Coyote – don’t be so silly.
Re: forming a coalition. He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t

What would you have done in your oh so clever way?

He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t

Why do some people keep trotting out this nonsense ? There is absolutely no proof that voters would have punished the LibDems if had they refused to prop up a Tory government.

Of course it suits Nick Clegg’s narrative to make that claim but there is no evidence to back it up. Indeed all the evidence from the last 5 years suggests the complete opposite.

Look at it in a simpler way, you are offered a chance to form the government.
Would you have taken it?

If I was given a chance to prop up a Tory government would I have taken it ? No.

Who the hell would expect ernie_lynch to form a government with the Tories ?

To put it a simple way.

Re: forming a coalition. He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t

This is my opinion too. Not sure what they could have done differently!

I feel sorry to see the libdems slide into obscurity, for the medium term at least. They were the minority party in the first coalition the UK has experienced since WW2 – it was always going to look bad for them. But as a principle I like the concept of coalition government, it feels like much more mature politics than traditional ya boo two party politics.It’s just as an electorate I don’t think we’ve matured to appreciate the subtle nuances of it yet.I also feel Britain needs a popular middle ground party to challenge Labour and the Tories, so I hope they are back flourishing sooner rather than later for the sake of politics in general.

This is my opinion too. Not sure what they could have done differently![/quote]They could have opted to let the Conservatives (or Labour for that matter) run a minority government, squeezing concessions out and only supporting policies that were in line with their manifesto.

He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t

He is damned for the way he did it not because he did it as he sold out his principles initially and he capitulated
I think over the course they also curtailed the natural tory tendency to be utter ****
He still sold his soul/principles in making a deal with the devil and the British public judged him harshly on this.

.It’s just as an electorate I don’t think we’ve matured to appreciate the subtle nuances of it yet.

Yes Nick its not you we are just too immature to appreciate the subtle nuances of what you did 😆

I hope you got our not very subtle un nuanced immature message delivered via the ballot box

They could have opted to let the Conservatives (or Labour for that matter) run a minority government, squeezing concessions out and only supporting policies that were in line with their manifesto.

This is all true. However, if this was your first wiff at power for a hundred years, what would you do?

Yes Nick its not you we are just too immature to appreciate the subtle nuances of what you did
I hope you got our not very subtle un nuanced immature message delivered via the ballot box

I think you have made my point rather nicely! 🙂

I guess there are two kinds of coalition- ones that fall out on the first date, refuse to budge and end in a quickie divorce and there are those that compromise, a little bit or quite lot. If you are the minority party you get the shitty end of the stick. We are used to our politicians being bitchy about each other every day of the week. You just can’t do that if you want a stable coalition – which I guess most uk voters not used to a different style of politics took as Clegg getting shafted.

Personally I would have preferred them to go into coalition with Labour every day of the week. But labour had the fewer seats and were looking pretty grubby in 2010 so I can sort of see why they did it.

I thought Baroness Warsi’s tweet was interesting –

Sad day as @nick_clegg resigns, he was one of the most decent & considerate colleagues I had the pleasure of working w/ in Govt. A true gent

This is all true. However, if this was your first wiff at power for a hundred years, what would you do?[/quote]I would have opted to let the Conservatives (or Labour for that matter) run a minority government, squeezing concessions out and only supporting policies that were in line with my manifesto.

I would have opted to let the Conservatives (or Labour for that matter) run a minority government, squeezing concessions out and only supporting policies that were in line with my manifesto.

Which would have lasted about a month before we reached an impossible stalemate and a new election – which would have returned a similar result (or historically, in Europe at least, more seats for the party in power and a loss of any influence).

(or historically, in Europe at least, more seats for the party in power and a loss of any influence).

IIRC when the last minority government in the UK called an election because it could no longer govern it was defeated.

Which would have lasted about a month before we reached an impossible stalemate and a new election – which would have returned a similar result (or historically, in Europe at least, more seats for the party in power and a loss of any influence).
[/quote]It worked at Holyrood. Why could it not have worked at Westminster?

You were voting for a moderating influence on the main parties – most people seem to agree that the last government was better for them being a part of it.

The LibDem voters switching to Labour (and letting the Tories get elected) because they’re unhappy with the LibDems cosying up to the Tories is just as stupid a thing for them to do though. The end result is a government which reflects their wishes less.

And it should be remembered that the Tory share of the vote this election only increased by 0.08% compared to last time. Which doesn’t suggest that the Tories were substantial benefactors of the 15.2% lost LibDem vote.

Remember UKIP? A lot of voters have switched from the Tories to them, so the Tory share of the vote staying the same would indicate they’ve got substantial numbers of votes from people who previously voted for another party.

Are you talking a theoretical situation of them going into coalition with Labour if the numbers added up, or would you prefer them to have attempted it in 2010 when the numbers didn’t add up and such a coalition would still have been a minority government? It’s pretty obvious why they chose the Tories to go into coalition with if they were picking one of the two, it was all about the numbers.

Labour formed a minority government between the 1974 elections and got more seats in the second election. I didn’t think there had been a minority government since? If the 70s Labour or 90s Tory governments ended up in that situation due to bye-elections, they still managed a full 5 year term.

Labour formed a minority government between the 1974 elections and got more seats in the second election. I didn’t think there had been a minority government since?

In the second election Labour got a majority of 3 seats. Within 18 months that majority was gone. The Lib Lab Pact sustained the Labour government until March 1979 when the Liberals pulled the plug on Labour and forced a general election to be called. In the subsequent general election the government lost.

As I said ….. when the last minority government in the UK called an election because it could no longer govern it was defeated.

Coyote – don’t be so silly.
Re: forming a coalition. He’d be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t

What would you have done in your oh so clever way?

Nice. Little bit on condescension there. Tory I assume.

The Lib Dems bent over and capitulated on everything. Coalition? They didn’t run a coalition, they propped up the Tories just so a few key Libs could get a seat at the “big table”. I’ve no doubt Nick is a great guy but he was weak when it mattered and he paid the price. Not that it will be that great a price. Can’t see him fretting over the weekly shopping budget any time soon unlike many of the more vulnerable in society.

What would I have done? I like to think that I would have stuck to my principles and dug my feet in when it mattered.

You were voting for a moderating influence on the main parties – most people seem to agree that the last government was better for them being a part of it.

But also an enabling factor in Tories being Tories – see benefit cuts, bedroom taxes and a variety of other measures that hammered the poor and are not core Lib Dem values- in fact they are not even close to core Lib Dem values and they were the opposite of what they stood for and were elected to stand up for.

Did they have to compromise – Yes Unfortunately what they did was capitulate and the electorate expressed their view of this.

IMHO had they been tougher in the first few years then their gains in the later years would be more obvious/have counted. They were so keen to show they could govern they forgot that what mattered was governing well rather than just strongly.

The converse of this is oddly things may be harder for Dave as the Rebels now have way more authority and he has to appease them whilst the Tory fault line of Europe is in the forefront
It will be like herding cats for him and I expect they will force more compromises out of him then Clegg did.

If you are the minority party you get the shitty end of the stick.

Ot you uise the tail to wag the dog as Dave and the Tories spent the whole last 4 weeks telling us the SNP woudl do to Labour

It need not be the case that the Lib Dems got the shitty end of the stick Dave offered him it and Clegg [ and the party] grabbed it with both hands He would have been far better off saying NO if you want to be PM you need to do this , this and this or piss off and have a minority govt where we still wont vote for that , that and that and neither will labour so you are still unable to pass your bills. In essence they made a truly terrible decision, perhaps for honourable reasons, but they paid the correct price for this.

Just watched Cleggys speech….poor bastard didn’t deserve that!

I’ve no sympathy. He had many options and against the advice of many in his party opted for the one which went against all his principles in return for power. Even then he could have exercised their influence against the tories more vigourously, instead he simply rolled over and became just like them. Hardly a surprise then that people ended up voting for the real thing.

I have more sympathy for Miliband. An impossible job trying to be all things to all people. There was no way he could appeal to both Scots and English at opposing ends of the political spectrum. I wonder if now the best thing to do would be to split the labour party between English and Scottish so in future they can run separate policies?

Dash, I’ve said since devolution that both labour and the conservatives in scotland need to break free from their English branch office perception if they want to make a difference. The same is probably true for the lib dems.

Scotland needs a credible opposition and actually if some of the former libdem and labour msps got together they would have some credible political strength, fairly common ideals, political experience and could quickly build a new party which was committed to making scotland better within the UK. Ruth Davidson missed an opportunity to rebrand themselves away from tory when she took over. There is a not insignificant portion of Scotland who actually support conservative type values, and some who would be swayed that way except for the history and association with the etonian elite etc! I know some Scots who in a PR based system would vote conservative but voted SNP (essentially the polar opposite if you believe the hype) but did so because they couldn’t bear to put a cross on a direct endorsement for Milliband. Even though labour and tory policy is perceived in much of Scotland as being almost inseparable.

My apologies, I thought you were referring to a situation comparable to the one convert suggested.

Yes aracer, a situation completely comparable to the one convert suggested – a minority government supported the Liberals.

Or do you think his reference to “historically, in Europe” is more appropriate when talking about the UK than my suggestion of “historically, in the UK” ?

You thought you would be a smartarse and catch me out with your claim that there hasn’t been a minority government since 1974. You were wrong. 1979 was the last time there was a minority government. As I said. Better luck for the next time you try to trip me up – I know how important it is to you 🙂

In order to stand for election as party leader, the support of 10% of Lib Dem MPs is needed.

That’s 0.8 MPs 😆

cconvert was suggesting a government lasting a few months (with little time to make any difference to anything, and the second election fought on the same issues as the first) rather than one lasting almost 5 years. That seems a fairly fundamental point, and makes October 74 rather more comparable than 79.

Nothing smartarsery about it simply looking for the most valid comparison, if the choices of an electorate more than half of which is now dead provides any comparison at all.

Yeah you’re still being a smartarse. My reference to the last UK minority government was completely valid 🙂

And the last UK minority government didn’t last “almost 5 years” as you claim, it only became a minority government after it had lost more than three by-elections. Smartarse

The government lasted almost 5 years, even if it wasn’t a minority one for all that time, smartarse!

I’m happy to admit your statement was factually correct and I was wrong, just questioning the relevance of the 79 election to a minority government calling another election months after the previous one.

The electorate are funny really they say they want politicians to put the country before party politics, yet Lib Dems join the Tories only 2 years after Lehmans collapse in a bid to give the UK stability and yet they get punished for it. Also they did help the poor also by lifting the bottom tax bracket.

At times I’ve no idea what magic bullet the left voters expect governments fire to magically stop people being poor.

…..to magically stop people being poor

Ah yes, being poor is just one of those naturally occurring situations which is all just down to simple bad luck.

It has nothing to do with government policies, or prices, or wages and conditions, or affordable housing, or a whole multitude of influential factors, it’s just down to simple bad luck and there isn’t really much any government can do – there’s no magic wand the government can wave at it.

Best just let the poor get on with it then, and focus on real problems for the government to tackle.

The electorate are funny …

I don’t really condemn Nick Clegg for taking the LibDems into the Coalition. PR and the need for collaborative government and coalitions had been one of their biggest principles for a long time and one that Clegg had talked about during the 2010 election campaign. Getting a shot at forming a coalition and chickening out would hardly have shown much confidence in the sort of politics they were championing, would it?

What I do condemn Nick Clegg for is being so massively outplayed by the Tories in the coalition negotiations. No PR, but a referendum on AV. The entirety of the right wing press opposed it and even those who backed voting reform were at best ambivalent. A promise that they could have a look at House of Lords reform, but no promise that anything would be done. Pathetic. The 10k tax threshold was the only thing they really achieved (but since then it’s somehow become a Tory success story) and in return… Tuition fees, NHS reforms, bedroom tax, ad infinitum.

Edit: On the other hand, in 2020, the LibDems will probably be able to gesture to all that has happened in this parliament and say “hey look, we were a moderating influence after all!” 🙁