Poor Nick Clegg he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't .

So part of the Lib Dem`s negotiations with Labour include getting Brown to stand down. I can`t see them coming to an agreement with Labour anyway,even without that proviso, but that`s a big ask from a party who only have 57 seats. The Lib Dem`s better be very careful how they handle this or they will pay for it at the next election.

I think its only fair, he should speak to both parties,he cant be seen to just dismiss one. Also he cant preach whether he will not work with Gordan Brown he should be taking into account the policies not the person

I think Gordon's a dead man walking, whoever the LibDems decide to work with. If a condition of them co-operating with Labour is his head, then fetch the axe..
They are ideologically closer to Labour than they are to the Tories, and Labour have already said they are amenable to changing the voting system, so a deal would make sense.

yes Demantoid I see what you are saying BUT it is not down to a party that won fewer than 60 seats to be preaching in that way. As I said before they should be looking at their policies and nothing else

 And I agree with the Labour MP (I think it was a John Mann ???) who said that Brown was a good Chancellor but a not so good PM.

Not really..he could step back and leave the Torys with a minority goverment, which is what I believe Cameron really wants..with agreed support on certain policies from the Lib Dems.

Exactly!

I agree completely.  I have been really amazed by the number of people who have said they voted for Gordon Brown or David Cameron rather than for the policies of the party concerned, or their constituency MP. The public have no say in who is elected as leader of any of the political parties, so I don't understand why so many people seem to think they are voting for a party leader

But it's the others who are clamouring to get into bed with them, not vice versa. Because the Tories know they couldn't govern as they are, they'd get outvoted on everything in the Commons. And because Labour aren't ready to give up power to the Tories without an absolute majority.
The LibDems have the winning hand, and they know it. It's all going to come dodwn to how they play it. And IMO, a fairer voting system should be non-negotiable.

I honestly don't believe that Nick Clegg set out to win 57 seats in a hung parliament. I think he set out to win it (or form an opposition). Yes, he was probably delusional, and felt more confident after the first televised debate, but he was disappointed with the Lib Dem result. I wouldn't want to be in his position, but if he feels that he simply can't work with Brown, then so be it.

No there is a (possible) poisoned chalice there too Scotty because if then creates a stumbling block for the Conservatives he could make himself unpopular, as his own party could see him as ruining their chances.  Its quite a bind for him.

IMHO Clegg lost a lot of voters support when he made the statement that he wouldnt work with Gordan Brown....I feel that a lot swing voters decided to go against Clegg on the idea that he would not enter into talks for a coalition with Labour

I think he lost votes because people were scared a vote for him would let the Coservatives in - both Brown and Cameron played on people's fears in the last few days before the ballot, by warning them that voting for the LibDems would let the other in.

And saying he wouldn't work with Brown is NOT the same as saying he wouldn't work with Labour

 Both Labour and Conservative cranked up the fear factor for voting Lib Dem. Not saying people fell for it, but they definitely united in their disdain of Clegg as leader and Lib Dems as a credible choice.

I do hope GB is ousted from no 10.

But my point again is Demontoid is he has NO RIGHT to say he wouldnt work with Gordan Brown, he is the Labour Party leader, so many would have taken that as "I wont work with the Labour party". Honestly if Labour were to get rid of BROWN now that would mean another Labour party leader MIGHT become pri minister without being elected to do so, a chance they just cant take at the moment

Lockes.....we don't vote for a PM. We do not have a Presidential system in this country.

edited to add in theory. Blair had a good stab at being President of the United Kingdom

suzy, I know we dont vote for pri minister, my point was the backlash that Brown has received from being made leader of the Labour party, and a number of people, groups media etc etc saying we didnt even vote for him etc etc. Many a times it has been brought up in this forum that people never voted for Brown as pri minister.

Honestly I cant see a problem with it myself as I said before vote for the party policies not the party leader

Sorry squiggle, I don`t quite understand your point. Whichever way he turns (and it`s not only his decision..the bigwigs are there in the talks)  will not be met with appproval by all Lib Dems or this nation. He`ll be unpopular with some and not others. Yes, he`s caught between a rock and a hard place but surely this is the time for him and his party to show us what they`re made of. They`ll never get another opportunity like it. Get it right. In saying that, I personally don`t think it`s right that a party who has 57 members should wield such power. I like Nick Clegg btw. I think he`s a sincere man. I hope he proves me right.

I agree Lockes....but tbf Clegg said from the off that he can't work with Brown. Paddy Ashdown was on the telly the other day saying that, in his view, Brown is not suited for coallition, 'collegiate style politics' as he put it. Clegg also said he would work with the party that won the popular vote...IMO he should have stayed quiet about that, but to do anything else would erode his integrity.

I believe Labour would have won this election if they had a different leader.  Curiously even in defeat, they seem reluctant to drop him.  Very strange.

I tend to agree witrh you spider.
I have always thought the party have shown a big misjudgment in keeping Gordon Brown,
and I've always been surprised that they believe he is good for them (or at least that's what they say.)

I perhaps didn't put it very well, and perhaps I can't now either, its just this is such a tightrope for him and the Lib Dems, if he agrees to cooperate with the Conservatives and then is seen to block them at every twist and turn that would, I think, prove unpopular but if his party think that their position is being compromised that could lead to a further election.  Sorry for being so unclear I know what I mean but its difficult to put into words.

I think Suzy that, for Nick Clegg, it was a shame that the first Leaders' Debate wasn't the last.  He shone in that one but looked a bit shambolic in the last.

Lib Dem's share of the vote remained as normal.  I don't think the debates made any difference at all (good or bad).  While people flirted with the idea of voting Lib Dem, when it came to polling day they realised that this is a 2 party Country and voted accordingly.

You caught me before I edited Cegg to Clegg   Apart from that, I don`t believe he and his party would agree to certain policies during these negotiations, then back track. That would be fatal.

I think Suzy that, for Nick Clegg, it was a shame that the first Leaders' Debate wasn't the last.  He shone in that one but looked a bit shambolic in the last...ref: squiggle


I agree, but from what I understand he spent most of his time fending off a tag team of personal slights from Brown and Cameron in the debate.

Agreed they had started to take him seriously by then but under pressure he fell apart.

It is clear from the Liberal Democrats spokesman after their meeting with their MPs is that although they have not rejected any agreement with the Conservatives, they require "further clarification" from the Conservatives on key areas of education funding, fairer taxation and electoral reform. They are continue to listen to representations from Labour. Their key objective before making any agreement is that the result forms a stable government.

The BBC political commentators seem to think that it is now unlikely that any agreement will be reached today. They seem to think that the most likely outcome is now a minority Conservative government, but I think that it could be several days before a government is formed. This delay is not going to calm the UK markets one little bit.

I don't think they should bow to pressure from the markets and rush into a decision. It was letting the money men think they ran the country that got us into the mess we're in now.

Agreed they had started to take him seriously by then but under pressure he fell apart....ref: squiggle

awww just makes me want to give him a hug  He must be in bits at moment. I don't mind leaders who occasionally show weakness. That's why I don't really mind Brown when I compare him to the Neo-Con Bot that was Blair 

I know that Brown has to temporarily remain in charge, look after the nuclear button, and other important things. I also know that, assuming the Tories dare not pick Ken Clarke,  Darling and Brown would see us through better than anyone else.
However, am I the only one here who really really wants Brown in a bold salute to the Lottery show, "Who dares wins!" to say to Posh Boy, "OK name them!"

Gordon Brown has just announced that he has resigned as leader of the Labour Party

It appears that the Lib Dem and Conservatives talks have collapsed and that the Lib Dems are now in discussion with Labour.

I watched it and I thought he said he WILL resign, not that he has. Paves the way for a deal with the LibDems.

If he'd done this a month ago I'm sure Labour would be a majority government right now.

Demantoid, I agree with you - I was posting this in haste - I have now started a new thread (as this thread is now obsolete) where I have made this clearer.