The utter collapse in the LibDems vote up north should really hit home that what Clegg has done has pissed people off to such an extent that the SNP are going to get a majority in Holyrood. The LibDem picked up votes in Scotland to keep out the Conservatives, with Clegg actually letting them in he has destroyed the parties reputation. The only way for the SNP not to get something like 20+ seats in Westminster, with the gains coming at the expense of people like Ming, is for the coalition to collapse and Clegg to be hung out to dry

We now know what the point of Nick Clegg is....

 

...Dave's bullet-catcher..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think Clegg's position as leader is made a lot more precarious by the fact that the Tories aren't - so far - taking much of a hit at all. There are a few decent results for the Lib Dems - including in my own council in Poole - but the picture is largely awful. Of course, in the areas where Labour have done best, nearly all their gains have been from the Lib Dems but in many of those councils - Manchester, Liverpool, Hull - the Tories had already been wiped out so had nothing further to lose.

 

It's good to see that in Eastleigh - represented by Chris Huhne, one of the more independent minded Lib Dem ministers - the Lib Dems did exceptionally well. They were defending 13 seats. Not only did they win all 13, they won the other three up for grabs as well.

 

The other good news is that the BNP have lost nearly all the seats they were defending.

The small victories they have made are more than offset by the losses in England and the utter collapse of support in Scotland. Clegg is to blame for Ian Smith and others loosing their seats.

To be fair - since he began the coalition with Cameron, he has got a load of policies through - he got a referendum, and he did try to gain some credibility (of which he has kept most of which in Southern areas).

 

Would you rather a minority Tory government going through with their 'true blue' right-wing politics, un-interrupted by a mediation, or a coalition, of which the Lib Dems have IMO done brilliantly moderating the Tories influence, and it's became a more centrist coalition.

 

There is a point of Nick Clegg - stop the Tories hitting full power.

To be fair - since he began the coalition with Cameron, he has got a load of policies through - he got a referendum, and he did try to gain some credibility (of which he has kept most of which in Southern areas).

 

Would you rather a minority Tory government going through with their 'true blue' right-wing politics, un-interrupted by a mediation, or a coalition, of which the Lib Dems have IMO done brilliantly moderating the Tories influence, and it's became a more centrist coalition.

 

There is a point of Nick Clegg - stop the Tories hitting full power.

 

The fundamental problem with that is a minority Tory government, by definition, wouldn't be able to get through these policies without Lib Dem support. Clegg and co. are happy enough to go against their principles when it's for the "benefit of a stable government", but I'm sure it would be the same story if they were in a progressive alliance with Labour. Were they still in opposition, it might be a different story.

There is a point of Nick Clegg - stop the Tories hitting full power.

 

Massive student debt, economy flat-lining, potentially incredibly destructive tinkering of the NHS, brutal cuts to public services, schools in chaos, unemployment growing...

 

...Yeah, stand up job Clegg is doing of stopping the Tory scum.... -_-

A Lib Dem win today. Just before the last election the Labour government passed legislation preventing "vulture funds" using courts within the UK to enforce debt repayment. These "vulture funds" bought debt owed by developing countries and then used the courts to force those countries to repay the debt. That meant that some of the poorest countries in the world were forced to make repaying debt a higher priority than providing even a basic education or even providing clean water to their population.

 

However, because of opposition from some Tory MPs, Labour had to make it a temporary measure. It was one of the pieces of legislation rushed through Parliament in the days before the election. The Lib Dems were always very much in favour of the legislation and it has now been made permanent.

Thanks for the info Suedehead2 - this is not reported anywhere. In fact, the party themselves seem to be unable to let us know this has happened. Of course the press are all more interested in Chris Huhne's phantom speeding ticket.

Thanks for the info Suedehead2 - this is not reported anywhere. In fact, the party themselves seem to be unable to let us know this has happened. Of course the press are all more interested in Chris Huhne's phantom speeding ticket.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

JEESUS, a slow news week or what.... I dont like the Lib Dums (actually, correction, I dont like what they've become...), but even I see that this is just sheer spite to distract us from what the Tory scum are doing to the NHS....

Thanks for the info Suedehead2 - this is not reported anywhere. In fact, the party themselves seem to be unable to let us know this has happened. Of course the press are all more interested in Chris Huhne's phantom speeding ticket.

The party's PR machine has been woeful since the coalition was formed. The party has always struggled to get its voice heard outside of elections but it just doesn't seem even to have made much of an effort over the past year.

Clegg's managed to outdo himself this time, with his proposals for an elected House of Lords - people elected to it will have 15-year terms (FIFTEEN!!), and elections will be held at the same time as general elections for the House of Commons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13428909

 

I've literally never seen a worse set of proposals. I don't know of any democratic country in the world where an elected representative doesn't have to face re-election for 15 years. Plus, the fact that there would ONLY be elections for it at the same time as Commons elections defeats the whole purpose OF an elected second chamber - in most countries, a batch of "senators" would go up for election every year or every two years, so that it reflects changes in public sentiment since the last general election.

 

What's more, this comes at a time that the current House of Lords is showing its worth - last week, they threw out the Coalition's plans to elect police commissioners, and they'll probably kill off the NHS reforms too. That's because it's balanced between parties, and no party gets an overall majority. OTOH, if Clegg's system was in place, last year's House of Lords elections would've seen the Tories and Lib Dem Coalition put in a majority there, like the House of Commons, and they'd be able to ram through whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to keep doing it for 15 years. Madness. I'd be in favour of a second chamber where people are elected for a MAXIMUM of 6-year-terms, with a batch of elections ATLEAST every two years - but, if it's a choice between keeping a House of Lords which is "undemocratic" but atleast acts as a brake on the government, or changing to Clegg's mess which would let governments do whatever they want for 15 years, I'd rather stick with what we've got now.

 

And maybe more to the point - absolutely NO-ONE in the country is even going to CARE about House of Lords reform, except for politics geeks like me. To most people, it's going to look like Clegg selling out on his principles on the things that matter (like the cuts), for another Lib Dem pet project.

Clegg's managed to outdo himself this time, with his proposals for an elected House of Lords - people elected to it will have 15-year terms (FIFTEEN!!), and elections will be held at the same time as general elections for the House of Commons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13428909

 

I've literally never seen a worse set of proposals. I don't know of any democratic country in the world where an elected representative doesn't have to face re-election for 15 years. Plus, the fact that there would ONLY be elections for it at the same time as Commons elections defeats the whole purpose OF an elected second chamber - in most countries, a batch of "senators" would go up for election every year or every two years, so that it reflects changes in public sentiment since the last general election.

 

What's more, this comes at a time that the current House of Lords is showing its worth - last week, they threw out the Coalition's plans to elect police commissioners, and they'll probably kill off the NHS reforms too. That's because it's balanced between parties, and no party gets an overall majority. OTOH, if Clegg's system was in place, last year's House of Lords elections would've seen the Tories and Lib Dem Coalition put in a majority there, like the House of Commons, and they'd be able to ram through whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to keep doing it for 15 years. Madness. I'd be in favour of a second chamber where people are elected for a MAXIMUM of 6-year-terms, with a batch of elections ATLEAST every two years - but, if it's a choice between keeping a House of Lords which is "undemocratic" but atleast acts as a brake on the government, or changing to Clegg's mess which would let governments do whatever they want for 15 years, I'd rather stick with what we've got now.

 

And maybe more to the point - absolutely NO-ONE in the country is even going to CARE about House of Lords reform, except for politics geeks like me. To most people, it's going to look like Clegg selling out on his principles on the things that matter (like the cuts), for another Lib Dem pet project.

I do see the point of fifteen year terms, but only where peers can't go up for re-election. But then, I'm not hugely in favour of an elected House of Lords where the method of election is anything other than PR, because I think it loses its point as a second chamber if it echoes the exact same opinion at each election. If it's pure PR then it would require crossbench agreement. That said, I have many differing ideas on what the House of Lords should/could be - an apolitical chamber made up of experts in various fields that's entirely appointed is one I wouldn't mind seeing.

Would a full PR Party List system be too difficult? Each party could nominate candidates from a variety of fields, it's far more democratic than the current system AND puts clear water between it and the House of Commons.

because I think it loses its point as a second chamber if it echoes the exact same opinion at each election.

 

This is my main concern - and tbh I think it would be the same whatever the electoral system, if the elections were held at the same time as House of Commons elections (the Coalition would have a majority under PR as well, after all). As far as I'm aware, pretty much every country with an elected second chamber puts a batch of the representatives up for election every year or every two years, so that it's a check on the government. If there was only elections at the same time as Commons elections, meaning people would have NO influence over what the government does for a full 5 years, the Lords would be even worse at doing its job than it is now.

 

I think Clegg said he wanted the electoral system to be single transferrable vote. I would rather have a PR Party List system, because I really don't think people are goingto know individual candidates well enough for STV to work properly.

The idea of a single 15-year term has been around for ages. The proposal is that one third of the seats would be up for election every five years. The argument for such a long (and single) term is that members could show more independence if they didn't have to worry about re-election.

 

That said, I don't like the idea of such a long term and I don't like the idea of not allowing members to seek a second term.

 

The one proposal I definitely agree with is the use of the Single Transferrable vote for the election. That would mean that a party with a majority in the House of Commons would be unlikely to have a majority in the second chamber.

 

As I've said before, I don't like having lots of different elections on the same day. The same applies here even though different voting systems would be used.

Yes, the list system works best - the parties make the choice from their list based on the knowledge of how many they can elect as a percentage of the vote share.

 

I don't think you can turn your nose up at elected peers - whatever the term - it is much better than the system of appointing failed politicians who have lost their seats (hi Lord Coe) - but I worry this will lead to even more influence in the second chamber. We need a majority of crossbench peers if anything. The Lords has to act as a chamber free from a majority influence and only a neutrality can result in very bad legislation being knocked back.

 

 

Yes, the list system works best - the parties make the choice from their list based on the knowledge of how many they can elect as a percentage of the vote share.

 

I don't think you can turn your nose up at elected peers - whatever the term - it is much better than the system of appointing failed politicians who have lost their seats (hi Lord Coe) - but I worry this will lead to even more influence in the second chamber. We need a majority of crossbench peers if anything. The Lords has to act as a chamber free from a majority influence and only a neutrality can result in very bad legislation being knocked back.

The list system is flawed unless voters get the opportunity to move people up and down the list. Otherwise, the candidate at the top of the list for one of the main parties is more or less guaranteed to be elected. That's why I prefer the Single Transferrable Vote - it puts maximum power in the hands of the voters rather than political parties.

 

I'm not actually that fussed about whether the second chamber should be 80% or 100% elected. Both would be a vast improvement on the current 0% (I know the remaining hereditaries are technically elected but the electorate is so small it doesn't really count as being properly elected). If there is an unelected element they should be mostly (if not entirely) non-party political.

Bahaha.

 

Obama snubs Clegg's request for meeting

 

The White House has turned down a request for Nick Clegg to have a one-to-one meeting with Barack Obama when he visits Britain this week.

 

 

Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister tried to secure an audience and a photo opportunity with the President as part of his first state visit to Britain.

 

Mr Obama is due to meet the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband for an hour at Buckingham Palace, so the Liberal Democrats had hoped that the White House would agree to a similar meeting with Mr Clegg.

 

However government sources said the request has been turned down by Washington. It is understood they felt that as President it would not be appropriate for him to have a one-to-one meeting with a Deputy Prime Minister.

 

Mr Clegg will meet Mr Obama – but at all times David Cameron will be in the room.

 

There would have been a precedent for Mr Clegg to have a private audience with Mr Obama as Liberal Democrat leader. When George Bush visited the UK in 2003 he had a private meeting with the then Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, even though Mr Kennedy had been strongly critical of the Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay.

 

At the meeting, President Bush famously forgot Mr Kennedy's name and was reduced to calling him "Mr Leader".

 

It is a sign of tensions between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives that Mr Clegg's officials blame the Tories for leaking news of the supposed White House "snub".

 

Increasingly the Coalition partners are briefing against one another in ways which would have been inconceivable before the acrimonious AV referendum campaign.

 

Last night Liberal Democrat sources insisted that Mr Clegg would have "substantive meetings" with the President as part of the Government and insisted that an official request for a "one-to-one" had not been made. "There was an option, which was investigated, for Mr Clegg to have a one-to-one meeting with the President as leader of the Liberal Democrats but we preferred to do it in a Government capacity," one source said.

 

Mr Obama and the First Lady fly into London on Tuesday. The couple will be met by the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall before flying to Buckingham Palace where they will stay until Thursday.

 

During the visit he will address both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall, lay a wreath at the Grave of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey and attend a state banquet at Buckingham Palace. In the political part of the visit he will hold talks with Mr Cameron in Downing Street which will focus on the coalition's exit strategy from Afghanistan, the situation in Libya as well as a replacement for Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the IMF.

 

Poor Clegg can't catch a break... I have to admit even I'm starting to feel slightly sorry for him now.

Poor Clegg can't catch a break... I have to admit even I'm starting to feel slightly sorry for him now.

 

I don't.... :lol: :P

 

I'm trying to remember if Joe Biden got a "special meeting" with Cameron.....