Mefty – he had another option. Negotiate a queens speech he could / would support and allow Cameron top form a minority government with Cameron having to gain support for bills not in the queens speech on the merit of each bill.

He would have had a far more effective veto power and could critise policiues not in th queens speech directly, he would not have had the lib dems loose support because of the support for the tories in the same way – but no ministerial cars.

It would have beena far better and more honest option. He was either incredibly neive or he sold his party for a ministerial car or two

That is what is meant by finance and supply, he would have flinched from power, and the LibDems would have been sitting ducks, what is the point of the party which isn’t prepared to govern? He was stuffed whichever way.

He certainly is now; he has no power or influence other than that faintly reflected from Cameron, and is despised by his own party as well as everyone else. He has convincingly destroyed any small credibility the Lib-Dems ever had and has consigned them to history.

But to be honest that is what happens to them when they get close to power, they got clobbered by the Lib Lab Pact in the 70s as well, their vote went down from 18% to 13%.

He would have been much better off allowing Cameron to run a minority government. The lib dems would not have been damaged nearly so badly IMO. It could easily have been pitched as a principled stance not flinching from power

And now he can argue he took a principled stance by assuming the reigns of government and getting some of his policies implemented – it really was an unenviable decision and now he has to see it though. That is the point I am making, no one will have the benefit of hindsight on this one.

Just a matter of approach. When the tories were dependant on ulster unionist votes, David Trimble didn’t act like a man grateful for the opportunity to wield power- he made Major’s government jump through hoops for his support.

But the Tories had a majority then, albeit a small one, they needed Trimble because of rebels, there was no coalition agreement.

Waht policies has he got thru? He has folded on everything and been made to look extremly foolish and week and has lost much support within the party.

I seriously don’t see him lasting the full term and history will judge him harshly.

mefty – Member

But the Tories had a majority then, albeit a small one, they needed Trimble because of rebels, there was no coalition agreement.

Which made Trimble’s position weaker, not stronger.

Rubbish, they needed him because of the rebels, he knew it and extracted a price. That is what a coalition agreement is designed to meet upfront.

How is that rubbish? Cameron has got far more from the deal than Major got from the Unionists yet he’s given them far less.

He has convincingly destroyed any small credibility the Lib-Dems ever had and has consigned them to history.

Crikey – can you remind me what credibility you were referring to, and what part of modern history you are consigning them to exactly?

So a minority party trades power for principle – and just imagine what an alternative voting system would bring? Perhaps this will be Cleggies (unintended) legacy!! Oh the irony!!

Trimble got £10 million for NI for helping out Major.

Nick Clegg has got an increase in personal allowances taking people out of tax and the pupil premium, there are probably others but I can’t be bothered to look. He did a decent deal, not that that is likely to hep him.

decent deal? He got shafted on electoral reform which was the biggie and he has had to support policies that are an anathema to his party.

He got a crap deal

He got negotiated a crap deal in order to get a sniff off power that otherwise he and his cronies may not have got

FIFY

He got his referendum, so how did he get stuffed, he had the support of Ed Milliband, what more can one have wanted for? There is little point debating the niceties, I don’t give a stuff about Nick Clegg, I was pointing out that most denigration of him on here is overly simplistic but I guess you get what you pay for.

power or powder?

He got a referendum on something that is not PR and not policy with the tories doing everything in their power to go for a no vote anyway.

I think you vastly overestimate what Clegg has got out of this.

there are probably others but I can’t be bothered to look.

Yes, remember “child detention” ?

The day Nick Clegg announced a “coalition” with the Tories back in May 2010, he said to much applause, “There will be no more child detention”. Offering it as a major concession that he had got out of the Tories.

Only we still have child detention………..so I’m not sure if it counts.

I reckon it probably does still count. After all he got plenty of brownie points for announcing it, and no one seems much bothered that it’s yet another broken LibDem promise. Maybe there’s too many broken LibDem promises to worry about ?

Every concession which the Tories made to the LibDems they did so because they were happy to do it. They haven’t been forced by LibDems to do anything.

Oh, btw : “Nick Clegg has got an increase in personal allowances taking people out of tax “

And they are now paying 20% VAT. Despite this election campaign by the LibDems :

….and not a lot of people knew the LibDems would help him.

Ernie – so what should he have done, which would not have clobbered the Lib Dems? He was stuffed either way.

so what should he have done

Er… show some backbone and push for what he believes in*.
.
.
.
*This is now the subject of some debate…

How would not going into “coalition” with the Tories have clobbered the LibDems ?

I can’t see how helping the Tories to achieve what they otherwise wouldn’t be able to achieve, was the right thing for the LibDems to do. And millions of former LibDem voters agree with me. They’re not interested in seeing a stable Tory government.

People generally don’t vote LibDem because they want to vote Tory. Something which appears to be lost on Clegg.

How would not going into “coalition”“servitude” with the Tories have clobbered the LibDems ?

FIOA

And millions of former LibDem voters agree with me. They’re not interested in seeing a stable Tory government

He speaks the truth you know. This is *fact*.

The history of Lib Lab pact does not suggest not going into coalition would have done them that much good either.

The history of Lib Lab pact does not suggest not going into coalition would have done them that much good either.

The Lib-Lab Pact is hardly a comparable situation.

Completely different arrangement, in a completely different political climate. It was a very minor arrangement whereby the Liberals agreed not to support a no confidence vote in the House. The whole thing lasted less than 18 months and was over well before the subsequent general election.

The Liberals were not “punished” for the Lib-Lab Pact, however much spin you try to put on it. What probably happened, as the Labour vote held reasonable well, is that some Liberal voters possibly switched to Labour – there was a real fear of a Conservative government with Thatcher as the Prime Minister. There was a strong “anti-Thatcher” sentiment in 1979.

Why all the moaning:

1. We get to understand what LibDems are really like?
2. We get to understand what coalitions are like?
3. Ed Balls can’t screw up any more?
4. The Tory haters get a field day?
5. Labour get a few years to find a proper leader?

Sounds like most get a good deal?

It was a confidence agreement, as opposed to a confidence and supply, which I guess is what would have been on offer otherwise, so I think it is a reasonable comparison. Always difficult to work out why your share goes down, but we know that it certainly did and my thesis would be this is the natural trajectory of a third party in a two party system when it approaches power as its essential futility becomes obvious.

It was a confidence agreement, as opposed to a confidence and supply, which I guess is what would have been on offer otherwise, so I think it is a reasonable comparison. Always difficult to work out why your share goes down, but we know that it certainly did and my thesis would be this is the natural trajectory of a third party in a two party system when it approaches power as its essential futility becomes obvious.

EDIT: Apologies for using the incorrect term earlier.

Why all the moaning

Good point teamhurtmore. I could perhaps be forgiven for relishing the sight of capitalism and bourgeois democracy in crises – hardly a day passes when there isn’t yet more news concerning how capitalism is shafting itself.

However unfortunately it’s the ordinary man and woman who is paying for this crises, which kinda takes the shine off things.

So no, it doesn’t sound “like a good deal” at all, imo.

Ernie – I assume that you appreciated that my comments were made with my tongue fully in my cheek!

But back to the main issue. I agree with Cleggy that the current levels of executive remuneration are excessive in absolute terms, in relative terms to company performance, in relation to workers within the same company etc. But I do not see that this means that the government should be legislating here. The government has not right to intervene and is in no better position to intervene than anyone else. This should be left to the company’s shareholders, customers and workers to determine. I would agree that shareholders have failed in their responsibility to deal with the issue, but they have suffered as a result with poor share price performance. So it should be them, who deals with the issue.

I could just about support the idea of greater transparency but again who is to determine where this ends? Still probably best left to others.

So all-in-all, just another political gimmick?