UK

3° London Hi 13°C / Lo 3°C

Clegg's popularity soars on two fronts

Lib Dem leader's stock rises with voters, while Mandelson concedes possibility of a coalition. Andrew Grice reports

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, leaves the Warrington Wolves Rugby Club

CHRIS RADBURN / PA

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, leaves the Warrington Wolves Rugby Club

Labour dangled the prospect of a Lib-Lab coalition government in front of Nick Clegg yesterday as a fresh poll showed that the Liberal Democrat leader's personal ratings have soared.

The Conservatives, alarmed by Mr Clegg's triumph in the first televised leaders' debates last week, issued a stark "vote Clegg, get Brown" warning as they tried to halt the Liberal Democrat bandwagon. The Tories will tell voters that backing the Liberal Democrats could result in a hung parliament with Gordon Brown remaining Prime Minister. A YouGov survey in today’s Sun newspaper puts the Liberal Democrats ahead on 33 per cent, the Tories on 32 per cent and Labour trailing on 26 per cent.

A ComRes survey of businessmen for The Independent revealed an improvement in Mr Clegg's standing. The proportion who have confidence in him has doubled from 20 to 41 per cent in the past month. Although he still trails David Cameron (65 per cent), he has surpassed Mr Brown's 28 per cent. The number of businessmen who believe the shadow Chancellor George Osborne "lacks experience" has risen from 78 to a record 80 per cent. The survey of 170 business leaders shows that the number who detect the "green shoots" of economic recovery in their sector has risen sharply in the past month from 49 to 61 per cent.

The economy will take centre stage this week with the publication of official figures on unemployment, inflation, the public finances and growth. Although the number of jobless has fallen in the past three months, ministers have been warned that Wednesday's figures may show a rise.

Video: Leaders shrug off debate woes

Lord Mandelson, who heads Labour's campaign, criticised some Liberal Democrat policies but made clear that a coalition government would not be a disaster. It is the first time a senior Labour figure has spoken about a Lib-Lab coalition, in which Liberal Democrats would sit in a Brown Cabinet. In a memo to Labour members, Lord Mandelson said: "I am not against coalition government in principle and for Britain, anything would be better than a Cameron-Osborne government."

The Secretary of State for Business said a two-party government would not be so stable without a "big unifying challenge". He named that as constitutional change, urging Liberal Democrat supporters in 100 or so Labour-Tory marginal seats to vote Labour to secure reform of the voting system for Westminster. He predicted, however, that the voters would turn away from their current "flirtation" with Mr Clegg.

Mr Brown adopted a similar two-pronged approach, branding the Liberal Democrats' economic policies "a mistake" but saying he wanted them to join a "progressive consensus". Interviewed on BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show, he tried to head off the "vote Clegg, get Brown" Tory attack by refusing to confirm he would serve a full five-year term in Downing Street.

At a press conference today Mr Brown will try to shift the spotlight to the economy and away from what has been called "Cleggmania". Labour insists the public's main concern is securing the recovery and the Prime Minister will attack over the Tories' decision to halt most of next year's rise in national insurance contributions, arguing that the £6bn of cuts it would require would risk a double-dip recession. The Tories insisted they would be "relentlessly positive" but would attack Liberal Democrat policies on immigration, crime and Europe, while warning that voting for Mr Clegg could keep Mr Brown in No 10. "It comes down to who you want to be prime minister," said one Tory source.

Speaking in Swindon, Mr Cameron said: "If you want to wake up on 7 May and be absolutely certain that you've got new leadership in this country and are not stuck with another five years of Gordon Brown, stuck with dithering and despair and depression, the only way to get that is a decisive Conservative vote."

The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable was asked if he would serve as Chancellor in the event of a hung parliament. He said he would act "not just in the party's interest but in the national interest", but would demand certain "fundamental economic policies" such as tackling the public deficit and getting banks lending again.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Cable in trouble over amnesty.
[info]dave1234567890 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 12:40 am (UTC)
Cable was repeatedly asked yesterday what numbers he thought would qualify for the amnesty and he didn't have a clue, but thought it might be more than 500,000 but couldn't give an uper figure. This policy seems not to have been thought through and is unlikely to be popular with the electorate, particularly as they are talking about an unknown number. Also the question arises if these 500,000 or 1 million or whatever the actual figure is are made legal, how many dependents would then be allowed in under HR legislation.
I think Clegg's support will now start falling away as their policies come under closer examination.
Re: Cable in trouble over amnesty.
[info]bryanmcgrath wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 04:39 am (UTC)
I can see hoe desperate the tories are with the wheels falling off what passes for their political band wagaon is spectacular style

Of course the origin for the amnesty idea is Boris Johnson, who will be the next tory leader, by about Christmas on current form.
Re: Cable in trouble over amnesty.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:45 pm (UTC)
Watch Cable with Andrew Neil (other poster suggestion) & you'll see how his supposed foresight was nothing of the sort.

Regards

None Tory voter
Boris Johnson wants an amnesty
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 12:12 pm (UTC)
Only his would be after five years, not ten.

So what the hell are you going on about?
Re: Boris Johnson wants an amnesty
[info]dave1234567890 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:48 pm (UTC)
Robert I am talking about official party policy and as far as I know an amnesty is the official party policy of the Lib Dems only. I do not see how a party can promise an amnesty when they haven't got a clue of the numbers involved it makes no sense. Cable conceded it could be 500,000 but had absolutely no idea what the upper figure could be, as was clear. I think this policy when examined more closely will be very unpopular. Do you know how they will treat all the dependents and before you say there won't be any, a lot of the cockle pickers for example were sending their money home to support their families after paying the gang masters. Also look what has happened in Italy they have had a number of amnesties after saying they would have only one and all it does is encourage more illegal immigrants.
This will happen again and again if you go down this road, unless every lorry is checked before leaving foreign ports which will never happen. Once the immigrants are in this country they will just disappear into the background and await the next Lib Dem amnesty, which is exactly what happens in Italy.
Re: Boris Johnson wants an amnesty
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 05:58 pm (UTC)
And your amazing, improved, totally cost effective method of tracking down and removing all illegals at one stroke would be what?

The number of illegal immigrants who can PROVE they have been here for ten years must be very few indeed.
Re: Boris Johnson wants an amnesty
[info]dave1234567890 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:36 pm (UTC)
I don't pretend to have a magic wand to solve this problem, which is probably why I am not standing as a prospective Lib Dem MP, I just think to pursue the amnesty line is totally wrong and will as the Italian example has shown exacerbate the problem . Also I do not think they have thought of what numbers of dependents could follow .I notice you think that very few would be able to prove that they have been here for 10 years. Well either you or Cable are wrong, because he conceded that there would be probably more than 500,000 which you may consider as few, but which strikes me as a significant number. Having said that I expect Cable will have revised his figures by next week, as flip flopping is after all, his speciality, so your figure could well be right.
Incidentally I have just been looking at a poll carried out on purely Lib Dem supporters yesterday. Over 50% did not know the amnesty was a policy and 49% were against, as opposed to 35% for, it turned out most of them did not have a clue what the Lib Dems policies were, but I guess they thought Nick Clegg had a nice smile.
Don't forget a vote for the Lib Dems should ensure Brown back as PM, what a thought!
Re: Cable in trouble over amnesty.- nonsense
[info]brumbar wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 04:07 pm (UTC)
The Government hasn't the faintest idea how many illegal immigrants there are in the country, so how on earth is Cable supposed to know?

As far as an amnesty is concerned, what else can we practically do to remove hundreds of thousands of people from this country apart from send in the troops. A lot of British - and colonial - people fought to free Europe from that kind of opression. By all means get rid of the gangsters, the nutters, the criminals and the drones, but we have no option but to come to an accomodation with decent, hard-working people who are prepared to pay their way, integrate and contribute.
[info]bebofpenge wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 01:17 am (UTC)
The Conservatives, alarmed by Mr Clegg's triumph in the first televised leaders' debates last week, issued a stark "vote Clegg, get Brown" warning
[info]cm999 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:48 am (UTC)
Better than vote Cameron get Cameron AND Osbourne
Scare campaign
[info]bebofpenge wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 01:19 am (UTC)
The Conservatives, alarmed by Mr Clegg's triumph in the first televised leaders' debates last week, issued a stark "vote Clegg, get Brown" warning.

On the other hand if you vote Cameron it is even worse - you get Cameron!
Re: Scare campaign
[info]timlagor wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:23 am (UTC)
I'm sure this will work just as well as "Vote Blair, Get Brown" did.
Re: Scare campaign
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:24 pm (UTC)
since we all know for a fact that clegg has sold out to brown we also know that a libdem vote means 5 more years of brown; but that is one marriage that won't last; 3 in a bed is too many, Nicky, Gordon and mandy
Don't get involved
[info]mitaman wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:10 am (UTC)


I was always told as a child that you should not get involved in someone else's fight, if you do, it will be you that comes worse off.

That is what Clegg has done, he has moved in between the two main fighters. Watch this week's debate, the poor lad is going to get a battering from Cameron and Brown.
Two older parties gang up
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
And he will be able to stick it to them good and proper over Iraq.

The more they attack him, the more he will look like the one the two old parties are trying to silence.
Clegg and Cable will keep immigration going
[info]saxontimes wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 05:42 am (UTC)
These 2 are no better at preserving the British culture than the Tories and Labour traitors. A vote for Clegg is a vote for continued mass immigration from third world countries.
Re: Clegg and Cable will keep immigration going
[info]human_writes_9 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:24 am (UTC)
What do you mean by "preserving British culture"? Do you see it as being under threat? What about immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely they should be allowed in here, since the UK helped tear their country apart.

We should also bulid more Mosques and Arabic speaking schools to help educate people from improverished Muslim countries that the UK have attacked in order to prevent them falling to the extreamists.

Mutli-culturism is here to stay, there is no way to "get rid off" other peoples and cultures that are now entrenched in the UK, you may as well embrace it and let go of your own culture and replace it with the new one, its the only way forward. If you don't like it, move.
Re: Clegg and Cable will keep immigration going
[info]michaelwi wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 09:41 am (UTC)
"British culture" is the rich result of the many immigrants who have been welcomed to the country over the last 2000 years.

Look at the roots of your surname and you'll probably find a Scandinavian, French, German or Eastern European origin.

Now stop whinging about immigration!
Not Change but Reform
[info]young_granny wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:08 am (UTC)
So far we have had no explaination from the Pundits when puzzling about why the turnout in some consituencies is so low. This morning there has been talk about non-belief in either of the two disgraced parties - who have brought us to this mess by their squabbling and kow-towing to the bankers and multinationals and have refused to reform the voting system.
I understand that the Liberals want to reform the system to make every vote count (which is dosen't now which could well be why people stop turning out).
Lets hear it loud and clear that the First Past the Post is a corrupt system and is on its way out.

Let the people's vote represent the numbers correctly and see what the turn out is then.
All this talk about Vote for Change when it should be Vote for Reform in every sense of the word.
There is no substance to the LibDems claim to represent change
[info]bonzo53 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:50 am (UTC)
Clegg claims that he represents "change".

But the only answer you ever get to "exactly what change?" is "The LibDem Party want proportional representation". Thsnkyou, but we already knew that.

That has zippo to do with addressing the public finances (except in the mind of LibDem theorists desperate to give some sort of response).

At the real-world policy level, the LibDems are unelectable because of their policies.

The LibDems are not a "centre" party. Numerous of their policies are to the left of Labour's. Cable, far from being the right man to address the debt and public spending as he so often claims, in fact has produced the SLOWEST plan of all three parties. He says one thing; his actions are different.

So let's go back to where most of us started this journey. We knew Brown and Labour had to go for mismanaging the economy and overborrowing massively. Only a clear Conservative majority will sort that out. Voting for a second socialist party to cure the problems created by Labour is nonsensical.

Vote Labour = 5 more years of Labour
Vote LibDem = 5 more years of Labour
Vote Conservative = Get Conservative
Re: There is no substance to the LibDems claim to represent change
[info]molly7807 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 10:14 am (UTC)
Vote LibDem = get LibDem. Clegg says he represents change because that's exactly what it would be after many years of equally disastrous Conservative and Labour rule. Not sure why you have a problem with that.

How exactly are Lib Dem policies unelectable? Creating a more progressive taxation system? Scrapping a ridiculously expensive nuclear weapons system? Promoting green technology? Creating a more liberal and fair society? Creating a more representative electoral system and House of Lords? Adopting a more passive stance in international war mongering?
Pretty electable policies I would say.

saxontimes exaggerations
[info]young_granny wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:51 am (UTC)
"Mass" immigeration? Surely a slight exaggeration? And I expect quite a number of those contribute to our work forces and pay taxes.
At least thats better than the "hidden migrants" who seek to control our money systems, supermarkets, and other assets. They do not pay taxes to support our country because they live elsewhere but still, unvoted for seek to use and control our country and lead us into illegal wars.
Its time we had a party who will stand up to them, and not make themselves rich beyound the dreams of averice out of our people's tiny income.
LibDem funding
[info]geiseric wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 07:56 am (UTC)
The media spent weeks investigating Lord Ashcroft. How about publishing a few details about LibDem funding, specifically Michael Brown, the convicted fraudster, who in March 2005 donated �2.4 million to the Liberal Democrats. He was the largest donor the party had ever had, giving ten times more than anything it had received before. He is currently on the run and was convicted in absentia. It is his money, or more accurately his victims' money, that will fund the LibDem election campaign.

So in order to give balance and to fully and impartially inform the electorate in the run up to the election, I call on the 'Independant' to publish a few articles on him. I know this isn't a new story, but then neither was Lord Ashcroft.

I shall keep a copy of this text in expectation of it not being published on first posting.
bonzo53
[info]young_granny wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:03 am (UTC)
How predictable!
Well done bonzo53 - more of the old bogyman stuff.
getting rattlead are you? Ha Ha
VOTE CLEGG AND GET BROWN:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:11 am (UTC)
Another five years of Brown will be ensured if voters turns to the suspect Clegg. Brown will walk all over him. Vote Clegg get Brown is perfectly true. A hung Parliament would be a disaster for our country.
Re: VOTE CLEGG AND GET BROWN:
[info]paul999 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 11:16 am (UTC)
Vote Clegg and get Change
Vote Tory and get Cameron and Osborne
Re: VOTE CLEGG AND GET BROWN:
[info]blocksofwood wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:04 pm (UTC)
Vote Clegg and get stitched up.
Vote Brown and get beaten up.
Vote Cameron and get something.
WE (will) STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER
[info]ameliemaryann wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 09:23 am (UTC)
Don't waste your time thinking about Cable's amnesties or Clegg's sending immigrants up to the North of England. In two years time the EU will have finalised its 'Common Immigration Policy' which will mean that we will have to let in EVERYONE from EVERYWHERE to settle ANYWHERE in Britain for EVER. Looking forward to that? If not, VOTE UKIP!
Re: WE (will) STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER
[info]human_writes_9 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 10:03 am (UTC)
Well the fact that UKIP and the BNP are fringe parties with little support shows that no one really cares. As a rich nation who have started devestating wars in the middle east and south Asia, as well as providing the arms for numours African wars to continue, it is hardly surprising we have immigrants coming here. Stopping economic exploitation, foreign wars and introducing heavy regulation of the arms trade would go alot further to preventing mass immigration than simply pulling out of the EU.
Duh!
[info]ninsim wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 09:56 am (UTC)
Get a grip people! The renewed 'popularity' of Lib-Dems is based on a allegedly 'superior' performance by Nick Clegg during a rather pointless T.V. 'debate'. If the Lib-Dems are so wonderful where was this support on the day before said T.V. extravaganza? The mass hysteria that catapulted Clegg into prominence is precisely why you will all enjoy the privilege of another five years of insane Brown and his sycophantic gang of incompetents. Whilst I hold no particular brief for he Conservatives I do believe they are the only viable alternative to the evils of the current Government whose 13 year rule has all but destroyed this country. Don't get worked up about voting the Tories in - just make sure you vote Brown out.
Takes two to tango
[info]liberalsoapbox wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 10:02 am (UTC)
It's a bit rich that Lib Dem voters are always assaulted with accusations of 'a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for (insert scare party)' when we weren't the ones who wanted this corrupt voting system in the first place and now Labour condescend to offer a coalition as though we were just waiting for their endorsement (this has the convenient side-effect of discrediting us to right-leaning swing voters for something we haven't agreed to).
Amnesty trouble?Or Media hype?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 01:05 pm (UTC)
I am sure that the Tory media boys will try and make this an issue as David Cameron regards China to be a bigger Nuclear threat to Britain than North Korea is to Asia and the rest of the world ,as he made clear in the debate , last Thursday . . Perhaps Cameron is running for premiership for India as well? Well that's another story and delves into occupied Tibet (I am sure Tibet could not have been further from Cameron's mind when he mentioned China to be as dangerous as Iran )
However going back to the point , Vince Cable actually made it clear that we need to detect the illegal immigrants first , before deciding on whether they meet the criteria. For example how would David Cameron handle the issue? Would he for instance use the London Metropolitan police tactics of trying to flush illegal immigrants by chance , by believing that they look like terrorists , follow them into an under ground station and bump them off while they sit in the train heading to work , a tactic they used with a certain illegal immigrant from Brazil (Charles De Menezes) ,for instance ? Cameron has no real idea on ho w to deal with ethn iullegal immigrant issue . Ofcourse with eth number of Illegal immigrants from China , it is likely they may create a big enough threat to recommend that we nuke China . But then again we need to ask the logic of david Cameron's reasoning to him .
Re: Amnesty trouble?Or Media hype?
[info]stuartc44 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 01:35 pm (UTC)
You seem to be a prime example of the idiots who are flocking to the Lib Dems after one TV performance.

Cameron did not say China was a bigger threat, he was pointing out that in an unstable world where countries like China continue to have nuclear weapons we should keep ours, engage your brain. China might not be a threat at present but it is no friend of the UK. Oh and the Chinese are only in Tibet for the mineral resources, end of story... not sure what your point is though?

On immigration no party has a decent policy, the Lib Dem one being the most insane. Ask some other countries who have had tried an amnesty what happened... increased immigration.

None of the three will be getting my vote until somebody comes clean about the only important issue in this election, how to reduce the deficit. The Lib Dems and Labour are leading us on the path to an IMF visit (70's anybody) and I have no idea if the Tories have the balls to reduce it. Talking about �10 billion here and there is crap when we are borrowing �168 billion this year alone.

The electorite seem to be in denial about the pain that is coming whoever gets in, I'm just not looking forward to the interest rate spike when the money markets make us squeel when we need to sell our debt for June...
Re: Amnesty trouble?Or Media hype?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 01:56 pm (UTC)
Lets put it this way stuartc44. The so Called "Idiots" as you so " Modestly", Sorry I Mean you so ARROGANTLY Put it , (and ruin the rest of your rambling on , on your comments ) ,actually have Nick Clegg higher up on popularity than David Cameron , who would have state funding for schools stopped in favour of charities running schools , and not apologising for antagonising china by calling them a as big a threat as Iran .
You are not related to Rupert Murdoch or paid by him by any chance are you Stuartc44???? Well ?? Are you ?? Surely you are not going to claim that Nick Clegg did not look more intelligent and articulate than Cameron ? After all does Nick Clegg regard China more of a threat than North Korea? Do You?
Re: Amnesty trouble?Or Media hype?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:32 pm (UTC)
With regards to the deficit . The deficit didnt grow all of a sudden within 13 years. Was it not the last Tory Government which joined the disasterous ERM ? If the economy was so good under Thatcherite economics , why did Norman Lamond join the European Exchange rate mechanism which as a disaterous failure for the British economy ?

Oh and before I forget Chairman Mao did not invade Tibet for the minerals, he was thinking of Millitary advantage,as he believed in world domination (He was a really nasty man you know Stuartc44?, or perhaps you dont? Thats maybe why you are not clear ? I take it you do know that China was invaded under Mao?
Re: Amnesty trouble?Or Media hype?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:48 pm (UTC)
I appear to have a David Cameron Style Gaff by stating that China was invaded Under mao. Actually what I meant was if Mao was to be leader of any other country in the future , he would invade China(actually I didn't ! It was a Gaff! I meant Tibet was invaded under Mao. Apologies)
Oh and before I forget Chairman Mao did not invade Tibet for the minerals, he was thinking of Millitary advantage,as he believed in world domination (He was a really nasty man you know Stuartc44?, or perhaps you dont? Thats maybe why you are not clear ? I take it you do know that Tibet was invaded under Mao?
Where is the debate on foreign policy?
[info]alexweir1949 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:17 pm (UTC)
Britain s foreign policy is immensely damaging to the third world but has almost zero benefit for the man in the street. Uganda and Zimbabwe have been hugely damaged by british regime change in 1971 and by a british-frauded election in 1980. The international court of justice will award 50 billion pounds from the british taxpayer . Alex weir. Harare
VOTE CLEGG AND BE STUCK WITH BROWN:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:45 pm (UTC)
Vote Clegg and get Brown. Abandon Trident and lose seat on UN Security Council. What a a bloody mess.
A Lib/Lab pact would paralyse the country and cause a run on the pound.
Re: VOTE CLEGG AND BE STUCK WITH BROWN:
[info]molly7807 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:59 pm (UTC)
Your views are reflective of a time when GB was an imperial power. Why should we have a seat on the UN Security Council anyway I would say? We are no longer a super power, sorry to break it to you. WWII was over 60years ago too. The time has finally come to look to Europe, not USA for strategic long-term security, and create constructive relationships with our European partners.
Your 'paralyse the country' and 'run on the pound' comments have no basis in truth whatsoever, they are just very weak assertions to try and scare people into voting for Conservative.
How much does.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:50 pm (UTC)
Michael Brown AWOL fraudster owe the taxman/payer & if he does can we have our �2:4 million back Cleggie.
No Nuclear weapons under Brown? Are you serious?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 02:53 pm (UTC)
Is anyone seriously claiming there are no nuclear weapons in Britain under Brown ?? Well apart from David Cameron perhaps ?
Re: No Nuclear weapons under Brown? Are you serious?
[info]blocksofwood wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:06 pm (UTC)
Nah he sold them off to India, the trident missiles sitting Scotland are only hollow cases.
Re: No Nuclear weapons under Brown? Are you serious?
[info]alf001 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 05:06 pm (UTC)
Well That I might beleive!
poor little nicky out of his depth
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:29 pm (UTC)
if he's going to play with mandy he had better keep his back to the wall; that's one greasy pole he really ought not try to climb; it might be a bit much to swallow
i really don't think that the poor boy knows quite how sinister and devious mandy is;if he doesn't wake up soon, he'll get well shafted
Brown money
[info]roysses wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 03:53 pm (UTC)
geiseric

Whilst it is fun to live in history, it is pointless
The Brown money was given for the 2005 General Election and was spent on the 2005 General Election. Money can only be spent once.
Also, he was convicted in 2007. When he donated the money, it was legal and he had no criminal convictions. Do you know how many Conservative donors will be convicted of fraud in 2012?

Rob Saunders
[info]mwreid wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 04:14 pm (UTC)
''. It is the first time a senior Labour figure has spoken about a Lib-Lab coalition, in which Liberal Democrats would sit in a Brown Cabinet.''

Arrogant or what ? Mandy you are third in the polls you don'y get to pick the cabinet .

Clegg would be barking mad to enter into a deal with labour.

Why do a deal with anyone ? If he does well make constitutional reform the first item on the agenda and a fresh election. Or no deal.

Never believe a Tory or a Nulabour Promise Nick- they will betray you.
What if...
[info]yorkie31 wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 05:31 pm (UTC)
If the Labour and Tory parties had not been in power for the last 65 years we would probably think that everything that Brown and Cameron has to say was wonderful. Clegg makes just as many errors in his statements, doesn't explain where money will come from and doesn't think through the policies. The Lib-Dems are not the answer. We need to look carefully at what they all say and realise that we might judge Labour and Tory more harshly because of past mistakes. The other parties have not had the chance to make any mistakes but they will if they are in power.
New less than reality show announced
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:35 pm (UTC)
Cleggie & Brown do the Tango with Mandy for the excuse me.

Question is who'll lead - Mandy of course with Cleggie led all the way up the garden path.
Fairness in elections
[info]rajeshmunglani wrote:
Monday, 19 April 2010 at 08:53 pm (UTC)
Ironic isnt it that even though labour may get the fewest votes now, it is likely to get the most seats. The tories will probably poll more total votes than any other party but achieve only second place.
What will Clegg do to represent the majority voters as he claims he will do ? He should form an alliance with the tories. That would be proper porportional representation.

I would be very upset if the LibDems tainted themselves with the Labour party which sold off our Gold reserves, put a dividend tax on pensions, wasted billions on ill conceived NHS reforms, allowed uncontrolled immigration, and promised to put and end to boom /bust cycle-just look where we are, broke their promise on the EU referendum and to cap it all, despite the expenses debacle, you could still hire a labour minister for a few thousand a day to change government policy.

Power corrupts all political parties, absolute power has absolutly corrupted Labour, they dont deserve a fourth term.

A Tory/Lib dem pact needs a chance to show what it can do.

Rajesh Munglani

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date