Is Nick Clegg the Roy Tucker of Politics?

[MrGongGong]

And your apo'strophe, too, it seems!

You try typing on a phone screen ;-)

Some people really did (and apparently still do) buy the whole "it's a crisis and we must step in and sort it out" nonsense

The so called "crisis" that made Clegg abandon all sense of principle was hardly that ,so ,like Roy, he jumped into bed with a seemingly attractive partner and is now trying to convince us that somehow he did it for us ?

[ahinton]

You try typing on a phone screen ;-)

Must I?(!)...

[P. G. Tipps]

Does anyone besides Nick Clegg himself and a handful of what might be left of his henchpersons really care what he thinks of the Toreis with whom he and his party are supposedly coming to the end of what mut surely be recognised as an uncomfortable coalition?

Coalition government is not and cannot become a 'no brainer' unless two parties can, following an indecisive General Election result, not only agree to form one (which is by no means a certainty) but also be able to do so on the basis of achieveing an overall majority therewith (which could be even moe uncertain); as I've pointed out before, if no two parties can agree to form a coaliton and achieve an overall majority therewith, an awful lot more will seem to be up for grabs (or not) than has been the case in living memory.

I still have no idea what Roy Tucker (whoever he is or is not) has to do with this potentially dangerous situation.

Surely your post should have been in response to Mr GongGong and not me?

You seem to be in accord with the gist of my last post but instead preferring to say it in your own quite individualistic and roundabout manner?

[ahinton]

Surely your post should have been in response to Mr GongGong and not me?

I don't see why; it appears to me to respond to points that you made, not least your refeence to a "no brainer" which I quote in my response.

You seem to be in accord with the gist of my last post but instead preferring to say it in your own quite individualistic and roundabout manner?

There's nothing "roundabout" about it. I am indeed broadly in accord with some of what you wrote there, although I felt it incumbent upon me to expand your notion of UKIP holding the balance of power on the grounds that, should all four parties end up with similar numbers of seats, the matter of which party/ies might be seen as holding the balance of power will identify a scenario far more complex than one in which UKIP alone holds it.

[P. G. Tipps]

Well, er, quite ... but my 'no brainer' tag was in the event of an agreed coalition when the alternative is no effective government at all which was the case in 2010!

I don't particularly like the ugly phrase 'no brainer' but I'm struggling to think of a more accurate and appropriate one!

[Flosshilde]

the wholesale political anarchy that Mr GongGong also now appears to be advocating as a solution to the country's problems.

Would it be any the worse than the ConDem 'solutions', which have produced the

ever-increasing debt

? Belgium recently had no government for over a year - did that produce any major problem for its citizens?

the current Coalition gets the second term every government needs,

Why does a government 'need' a second term, especially if it's been as disastrous as this one? If we get a second term of the present government, I think that we will be truly f****d (which brings us back to Mr Tucker Junior)

[Flosshilde]

There might be a shift to Green from LibDem (& perhaps from Labour), although I think the greater shift from LibDems would be the people who shifted to them from Labour last time going back to Labour. The LibDems will probably lose seats. I think any shift from from Tory to UKIP would have less effect on the number of Tory seats (shifty lot, voters, as well as politicians). However, in Scotland the General Election follows the referendum closely enough to the latter to have an impact, & there could be a substantial move from Labour, especially, & perhaps from LibDem, to the SNP which could have an effect on seats - Labour could find itself losing substantially & the SNP might very well be the third largest party in Westminster & holding the balance of power.

[ahinton]

There might be a shift to Green from LibDem (& perhaps from Labour), although I think the greater shift from LibDems would be the people who shifted to them from Labour last time going back to Labour. The LibDems will probably lose seats. I think any shift from from Tory to UKIP would have less effect on the number of Tory seats (shifty lot, voters, as well as politicians). However, in Scotland the General Election follows the referendum closely enough to the latter to have an impact, & there could be a substantial move from Labour, especially, & perhaps from LibDem, to the SNP which could have an effect on seats - Labour could find itself losing substantially & the SNP might very well be the third largest party in Westminster & holding the balance of power.

I must confess that I'd not thought of that; this would indeed be an interesting situation should it occur! I think that, in addition to this, the future instability and weakness of any government that might emerge following the next General Election could be exacerbated as a result of the LibDems pulling their socks up during the next few months and becoming one of a set of spanners in the works.

[MrGongGong]

Would it be any the worse than the ConDem 'solutions',

Quite
Trying to scare people into thinking that somehow the world would come to an end if we didn't have "decisive" government really won't fool everyone.

The only party that actually DOES offer a different view is the Greens and there's no chance of significant numbers of people voting for them.

[ahinton]

Quite
Trying to scare people into thinking that somehow the world would come to an end if we didn't have "decisive" government really won't fool everyone.

Indeed; the Belgian experience mentioned upthread perhaps proves this up to a point, although if some kind of "decisive" government does not eventually emerge, there will inevitably come to be certain things that cannot be made to work in its absence.

The only party that actually DOES offer a different view is the Greens and there's no chance of significant numbers of people voting for them.

But do they really? - on everything, I mean? - and, perhaps more importantly, would they actually do so, be seen to do so and act in accordance with those differences of view were they to have the bugbear of office conferred upon them? As to those who vote for them and the consequences of such electoral support, I rather suspect that the problem would be less to do with numbers of people voting for them and more an one of numbers of seats that they would stand to gain.

[P. G. Tipps]

Would it be any the worse than the ConDem 'solutions', which have produced the ? Belgium recently had no government for over a year - did that produce any major problem for its citizens?

a) Your dealing in subjective opinion whilst I'm trying to deal in simple facts and seeing the new situation with which Clegg was confronted in 2010. His critics simply refuse to acknowledge this new situation as if it never happened. Well, it did!

b) No idea but I see even the Belgians obviously think some government is preferable to no government at all!

Why does a government 'need' a second term, especially if it's been as disastrous as this one? If we get a second term of the present government, I think that we will be truly f****d (which brings us back to Mr Tucker Junior)

Again, you're just expressing a wholly subjective opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong.

Most objective political observers, on the other hand, concede that any government normally needs at least two terms to get their measures through and to be judged fairly. Which was my own point.

[Flosshilde]

Oh dear - what makes you think that your opinions are any less subjective than mine? People - even politicians - make choices. There is nothing that forces them to make one choice rather than another; it's all subjective, based on their own ideas & views.

[ahinton]

Most objective political observers, on the other hand, concede that any government normally needs at least two terms to get their measures through and to be judged fairly. Which was my own point.

But if such observers are right, the likelihood of anything much being seen through to its intended conclusion is pretty small, n'est-ce pas? Yes, of course we've had two-term governments before, but there's never any guarantee of that and, in any case, the prospect of a two-term coalition is surely even more remote again?

[P. G. Tipps]

Oh dear - what makes you think that your opinions are any less subjective than mine? People - even politicians - make choices. There is nothing that forces them to make one choice rather than another; it's all subjective, based on their own ideas & views.

So you are saying that Mr Clegg and the Lib Dems being in Coalition Government rather than governing on their own is just my opinion and not a fact?

Of course politicians have to make choices ... the point is that they have to ultimately make these choices in the real world and not in an imaginary one in which they hold full power and on which they all base their pre-election promises!

[Flosshilde]

So you are saying that Mr Clegg and the Lib Dems being in Coalition Government rather than governing on their own is just my opinion and not a fact?

Don't be stupid - of course not.

But, dear Scotty, you have always had a tendency not to address other people's arguments & what they actually say, but what you think, or imagine, they might have said.