The biggest thing I have against them was that their manifesto called for the scrapping of student fees. As soon as they'd hopped into bed with the Tories, they supported the increase in fees from £3,000 to £9,000 (despite receiving a lot of their votes and support from students), then Nick Clegg bluntly refused to apologise to them for this. Heck if he'd come out, said "sorry, but the financial crap we're in means we have to go back on this, I apologise" then I'd at least have had some sympathy.

Instead, he bunged one major pledge into his manifesto, did/supported utterly the opposite as soon as he was in government with the Tories and effectively said "fuck you" to hundreds of thousands of his voters. To me, that stank to high heaven and meant that I just cannot bring myself to trust a thing he says. And I've been in full-time employment since 2004 and am not a student!

Hey, he apologised!

I mostly compare him to our Tory PM and compared our PM, Cameron has... a personality, is well-spoken and is 99% less loony than most in his party. Plus he respects parliament while our idiot has been found in contempt of parliament twice, has misused prorogation to avoid confidence votes and other scandals and just generally abuses the parliamentary process every single way he can (not to mention his party regularly violates our election laws). Cameron is just classy next to our scumbag. I also really like Boris and would love to have him as mayor of Toronto rather than the crack addict idiot we currently have (Rob Ford - just google him. You'll see.)

The somethingawful forums have a :clegg: emoticon:

Whichever party knows how to use the subjunctive "were" properly.

Well, that's annoying - I edited the title and it reset the vote count :(

It does that.  I think it's because you could change it to a question that makes voters look silly.

Hrmph.

True, although it'd probably be useful if it gave you a clear warning first! (assuming that it didn't do this of course)

I am very sorry...but also highly amused

Well they finally got him.

I don't feel I know enough about your political system to comment, but I know if I was voting for someone in your system using my systems political definitions, I know who I would vote for.   :-S

And that is?

The best person for the job.

The problem here in America is people tend to reduce the election to a single issue. So if they generally like a candidate but are in violent opposition to the candidate's stance on abortion, they will vote the way of their passion for abortion or against it. The fact that abortion should not be a political football is lost on them.

Americans also like to vote for milestones. The first black president comes to mind. I don't particularly care what a person's color is; BO could be yellow with purple plaid patterns - he'd still be an ineffective president. He is probably the most divisive president we have had in quite a long time. He appeals to those who would rather have a hand out rather than getting a hand up, those who would rather have something done for them rather than doing it for themselves.

I generally identify more with Republican ideals. Interestingly though, a Democratic president said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Individuals, politicians alike should heed those words.

Unfortunately the Republicans and Democrats (reverse the order if it makes sense to do so) are actually mostly in agreement about what needs to be done in this country, they are just diametrically opposed in their ways of doing it. In the process they are in a power struggle to gain control to do it their way instead of in the old-fashioned, colonial days of persuasion, conviction and compromise. That is not to say that the early Statesmen did not resort to gamesmanship when it came to politics because they did. But in most cases they were not career politicians; this meant that they were actually serving for good of country rather than for their own gain such as is the case now. Now, prior to gaining power in office, most of our politicians don't have a lot of money or power but after a few years in the House or Senate they suddenly have millions available to them.

Unfortunately, it is all about the money. The answer isn't income redistribution, it is in political and campaign finance reform. Senators and Representatives should not be able to accept monetary gifts nor should they be as involved in the banks and stock market as they are. Greed and power serve to corrupt, and when the Constitution is bypassed, ignored or manipulated we have the recipe for continued erosion of the American political system. It has been going on for far too long and BO is making the most of exploitation and the Divide and Conquer mentality.

Unfortunately the pendulum always swings one end to the other and spends too little time in the middle. Because of the real or perceived problems with the BO administration, than many scandals and his insistence upon his way or the highway, I think the pendulum will swing Republican. But even that will likely be a mistake. And I am registered Republican. We need balance, as our political system was always meant to be. Personal agendas need to be cast aside for the betterment of the Country as a whole.

> The best person for the job.

They're not on the ballot.

That's the bitch of it.