But there's a difference between the PM being on holiday and being off selling arms to dodgy dictators.

 

As for the power if recall, it has been made perfectly clear that it would be reserved for MPs found to have been breaking the rules on, for example, expenses. It will not be possible to recall an MP because they've gone against something they said at the election. If that was possible, every MP in every government would be at risk.

But there's a difference between the PM being on holiday and being off selling arms to dodgy dictators.

 

As for the power if recall, it has been made perfectly clear that it would be reserved for MPs found to have been breaking the rules on, for example, expenses. It will not be possible to recall an MP because they've gone against something they said at the election. If that was possible, every MP in every government would be at risk.

 

That's what Clegg says NOW, but, actually, when he first proposed it back in 2009, he said he was modelling it on the type of recall mechanism they use for the YUS House of Representatives, where a by-election can be called if a certain number of constituents demand it regardless of whether they've broken any "rules"... the only difference now is that using that style would mean Clegg would be the first to face a by-election because of how hated he now is in his constituency.

The Lib Dem manifesto said

 

"We will give you the right to sack MPs who have broken the rules. We would introduce a recall system so that constituents could force a by- election for any MP found responsible for serious wrongdoing. We are campaigning for this right of recall to be introduced to the European Parliament too."

 

That is what is being delivered. An unlimited right to recall an MP would be a nonsense when most MPs have the support of less than 50% of voters.

That is what is being delivered. An unlimited right to recall an MP would be a nonsense when most MPs have the support of less than 50% of voters.

 

Totally agreed. In a multi-party system, and like it or not Danny that's what we have, there will very rarely be anyone voted in with an actual majority. Therefore groups would be campaigning to abuse this at all times in marginal seats. It has to be for serious wrongdoing such as the expenses fraud which led to the Barnsley by-election.

Looks like Clegg's attempts at securing a safe Tory seat aren't going well... :(

 

Nick Clegg's effort at team-building with Tory MPs ends in farce

 

A planned charm offensive by Nick Clegg to build ties with new Tory MPs has backfired spectacularly.

 

A getting-to-know-you meeting was a "disaster from beginning to end", said one Conservative, after the Deputy Prime Minister failed to turn up and guests had to dash off down Whitehall - twice - for Commons votes.

 

Angry MPs eventually abandoned the event at Mr Clegg's office overlooking Horse Guards Parade.

 

About a dozen Tories, all elected last year and working as ministerial aides, were asked to the drinks-and-nibbles reception on Tuesday evening, intended to build bridges and create a sense of camaraderie for when the Government hits trouble, one said.

 

But they arrived to find a similar number of Lib-Dems had been invited, apparently after complaints that their leader was holding talks with their Coalition partners.

 

Mr Clegg, meanwhile, was stuck in a Budget planning meeting, leaving Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper as host. After 15 minutes of sipping drinks and "looking at Mr Clegg's rather bizarre art choices", the MPs were told they were needed in the Commons for a vote on the Scotland Bill.

 

"We all marched off for a vote that was won by 480 to nine - there was no point us being there," said another guest. The group walked back, only to find Mr Clegg was still stuck in talks.

 

Half an hour later Mr Harper announced another vote. "We set off down Whitehall but had to sprint this time," the MP said. "Some of my colleagues are not built for running.

 

"After that we decided Clegg could go f*** himself and went for a drink."

 

Sources close to Mr Clegg said the meeting would be rescheduled.

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...nds-in-farce.do

The mask slips...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12851611

 

So much for "Lib Dems making real difference and stamping their influence" on the government. As far as the nasty spending plans go, the Tories and Lib Dems are all in it together.

 

(Though I still find it really cute that Clegg thinks he's still going to be on the scene when the next election debates come around.)

The mask slips...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12851611

 

So much for "Lib Dems making real difference and stamping their influence" on the government. As far as the nasty spending plans go, the Tories and Lib Dems are all in it together.

 

(Though I still find it really cute that Clegg thinks he's still going to be on the scene when the next election debates come around.)

 

Clegg used to be a tory in his uni days so he is just showing his true colours now, he is just an opportunist who saw climbing the ranks of the Lib Dems as a much better career and photo opportunity than being an insignificant tory mp.

Clegg needs to be replaced by Ming C ASAP

Clegg needs to be replaced by Ming C ASAP

 

He wouldn't work in this day and age, Ming is a very intelligent chap but it is all about image and looks and how someone comes across on tv these days and Cameron and Clegg are considered very good looking by women, Red Ed less so but he is their generation so Ming would come across as too old in televised election debates bit like John McCain did in debates against Obama.

Yes, but the mighty Ming doesn't sell out his values for a Jag and a fancy office ;)

Yes, but the mighty Ming doesn't sell out his values for a Jag and a fancy office ;)

 

True lol but yeah I don't think there will even be a Lib Dem party in 5 years time, Clegg and his wing will join the tory party and the left leaning Lib Dem's will join Labour. The Lib Dems are dead in the water, poor election performance followed by the stabbing in the back of their younger fanbase over fees, I am in favour of fees but Lib Dems got a lot of student votes on the basis of their promise and I can't see the student population voting Lib Dem again.

 

He wouldn't work in this day and age, Ming is a very intelligent chap but it is all about image and looks and how someone comes across on tv these days and Cameron and Clegg are considered very good looking by women, Red Ed less so but he is their generation so Ming would come across as too old in televised election debates bit like John McCain did in debates against Obama.

 

I don't think many women find Clegg attractive these days. They did during the election, but confidence is a huge part of being attractive, and these days, he haggardly shuffles about the place looking embarrassed at his very existence (and so he should).

 

I really think Charles Kennedy is the Lib Dems' ONLY shot at avoiding anihilation at the next election. He's pretty much the only Lib Dem in the country that people still like and trust, and he refused to vote in favour of the Coalitiion and has been decidedly lukewarm when talking about it. Tbh, I still don't understand why they ditched the leader and the policies that got them their best results since World War 2 in 2005. It's a mark of how uninspiring their policies were at last year's election that, despite the debates AND Cleggmania, they STILL lost seats. I reckon it was because, although people initially were excited by Clegg's talk of "doing something different", when the final couple of the weeks of the campaign came and people started looking at their policies, they were so bland that people turned away. I think, had Clegg maintained Kennedy's solidly centre-left policies (a no-ifs no-buts pledge to scrap tuition fees straightaway, extra investment in public services, pledge to close the deficit by mainly taxing the rich), they really could've outflanked Labour on the left and taken a LOT of seats in Labour's heartland and maybe broken the 100-seat mark ... as it was, the Clegg's wishy-washy centrist policies left people cold.

 

Kennedy would also have had the sense not to waste the Lib Dems' potentially immense power in a hung parliament; unlike Clegg, he wouldn't've sold off his power to veto any Tory government policy in exchange for a seat in Cabinet and a ministerial car and signing up carte-blanche to the Tory manifesto.

I don't think many women find Clegg attractive these days. They did during the election, but confidence is a huge part of being attractive, and these days, he haggardly shuffles about the place looking embarrassed at his very existence (and so he should).

 

I really think Charles Kennedy is the Lib Dems' ONLY shot at avoiding anihilation at the next election. He's pretty much the only Lib Dem in the country that people still like and trust, and he refused to vote in favour of the Coalitiion and has been decidedly lukewarm when talking about it. Tbh, I still don't understand why they ditched the leader and the policies that got them their best results since World War 2 in 2005. It's a mark of how uninspiring their policies were at last year's election that, despite the debates AND Cleggmania, they STILL lost seats. I reckon it was because, although people initially were excited by Clegg's talk of "doing something different", when the final couple of the weeks of the campaign came and people started looking at their policies, they were so bland that people turned away. I think, had Clegg maintained Kennedy's solidly centre-left policies (a no-ifs no-buts pledge to scrap tuition fees straightaway, extra investment in public services, pledge to close the deficit by mainly taxing the rich), they really could've outflanked Labour on the left and taken a LOT of seats in Labour's heartland and maybe broken the 100-seat mark ... as it was, the Clegg's wishy-washy centrist policies left people cold.

 

Kennedy would also have had the sense not to waste the Lib Dems' potentially immense power in a hung parliament; unlike Clegg, he wouldn't've sold off his power to veto any Tory government policy in exchange for a seat in Cabinet and a ministerial car and signing up carte-blanche to the Tory manifesto.

 

The way Kennedy was treated by his own party was a disgrace, so what if he enjoyed a few drinks, Winston Churchill spent most of his life in a drunken stupor but was still one of the greatest leaders Britain had ever had. While I do not agree with much of what Kennedy says he has always come across as a decent guy and his treatment was absolutely despicable.

 

Kennedy in charge would not work now though, centre left is now being occupied by Miliband so people voting for a Kennedy led Lib Dem party would be taking votes away from Labour and give the tories a working majority at the next election. I would be perfectly comfortable with that but left leaning people wouldn't.

 

 

The way Kennedy was treated by his own party was a disgrace, so what if he enjoyed a few drinks, Winston Churchill spent most of his life in a drunken stupor but was still one of the greatest leaders Britain had ever had. While I do not agree with much of what Kennedy says he has always come across as a decent guy and his treatment was absolutely despicable.

 

Kennedy in charge would not work now though, centre left is now being occupied by Miliband so people voting for a Kennedy led Lib Dem party would be taking votes away from Labour and give the tories a working majority at the next election. I would be perfectly comfortable with that but left leaning people wouldn't.

 

Kennedy was in charge in 2005 and Labour had a comfortable majority then. If the Lib Dems took seats from Labour, the number of Conservative seats wouldn't change so they wouldn't get a working majority.

Kennedy was in charge in 2005 and Labour had a comfortable majority then. If the Lib Dems took seats from Labour, the number of Conservative seats wouldn't change so they wouldn't get a working majority.

 

Blair was a lot further to the right than Kennedy, Miliband is very much occupying Kennedy's territory now whereas Blair wasn't Blair was reaching out to centre right voters.

True lol but yeah I don't think there will even be a Lib Dem party in 5 years time, Clegg and his wing will join the tory party and the left leaning Lib Dem's will join Labour. The Lib Dems are dead in the water, poor election performance followed by the stabbing in the back of their younger fanbase over fees, I am in favour of fees but Lib Dems got a lot of student votes on the basis of their promise and I can't see the student population voting Lib Dem again.

Of course the Lib Dems will still exist in five years' time. The idea that an electorate of 45 million or so can fit neatly into just two camps was discredited years ago.

 

Whether Clegg remains leader for the next election will depend on what happens after the referendum. If he decides to assert the party's independence more, he'll stay on. If he carries on insisting on ultra-loyalty, there may well be an attempt to topple him this year or next.

 

The idea that Clegg joined the Lib Dems for reasons of opportunism is ludicrous. If he had foreseen last year's election result when he joined the party, he's in the wrong job. He should have become the UK's leading political pundit with that sort of foresight. He clearly faced a dilemma which lots of other people have faced. On the economy, he is clearly on the right. However, on social issues he is clearly more left-wing. So, faced with the choice of joining a party whose views on social issues and Europe were close to his own and a party whose economic policies were close to his own, he chose the former.

The idea that Clegg joined the Lib Dems for reasons of opportunism is ludicrous. If he had foreseen last year's election result when he joined the party, he's in the wrong job. He should have become the UK's leading political pundit with that sort of foresight. He clearly faced a dilemma which lots of other people have faced. On the economy, he is clearly on the right. However, on social issues he is clearly more left-wing. So, faced with the choice of joining a party whose views on social issues and Europe were close to his own and a party whose economic policies were close to his own, he chose the former.

 

Clegg might have been repelled by the Tories in the 90s because he was socially liberal - but would he really be that out of place in the party now that Cameron has brought them kicking and screaming into the 21st century on things like gay rights? Apart from Europe and immigration, I really can't figure any big differences of opinion between Clegg and Cameron.

Clegg might have been repelled by the Tories in the 90s because he was socially liberal - but would he really be that out of place in the party now that Cameron has brought them kicking and screaming into the 21st century on things like gay rights? Apart from Europe and immigration, I really can't figure any big differences of opinion between Clegg and Cameron.

But the assertion was that Clegg had always planned to end up as a Lib Dem in a Tory-led government. When he worked for Leon Brittan in the EU he was offered the chance of a safe Tory seat. He declined. Clegg was already an MP by the time Cameron took over so his policy changes - opposed by many Tory members - aren't really relevant. There are still areas where they disagree. The obvious one at the moment is electoral reform but they also disagree on the EU and the Human Rights Act.

Another new low for criticism of Clegg. He's now being criticised by Tory blogger Iain Dale for saying he sometimes cries at music. So what? So do I. Does that make me a bad person?

 

Of course he's also being called a hypocrite for wanting to end the culture of "It's not what you know, it's who you know that counts" because he got some help from his father. What is wrong with saying that he now thinks it is wrong to benefit from that? Is someone who went to public school a hypocrite if they go on to oppose public schools? If a drink-driver is involved in a serious accident and then use their experience to campaign against drink-driving, does that make them a hypocrite?

Another new low for criticism of Clegg. He's now being criticised by Tory blogger Iain Dale for saying he sometimes cries at music. So what? So do I. Does that make me a bad person?

 

Of course he's also being called a hypocrite for wanting to end the culture of "It's not what you know, it's who you know that counts" because he got some help from his father. What is wrong with saying that he now thinks it is wrong to benefit from that? Is someone who went to public school a hypocrite if they go on to oppose public schools? If a drink-driver is involved in a serious accident and then use their experience to campaign against drink-driving, does that make them a hypocrite?

 

That's a slightly selective reading of what's going on.... As far as I'm concerned the latest stuff that's springing forth from Clegg is some of the biggest cringe-making, whiny self-pity this side of a typical Emo record... He's even bringing-up his kids into it in an attempt to make himself look more human.... Apparently his 9-year old-time asks him "why are The students so angry with you papa?". I mean, seriously, WTF is that about? This is even more cringy than the Blairs' bedroom "revelations", and there's already a brain-bleach shortage in the world because of that one....

 

As much as I despised Thatcher, she actually had a bit more dignity, she didn't go off running to the press and start whingeing like some 14-year old emo kid that "nobody likes me, those nasty miners made Carol cry....". Sorry, but he's a f**king twat trying to garner sympathy for himself, if he cant take the heat, he should just p*** off frankly.... In fact, if he wants sympathy, he can find it in the dictionary somewhere between "sh!t" and " syphilitic"....

 

As for the other point, what, precisely is Clegg's plan to end the system of privelege/old-boys network/you scratch my back, I'll roll up my trouserleg and give you a funny hand shake....? He claims to want to see "social mobility and make sure everyone has an equal shake at climbing up the greasy pole....Really? By being a party to tripling student debt, scrapping EMA, cutting finding to the likes of Connexions and basically betraying the aspirations of an entire generation....??? If you ask me, quite the opposite to giving disadvantage kids a "leg up", that's more like pouring more grease on the pole..... But this is just typical of his class, as soon as they get somewhere, they kick the ladder away to stop others who are perhaps more qualified or talented, but lack the "connections".... He's doing nothing to address this unfair system he apparently objects to so much except paying lip service and pretending he's somehow "different" to the rest of them.....