Chris Huhne, what does it say about UK politics.

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-02-06 8:58 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

 

He will mind you saying, trust me and put you right :D

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2013-02-06 8:58 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

 

 

 

Put you wine down and read it again Dave.

 

John said " are they " - not - " they are "

 

 

 

;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2013-02-06 9:21 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-02-06 8:58 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

 

 

 

Put you wine down and read it again Dave.

 

John said " are they " - not - " they are "

 

 

 

;-)

 

But he didn't say OR are they independent? ;-).................so by definition they are either fascist or communists :D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

malc d - 2013-02-06 9:21 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-02-06 8:58 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

 

 

 

Put you wine down and read it again Dave.

 

John said " are they " - not - " they are "

 

 

 

;-)

 

I think that's just a play on words, trust me tries very hard with that, read it again as you suggest and break it down.

Are they independent fascists or independent communists is I think to show his disapproval

If not why not include another category, or are they free of party ties and able to represent the people and their views that voted for them as opposed to towing a party line.

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-02-06 8:58 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-06 9:56 AM

 

 

I am suspicious of Independent candidates whenever they appear on the ballot paper. What do they stand for? Are they independent fascists or independent communists? At least when people sign up to a political party then you have some idea of what they stand for and you are more able to decide whether that is what you want.

 

Bit of a sweeping statement there John, if you don't mind me saying ;-).................independents are either fascists or communists 8-)...............I suspect most have strong opinions about a local issue, along with the local electorate..............

 

Which is why George Galloway got in with the muslim vote ;-)

 

No, don't mind you saying - but, as Malc pointed out, I was asking a question not making a statement. It was shorthand for saying that if someone calls themselves independent they could be absolutely anywhere on the political spectrum and it might be difficult, therefore, to decide whether they were on your bit of it!

[CliveH]

That is a possibility of course - but if someone puts themselves up as a candidate then it isn usual for them to have a track record of sorts - and these days it is easy to check that out.

 

I would say the election in Eastleigh is a classic case where a good truly Independent candidate would have a better chance than ever.

 

With the Conservatives upsetting people over the debacle of child benefit, the lowering of GAD rates to 100% then a U-turn within months to put it back to 120% and so on - I doubt that many will want to vote for a "Call me Dave" candidate or a "Cleggy" - especially as the Lib-Dems track record of Ministers within the coalition is so appalling.

 

Labour is seen as a bit of a non-starter in "leafy" Hampshire - but they could benefit from apathy and whatever protest vote available.

 

So - is it not possible that a good local Independent candidate could do well?

 

The feeling of anger and bitterness against all three mainstream parties is high. Most will just say - sod it - and not vote - but given another choice? Another option?

 

 

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-02-07 5:32 AM

 

That is a possibility of course - but if someone puts themselves up as a candidate then it isn usual for them to have a track record of sorts - and these days it is easy to check that out.

 

I would say the election in Eastleigh is a classic case where a good truly Independent candidate would have a better chance than ever.

 

With the Conservatives upsetting people over the debacle of child benefit, the lowering of GAD rates to 100% then a U-turn within months to put it back to 120% and so on - I doubt that many will want to vote for a "Call me Dave" candidate or a "Cleggy" - especially as the Lib-Dems track record of Ministers within the coalition is so appalling.

 

Labour is seen as a bit of a non-starter in "leafy" Hampshire - but they could benefit from apathy and whatever protest vote available.

 

So - is it not possible that a good local Independent candidate could do well?

 

The feeling of anger and bitterness against all three mainstream parties is high. Most will just say - sod it - and not vote - but given another choice? Another option?

 

 

 

Very good point. I suppose my suspicion of "independent" candidates is fuelled by what happens on the local council in the area I now live in. When the Tories are riding high in the polls, a certain group of people proudly stand as Conservatives; when things are going badly for them they suddenly all start standing as Independents!

 

I still think, on the whole, I'd rather know where my representatives are coming from. The words Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP, Green etc instantly tell you a lot about those candidates. I am not saying independents wouldn't be welcome but if they genuinely were independent I'm not sure how you could form an independent government.

 

 

[CliveH]

Independents would not need to be voted in in sufficient numbers so as to form a government - we just need a sufficient number to break the status quo re the main two and a half parties.

 

We onl have a government now because it is made up of one and half parties after all (lol)

 

Joking aside - if there were a block of independents - say 25 to 30 - non of them under any whip - all able to vote on the merit of each proposal and if they voted no in significant numbers then the proposal would fail, it would make sure that the situation we had with Labour where just over one third of the countries votes got them a HUGE majority in the HoC's is less likely to happen.

 

I have no idea if this is likely to happen - all i can see is that other democracies have used this voting tactic when the mainstream parties on both sides start taking the p!ss.

 

I see the electorate being hacked off enough with the politicans of all parties that given a suitable nudge - the same thing could happen here.

 

 

[John 47]

I accept that it could work well if it operates as you say but it seems to me there is a potential downside too. You might get a situation where 25 - 30 independents held up legislation for their own ends. I suppose it all depends on whether you agree with those independents, which brings me back to my main concern - how do I know what they stand for?

 

As for the party whip thing, there are quite a few current MPs in all parties who don't pay any attention to the whip and act as virtual independents. Of course the majority, who want jobs in government and therefore are not prepared to rock the boat, go along with the whip but there are quite a few "old stagers" who long ago gave up any hope of a job and who are about as independent as anyone could be.

 

It would certainly make things more interesting, though!

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-02-07 9:34 AMI accept that it could work well if it operates as you say but it seems to me there is a potential downside too. You might get a situation where 25 - 30 independents held up legislation for their own ends. I suppose it all depends on whether you agree with those independents, which brings me back to my main concern - how do I know what they stand for? As for the party whip thing, there are quite a few current MPs in all parties who don't pay any attention to the whip and act as virtual independents. Of course the majority, who want jobs in government and therefore are not prepared to rock the boat, go along with the whip but there are quite a few "old stagers" who long ago gave up any hope of a job and who are about as independent as anyone could be. It would certainly make things more interesting, though!

 

Somewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AMSomewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

Can't argue with that! But - and I've just thought of this so its probably full of holes - what about the following scenario:A large rural county demands hospitals in all towns of over 15,000 people because they are fed up with travelling large distances. All the major parties reject the idea because it would be farr too expensive. Several independents get elected for that county on the back of the campaign. That small group holds the balance of power and literally blackmails the government into providing the hospitals in return for not bringing down the government. That county ends up with the best hospital system in the country and to pay for it the rest of the NHS has to cut back and the rest of the country suffers. Maybe far-fetched but I can't help feeling that any independents will be largely single-issue MPs dominated by local issues and without a collective oversight.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Apathy is the name of the game now. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking after seeing the merry-go-round all of my life that people get to a certain point and simply think why bother voting at all.

 

Here in Gwynedd it is a certainty that Plaid Cymru are returned time after time, not because of their policies,simply because the majority Welsh here see them as their natural party.

 

Labour have their own traditional supporters,as do the Tories, perhaps if that log jam of mindsets could be altered with people voting purely on policies things may change, but after 67 years I ain't holding my breath that it will happen any time soon, so the same tired old lot just swap places time after time.

 

My view is voting should be compulsory, yes many would not have a clue what they were voting for, but at least everyone would have a voice.

[RogerC]

1footinthegrave - 2013-02-07 12:40 PMApathy is the name of the game now. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking after seeing the merry-go-round all of my life that people get to a certain point and simply think why bother voting at all. Here in Gwynedd it is a certainty that Plaid Cymru are returned time after time, not because of their policies,simply because the majority Welsh here see them as their natural party.Labour have their own traditional supporters,as do the Tories, perhaps if that log jam of mindsets could be altered with people voting purely on policies things may change, but after 67 years I ain't holding my breath that it will happen any time soon, so the same tired old lot just swap places time after time.My view is voting should be compulsory, yes many would not have a clue what they were voting for, but at least everyone would have a voice.

 

I agree with the 'apathy' comment.  IMO it is the trend of modern politics to indulge in 'sound bites' and 'spin' (distorting the truth) that has made the electorate apathetic.  Add to that politicians with little or no moral compass and you have the 'perfect storm' to alienate the populace.

 

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-02-07 10:39 AM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AMSomewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

Can't argue with that! But - and I've just thought of this so its probably full of holes - what about the following scenario:A large rural county demands hospitals in all towns of over 15,000 people because they are fed up with travelling large distances. All the major parties reject the idea because it would be farr too expensive. Several independents get elected for that county on the back of the campaign. That small group holds the balance of power and literally blackmails the government into providing the hospitals in return for not bringing down the government. That county ends up with the best hospital system in the country and to pay for it the rest of the NHS has to cut back and the rest of the country suffers. Maybe far-fetched but I can't help feeling that any independents will be largely single-issue MPs dominated by local issues and without a collective oversight.

 

Whilst I agree your example is 'far fetched' is it any worse than pressing ahead with HS2 which will take aeons to complete, cost £32.7 billion not including the inevitable cost overruns, will probably not benefit 'native labour forces' because like the Olympics the contractors will likely bring in cheap EU labour.  I find it rather woeful that almost every 'major' project is London centric.  HS2 will benefit relatively few people whereas if the money was spent on road infrastructure and keeping rail fares at an acceptable level the populace would be much better off.  Add to that the fact that homes are already becoming unsellable because of the route passing close by and it seems to me it is an ill considered project.

 

Press extract from the FT:

The government has calculated that capital and operating costs of £59bn over a 67-year period would outstrip the predicted revenues of £33bn from the line, leaving £26bn to be funded by the taxpayer.

 

Now is it such a good idea?

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-02-07 2:04 PM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 10:39 AM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AMSomewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

Can't argue with that! But - and I've just thought of this so its probably full of holes - what about the following scenario:A large rural county demands hospitals in all towns of over 15,000 people because they are fed up with travelling large distances. All the major parties reject the idea because it would be farr too expensive. Several independents get elected for that county on the back of the campaign. That small group holds the balance of power and literally blackmails the government into providing the hospitals in return for not bringing down the government. That county ends up with the best hospital system in the country and to pay for it the rest of the NHS has to cut back and the rest of the country suffers. Maybe far-fetched but I can't help feeling that any independents will be largely single-issue MPs dominated by local issues and without a collective oversight.

 

Whilst I agree your example is 'far fetched' is it any worse than pressing ahead with HS2 which will take aeons to complete, cost £32.7 billion not including the inevitable cost overruns, will probably not benefit 'native labour forces' because like the Olympics the contractors will likely bring in cheap EU labour.  I find it rather woeful that almost every 'major' project is London centric.  HS2 will benefit relatively few people whereas if the money was spent on road infrastructure and keeping rail fares at an acceptable level the populace would be much better off.  Add to that the fact that homes are already becoming unsellable because of the route passing close by and it seems to me it is an ill considered project.

 

Press extract from the FT:

The government has calculated that capital and operating costs of £59bn over a 67-year period would outstrip the predicted revenues of £33bn from the line, leaving £26bn to be funded by the taxpayer.

 

Now is it such a good idea?

I have to agree with you - probably no worse but, then again, is it any better? If the answer was easy no doubt somebody would have come up with it by now. I find myself agreeing with onefootinthegrave that compulsory voting might be a good idea - but are things any better in Australia where it is in force? Depressing, isn't it?It seems to me that politics used to be a matter of principle; these days it seems to be just a career choice. What went wrong?

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-02-07 2:22 PM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 2:04 PM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 10:39 AM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AMSomewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

Can't argue with that! But - and I've just thought of this so its probably full of holes - what about the following scenario:A large rural county demands hospitals in all towns of over 15,000 people because they are fed up with travelling large distances. All the major parties reject the idea because it would be farr too expensive. Several independents get elected for that county on the back of the campaign. That small group holds the balance of power and literally blackmails the government into providing the hospitals in return for not bringing down the government. That county ends up with the best hospital system in the country and to pay for it the rest of the NHS has to cut back and the rest of the country suffers. Maybe far-fetched but I can't help feeling that any independents will be largely single-issue MPs dominated by local issues and without a collective oversight.

 

Whilst I agree your example is 'far fetched' is it any worse than pressing ahead with HS2 which will take aeons to complete, cost £32.7 billion not including the inevitable cost overruns, will probably not benefit 'native labour forces' because like the Olympics the contractors will likely bring in cheap EU labour.  I find it rather woeful that almost every 'major' project is London centric.  HS2 will benefit relatively few people whereas if the money was spent on road infrastructure and keeping rail fares at an acceptable level the populace would be much better off.  Add to that the fact that homes are already becoming unsellable because of the route passing close by and it seems to me it is an ill considered project.

 

Press extract from the FT:

The government has calculated that capital and operating costs of £59bn over a 67-year period would outstrip the predicted revenues of £33bn from the line, leaving £26bn to be funded by the taxpayer.

 

Now is it such a good idea?

I have to agree with you - probably no worse but, then again, is it any better? If the answer was easy no doubt somebody would have come up with it by now. I find myself agreeing with onefootinthegrave that compulsory voting might be a good idea - but are things any better in Australia where it is in force? Depressing, isn't it?It seems to me that politics used to be a matter of principle; these days it seems to be just a career choice. What went wrong?

 

Woohoo...I agree 100% but as for what went wrong?  Weak leadership, self interest, greed, spin, lack of morals and 'no one held to account'.  At least in the past the likes of Hesseltine/Brittan etc had the decency to resign.  These days it's merely a matter of calling criminal acts 'wrongdoing' then saying 'lessons will be learned' when they never are and the culprits simply move sideways for a while then sneak back in.  A classic example is that of Sir (maybe it should be cur?) David Nicholson presiding over the Mid Staffs NHS trust during a period when over 400 people died of neglect simply moves on to become the NHS Chief Executive.  He and a great many others should be facing Corporate manslaughter charges........but they wont!!!!!!!!

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-02-07 3:06 PM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 2:22 PM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 2:04 PM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 10:39 AM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AMSomewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

Can't argue with that! But - and I've just thought of this so its probably full of holes - what about the following scenario:A large rural county demands hospitals in all towns of over 15,000 people because they are fed up with travelling large distances. All the major parties reject the idea because it would be farr too expensive. Several independents get elected for that county on the back of the campaign. That small group holds the balance of power and literally blackmails the government into providing the hospitals in return for not bringing down the government. That county ends up with the best hospital system in the country and to pay for it the rest of the NHS has to cut back and the rest of the country suffers. Maybe far-fetched but I can't help feeling that any independents will be largely single-issue MPs dominated by local issues and without a collective oversight.

 

Whilst I agree your example is 'far fetched' is it any worse than pressing ahead with HS2 which will take aeons to complete, cost £32.7 billion not including the inevitable cost overruns, will probably not benefit 'native labour forces' because like the Olympics the contractors will likely bring in cheap EU labour.  I find it rather woeful that almost every 'major' project is London centric.  HS2 will benefit relatively few people whereas if the money was spent on road infrastructure and keeping rail fares at an acceptable level the populace would be much better off.  Add to that the fact that homes are already becoming unsellable because of the route passing close by and it seems to me it is an ill considered project.

 

Press extract from the FT:

The government has calculated that capital and operating costs of £59bn over a 67-year period would outstrip the predicted revenues of £33bn from the line, leaving £26bn to be funded by the taxpayer.

 

Now is it such a good idea?

I have to agree with you - probably no worse but, then again, is it any better? If the answer was easy no doubt somebody would have come up with it by now. I find myself agreeing with onefootinthegrave that compulsory voting might be a good idea - but are things any better in Australia where it is in force? Depressing, isn't it?It seems to me that politics used to be a matter of principle; these days it seems to be just a career choice. What went wrong?

 

Woohoo...I agree 100% but as for what went wrong?  Weak leadership, self interest, greed, spin, lack of morals and 'no one held to account'.  At least in the past the likes of Hesseltine/Brittan etc had the decency to resign.  These days it's merely a matter of calling criminal acts 'wrongdoing' then saying 'lessons will be learned' when they never are and the culprits simply move sideways for a while then sneak back in.  A classic example is that of Sir (maybe it should be cur?) David Nicholson presiding over the Mid Staffs NHS trust during a period when over 400 people died of neglect simply moves on to become the NHS Chief Executive.  He and a great many others should be facing Corporate manslaughter charges........but they wont!!!!!!!!

There are principled MPs around but they don't get anywhere in the corporate hierarchy. We now seem to be stuck in the American mould of only choosing representatives who have bland backgrounds and look good on tv. The likes of Lloyd George, Churchill and so on wouldn't stand a chance today - too risky or too drunk. As a result we end up with boring identikit productionline people who are nothing like the electorate they are supposed to represent.

[malc d]

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 9:34 AMI accept that it could work well if it operates as you say but it seems to me there is a potential downside too. You might get a situation where 25 - 30 independents held up legislation for their own ends. I suppose it all depends on whether you agree with those independents, which brings me back to my main concern - how do I know what they stand for? As for the party whip thing, there are quite a few current MPs in all parties who don't pay any attention to the whip and act as virtual independents. Of course the majority, who want jobs in government and therefore are not prepared to rock the boat, go along with the whip but there are quite a few "old stagers" who long ago gave up any hope of a job and who are about as independent as anyone could be. It would certainly make things more interesting, though!

 

Somewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

I would have thought that was normal political ' horse - trading ' in a coalition government.The Tories, and their supporters, are bound to be upset because they didn't get what they wanted.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Did you guys catch this little gem.......................

 

Shamed former MP Chris Huhne has grabbed one last lump of taxpayers' cash by buying a £600 iPad on his expenses just before he quit.

Shortly before he pleaded guilty in court to asking his ex-wife to take his speeding points, the Lib Dem decided to treat himself to a top of the range Apple tablet.

 

Plus he will get apparently a severance package of £70.000

 

You couldn't make it up. >:-)

[RogerC]

malc d - 2013-02-07 4:43 PM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 9:34 AMI accept that it could work well if it operates as you say but it seems to me there is a potential downside too. You might get a situation where 25 - 30 independents held up legislation for their own ends. I suppose it all depends on whether you agree with those independents, which brings me back to my main concern - how do I know what they stand for? As for the party whip thing, there are quite a few current MPs in all parties who don't pay any attention to the whip and act as virtual independents. Of course the majority, who want jobs in government and therefore are not prepared to rock the boat, go along with the whip but there are quite a few "old stagers" who long ago gave up any hope of a job and who are about as independent as anyone could be. It would certainly make things more interesting, though!

 

Somewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

I would have thought that was normal political ' horse - trading ' in a coalition government.The Tories, and their supporters, are bound to be upset because they didn't get what they wanted.

 

I agree there's always going to be a degree of that but in this instance 'Calamity Clegg' went back on his commitment to support the changes because he didn't get his way on Lords reform......smacks of being a 'petulant little git' to me.

 

[malc d]

RogerC - 2013-02-07 9:13 PM

malc d - 2013-02-07 4:43 PM

RogerC - 2013-02-07 10:01 AM

John 47 - 2013-02-07 9:34 AMI accept that it could work well if it operates as you say but it seems to me there is a potential downside too. You might get a situation where 25 - 30 independents held up legislation for their own ends. I suppose it all depends on whether you agree with those independents, which brings me back to my main concern - how do I know what they stand for? As for the party whip thing, there are quite a few current MPs in all parties who don't pay any attention to the whip and act as virtual independents. Of course the majority, who want jobs in government and therefore are not prepared to rock the boat, go along with the whip but there are quite a few "old stagers" who long ago gave up any hope of a job and who are about as independent as anyone could be. It would certainly make things more interesting, though!

 

Somewhat less despicable than 'Cleggys mob' vetoing the Commons/boundaries reform because he didn't get his way over the Lords reform.  That was probably the most public case of 'political petulance' I've ever read about.

Extract from news about the Lib Dems conference 2012:

 

Lib Dems have overwhelmingly backed Nick Clegg's decision to "extract a price" for the Tory revolt over House of Lords reform by blocking plans for Westminster boundary changes. 

 

What we have done to deserve such a spoilt brat in a position of 'power' is beyond me.

I would have thought that was normal political ' horse - trading ' in a coalition government.The Tories, and their supporters, are bound to be upset because they didn't get what they wanted.

 

I agree there's always going to be a degree of that but in this instance 'Calamity Clegg' went back on his commitment to support the changes because he didn't get his way on Lords reform......smacks of being a 'petulant little git' to me.

It seems to be generally accepted ( certainly on all the political discussions that I have watched on TV ) that the boundary changes that the Tories wanted may help them to win the next election.Why would the Lib-Dems want to do that - especially if they got no trade off for something they wanted ? As far as I can see Clegg has just taken a straightforward political decision.