Add a comment January 3rd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Labour have had a few. The Conservatives too. But now it’s the Lib Dems turn to have another* donation ’scandal’.
The Lib Dems always claim to be less corrupt than anyone else, yet this just proves what is more likely is that because no-one really cares, they just get caught less. And now for them to get a little of their own medicine, with calls for an inquiry.
They are at least as bad as everyone else.
British politics may not be whiter than white, but it is at least better than most others. Of course we want - and should want - it to be whiter than white, but that will only be achieved through a requirement for as good as complete transparency over party funding and diligent journalists keeping a tab on politicians of all parties.
What will be interesting about this is how new leader Nick Clegg reacts to and deals with it.
* Remember Michael Brown’s £2.4m, anyone?
1 Comment December 21st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
So Clegg’s named his
front bench team. What a yawn. There’s been very few changes, and certainly no inspirational appointments. But the one [and only] fact that has interested/amused me is this one:
The frontbench team has expanded from 23 under Sir Menzies’s leadership to 30 - with another two MPs attending its meetings. It means almost half of all the 63 Lib Dem MPs have places in the senior team. (
BBC)
Bwahahaha! So it’s hardly a front bench of the
best talent in the Lib Dems, but
all of it!
2 Comments December 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Only one political party could consider
59 to be a good age for a ‘
yoof advisor‘. I mean, for crying out loud, at 59 ex-rocker Brian Eno is older than my parents!
He is even nineteen years older than the man who has appointed him!
Clegg has made a big mistake with this appointment. Appointing an old man to advise them on youth issues just makes them look ridiculous, especially to the very youths they are trying to attract.
Add a comment December 19th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
The new leader of the Liberal Democrats doesn’t believe in God. Like it really matters. Morality isn’t reliant on religion in the slightest - you can be a good person as an Atheist, or a bad man as a religious fundamentalist of any persuasion.
However, that Clegg has revealed his lack of religion is commendable, even though it’s likely to have any real impact in any direction, considering the minimal importance of religion in British politics - though I can’t help but wonder whether this could have affected the very slim margin by which he won the Lib Dem leadership.
3 Comments December 18th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
The Lib Dems have decided who will be their third leader in three years, choosing between two virtually identical candidates. So close were they considered that the Lib Dem membership could barely decide which they wanted:
Nick Clegg: 20,988
Chris Huhne: 20,477
So only 511 more members preferred Clegg to Huhne - out of the 41,465 Lib Dem members who voted. Hardly a resounding victory, with [if my maths is correct] a less than 1% majority. Thus, Clegg will always have Huhne peering over his shoulder, and the perfect leader-in-waiting should Clegg falter even a step.
But the problem Clegg now faces is how to get himself and his party taken seriously. He will be viewed by many as Cameron-lite, especially considering his relatively similar looks. He will also have to produce results, since the Lib Dems will be expecting him to emulate Cameron’s early successes - even if on a reduced scale.
“Calamity” Clegg’s election by such a small margin is a bad result for the Lib Dems. He has been considered the front-runner for the position for so long that for him to end up only just winning must cast doubt over his long-term ability to perform. had Huhne won, however, the opposite would have have been true, and the Lib Dems would have been seen to be on the “up” since Huhne has performed so well.
But Clegg, even though he will never be Prime Minister, may yet be the most powerful man in politics should the outcome of the next general election produce a hung parliament and thus give Clegg the role of king-maker - even the execution of this role could as easily destroy as make him. The Conservatives have already started setting out their stall as the only possible coalition partner for the Lib Dems, should a hung parliament happen - a result which is boosted by Clegg’s election.
Add a comment December 17th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Ordovicius asks whether David Cameron’s overtures towards the Liberal Democrats can be “categorised as a case of unrequited love” and “[w]ill it lead to Dave moping like a spurned lover?” Personally, I can’t see it like that at all. Instead, it seems to me far more like Cameron setting out his stall as the man who is willing to make compromises and the man who cannot be blamed if Britain ends up with a minority government of any party.
Rather than unrequited love, it more about setting the Lib Dems up. By suggesting that he is willing to compromise should the occasion demand it, Cameron is giving the Lib Dems no choice about whom to select as coalition partner should the results demand it. It is about setting the Conservatives up as the non-partisan politician, as the leader who will compromise and lead a coalition government if that is what the electorate decide.
In stead of unrequited love, it’s more about stitching the Lib Dems up, and giving them no choice but to select the Conservatives as coalition partners should the situation arise.
2 Comments December 9th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Vince Cable has said that the Lib Dem leadership race is “very close” as it enters the last week of voting. Really? So what. Who cares? All that matters it the final result. There have been plenty of comments coming from both sides of the leadership battle and from the Lib Dems in general about how close run this race is between TweedleClegg and TweedleHuhne. But why do they keep saying this? I can’t remember anything similar happening in the final stages of the last Conservative leadership race.
It seems to me that this is quite simply an attempt to maintain some of the marginal interest that has been paid to the Lib Dems during their leadership race now that the voting has started and as the campaigning ends. But all it does is make people bored of the subject. It seems that every few days recently either Clegg or Huhne have been claiming that they are either marginally ahead or not far behind as an attempt to galvanise the Lib Dem members who support them into casting their votes.
This “race” has been close the whole way through, primarily because the two candidates are basically identical in policies and appeal - it was actually quite a shock when they very slightly disagreed over something! Also, I can’t seem to remember any real policy pledge - or even political ideal - that either of them have actually made. Maybe this says as much about me as them, but maybe not. But if I can’t remember anything they’ve pledge, how likely is the man on the street to?
When it comes down to it, all of this reading between the lines of the current voting situation is just boring. We the people don’t really care how close it is between the two men. All we care [very slightly] about is who the winner is. And that even Lib Dems are getting tired of this just goes to show that both candidates and all their hangers-on, campaign teams, supporters, and every other Lib Dem should just wait and see what the result is. Until then, it really doesn’t make any difference who is in the lead, and after it, it makes no difference how close the result was - just who won.
1 Comment November 29th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
What’s that proverb about
throwing stones? Oh yeah, that people who live in
glass houses shouldn’t throw them.
Brown has at least acted decisively and has pledged to return the money. Will either of the Lib Dem leadership nominees accept the challenge to return the £2.4 million they were unlawfully donated, should they be elected? I very much doubt it. So unless they are willing to return that £2.4 million to Michael Brown or to donate it to charity instead, they don’t have a leg to stand on over this issue.
So, Lib Dems, either stop throwing stones or board up your glass house.
Note: I would make the same call were it the Conservatives who had accepted an illegal donation.
Add a comment November 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
13% lead! Hopefully we can see this sort of poll more often…
Add a comment November 19th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Not only are they Tweedledum and Tweedledee, they’re nasty towards each other at the same time. Releasing a press release that referred to Clegg as a “calamity” was an extremely stupid thing for Huhne’s campaign team to do. It was never going to work in their favour, as it was nothing short of a direct personal attack. It has also made Clegg lodge an official complaint with the party.
What is has done is revealed the nastiness that hides underneath the Lib Dems thin veneer of warmth and fluffiness. Huhne has exposed the nasty, smearing, side of his party, one which they have generally managed to hide under mountains of fluff, aided by being so much less important in British politics than the other two parties, meaning that the media ignore the examples of Lib Dem fibbing and general nastiness.
What he has also done is exposed a personal gulf between them. Also notable is that even though they have both said that they would happily welcome their predecessors as leader - an alcoholic and a doddering old man - into their front bench team, as far as I am aware neither has said that he would welcome the other, or that they would work for the other if they lost the leadership battle…
UPDATE: Watch the argument here:
via PlayPolitical
