Having spent years arguing that coalition governments – as seen on the continent – can be successful, could they have maintained any credibility if they rejected it?

Probably not, though I think the assumption had always been Lib-Lab coalition rather than Lib-Tory, even with the more centrist Cameron Tories.

Mind you, the people who tactically voted Lib Dem to keep Lab out would then’ve been unhappy, and the Tories would’ve yammered on about ‘Vote Lib get Lab’.

Can’t win, I suspect.

I think the assumption had always been Lib-Lab coalition rather than Lib-Tory

I’ve never understood this as the numbers never worked for Lib-Lab pact, as pointed out above. Plus it is generally believed that Clegg had a much better working relationship with Cameron than Brown. The Lib Dems have policies that would sit happily with either the more moderates in the Conservatives or a centre ground (New) Labour party, so in theory could work with either, if the numbers work.

The Lib Dems are definitely needed in a world where Labour and Tory are racing to see who can be more authoritarian.

I used to vote lib dem, but then I lived in a lib dem safe seat. Politically, I am closest to them and think they have a lot to offer the country. To me, they are the moderates on most issues – not as spendthrift or authoritarian as Labour but more socialist than the Conservatives.

I also quite liked them in coalition. I think they did well to moderate the more extreme Conservative elements and brought forward some nice progressive policies. Coalition is better than confidence and supply, but perhaps we aren’t mature enough for that. I would have happily seen another coalition in 2015.

Now I live in an area with hardly any LD votes. Much as I would like my LD vote to be seen and counted, I can also use it to influence the three parties competing in my seat so I choose to do that instead. That and Tim Farron is a twunt and not really liberal. My Holyrood and Westminster votes are cast quite differently because of the two different systems.

I’ve never understood this as the numbers never worked for Lib-Lab pact,

Sorry, I meant the assumption was that if coalition ever came to pass, it would be Lib-Lab. As you and I have both pointed out. the numbers didn’t stack up in 2010, even if the LDs had been prepared to work with Brown, which they weren’t. I missed David Ford off the previous numbers but that would still only have given 317 seats.

Tim Farron is a twunt and not really liberal.

How is he not really Liberal?

How is he not really Liberal?

Well, OK, he is probably more Liberal than he is anything else. But his take on Liberalism isn’t one I find myself particularly drawn to. There are others in his part that far better suit the role. Maybe it is that he is too openly Christian for my liking (I’m an atheist and I believe strongly in a secular state).

I will never vote for them again after tuition fees.

g5604 – Member
I will never vote for them again after tuition fees.

What would labour or the tories have to do to get that sort of reaction?

What would labour or the tories have to do to get that sort of reaction?

make a cast iron pledge that profoundly effects me and then immediately break it at the first sniff of power.

Maybe it is that he is too openly Christian for my liking

The converse of that is to ask whether you believe all politicians should be atheists?

He doesn’t handle questions about it well, I’ll give you that. However, he does seem to regard his faith as a personal matter and his voting record seems to reflect that (largely).

So who do you vote for? The party which introduced tuition fees, or the party which made the changes to tuition fees which are apparently so heinous.

Though I’m curious exactly how it affects you – presumably you’re earning well above average wage, so voting for the party which most people with that sort of salary do – ie the party actually responsible for you having to pay more for your loan?

making a lot of assumptions there aracer.

Tim Farron is a twunt and not really liberal.

I’m not convinced Clegg was either. By all accounts, he was a gifted politician who all the parties were trying to recruit and he chose the Lib Dems so that he could be a big fish in a small pond.

I’m not convinced Clegg was either

That’s a difficult one. He is a gifted politician, if maybe a bit too smooth, and could’ve done well in any of the three main parties. However, he talks the talk well enough, and must’ve been popular enough with the LD faithful at the time to get elected leader. Maybe I’d have voted for him too if I’d been a member then.

Another lifetime LibDem voter here who would never vote for them again post Clegg. Made for TV Blair clone.

Another lifetime LibDem voter here who would never vote for them again post Clegg.

Every party has politicians you’re not going to like, and I doubt Clegg would even be on the LD front bench if they had more than 9 MPs.

And being a bit too smooth is hardly in the realms of Neil Hamiton or Tommy Graham.

oldnpastit – Member

Having spent years arguing that coalition governments – as seen on the continent – can be successful, could they have maintained any credibility if they rejected it?

Sure- saying “coalitions can be succesful” doesn’t tie you to entering the first one you get a sniff of.

The converse of that is to ask whether you believe all politicians should be atheists

No I don’t which is where it gets complicated. It’s hard to describe, but I think with Farron we see a bit more of his religion than I’m comfortable with.

Sure- saying “coalitions can be succesful” doesn’t tie you to entering the first one you get a sniff of.

So you think they could be taken at all seriously if they were offered a shot at government and rejected it? “No thanks, we’d rather stay in opposition and moan all the time” They’d be a laughing stock. They had a rare opportunity to advance the Liberal agenda. They took it, they made progress. But then they get lambasted because they didn’t win a majority and so had to compromise.

It would be like if Corbyn objected to the general election. It makes a mockery of the fixed term parliaments act, but he had no choice other than to support the election.

grumpysculler – Member

So you think they could be taken at all seriously if they were offered a shot at government and rejected it? “No thanks, we’d rather stay in opposition and moan all the time” They’d be a laughing stock.

“We were unable to reach an acceptable agreement with the Tories at this time”. That’s all it takes.

Frankly, if the lib dems really did think “We said coalitions can work therefore we must enter this coalition no matter what”, they deserve a hundred times worst than they got, that’d prove them unfit to run a corner shop.

Maybe it is that he is too openly Christian for my liking (I’m an atheist and I believe strongly in a secular state).

I’m NOT an atheist, and I also believe strongly in a secular state.

I don’t think you have said anything wrong or even worrisome, but I do want to serve a reminder that many robust liberals can actually be quite devout in their personal faith without it impeding on their ability to legislate well. I am thinking about Pierre Trudeau as an example par excellence.

Frankly, if the lib dems really did think “We said coalitions can work therefore we must enter this coalition no matter what”, they deserve a hundred times worst than they got, that’d prove them unfit to run a corner shop.

I don’t think it was that. I think it was more a perception that, at a time of a severe financial crash, a majority government was needed and a Tory-Lib coalition was the only means of delivering this. Of course, none of us were in the room at the time, so what was said…

Without the coalition, we’d have had a minority Tory government, and another election which would likely have delivered a Tory majority. Whatever else can be said about the coalition, the LDs had some moderating effect, as we’ve seen since 2015.

…making a lot of assumptions there…

I’ll make another assumption. I’d be happy to swap debts and repayment conditions…

I do want to serve a reminder that many robust liberals can actually be quite devout in their personal faith without it impeding on their ability to legislate well.

Oh I agree and wouldn’t want anything I said to be seen as anti-religion. Your personal faith is, well, personal. There’s just something about Farron…

Surely you’re not talking about personality politics?