Be Excellent To Each Other

'Clegg will back Tories in hung parliament'

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ament.html >

If this story is true, then I can't work out what his game is. The question would be asked for the Libs at some point, but wouldn't a better tactic be to dangle carrots in front of both parties prior to making a decision?

On the other hand, the Lib Dems and Tories agree on a lot of things anyhow these days.

Interesting times (but I really can't be bothered to wait until 2010)

Backing away from earlier indications that they would throw their lot in with Labour, I'm guessing. At the moment, the electorate is gearing up to a massive kicking of the Labour party in 2 years time - it's in the LibDem's interest to be associated with them as little as possible.

Shame they won't take the stance they used to, which was about winning (however unlikely that prospect was), rather than joining up with the Tories. In equally sickening news, our local council, which was NoC (Lib/indie coalition) just got retaken by the Tories, off the back of scandalous and libellous propaganda in the local elections. Great. Welcome to the 1980s.

It does seem that he should have phrased it "If we win a plurality then we'd ask the tories to join us as I'm not sure the public would forgi..."

Every day, I'm a little bit more thankful that I'm leaving the country. Vote Labour (worse than the Torys these days), vote Tory, or vote LibDem (who are now siding with the Torys). Oh my. Come on Obama!

The Lib Dems haven't been benefiting from the anti-Labour sentiment - it's mostly going to the Tories. It sounds very much like an attempt to make them relevant, but much will depend on how voting system turns the Tories' lead into seats.

(US politics? I have a perverse and inexplicable fondness for Calvin Coolidge. I wish I knew why. And Emperor Norton, of course).

COOLIDGE? *blink* Flip that shinola. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON FTW!

Hmm...are the Libs so dull* we find ourselves talking about another country altogether?

Harrison? Yeah, that's a record to be proud of. Anyone seen Mr Brown's coat?

(Obligatory link to the Animaniacs' handy 'Presidents' song omitted as I daren't access YouTube from 'work')

* Coprophilia aside

Yes. Yes they are, yes. Yes. I think so, yeah. Yes. And I say that as someone who reckons he's 2 liberal 4 U. Again, yes.


W. H. Harrison has a perfect record. He is awesome. Look at our prime ministers: I can think of maybe - maybe half a dozen that are at all interesting. I don't mean 'in recent memory so their Wikipedia entries are decently long, and I think my Mum used to fancy him', most of them are just dull.

Madison! W.H. Harrison! Jackson! Taft! Cleveland! Buchanan! Grant! Buchanan! Harding! McKinley! All lesser-known Presidents, all really interesting. And that's before you get to the really interesting, stories ones, like Nixon (obv), Hoover, both Roosevelts, and so on.

Who do we have? Spencer Perveval was shot. Some of the ones around the turn of the previous century, quite interesting. But I mean come on, our royal family has been rubbish for years and years - for a nation so obsessed with celebrity, why our leaders so boring?

Anyway. What were we talking about?

Lloyd-George is a fascinating charlatan. Splits the Liberals, almost splits the Tories, sells peerages, screws everything that moves, Welsh....

LBJ & Nixon are two of the most interesting people in history.

But the 19th Century provides a great cast (including Jeff Davis)

[EDIT You're right: what was this thread about?]

It must be the distancing effect of history - I've read about him a couple of times now, and I just can't find myself grring at him, despite being practically the inventor of selling off peerages, and seemingly an opportunist. He doesn't seem to have done any of it for any appreciable personal gain, and he did a jolly smashing job as the PM for WWI. And as you say, is Welsh.

In fact, I was wondering about this on WoS last month (yes, even when I ask political questions, they're of Welshmen and not Scotsmen, because I'm that vexing - well, probably) after reading of him on Wikipedia, following links around the place, but being unable to find an answer to one simple question:

Why has a successful war-time prime minister being so completely, totally forgotten by popular history? We all know Churchill, and Neville Chamberlain is increasingly infamous. Disraeli had a pop album named after him.

For that matter, Clement Attlee seems unjustly forgotten from popular culture, when people are still talking about Anthony bloody Eden. I'd still heard of him though. DL-G seems weirdly written out. I dunno.

Bring back Gladstone.

And Disraeli too, although I suspect he would re-animate naturally as the universe struggles to balance the equation.

Yes, it's a real shame that we don't hear more about Attlee, but then I hope Labour politicians look at his record and feel deeply ashamed of themselves. Definitely one of the greatest governments ever, especially when you consider the severe economic and political stresses that administration faced (the winter of 1947 springs to mind).

Lloyd-George's achievements as chancellor, minister of munitions, and PM are truly incredible and deserve greater recognition.

Surely the only thing the Lib Dems would deal with the Tories for would be electoral reform and proportional representation. Which I can see them giving in to.