Why Won't The Liberals Answer The Question?

[Patrick Bateman]

"If the Conservatives gain the most votes will you support them in a hung parliament?"

 

I've now seen two Liberal MP's shirk and waffle and not answer this reasonable question. Clegg said he would form a coalition with the party with the biggest mandate from the electorate. Under proportional representation - which the Liberals have banged on about for years - the party with the most votes has the mandate. So why now are Liberals refusing to answer a perfectly reasonable question that the electorate are perfectly entitled to know the answer to?

 

So much for the "new politics" that they are talking about. I'm glad that Labour, the Conservaties and the political commentators are now putting the Liberals under pressure because with every day that passes they are being exposed as a party that is no different to any of the others.

 

Perhaps the Liberals on here could justify why the British public are not entitled to know the answer to the question.

 

Why should they answer?

 

Answering shows weakness that they think they won't be the majority party, but showing the kind of strength that they think they can do well and not need to support one of the other 2 parties, they can subconsiously make their supporters believe they can win - hence more votes rather than people "tactical" or "protest" voting.

 

Simple really!

[View From The Top]

The message is clear. The populace at large wants real change and don't believe that either the tories or labour can deliver it.

 

I still expect a tory victory but I believe a genuine sea change in British politics is in the offing.

[badgerx16]

It has far deeper repersussions than I think most appreciate. If the Lib-Dems form part of a coalition the whole voting system will be reformed. Two party strong majority government will be gone. In its place we'll be left with minority coaloition governements. Much like when the Liberals were destryoed by Labour at the turn of the last century we're at a tipping point again. It may work because it'll benefit parties I like such as the BNP and UKIP, but with change comes uncertainty and our country could be on a path to ruin.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.....

 

The current system put a 66 seat overall majority in Labour's hands, on the back of 22% of the electorate voting for them. Change is necessary, overdue, and the people seem to want it.

 

The way you want things, we'd still be stuck with the 2 party system delivering a choice between the Torys and the Whigs.

[Joensuu]

It has far deeper repersussions than I think most appreciate. If the Lib-Dems form part of a coalition the whole voting system will be reformed. Two party strong majority government will be gone. In its place we'll be left with minority coaloition governements. Much like when the Liberals were destryoed by Labour at the turn of the last century we're at a tipping point again. It may work because it'll benefit parties I like such as the BNP and UKIP, but with change comes uncertainty and our country could be on a path to ruin.

 

I agree with the idea of allowing more strength to the smaller parties, but there should be a mechanism to prevent extremists from taking power (we don't want another 1933). Perhaps partys which try to impose any racist (or other objectionable) policies can be expelled from govenment by the Monarch or by an enforced referendum. We'd need a consitiution, within which all parties are sworn to operate. Also make it law that no government can use the police, armed forces of any equivelent organised group against the will of its own people. Any party doing so is immeadiatey removed from office. That should allow smaller parties in, but help prevent any abuse of office.

[dune]

I agree with the idea of allowing more strength to the smaller parties, but there should be a mechanism to prevent extremists from taking power (we don't want another 1933). Perhaps partys which try to impose any racist (or other objectionable) policies can be expelled from govenment by the Monarch or by an enforced referendum. We'd need a consitiution, within which all parties are sworn to operate. Also make it law that no government can use the police, armed forces of any equivelent organised group against the will of its own people. Any party doing so is immeadiatey removed from office. That should allow smaller parties in, but help prevent any abuse of office.

 

That's ********. Democracy is about letting people vote for things they agree with. If the far right is what you agre with your vote should count. Equally if the far left is what you agree with your vote should count.

[dune]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.....

 

The current system put a 66 seat overall majority in Labour's hands, on the back of 22% of the electorate voting for them. Change is necessary, overdue, and the people seem to want it.

 

The way you want things, we'd still be stuck with the 2 party system delivering a choice between the Torys and the Whigs.

 

Actually you're wrong. I can't make my mind up without knowing EXACTLY how a new system would work. Would parliamentary reform go to a referendum? I presume it would, but if anyone has confirmation i'd appreciate a link to a direct quote from the liberal Party.

[dune]

Why should they answer?

 

Answering shows weakness that they think they won't be the majority party, but showing the kind of strength that they think they can do well and not need to support one of the other 2 parties, they can subconsiously make their supporters believe they can win - hence more votes rather than people "tactical" or "protest" voting.

 

Simple really!

 

You've completely missed the point. Clegg has already said he'll support the party with the mandate. What he won't clarify is whether the mandate is the most votes or the most seats. Clearly if the "winning" party has both it's a non issue but there's a chance Labour will finnish with the most seats and not the most votes. Under the PR system this would give the Tories the mandate. But Clegg won't explain what the mandate is.

[Joensuu]

That's ********. Democracy is about letting people vote for things they agree with. If the far right is what you agre with your vote should count. Equally if the far left is what you agree with your vote should count.

 

Agree, but you need some checks in places to prevent extreme minorities gaining power and running rampage against the will of the people.

 

Personally I think we should have some checks in place enshrined by law to prevent any party in power passing extremely authoritarian laws. Whether left or right, I think the most important thing would be to avoid would be a UK Hitler or Stalin.

[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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just come on the news that Clegg, the great whiter than white, clean up politics man claimed expenses for £1.50 paper napkins, a £2.49 cake tin and cushions at £4.99 after a shopping trip to Ikea.

 

Why should we, the taxpayer, pay for Clegg's paper napkins?

[View From The Top]

*cough* Duckhouse.

 

*cough* Moat clearing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Can't you see the hypocrisy of someone claiming "What I've supported all my adult life is a complete clean up of politics and expenses, from top to bottom", claiming £1.50 for paper napkins, as well as having to pay back money because he claimed more than the maximum allowance.

[View From The Top]

OMG! A politician is a hypocrite.

 

In next weeks breaking news it will be revealed that ursus does actually take it's ablutions in a forest.

[Thedelldays]

OMG! A politician is a hypocrite.

 

In next weeks breaking news it will be revealed that ursus does actually take it's ablutions in a forest.

but aren't these he sort of things he is campigning for change about..yet he is just the same...

 

they are all the same

[View From The Top]

but aren't these he sort of things he is campigning for change about..yet he is just the same...

 

they are all the same

 

Which is why the country wants change.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So you agree that Clegg is as bad as all the others. Perhaps he should stop claiming to be somehow different, and on a mission to clean up politics from the nast Torys and Labour Party.

[Thedelldays]

Which is why the country wants change.

in that case. steer clear of the lib dems IMO

[View From The Top]

So you agree that Clegg is as bad as all the others. Perhaps he should stop claiming to be somehow different, and on a mission to clean up politics from the nast Torys and Labour Party.

 

I think all politicians, with a few exceptions across all the parties, are c*nts.

 

Simple truth is, which you just don't get, is that the two main parties and their inept leaders, aren't wanted or trusted by people and the Liberals offer a change from the norm'. They appear less dirty sleazy.

 

No amount of pious tory ranting is going to change that.

 

No one saw this coming but it does show how low the opinion of politicians is.

[View From The Top]

in that case. steer clear of the lib dems IMO

 

Because the tories and labour offer a real change. Yeah, right.

[Thedelldays]

Because the tories and labour offer a real change. Yeah, right.

did I say vote for them..?

 

if people want real change, then the lib dems are clearly not really it...they too had their noses in the bucket it seems

 

better go for george galloway:)

[View From The Top]

did I say vote for them..?

 

if people want real change, then the lib dems are clearly not really it...they too had their noses in the bucket it seems

 

better go for george galloway:)

 

Too many the Liberals do represent change. Change from the ******s that both of the other two main parties offer.

 

They are less damaged by the expenses scandal and appear more human and genuine. than either Cameron or Brown.

[saint_mears]

Just looking at the liberals policies and i cannot stop laughing.

 

We would be third world within years if they get anything.

[dune]

did I say vote for them..?

 

if people want real change, then the lib dems are clearly not really it...they too had their noses in the bucket it seems

 

better go for george galloway:)

 

A tipping point in politics is on the cards. Not at this election because it's all about the old parties - Labour, Conservative and Liberals - but if and when a hung parliament brings in voting reform there's no reason why we can't see an upsurge in more radical parties. Just look to the European elections where the electorate knew that a BNP or a UKIP vote wasn't a wasted vote. I never thought we'd ever see a BNP or a UKIP member of the UK parliament, but with the Liberals looking likely to get voting reform i'd suggest it's only a matter of time now until we see small, but growing numbers of them and the likes of the greens facing each other in parliament.

[buctootim]

A tipping point in politics is on the cards. Not at this election because it's all about the old parties - Labour, Conservative and Liberals - but if and when a hung parliament brings in voting reform there's no reason why we can't see an upsurge in more radical parties. Just look to the European elections where the electorate knew that a BNP or a UKIP vote wasn't a wasted vote. I never thought we'd ever see a BNP or a UKIP member of the UK parliament, but with the Liberals looking likely to get voting reform i'd suggest it's only a matter of time now until we see small, but growing numbers of them and the likes of the greens facing each other in parliament.

 

 

A greater number of MPs representing many more small parties of all shades would be a good thing. A few more independent MPs wouldnt go amiss either. Its only the Tory / Labour self interest which has kept electoral reform from happening.