Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Nick Clegg's back-room deals

One of Nick Clegg’s earliest pronouncements as leader of the Liberal Democrats was that he did not believe in God. Perhaps he has done a deal with the other side. This announcement was swiftly followed by the disclosure of his very liberal love life – that he had slept with around 30 women (NB ‘a lot less than’ from a politician means ‘more than’). This must have involved quite a few back-room deals.

One therefore expects from him a certain amount of duplicity, deviousness and a certain lack of principle, if only to conspire with the forces of darkness to entice Mammon into Liberal Democrat coffers.

The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are more fragmented than any other political party, and therefore quite unleadable. The ‘party’ is really a conglomeration of diverse and disparate protest movements which say one thing in Kent, another in Birmingham and something quite different in Glasgow. They are confused and contradictory: they seek membership of the Euro, yet talk of British sovereignty; they talk of ‘empowering people not parties’, yet refuse a referendun on the biggest question; they talk of localism, yet seek to negate it with overarching, unaccountable bureaucracy; they profess to be libertarian, yet their policies are irredeemably interventionist and Socialist; they want proportional representation, but they rule out doing ‘back-room deals’ which are the very essence of that system; and Nick Clegg wants to be a ‘pluralist’, though he has stated unequivocally that he will ‘never join a Labour or Tory Cabinet’.

Or perhaps he said that when he was in Kent.

Because now that he senses the possibility of a hung parliament, he is insisting that it is the people who will be kingmakers, not he.

And so he gives the latest Liberal Democrat line: when asked whether in those circumstances he would do a deal (front-room?) with the Tories or form a pact with a Labour, he refused to express a preference. He said the party with the ‘strongest mandate’ would have the right to form a government.

Clever chap.

What he does not say is precisely how that mandate might be measured, for the largest party in Westminster may not be the party with the largest popular vote. In fact, so skewed is the present system against the Conservative Party that it is entirely possible that they could out-poll Labour by millions of votes yet still not win a parliamentary majority.

Perhaps Mr Clegg might enlighten us on the mechanism by which he will measure the ‘strongest mandate’?

Or will it be granted to the party which offers the Liberal Democrats the best back-room deal?


Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Decisisions - Decisions Your Grace!

5 January 2010 at 10:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

30 women? There's a real man.

5 January 2010 at 11:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does Nick having no religion got to do with anything? What do you think these snide comments imply? That if he has no religion, then...? Well what? Dont imply it. Spit it out. Come on.

5 January 2010 at 11:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shabby piece of writing that is itself duplicitous and misleading. If Cranmer is overtly Christian, then I had better revisit my scripture.

5 January 2010 at 11:52  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Oh dear ... you've upset the Liberal voter Your Grace!

Can't be bothered reading much about the Liberals. Along with the Archdruid of Canterbury their irrelevance bores me to tears.

5 January 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Anonymous comment #2 - Cranmer does not infer, he makes it plain. Based on #1 Godlessness and #2 Fornication it is his conclusion that:

"One therefore expects from him a certain amount of duplicity, deviousness and a certain lack of principle, if only to conspire with the forces of darkness to entice Mammon into Liberal Democrat coffers."

I am inclined to agree with Cranmer, and (Anonymous #3) commenting on someone's own admissions of fact - not speculation - is perfectly acceptable. Also perfectly scriptural.

5 January 2010 at 12:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Jonathan Hunt,

Pleae do not bother to respond to anonymice. His Grace never bothers. He knows the identity of one of them in any case, and that person is most definitely not worth a second of your life.

5 January 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Perhaps it is time the Tories thought about deals. There are one or two sensible people in the LibDems, and probably with the party being so disparate, it would be possible to tempt them into personal deals, for example a Treasury post for Vince Cable.
I'm sorry to say, I don't think the Tories are devious or aggressive enough, otherwise there would be no need to consider a hung parliament.

5 January 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, if the next GE ends in a hung parliament it will be because Cameron is such a limp dangly bit. He is so arrogant and out of touch with the electorate he might as well move to Pluto.

I want to vote Tory but the problem is the closest thing I see to a Tory party is UKIP. Don't you think it's about time Cameron extracted his head from his nether orifice and began paying attention?

5 January 2010 at 14:27  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

Who concerns themselves with what the lib dems come out with? They can say anything they want because they know that they will never ever be in office and have to fulfill what they say! The only party worth voting for is UKIP to take us out of Europe and then the fight for English independnece begins.

5 January 2010 at 14:27  
Anonymous graham wood said...

YG May I point out that your header for this was misleading in that no UKm political party will "rule" after the next GE, and I do not refere to a hung parliament. The depressing truth is that we no longer even have a POTENTIAL government. The GE and by implication all the excitement about party political policies are all mere posturing.
A futile re-arranging of the deck chairs will not cause the ship of state itself to alter course one iota. That is now pre-determined.
I suggest most of the country has not yet understood the implication of our ratifying Lisbon. To quote:

"When the Nazis marched into Paris in June 1940, the newspapers were not full of explanatory notes, outlining the minutia of the legal changes under the occupation. Quite rightly, they focused on the main event – that the government of the nation had passed to the German invaders and that supreme authority rested in Berlin.

On the 1st December last year our government formally passed from London to Brussels.

Our leaders have been hijacked and impressed into the service of the Union

It is no longer our government, any more than the Berlin government of 1940 was the government of the French people. It is a government to which we owe neither loyalty nor obedience."

The reason why interest and excitement about party political movements will continue prior to the GE is because most people have not yet cottoned on to the massive significance of this change.
IMO, YG it is therefore wholly counter productive to vote for ANY of the three main pro EU parties - but only for one that will extricate us from the grip of the EU quicksands.

5 January 2010 at 14:36  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Yes, Graham Wood.

Quite why our euro minions (westminster) want to perpetuate the charade is an interesting question - and one that should hit their multi-sided faces every time they show them on a public interface!!

If we can't find anyone to lead us, then we'd better make sure we pull together in an anti-campaign that forces these b****s to address the issue of sovereignty. We need to raise awareness that it is the only issue that matters - until we can control our own lives, we can't solve any of our other problems.

PS --- I heard on the news this morning that our shower and some euro are onto Iceland re their banks. Apparently their Prime Mininster has refused so sign something, so now the issue has to go to a referendum. Is this euroland reversing horses and carts, yet again?

5 January 2010 at 14:52  
Anonymous not a machine said...

What a different position the lib dems would be in had they , you know stuck to there manfesto pledge
on a referrendum on the EU , the sight of Ed Davy staging a pompous walk out and re framing the question , was too much for me . But eurosceptic love aside , they used to have a very open democratic image , however I have noted more and more that the party line of "we are different" is about as much as you get out them , ask them about any home situation and they dont refer to anything with much beyond platitudes, do they want to stop pub clsoures erm NO , do they want church and state erm NO , how much will they reduce the deficet by er Dont Know, how would they tackle immigration er havent really got round to that one .

They are anyones party because they will not be controversial when obvious budget and social problems are now in the economy and country .

If they havent quite grapsed why the era of spin is now collapasing , and they just hope to gain votes by not being controversial is rapidly becoming out of fashion .

they have chose this strategy , good luck to em , because there are a lot of voters who are very upset with Labour have done , and the lib dems are no cure , despite there quack tonic soundbites

5 January 2010 at 15:49  
Anonymous Michael said...

I must strongly disagree with the assertion that a number of sexual partners indicates a lack of principle or, on the contrary, represents personal integrity. There are far better ways of ascertaining the capability to lead.

While this may be, no offence meant, difficult to grasp for someone who's profession requires him to lead a life of chastity, many of us laymen are quite capable of separating bed and table. So long the affairs mr. Clegg had were consensual, I see nothing wrong with having a number of short encounters.

There is a difference between being a single bachelor, and holding an office. While a politician holds an office he must be faithful to, a bachelor has no such obligations, past being honest with the objects of his romances.

And even then, it's simply a part of his personal life, and not a matter of his professional credit.

I also do not really see anything shameful in a political party leader deciding to side with whichever party will gain the "strongest mandate" (presumably in terms of chairs in parliament). His job is to make sure the voice of his voters will be heard, why should it matter whether he will insert his party's agenda into Tory or Labour coalition?

5 January 2010 at 16:32  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Michael said:

"I must strongly disagree with the assertion that a number of sexual partners indicates a lack of principle"

How odd Michael, for the matter raises a number of issues about both integrity and honesty in such a leader.
Of course it is not uncommon for such a man to be an adulterer, a common position for many MPs as for others. But no principle involved? Come on !
Do you think his wife Miriam, or his three children would be happy in the knowledge that husband/dad slept around?
Is there no "principle" in a marriage vow to be faithful to one wife?
How do you think she must feel to be so humiliated?
If such a potential national leader is able to practice such a deception (if it is in this case) against hiw own wife, how can his word be trusted on the great decisions concerning national affairs? How could he, for example, espouse a doctrine of the importance of the family, or indeed, be fit to voice a policy on other moral issues without being rightly seen as a hypocrite?
Thus it is that Cameron can never be trusted again on public policy because he deliberately lied, openly and defiantly, to the British public on his promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/constitution.

5 January 2010 at 17:54  
Anonymous Michael said...

You assume he slept with all those women while he was married. Nothing I've read so far supports such a suggestion.

I think most men "sleep around" before they get married. Most women too, come to think of it, however vulgar that term appears to be.

5 January 2010 at 18:23  
Anonymous Michael said...

As a post scriptum, since the number is indefinite it could be anything below 30. For all we know it could be three. Or two. Or one.

I think his reluctance in telling the exact number is understandable. It's a fairly private information, the pressure for which's disclosure is, I think, comparable to inspection of bride's hymen back in middle ages to verify her faithfulness to her Christian ideals and sanctity of marriage.

5 January 2010 at 18:30  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

There are many kinds of men and women as there are breeds of dog. I say keep the term vulgar and pay homage to anything that appears to rise above the baser instincs and which offers a degree of corrective hope.

'Sleeping around' is here to stay undoubtedly, but let's put some clothes on for the most part and behave as decent as we possibly can eh old chappers. Many of us have kids and some of us don't see beyond the child benefit book while many of us would like to see them walk the straight and narrow path of relative happiness and at least try to encourage the avoidance of destructive and degenerate practises.

Boasting about 'sleeping around' is not the way forward for anyone who seeks to run a civilised and decent nation, which means there shouldn't be anything in my argument from preventing him from running the show here, but we must persevere I suppose.

5 January 2010 at 18:55  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

What I will say is this though, and it applies to the lot of them, but some more particularly so than others.

If you discover a mighty ship abandoned at sea and you climb aboard and occupy the bridge, you may, after a while get the'gist' of 'steering' it around in the water, and so long as nothing too challenging comes by your way, you may even fool all the other boats in the water into thinking how impressive a vessel you are. You can adorn yourself with one of the uniforms and fly the ensign of high esteem and past prestige in order to add to the effect, but eventually you will come a hefty cropper when it becomes necessary to actually do what any real captain would have the ability to do, unless by some grace of a loving and forgiving God you will be lucky enough to have a gentle and easy time along the learning curve.

Some people inspire hope and confidence, and when/if we find ourselves sailing in such a vessel as described, being captained by such an individual, we are happy to muck in and pay deference and respect to such an captain as he may be. But he must be such an captain that can show the least amount of ability for there is no place or time for blaggers while we drift around in such a mighty vessel as ours. This is why the idot on the bridge at the moment has to be made to walk the plank, but let's not rush another idot up on the bridge just because he has found another spare uniform.

5 January 2010 at 19:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,
A very small point, but I don't think you should write Euro with a capital E, any more than you should write Franc, Peseto or Dollar.

5 January 2010 at 20:59  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Anonymous spelling pedantic person

His Grace used in the sentence - "they seek membership of the Euro".

Euro is not a proper noun as such and it normally only requires capitalisation of the E when beginning sentences and in headings, however, this is not a firm conclusion as it is with other currencies. For example, to enter into the US dollar, or the British pound sterling, and then the Euro, is rather different to speaking of dollars, pounds and euros. The rules are considered to be less strict with regards to the Euro because you can be talking about the denomination or the actual currency. It has become an accepted courtesy to write the 'Euro' when speaking of it as a currency like the US dollar, or the British pound sterling. It is not a sign of laziness about correcting typos, or stupidity, or even a lack of concentration in any event.

Be careful, His Grace knows the identity of certain anonymice, whom it is opinioned not to waste even a second of your bother upon, but I would say that even when Satan is behind you and you can no longer see him, He can most certainly see and bother you.

I don't know why I have been created thus. By the way, I am most certainly not one of these anonymice, I am in full view even if not worth bothering with.

5 January 2010 at 21:49  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The Liberal Party if not its leader, should be subject to the Trades Descriptions Act.

Could any Lib/Dems out there please remind myself what IS actually liberal, ( or indeed democratic ) about the Liberal Democrat Party, apart from the personal morals of its own party leadership?

What happened to libertarianism, or classic liberalism? What happened to TRUE local, or national democracy?

Were they at some time traded in for a pocket full of mumbles, or did the Lib/Dems all have guns pointed at their heads?

What is the Common Purpose of Nick Clegg or his party? Do you even know? Do any of you even care to find out, what sort of nation/world you are voting for?

The Conservative Party and the Labour Party may have sold their collective souls to the devil of Papist corporatism (fascism) many years ago. However what is The Liberal Parties excuse for also doing so?

IMO most British people have long since been basically libertarian and stridently individualistic. This trait go's as far back as before the Roman invasion. It is in our blood, so to speak.

However, if there is one thing the REAL powers that be don't like about their unwitting mind controlled slaves, it is them having any real liberty or individualism, unless they can utterly control both.

Which is why the establishment has been carefully divided libertarianism among all major, and minor political parties. Thus libertarianism is a majority among the people, but always a minority in any particular governing political organization.

Which is why the once most free people of the world, are now the most controlled of them all. Thanks to the Liberal Party, every bit as much as all of the rest, we have more spy cameras then the rest of Europe put together, and more repressive laws then the Soviet Union had before 1990.

The so called Liberal, so called democratic party, never talks about either, or the above, and now you know WHY.

5 January 2010 at 22:16  
Blogger Andy JS said...

Here’s Brown on the 1992 election night show saying that a government that loses its majority has effectively lost the election:


6 January 2010 at 00:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realised when I posted that it might appear a little pedantic. However I feared, and it might perhaps be a paranoid fear, that there was more behind the capitalised euro than meets the eye, not on His Grace's part, but by those seemingly irresistible forces which were so intent on us joining that currency some 10 or more years ago.
I believe similar sinister forces have been behind the almost wholesale substitution of the Chinese word Beijing for the Enlish Peking. But then, perhaps I need to get out more.
I am anonymous because I can't get the infernal Google account system to accept anything else

6 January 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DDIM'nHOFF re your comments 1:
"Be careful, His Grace knows the identity of certain anonymice, whom it is opinioned not to waste even a second of your bother upon, but I would say that even when Satan is behind you and you can no longer see him, He can most certainly see and bother you.

I don't know why I have been created thus. By the way, I am most certainly not one of these anonymice, I am in full view even if not worth bothering with."

Are you accusing His Grace hacking or knowing about anonymice? You appear to approve of such things - you might well have been a nazi collaborator, even a Christian one if you do.
The reality sadly is there is misinfo, slander, gossip, disinfo, minssing info, cover-ups, over-smplified thinking or not thinking in context, believing stuff including when things are planted to indirectly or subtly set people against others, make them doubt others (including occasional newspaper articles), get them to trust those who are not trustworthy or manuplate individuals, get others to exact vengeance or "justice" including agaist the innocent or extrajudicially; there are software and hardware bugs, hacking, changing of data, data placed so if people investigate they find a false picture (better or worse or different); there are discrepancies created by bad computer systems or not asking questions or coverups or removing data for good or bad reasons; misinterpretation of data due to inaccuraate including forging, hacking, mishaps - including phon e records, documents, health and all kinds of info which spread like mould or wildfire into private and government databases (google on these matters) and which can wreck lives, health, relationships even the capacity to be in church or the ability to get a job, travel freely, go to the police if there is a crime, and especially if too many people have access to bad (accidental or malicious) data and are influenced and prejudiced when dealing with the data, gossip or slander about the person or those alleged to be wronging them.
So be careful what you believe. There are Judases and Elis as well as King Davids in and outside churches. There are gossips and slanderers in and outside churches. There are malicious people, and machiavellian types in and outside churches, and there are people, including those with noble intentions who get used by people doing evil, and ultimately by evil in the spritual realm (We wrestle not aginst flesh and blood). Few people ask questions let alone the right questions when they hear or read stuff, including from files or data on computers or even the well-regarded in or outside churches. I note that an unbelieving King did not do the wrong thing in Genesis (?against Abraham?) one time when he sought to do right before God. So those in and outside the churches who are doing a lot of wrong - where it is not naivety/innocence/immaturity (as we all struggle with) what are their agendas or if their agendas are good, what sins are they not dealing with, though we are all immature and sinful and need to grow. Here is a question - if someone in authority says to you so-and-so is up to no good, could you tell me x,y,z, - will you believe it automatically? would you spy as a citizen in or outside churches? or would you be like the wise men who listened to God when King Herod tried to kill our Lord (I note also our lord avoided certain meetings of believers sometimes when some of the Pharisses were spying on Him)?

7 January 2010 at 01:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DDIM'nHOFF re your comments 2:
When Hannah was falsely accused by Eli of being drunk when she asked for prayer, were Eli's sins - his enabling of his family's sins including in the churches getting in the way of him leading his family and flock with integrity and protection like a good shepeherd, protecting from wolves and looking out for the stray or wounded sheep, including those wounded by wolves or others in leadership or in the flock misbehaving and hurting and separating the flock? And - I can only speak about the US and UK - do we not need more discernment, why are we so immature that we, often like immature believers in Ephesians or Corinthians bleive false doctrines or are swayed by liberalism, wierd stuff or legalism or the cunnicng, crafty and decietful schemes of men? Why are the hosest not believed sometimes and while the guilty are beleived sometimes - including by some whose theology and life appears in keeping with scripture? Would our Lord not warn them to prtect them from sinning by harming an innocent? What is going on? I hoe God helps us all to become more like Him and more loving, mature and wise. What happens if you are told that x,y or z is harming someone - and they are not doing that, whether or not they have wronged the someone?
I pray that in and outside churches we grow because words can wreck lives and relationships in and outside churches where there are Judases, cover-ups as well as good things happening. I also hope we all mature and be carful what we say or write or think about others especially in a society where people lack time, where the virtues of critical thinking and asking questions, thinking and dealing with disputes with others, and even biblical intermediary acts are discouraged, where fact-finding and critical thinking and asking the right kinds of and sufficient questions where approprate are discouraged, and where the info held is increasing, and spy-state/totalitarian-type laws and practices are increasing. I pray we will grow and also resist the temptation to gossip or listen to it, whether in the churches or outside, in the media, in employment, in social circles - in or outside government. We are influenced by what we hear and read, and when someone, even someone with good intentions but who has wrong info(let alone wolves in sheeps clothing or obvious wolves) , listens to or reads something about anyone or a situation, they will partially in the future view that someone through the potentially distorted lens of what they are heard or seen or experienced, right or wrong, and so people and situations can be further disorted and not seen or known for who or what they are. And churches are mixed multitudes, many on the Day of Judgment will sadly be found to have never known our Lord, regardless of what those whom they knew or who knew about them thought, or even where their prayers were "answered" (see Matthew). So we all need to tread with care, and we need to be as fair and as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves as we can be.
If someone asks you, an ordinary person, to watch someone or tell them about someone becuase they are up to x, or that x or y are doing such and such includng affairs, or even that x y or z are harming or guilty of a real crime, how do you know that the allegations are true?

7 January 2010 at 01:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DDIM'nHOFF re your comments 3:
How do you know there are not other nefarious agendas going on or if the info is false? Spy-states get citizens to spy, in and outside churches. Will you follow our Lord or put the world and the flesh first if ever asked (or to do any wrong things or not do to the right thing), or will you do the agenda of evil people wherever in society (and I am not against professionals doing certain things, just not dirty tricks)? If someone shows you a film, gives you a tape or a document or bit of info or gossip, how do you know it is not forged, edited or missing context including cultural or obsolete or any of your business? How do you know if the person is doing something rational and with integrity in their circumstances, which you may not have experienced or may have experienced differently, and that is without cultural differneces and the fact that those who are not rich do not know usually why the rich behave in certain ways, ditto middle income and the poor, or those in fear, or those with emergencies or cash-flow problems etc - though we are all unique and no computer or person can replace or aspire to be God. We cannot read minds. We could all mind our own business more and ask questions where misunderstanding arise and not believe all info. And our Lord can set up divine coincidences or circulmstances which highlight Tower of Bable mentalities , and sadly evil powers can create coincidences or other evils. How do you know if there are cover-ups for other hidden agendas going on, even if from someone who is trutworthy? And no-one but God is trustworthy in all areas. And we are all sinners needing His atonement for our sins, great or small (though all huge before our Lord). But God is sovereign over dirty-tricks, and I hope that those who do such stuff will repent and find mercy before God and man, not reap what they have sown, and that the God will resotre to any victims the years the locust has eaten. And for those into dirty-tricks, including trying to get those who try to act with integrity to do the immoral or unwise(even if legal) or the obviously unethical, if they do not repent and find mercy through our Lord then all will be revealed on the Day of Judgement and judged eternally in hell, and I do not wish that on anyone becuase I, like everyone, am a sinner who did not deserve our Lord's mercy.
In summary - you accused His Grace of knowing who the anonymice were - not possible in at least one case, I do not know His Grace currently except per what His Grace reads. Likewise he could not know me unless he hacked or was told by someone else,legally or not, and in that case I do not have any British male friends I am regularly in contact with so he could only know about me, based on what he infers or others said or wrote, including potentially some Judases or innconents used by such as well as potentially some decent people. The same logic applies to any other anonymice potentially or any who comment with names. So DDIMnHof, who are you and what do you approve of?

7 January 2010 at 01:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DDIM'nHOFF re your comments 4
And finanlly I forgot to say, some people have similar writing styles but sometimes things will be added purportedly by someone, whether they provide their name or not, in a similar style, yet anothe, not the someone, has done it to make the person look bad - though there are coincidences of conent and timing, as well as evil influences on people and foot in mouth disease which we all suffer from.
And ip addresses can be forged. It is a sad and complicated world sometimes, but our Lord knows all.

7 January 2010 at 02:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, euro it is then

7 January 2010 at 10:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older