Rifkind on R4

[Political Pain]

Absolutely correct, for once in his life.

To clarify, in case you missed it.

He has blasted Clegg for the horse-trading and drawing the analogy of what a PR system would be like after every election.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:13

[Eric Mc]

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

[Lost soul]

He should have called it a Dutch auction

[eharding]

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

Any thoughts on "Sheep Worrying"?

[off_again]

Go for another vote - Clegg will be seen as weak and indecisive and Labour without Brown is a dead duck. Tory win outright and everyone is a winner. Maybe he's playing a game? Don't know, but Clegg has no chance of power at the moment and even PR cant fix that - so what does he do? Back the losers (Labour) or back the one with most votes (Tory)?

Seems simple and this manipulative playing is doing Clegg no favours. Lets see, but I see three big losers out of this - Labour, LibDem and Clegg.

[Jasandjules]

off_again said:

Seems simple and this manipulative playing is doing Clegg no favours. Lets see, but I see three big losers out of this - Labour, LibDem and Clegg.

I see a fourth loser. The Electorate.

[Political Pain]

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:27

[Eric Mc]

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:27

I can't see any reall difference - just the term one choses to use.

I think Clegg is overplaying his hand and needs to step back a bit as he is probably not realising the way this whole process is appearing to the public.
If a deal isn't sorted out within the next few hours - Clegg will have blown it.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th May 13:32

[Political Pain]

Eric Mc said:

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:27

I can't see any reall difference - just the term one choses to use.

I think Clegg is overplaying his hand and needs to step back a bit as he is probably not realising the way this whole process is appearing to the public.
If a deal isn't sorted out within the next few hours - Clegg will have blown it.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th May 13:32

I agree the subtlety is lost on many and of no consequence to just as many, but to those in politics, it signals something for the future.

I agree with again over the position of Clegg, he is making a terrible fist of things and may, in the end, have to go to Cameron considerably weakened from his already weakened position of today.

[HiRich]

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

If Clegg had started discussions with both parties on Friday (with the Labour option clearly "to keep communication lines open" so as not to break his "biggest mandate" promise), or if the Conservative negotiations had clearly broken down, he would have gotten away with it.
The public impression, right or wrong, is now clearly that he is horse trading (not just here, I notice the BBC comments board is very critical when normally it has perhaps a more left-leaning view).

Any gains in this election, or from a governmental alliance may now be at severe risk of being negated as Clegg and the party are seen as either Jadasses or opportunists (in sharp contrast to the words used in the campaign). It could be a generation before they are forgiven.

[Political Pain]

HiRich said:

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

If Clegg had started discussions with both parties on Friday (with the Labour option clearly "to keep communication lines open" so as not to break his "biggest mandate" promise), or if the Conservative negotiations had clearly broken down, he would have gotten away with it.
The public impression, right or wrong, is now clearly that he is horse trading (not just here, I notice the BBC comments board is very critical when normally it has perhaps a more left-leaning view).

Any gains in this election, or from a governmental alliance may now be at severe risk of being negated as Clegg and the party are seen as either Jadasses or opportunists (in sharp contrast to the words used in the campaign). It could be a generation before they are forgiven.

I agree with you sir!

[HiRich]

Jadasses was meant to be Judasses. As in traitorous (to the people as a whole, not to Tories who thought they could assume power by coalition).

[Twit]

Eric Mc said:

If a deal isn't sorted out within the next few hours - Clegg will have blown it.

It will be, reckon there will be a lib / con deal by the end of today.

To the outside it looks like Clegg is overplaying, but internally he has to do it to pacify the Lib Dem party. He has to show them that a Labour deal can't be done, once he has done that, and I reckon that is probably now done, he'll go back and do the deal with the Conservatives. Its all a game, but we are only seeing half of it!

As for Rifkind, whilst I kind of agree with him, I think he was ill advised to gob off. He knows what is happening and it probably isnt that helpful to either Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem. The old dinosaurs should go gracefully!!!

[fido]

Twit said:

To the outside it looks like Clegg is overplaying, but internally he has to do it to pacify the Lib Dem party. He has to show them that a Labour deal can't be done, once he has done that, and I reckon that is probably now done, he'll go back and do the deal with the Conservatives. Its all a game, but we are only seeing half of it!

I doubt Clegg had a hand in Brown's resignation .. but i'm sure it was part of Mandelson's agenda. Clegg is just a pawn between Labour and the Tories, though i do think he's playing his hand disproportionally, so as to speak.

[HiRich]

Twit said:

To the outside it looks like Clegg is overplaying, but internally he has to do it to pacify the Lib Dem party.

A fair point, you may well be right. But he is going to have to play a blinder to get the media to run with the "Lib-Lab was never going to work, but I had to at least ask" pitch.

Otherwise, that'll be another MP not welcome in Putney (we have long, long memories, Hain).

[OnTheOverrun]

Eric Mc said:

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:27

I can't see any reall difference - just the term one choses to use.

I think Clegg is overplaying his hand and needs to step back a bit as he is probably not realising the way this whole process is appearing to the public.
If a deal isn't sorted out within the next few hours - Clegg will have blown it.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 11th May 13:32

The differences between these terms is just as obvious as the difference between tax 'avoidance' and tax 'evasion', something I'm sure you are familiar with.

[Twit]

fido said:

I doubt Clegg had a hand in Brown's resignation .. but i'm sure it was part of Mandelson's agenda. Clegg is just a pawn between Labour and the Tories, though i do think he's playing his hand disproportionally, so as to speak.

Of course he had a hand in Brown's resignation, he said he wouldn't even think of a deal with Brown there so after that Mandelson did the deed. Brown would have gone whatever, but he's gone now because Clegg has said there could be a chance of a deal without him. He's not a pawn, both Labour and the Conservatives know they need him, any minority government would collapse within 6 months, if it even got passed the Queens speach. He hasn't got many seats but they are vital.

It'll be Conservative / Lib; the discussions with Labour had to be serious and had to happen to keep the party on board; but the deal was never really there. Give it a few hours...

[turbobloke]

OnTheOverrun said:

Eric Mc said:

Political Pain said:

Eric Mc said:

"Horse Trading" can also mean "negotiating" and "arrival at a consensus view".

I don't think so.

Horse trading is to go with your wares to all and sundry, parading your goods to all in attendance in isolation from one another, negotiating is to take a preference to someone and deal with them and consensus is to have all the parties in one place at one time.

So to my mind Clegg is Horse-trading.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:27

I can't see any reall difference - just the term one choses to use.

I think Clegg is overplaying his hand and needs to step back a bit as he is probably not realising the way this whole process is appearing to the public.
If a deal isn't sorted out within the next few hours - Clegg will have blown it.

The differences between these terms is just as obvious as the difference between tax 'avoidance' and tax 'evasion', something I'm sure you are familiar with.

Blunkett called it harlot tactics.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/General-...

[Bluebarge]

Political Pain said:

Absolutely correct, for once in his life.

To clarify, in case you missed it.

He has blasted Clegg for the horse-trading and drawing the analogy of what a PR system would be like after every election.

Edited by Political Pain on Tuesday 11th May 13:13

I thought it was a load of melodramatic piffle myself. Do negotiations of this type not go on inside the Conservative Party, when they are deciding policy and who gets what job? That's politics, as Mt Hissyfit Rifkind well knows.

Have you forgotten the vicious backstabbing that used to go on in the Conservative party between pro and anti-Europe camps, monetarists and one-nation Tories? I think a minority Tory govt could prove pretty short-lived because Cameron won't be able to keep all his own MPs on-side. He probably wants an alliance with the Lib-Dems so he can rely on the Lib-Dem right-wingers and then ignore the loony fringe of his own party.

[Pesty]

Its nothorse trading its a party that got a small amount of votes blackmailing the whole country to get what they want.

And what they want is a small issue to most peopleand not the reason they were voted for in teh first place.


Interesting today a couple of Labour people on radio 4 wanted none of a lib Lab pact because they thought it would only last a short while anf they would get blame for all the cuts.

Nice