whoever has the biggest mandate, and that's what will happen if we find ourselves in a hung parliament situation. Pretty simple really. I would say that the 2 MPs that you've seen shirk the question were relatively small MPs in terms of power in the party, so they didn't want to give an answer which doesn't fit with the opinions of the main politicians.

 

As for the Trident issue, I think that it's outdated, and if we really do need a nuclear deterrent then there are other options out there. Of course, that doesn't fit in with the savings scheme that Clegg et al have outlined, but politicians rarely stick to their guns.