Clegg backtracks after declaring Iraq war illegal

[oldironside]

"Nick Clegg used his first appearance standing in for David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday to declare that the Iraq war was "illegal", and demand that Labour explain why they dragged Britain into it. What appeared to have escaped the Deputy Prime Minister in the heat of the moment was that most senior Conservatives also voted for the war, including the Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague, who were sitting alongside Mr Clegg as he spoke, and Mr Cameron, who was in Washington.

He also seemingly forgot that he was speaking in Parliament as the acting head of government, and that his words could be interpreted as an official admission by the UK that the military action undertaken seven years ago was illegal. As the implications of his remarks sank in, Mr Clegg's office hurriedly issued a statement insisting that he was speaking personally, not expressing an official view."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-backtracks-after-declaring-iraq-war-illegal-2032162.html

The man is clearly out of his depth. I can't help thinking he's part of a convuluted Central Office plot to discredit electoral reform.

[non sociopath skin]

1. Clegg is clearly "Hamster" to Cameron's Jeremy Clarkson ..

... and we're in for a lot more crashes. :evilgrin:

The Skin

[oldironside]

2. Maybe I'm just getting old...

... but the country does seem to be run by a bunch of schoolboys at the moment.

[truebrit71]

5. ROFL!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

3. Definitely out of his depth...

though I'm also reminded of Tom Lehrer's lines about the American vice president: "Second fiddle's a hard part, we know/ When they don't even give you a bow!"

'I can't help thinking he's part of a convuluted Central Office plot to discredit electoral reform.'

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the whole situation reminds me of why electoral reform is necessary! Nearly two-thirds of the population voted against the Tories; yet they have enough MPs to rule the roost with only small checks and balances. Better than Thatcher with 42% of the vote and almost-dictatorial powers, but still not good. Even with a more representative system, we MIGHT still have ended up with a Con-Dem coalition, but at least it wouldn't have been quite so unbalanced in favour of the Cons.

Anyway, it may be partly a resentment of being ruled by people younger than me(!), but Cameron and Clegg do both strike me as a couple of silly teenagers.

[oldironside]

4. I take your point about electoral reform...

... and agree totally, but unfortunately those who are desperate to cling to our 17th century system (the unspeakable dying in the last ditch for the indefensible) will point to any mistake from this government and suggest that this sort of thing is an inevitable by product of coalition. "If only we had a strong government..." they'll say (conveniently ignoring the fact that all governments have banana skins), and there are people stupid enough to believe that. People in both major parties.