12 Comments

• Nicola Prigg 12th Dec '11 - 7:27pm

  At the start it sounds like Clegg says “we don’t disagree” which is a double negative so they do agree but later on he says that they “do not agree”. Nick needs to make his words and meaning clearer.

• Ed Wilson 12th Dec '11 - 7:59pm

  This was a longer and better point, but it did remind me of Miliband repeating himself on strikes.

• Stephen Donnelly 12th Dec '11 - 8:39pm

  The leader of the Liberal Democrats should have been in the commons stating his position.

• MacDonald 12th Dec '11 - 9:18pm

  The Lib Dem leader should have been there, I m wondering if there was something to do with him and Ming Campbell backing Cameron then changing there minds, as thats the way it seemed, or have we been misinformed?
  With this kind of communication between the PM and deputy PM, is it not damaging for us to be seen as an irrelevant partner in the coalition?
  I know that Cameron’s descision will affect the Lib Dems even further in Scotland, after the disaster in the May elections, the polls are showing support for the SNP is rocketing and not only have we become a non entity, but Labour is also rapidly losing ground.
  Cameron cannot discuss the future of the UK in Europe, and as a comparison, people say to me that the Torys, Labour and the Lib Dems will not discuss the future of Scotland in the UK. Its a very simmilar situation and I hear some people reffering to the above mentioned 3 parties as the Unionists. With this inability to discuss or move in opinion on what is a huge issue in Scotland, ‘the unionist parties’ are declining quick!

• David Pollard 12th Dec '11 - 9:48pm

  He should have been there to take whatever was coming.

• Bill le Breton 12th Dec '11 - 10:07pm

  The feeling generated by watching the Statement and questions this afternoon was eerily like watching the fleet leave Portsmouth harbour for the Falklands, thirty years ago.

• Suzanne 12th Dec '11 - 10:45pm

  A relief to hear “I am here to build bridges ….”

• Red Rag 12th Dec '11 - 11:47pm

  It looks like Nicks refusal to turn upat the House of Commons has gone down like a lead balloon and the right wing press are lapping it up. Didn’t Nick look really happy when he stated the coalition will remain until 2015.

• Mike Barnes 12th Dec '11 - 11:49pm

  The fact that Clegg wasn’t there just gave Dorries and co free reign to hurl as much abuse at him as possible. He’s had a nightmare weekend, and today will be painted as a Clegg meltdown, throwing his toys out of the pram etc.

  Ridiculous behaviour from pretty much everybody involved.

• Matthew Huntbach 13th Dec '11 - 2:10pm

  Red Rag
  
  Didn’t Nick look really happy when he stated the coalition will remain until 2015.
  
  Stating that the coalition will remain until 2015 is another example of an inept negotiating strategy. The ONLY negotiating tool Clegg really has is the threat of pulling out. It’s my recognition of this that means despite my despair at the stream of strategic mistakes coming from him, and my unhappiness at us being forced into the position, I can’t align myself with the “LibDems have abandoned their principles and sold their souls” crowd, because their argument underneath seems to be that Clegg is in a position to force the Tories to abandon any Tory policies and adopt any Liberal Democrat policies as he dictates. I cannot align myself with people whose line is based on something which is not true, and since this applies to everyone I have heard since the coalition was formed who is outside and to the left of the Liberal Democrats when they are criticising the Liberal Democrats’ position, I have no choice but to remain a (highly critical) member of the party. If pulling out of the coaltion is ruled out, Clegg can only get through what it suits Cameron to let through in opposition to the “Tea Party” wing of the Conservative Party, a force to Cameron’s right which is pushing in the opposite direction to the Liberal Democrats.

  I’d be much happer in the party, and I think the party would be much better regarded by the public, if Clegg and those leading its national public relations were more honest about this, instead of using the opposite line and grossly exaggerating our influence with their constant reptition of this “75% of our manifesto implemented” line and much else damaging nonsense.

  Pulling out of the coalition early may be the “nuclear option”, but those in favour of the nuclear deterrent always use the line – it is to this day used in regard of Trident – that they will never say never, or even gives a precise description of when. The whole POINT of a “nuclear option” is that while one states one hopes never to be in the position of using it, and one is highly unlikely to use it, it is there and capable of being used. I do hope that whatever he says in public, Clegg is using the nuclear deterent words in private to the Tories. But, I am sorry, I doubt it, since the day I first heard him express his views I’ve never seen why so many people ever seemed impressed with him.

• Paul R 13th Dec '11 - 6:29pm

  Cameron et al have basically bounced the UK into an “EU withdrawal by default” position. As such they have ignored the spirit of the coalition agreement. Let this slide – which seems to be the default position of the (Lib Dem) party leadership – and the Conservative party’s Eurosceptics will be back pushing for more and more. And Cameron will just let himself be “pushed along” while all the time pretending to be helpless about it.

  The only way to counteract that is to push strongly the other way. That means deciding what the Lib Dem bottom line is and making this clear to all that the Lib Dem political party will use their “veto” over the Prime Minister and that he’ll be on the wrong end of a vote of no confidence if he goes past that bottom line.

• Chris 13th Dec '11 - 11:14pm

  “The only way to counteract that is to push strongly the other way. That means deciding what the Lib Dem bottom line is and making this clear to all that the Lib Dem political party will use their “veto” over the Prime Minister and that he’ll be on the wrong end of a vote of no confidence if he goes past that bottom line.”

  Is that threat remotely credible, though?

  What would the consequences of a vote of no confidence be for the Lib Dems? If it precipitated a General Election with the Lib Dems cast in the role of Quisling to “Bulldog Dave’s” Churchill, the party would be wiped out.

  But the only way to avoid that would be to construct the kind of “rainbow coalition” that was deemed to be unfeasible last year. A coalition in which Ed Miliband would be prime minister and Ed Balls chancellor. A coalition with the people the Lib Dems have spent the last 18 months hurling abuse at. And a coalition that would have to struggle to keep every last little minority party on board just to scrape a bare majority. My mind is boggling.

  You need to face up to the fact that the Lib Dems have got themselves into a position where they have no bargaining power whatsoever, and they’re just going to have to take whatever the Tories choose to dish out. And pray that by 2015 it somehow works out less than disastrously.