Nick Clegg: out of love with the Tories?

Stepney

Cleggy is looking at oblivion down here in the South West - the last round of Euros has opened many eyes. There is a colossal degree of Euro-scepticism round these parts which makes the Liberal voting tradition ironic to say the least. At last the scales have fallen from the voters eyes and the SW peninsular is going to turn blue.

It's pretty natural for Cleggy to kick up an anti-Tory fuss becuase he knows that it's the Lib-Con marginals which pose the biggest threat to his party and that the three way marginals in the north are going to go Tory too.

He can kick Brown all he likes but the imminent Lib Dem crisis lies elsewhere.

20 seats if he's lucky.

oldtimer

Well Cleggover may not think much of Cameron`s pro-marriage stance but many, including me, think it makes sense. At the moment the tax/benefit incentive is anti-marriage. This is extremely stupid. Clegg, by implication, is stupid to support the status quo.

David Ossitt

"With persistent speculation that we may see a hung Parliament"

Only a Lib-Dem fanatic; or a retarded Blairite, is speculating on a hung parliament at the next election.

There will be a Tory win with a massive majority.

Labour will lose a massive amount of seats and the Lib-Dem's will have less than the present.

Verity

Vicious. Families are the bedrock of every civilisation on earth.

Sometimes this little people get Westminster Village mixed up with the rest of the planet.

Jimmy Hill

He is right though.

Whilst it should not be financially beneficial for families to live apart (although I'm sceptical that a there are many instances of this) incentives for being married is just another form of social engineering. A criticism of New Labour so often made by the Conservatives.

I'm also sceptical that essentially forcing people to stay with each other longer than they would wish is a good idea. I'm not sure it would be beneficial for any child to grow up in a household where the state is attempting to force couples to stay together.

If Cameron is really keen on giving power to the people surely deciding who we wish to have relationships with and how those relationships are structured should be no concern of the state.

Pete Hoskin

David Ossitt: I must stress, I'm not predicting a hung parliament. But the speculation of one remains persistent...

Bocephus

When it comes to the GE if the Tories can convincingly say a vote for LibDems, or a vote for UKIP, is a vote for Labour then it should help maximize the Tory vote.

Surely, when push comes to shove the public will realize, if they want rid of Labour, they will have to vote Tory no matter how annoying some of their individual policies may be.

ChristinaD

Peter, this isn't a new tactic from Clegg and the Libdems.
Did you hear his speech when he launched their European elections campaign?

His attack on the Conservatives was an absolutely disgusting new low in UK politics. They will have been mightily relieved that it got so little media attention at the time, it was a huge error to make. And Clegg looked all the more unattractive in light of it. He isn't able to convey a hard hitting attack in the affable way that either Kennedy or Campbell could.

They were lucky that time. I think that Clegg has been making some desperate strategy decisions in recent months, in a bid to try and define the Libdems before the GE. They seem to be all over the place in that regard.

Their lack of a higher media profile must be of concern, but they shouldn't risk making themselves the headline for all the wrong reasons.

Gawain

With a Liberal the answer is usually psephology. This might just mean that their analysis following the Council and Euro elections suggest that they are in danger of losing seats in the South East, South and South West. This could leave Clegg leading a party of new, leftie Liberals from up North. I reckon he's feeling squeezed. What do the professional psephologists say ?

Aldbrough St Blaizy

Nick Clegg is being very badly advised. The Lib Dems are a leftish party who could present themselves as an honourable version of the Labour Party and sweep up all those disaffected Labour voters. They could be the opposition. Instead of which he's decided to attack the popular Tories at every opportunity. He's never going to win Tory votes and he just looks mean and nasty and intent on keeping Labour in power.
Labour couldn't have got their way with the election of Little Johnnie Bercow without the block vote from the Lib Dems.

M Alexander

A hung Parliament? What planet are you on?...Martin

Adam

The Lib Dems are nervous of Tory 'love-bombing' in key seats. It could be part of a new rear-guard action to find it off

Liz Brown

Cleggover? - Yawn...........
no way will there be hung Parliament.........

johnny come lately

Jimmy Hill. What then was the Bible, if not designed for social engineering. It certainly worked as well.

There is a real need to rescue this country from Blair's anti christian crusade (for that is what New Labour and the EU is all about) and bring back some morality into all our lives.

Blair has ensured that all those in officialdom- whom had respect- have lost it!

Police. Doctors.Politicians. Bankers. Teachers. Preachers. all have lost the respect they once had.

The young need National Service in the armed services for three - four years- to bring discipline and self discipline, pride in one's Country and its history back again. No excuses, no escape route for anyone ALL must perform National Service.

They will look back with pride, and, perhaps, wear clothing other than football shirts!!

Those that cannot hack it can move on elsewhere.

Lee Jakeman

No surprises here. A redundant leader of a redundant party spelling out the reasons for his redundancy.

TrevorsDen

St Blaizy is right LibDems should attack Labour. But Clegg sounds unconvincing because he is ... unconvinced. He does not know what stance to take because the libdems are a hotsh potch dustbin for disafected voters. he might try for the labour vote but he is not really labour, whereas his activists are a bunch of fettid leftwingers.

Jeremy

"David Cameron’s social policy is focused almost obsessively on marriage, cajoling people to conform to a single view of what a happy couple should look like.

"The Conservatives want marriage incentives in the tax system.

"And they may adopt Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals to put in place more legal roadblocks to divorce.

"This is both bizarre and patronising."

That depends upon what sort of an emphasis you choose to place upon it, doesn't it Mr Clegg? Removing the element of caricature from your statements, Dave's policy actually makes perfect sense if you want to create an environment which encourages men and women to come together, stay together, have children and then bring those children up.

God knows, I've grown a bit luke-warm towards Dave of late. I sometimes think that he's off in Silicon Valley....but, for the reasons already stated, I can't fault him on this. People coming together, having children, forming families and staying together has to be one of the fundamental bedrocks of a stable society. It is certainly better for the children that their parents stay together. Kids need both a mum and a dad and the love, stability, security and routine which that implies.

Dave is pro-family and there is nothing to be ashamed of in that. But beyond and besides this, he is not a bigot. I have neither seen nor heard anything from him which is suggestive of homophobia. Nor does he make ritual denunciations of relationships that fall outside of the norm.

On this issue, in the modern Conservative Party, it would seem that you can have your cake and eat it.

oldrightie

I doubt a hung Parliament but there may be some hanging post the next election, metaphorically and including this EU cast off!

Verity

Jimmy Hill - You are wrong. It is in the interests of the state to have a stable society, and mankind has proved for the last 20,000 years that families product social stability.

David

Christina; I believe that was the 'Tories love kiddy-touchers' Euro campaign, wasn't it?

JONNY

Nothing new here.
The Lib-Dems have always been an infuriatingly smug lot.

Old Hack

It may be that the real audience for his words were the demoralised activists of his own party, who are viscerally anti Tory and know full well that this election will see the auld enemy obliterate them, just as happened recently in the European and County elections.

Clegg has to motivate them to die with their sandals on when many of them are thinking of just surrendering.

There is bipolar mentality to the Lib Dems, they are either utterly elated and triumphalistic or completely demoralised and deeply depressed. At the moment its the latter.

Jimmy Hill

@ jonny come lately - I'm not really sure of your point regarding the bible, just because something is recommended in the bible does not make it a good policy.

Secondly Christianity (and religion in general) has no monopoly on morality. It is perfectly possible to be a moral citizen without being religious. I'm also not quite convinced that the best way to instil morality and respect into young people is for the state to imprison young people in a militarised re-education facility.

@ Verity - You misunderstand me. My point is not that the state don't want a stable society - I'm sure they would love nothing more. It is that it should be no concern of the state how individuals wish to organise themselves within society.

I would also contest your view that a stable society can only be achieved if every family is built around the institution of marriage and heterosexual relations. Just because society has been stable (whatever that actually means) for however long doesn't prove that the traditional family unit was the cause of that stability. Other ways of organisation may have been just as successful. However state and church would allow only the traditional family unit to exist!

Verity

Jimmy Hill. I can't be bothered to rehash all the arguements. A stable society is a society made up of families, clans, tribes ... all with strong familial ties. That doesn't mean there's no room for anyone else. But families are the bedrock of every society in the world.

A state that wants a stable civil society and a low crime society, will encourage the stability of marriage. And marriage benefits children in ways too numerous to count.

As I said, that doesn't mean there's no room for anyone else.

Athesius the Facilitator

This is a daft argument. Do you not realise that the Liberals will be saying the exact opposite next week. It's the way the wind blows, mi hearty's.

Verity-Your quite correct, I just thought you may have said that you liked the Cameron attitude towards this subject. After all charity and fairness is a big part of family life don't you think?

Jimmy Hill

Verity - I agree with your first paragraph. I also believe that the family doesn't have to be a heterosexual nuclear family.

As you accept in your first paragraph all sorts of familial units can provide stability. Indeed I'm sure that many clans and tribes had no formal marriage procedures yet still managed to provide stability.

What benefits children is a loving and stable home. IMO a government endorsed contract has no effect upon whether this will be provided. Furthermore making it difficult for people to leave a relationship seems a recipe for misery than a policy designed to promote happiness.

Ray

"Do they really imagine people will take the lifelong commitment of marriage – or the awful decision of divorce – because of £20 a week?"

Presumably Mr Clegg also has difficulty imagining that young girls will get up the duff and face spending the best years of their lives raising a sprog on the off-chance of jumping the queue for a council house?

John Moss

Clegg has twigged, finally, that he has the opportunity to replace Labour as the left-wing alternative party.

He is therefore trying to appeal to disaffected Labour voters with an anti-Tory rant.

He knows he will lose seats to the Tories as the anti-Tory tactical vote unwinds. He could pick up as many, if not more from Labour if he can convince enough soft-left voters they can win. Look out for lots of "Tories can't win here" bar charts in three way marginals and Labour held seats with LDs in second.

Still think they will end up with "not more than 30" seats.

Justicia

Oldtimer and Ray,

Oldtimer,
Clegg is spot on with the £20 tax break. The current system does not discriminate against married couples, unless your understanding of discrimination is take away their status as the supposed ideal of society. People can marry for a wide range of reasons and should not have government incentives. I feel that a serious case of selective blindness is the case here: where are the accusations of nanny statism? Or the arguments that, if taken to its logical conclusion, bonuses for having the legal status of being married will lead to an increase in shams, literal marriages of convenience, an act that would (for those who do champion marriage) further erode its place in society to a way of making a bit more money.

Ray,
This is not a binary choice. It is not a case of society being married or promiscuous and degenerate. There is a broad list of failures that explain the current state of Broken Britain (I daresay, however controversial, a good part of it is due to the cyclical nature of social morals, a backlash cometh). We must not delude ourselves in saying that marriage, and trite, patronising incentivisations of the institution, will somehow rescue us, or even substantially contribute to the solution.

J

Victor, NW Kent

Clegg sounds unconvincing and even unconvinced as he puts out these slightly hysterical accusations.

The LibDems are now reverting to their traditional role of opposition, not to the government but to the Tories.

David Ossitt

Pete Hoskin

Sorry Pete; I was not trying to have a go at you!

David Ossitt

Jimmy Hill.

"Indeed I'm sure that many clans and tribes had no formal marriage procedures yet still managed to provide stability"

If you are sure; then please tell us; what clan? which tribe? existed without some form of marriage procedures.

Nick Gulliford

There is something a bit bizarre about Conservative nods and winks towards promoting preparation for divorce [pre-nuptial agreements], at the same time as half-hearted attempts to promote preparation for marriage through the LGA which actually supports NuLabour's "every choice of lifestyle".