´óÏó´«Ã½

DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

In Westminster they all function within a small band of behaviours that would not be acceptable currency in everyday life.

Abject obedience to Leader, Party, Whip and dogma - even to the point of espousing, and backing, a policy THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN. Such an individual is called a ‘consummate politician’ - sometimes rising to be 'a great parliamentarian'.

Would you take an ex-MP as a business partner?

Politics (any label) is the art of self-deception wrapped in the craft of deceiving others for their own good. Nick Clegg is a supreme example.

SPOILPARTYGAMES - FOR ALL PARTIES.

Well, barriesingleton, this isn't about Westminster, and the decisions that politicians make do matter.

@Michael Crick: is it relevant that there are no local elections in London, so that the seats being contested are more Conservative-friendly - a reason for the high proportion of seats where they have candidates?

I thought Labour were on the verge of bankruptcy last year, according to Prezza?

MY ERROR - THOUGH WESTMINSTER PARTY-POLITICS DO INTRUDE LOCALLY (#2)

I was at a tangent - error admitted. No apology, apologies are cheap. This instead:

I knew a councillor who threw off his party label to be independent, because he saw, at every vote, regardless of the issue 'debated', that the LOCAL councillors divided on NATIONAL party lines.

I was just watching the Daily Politics. Candidates wear party rosettes - just like a General Election. They are followed by pathetic acolytes holding the ultimate symbol of party politics THE HELIUM BALLOON - just like a General Election. What better emblem of NEGATIVE GRAVITAS than party balloons? What more to be said than:

SPOILPARTYGAMES

Ask your candidates: "Am I voting for the rosette or the rosette stand?"

Do you think that Clegg is a little paranoid?

UNDER THE MAMMON ETHOS THE ALTRUISTIC DONATION IS ABSENT (#3)

A good point TBG. Quid pro quo rules! (Loadsa - quid.)

All those party donations need to receive their 'just' return, if more are to follow. And now that only big money will do, big adjustments to legislation and government contracts are de rigueur - democracy under the Rule of Law.

The Tory coffers filled at a prodigious rate - Dave has a lot of favours to return.

As for Billion Dollar 'Bama - his 'to do' list could explain a lot of things . . .

PARANOID CLEGG (#5)

He should be Stevie, he is out to get himself! There is, in Clegg, the needy boy who tried to assuage his need with power and status. (Blair syndrome.)

Poor chap, the gods looked down from Olympus and fancied a bit of sport with him.

The needy boy was seduced by 'one sweet now' being unable to wait for the possibility of 'more sweets later'.

Nuff sed.

barriesingleton @7

I think that you're assessment of Clegg is spot on.

However, didn't he have to accept the sweet now? For a party whose central theme is PR, (and therefore coalitions) it would have been rather self-defeating to have turned Cameron down. It would, in effect, have been tantamount to saying, yes to coalitions but only with Labour. Which is, in my opinion, what would happen if we ever did move to PR

I ADMIT I HAVE NOT GROUND EXCEEDING SMALL ON THIS (#8)

I felt Clegg could have kept faith with his supporters by vowing support to the Tories on matters related to 'surviving' the monetary mess, but remaining a separate party. At a decent interval, he could have precipitated another election and done well on integrity.

I have a SNEAKING suspicion that Dave duped him and the 'position' of Deputy PM was just too tempting.

From memory - Labour plus L/Ds plus all the sweepings could not amass a majority?

barriesingleton @9

"From memory - Labour plus L/Ds plus all the sweepings could not amass a majority?"


Yes, they could have formed the ‘rainbow’, just about.

But, favouring that, over and above forming a coalition with the biggest single party, would have put the Lb-Dems and PR into sharp focus wouldn't it?

It would have been advertising the (obvious) fact that PR would just result in (given historical voting habits), permanent Lib-Lab pacts. As such, I don’t think that Clegg really had a choice.

But, I think you’re right, Cameron did seduce him with deputy PM

THE PLEASURE OF RATIONAL EXCHANGE (#10)

Appreciated John Bull. You leave me less certain.

I have just watched Simon Hughes 'being honourable' on TV. I then emailed him, in those terms, asking for assistance regarding the Conservative 'liar flyer'. His automatic reply says the rules do not allow him to engage with me (even though my local ninny has, unilaterally, closed the discussion). You can guess my response.

Honour is as honour does. We did not let Eichmann off for obeying orders.