[Closed] Clegg to resign

Next stop Brussels eh Cleggy !

Yes I think EU commissioner would be ideal for him. At least then he wouldn't need to worry about people liking him, or having to vote for him, before he took decisions which affected their lives.

Milliband too please.

One down, two to go.

For those who think there's been a massive disconnect between Westminster and the voters out in the sticks.

He won't resign.

their problem is they broke their pledge and supported a govt that did everything they stood against.

Replacing the leader wont change the basic problem that no one trusts them to do what they say.

IMHO the next leader is Tim Farron [ went to college with him and we did politics together and he was a lib dem then] and he will have the sense to wait till after the election kicking.

Makes no difference. No one is going to vote for the libdems for an entire generation.

Trouble is whoever leads the Lib Dems will probably do just as badly they are clearly a party going nowhere no matter how much they think they can dust themselves down and rebuild. The party has lost morality with its voters probably stemming back from letting the students down with Clegg going back on his promise on student fees.

their problem is they broke their pledge and supported a govt that did everything they stood against.

I think if Clegg resigned at that time, the rest of the party might have stood a chance. But now it's completely scuppered.

He has to go and I find myself agreeing with Junkyard and Farron would be the natural choice, would Farage had had as much publicity if Clegg hadn't invited him to debate? Had he not taken a deliberate pro Europe stance despite some of us lib dems being anti European political integration, would we have had such a bad result.
If he had any decency at all he'd fall on his sword.

Got shafted by the result in the last election, Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't have had enough seats for outright majority, and another election at the time would have probably resulted in slim Conservative majority, with increased Labour vote and Lib Dem vote disappearing after all the coalition fear mongering. Probably hoped he could temper Conservative policy somewhat rather than spend another 5 years as a very minor part of the opposition.

No one else will want to take over until after the inevitable general election disaster. Then the man, who 4 years ago was getting all the praise that Farage is now, can be ceremonially dumped and a fresh start can be proclaimed. Although there is still a real possibility that they will end up in another coalition with either Lab or Con, which might complicate that somewhat.

They'll go thru similar thing as the tories did in '97. They'll have their equivalent of IDS, Hague, and the other one.
Back then everyone was saying Tories would be broken for a generation, but only took a little more than a decade to nearly become outright electable. edit: although, tbf, they did have help from Brown running an economy by saying the word "prudent" in every sentence for a decade, and blair getting out perfectly and washing his hands just as the excrement hit the fan.

Might be interesting watching LD move their MPs to what they think are safe constituencies over the next year ready for the general.

Before the 2010 election in many respects I felt the lib dems were to the left of labour and had the integrity to stand by beliefs irrespective of what that meant in terms of popularity at the poles. I respected that. To form a coalition with the Tories as the minority party was always going to mean having to compromise. The lib dem usp was (in my eyes at least) that no compromise position. Once they lost that I'm really not sure what they are for any more.

If they had got into bed with labour after the election instead it would be interesting to see where they would be now. Couldn't be any worse.

I'm a soft middle class guardian reading pro Europe teacher and I can't see me voting for them for the foreseeable. If they can't count on me that makes them truly bolloxed.

Got shafted by the result in the last election, Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't have had enough seats for outright majority, and another election at the time would have probably resulted in slim Conservative majority, with increased Labour vote and Lib Dem vote disappearing after all the coalition fear mongering. Probably hoped he could temper Conservative policy somewhat rather than spend another 5 years as a very minor part of the opposition.

labour were closer to lib-dem on policy than the tories, and with labour offering PR Clegg sold out the lib-dem voters for a numbers game and ignored the reasons that they had voted for his party.

It will perhaps be interesting to see what is revealed in the future, and if in reality the lib-dems had in fact tempered the tory attack on the nation. But the reality will not matter, in the public eye they have sold out their core beliefs and have been completely played by the tories.

Surely the only way Clegg could survive is if no-one else wants the job at the moment?

The party has lost morality with its voters probably stemming back from letting the students down with Clegg going back on his promise on student fees.

But in reality he didn't as the LibDems never won the election and his is the minority party in coalition.

If they had got into bed with labour after the election instead it be interesting to see where they would be now.

We'd have had another election within a year, with the Tories winning a bigger majority IMO. A Lib-Lab coalition didn't have the numbers to work.

At the last election the LibDems were screwed whatever choice they made. Oddly they did what they felt was best in the long term for the country and the voters are going to hammer them for it. As someone said on one of the other threads the UK public just don't get coalitions and how they involve compromise.

Instinctive LD voter here. But really really struggling to see what they stand for now. As convert and MSP have said above really.

The party has lost morality with its voters probably stemming back from letting the students down with Clegg going back on his promise on student fees.

I think the LibDem's problems extend further back to when Clegg first became their leader.

Under Charles Kennedy I strongly supported the LibDems as I saw them as the only major party occupying the slightly left of centre ground, and judging by their electoral success at that time I wasn't the only one.

However when Nick Clegg became LibDem leader it became obvious that the LibDems had decided to arrive late to the neoliberal party, and that Clegg was simply another repackaged Tory like Blair.

The 2010 general election should have been watershed for the LibDems. Labour by then had been in power for 13 years, a very long time in British politics, but more importantly, the Conservatives were seen to have very little credibility in the eyes of the electorate, indeed they failed to win the election.

This waiting open goal for the LibDems should have resulted in them enjoying a huge groundswell of support as the obvious alternative to the two discredited parties. In the event the LibDems failed and pretty much received the same vote as they had received 5 years early under Charles Kennedy.

It was clear that under Nick Clegg the LibDems had failed to significantly convince voters that were able to offer an alternative to the other two discredited parties.

And as it turns out they were right ..... as Clegg went on to prove.

Making Nick Clegg leader was the first big mistake the LibDems made. Entering coalition with the Tories was just the follow up mistake which finished them off. IMO

Aye, CK for all his legion of faults, at least (I would have said) was an instinctive LD head of party. Clegg - not so much. Bring back Thorpe (maybe not)..

I defected from Labour to Lib Dems at the last election because I thought the Lib Dems were more left of centre and progressive than Labour. What a naive mistake that was. Sorry everyone. No idea what's left. Should probably just leave it up to better informed and more local people...

Charles Kennedy was by far the most inspiring party leader when he was LibDem leader. IMO
Damn the Scots and their cultural drinking issues.

I am not a fan of coalition governments and for that reason less pro-PR, but in this case I think the coalition has achieved far more that I would have expected. They came to power at a very difficult time economically and with large areas of incompatibility in objectives. But they had to govern and they had to make a number of tough choices. Of course, there are the headline grabbing issues (Uni fees being the most obvious) and there has been the distraction of pre-budget pre-briefings (largely Uncle Vince playing Machiavelli) but there have also been a number of successes including on tax (wealth tax excluded) and a lot has been achieved given the difficult context.. Not least, they have illustrated the fact that in opposition it's easy to hide behind fantasy polices covered in sugar, but when you are actually in power, things change and harsh, cold reality sets in. Like a CEO it becomes more lonely and more difficult and you often become less popular but that comes with the turf. Hopefully that will lead to a more discriminating electorate especially in the run up to 18th September 2014.

Well, regardless of what you think of the Lib Dems or Nick Clegg, he's actually the most successful Lib Dem leader since Lloyd George...and yes, I know he was a Liberal (created the welfare state by the way)

A junior coalition party is always in a bad position, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Coalition with Labour at the last election would have meant government with no majority and no actual mandate so nothing would have got done and you probably would have had another General Election within a year with the same result. The lib Dems always stated before the election that they would enter coalition talks with whichever party had the most votes/seats and that is exactly what happened. If you're party is doomed you might as well go out having been in government as you will at least have had a chance to made a difference as opposed to shouting from the sidelines.

Also loving the comments about tuition fees, Yes, true ( disagreed with them on turning against that) but that wasn't part of the final coalition agreement: you won't get everything you want.

However, if you think that's bad, I do remember a party standing for election after taking the country into a rather large , costly and hugely unpopular (possibly illegal)war...They got re-elected a couple times afterwards so it's always good to see where people's priorities lie.

By the way, two people who are prospective parliamentary candidates ( ie not MPs) saying their leader should resign does not a revolution make....possibly also mean they will have some "interesting" discussions this week with head office.

The party has lost morality with its voters probably stemming back from letting the students down with Clegg going back on his promise on student fees.
[b]But in reality he didn't as the LibDems never won the election and his is the minority party in coalition.[/b]

Let remind you what he said with a picture
Its is clear and what you say and his explanation was BS and disingenuous in the extreme
[img] [/img]

he's actually the most successful Lib Dem leader since Lloyd George

I think you have to define success pretty narrowly as having been in govt [ and ignore war govts ] for that to be true.
TBH I dont think even his wife thinks that and no one has destroyed the party as spectacularly as he has.

but that wasn't part of the final coalition agreement: you won't get everything you want.

We know and it was Cleggs fault it was not

Well, regardless of what you think of the Lib Dems or Nick Clegg, he's actually the most successful Lib Dem leader since Lloyd George

No he isn't. You don't even provide a shred of evidence to back up that quite remarkable claim.

When Nick Clegg became LibDem leader they were enjoying about 20 percent support in the polls, and had been more or less doing so for about 30 years.

Today under Nick Clegg's leadership LibDem support has plummeted to half of that and is down to the level it was 70 years ago. They now have just one MEP - even the BNP have had more than that in recent years.

[img] [/img]

Claiming that Nick Clegg is the most successful LibDem leader since Lloyd George in face of reality is the most impressive bit of spin heard in a very long time. In fact I'm gobsmacked 🙂

it's a tough decision whether to take the job or not, no guarantee of keeping your seat come the election so a year as the top dog in a doomed party may appeal to some, but if you keep your head down and scrape through there's not going to be much competition for the job post ge.

Will he get elected again? I can't see how anyone would vote for him now

muddy@rseguy - Member

Well, regardless of what you think of the Lib Dems or Nick Clegg, he's actually the most successful Lib Dem leader since Lloyd George..

Yeah, depends on your criteria for success, if "Got taken up the arse by the tories then led his party off a cliff" is success then perhaps so.

You can't judge a party leader solely by electoral success, if you do that then Tony Blair is the best labour leader ever. Sell your soul and you might be politically succesful but you're failing in all your actual goals and duties.

Having said that, it's obvious the lib dems now want a sacrificial goat but how many in the party were frantically trying to hold him back? Not many I think, he wasn't the only one to succumb.

it's a tough decision whether to take the job or not, no guarantee of keeping your seat come the election so a year as the top dog in a doomed party may appeal to some, but if you keep your head down and scrape through there's not going to be much competition for the job post ge.

Despite the low popularity it still looks like there's a reasonable chance of the next lib dem leader being deputy-PM after the next election. That might appeal to some.

I see Clegg hanging on to his post for a few months till the party conference or even till the general election as no one else is going to want to take the leadership and therefore take some of the blame when libdems are made to suffer at the election

Lib Dem is doomed which probably means they will be wiped out entirely in the next general election. Another history in the making.

😯

Yup the lib dems are screwed now.
I always used to vote for them, but since their sell out of the tuition fees amongst other things, I am not planning on voting for them any time soon.
Sadly there still appear to be very few alternatives available.

You can't judge a party leader solely by electoral success...

This is true, although the primary role of a leader is to lead their party to electoral success. In the case of Nick Clegg he's done the complete opposite - he's led his party into electoral oblivion.

Claiming that Nick Clegg is the most successful LibDem leader since Lloyd George in face of reality is the most impressive bit of spin heard in a very long time. In fact I'm gobsmacked

Ok, so you're gobsmacked.

Reasoning: Nick Clegg brought his party into a coalition government, he's DPM ( regardless of what you think of that) and the party has MPs in several major departments (treasury, trade and industry and education)

You might not agree with their policies and you might dislike or hate the person ( in which case, get out a bit more) but I can't help thinking that a great deal of the anti Lib Dem vitriol comes from a lot of Labour supporters who either can't get over loosing the last general election, went and voted Lib Dem instead of Labour to keep the Tories out and simply can't get over the fact that the Liberal democrats then didn't do the decent thing and roll over and go into Coalition with Labour...."ooh, how dare they" or they are livid Conservatives who also can't get over not winning the last election that was so rightfully theirs...

ITS A COALITION GOVERNMENT FFS! You won't get everything you want ( a bit like real life)

Hang on, it's a bank holiday Monday, I'm off to enjoy the rest of my day instead of being flamed for holding an opinion and making reasoned ( or not 🙂 )arguments.

got that analysis /wrong/ (edit) as far as I'm concerned. Principles out the window from my pov. Now I'm left - was undecided in referendum - thinking "sod it, I'll just vote Yes" and leave you to it.

Reasoning: Nick Clegg brought his party into a coalition government, he's DPM ( regardless of what you think of that) and the party has MPs in several major departments (treasury, trade and industry and education)

Oh I see......you're impressed because a handful of LibDem MPs have spent the last 4 years being driven around in ministerial Jags in repayment for propping up the Tories.

Well if that's how you gauge "success" then yes, I can see that for you Nick Clegg has been the most successful LibDem leader since Lloyd George. Most people however don't appear to be as easily impressed as you.

.

You might not agree with their policies and you might dislike or hate the person ( in which case, get out a bit more)

You mean get out a bit more and meet the other 90% of people who like me don't agree with LibDem policies and dislike or hate Nick Clegg ?

Looks like the masses want clegg of the failed liberal democrats to leave

Got the Lib Dems into government for the first time in their history

You mean get out a bit more and meet the other 90% of people who like me don't agree with LibDem policies and dislike or hate Nick Clegg ?

Clegg is responsible for a hung parliament?

To be fair he couldn't have done it without the Tories failing to win a majority, so a big vote of thanks should also be extended to David Cameron.

Perhaps the blame should be the folk who were fooled by the TV debates?!? More media hyperbole.....

Has he gone been pushed yet.

Nice to see everyone almost agreeing with me for once.

Not a success IMHO

So him and his party get no thanks for helping form a government at a time of severe financial crisis, thus reducing the threat and allowing the UK to start to recover? Apparently not.
Everyone talks about how they want governments to think beyond their party and shorterm-ism and yet when the LibDems do pretty much that they get hammered for it.

Well I'm sure many Tories are grateful, very grateful in fact, even if they don't say so publicly. I'm not sure so many former LibDem voters are though.

BTW what was/is "the threat" ? It sounds a little scarey.

EDIT : RE : "allowing the UK to start to recover". The UK economy had already started to recover at the time of the last general election. The present government just managed to delay it by a few years. I don't think anyone should be grateful for that.

He would have credit had he done this with his principles intact but he did not.
If you think he did for the country then you are deluded. he thought that being in power would show they could govern and garner them votes. However he forgot they needed to have principles, as well as pragmatism, and stick to them.

Oddly they did what they felt was best in the long term for the country and the voters are going to hammer them for it.

This. I don't think there's any way the Lib Dems (as a centre-left party) were ever going to come out of a coalition with the Tories well, and supporting the HSCB and backing down on tuition fees lost them a lot of support. It might have been worth it if they'd managed to push through meaningful electoral reform though.

I don't think there's any way the Lib Dems (as a centre-left party) were ever going to come out of a coalition with the Tories well

They should have let the Tories form a minority government then. No one at the time expected the LibDems to enter into a full coalition with the Tories.

Of course a Tory minority government would have struggled passing legislation like the bedroom tax or Royal Mail privatization, but so what ?

it depends how well they negotiated the coalition tbh -its pretty hard , beyond the PR vote, to think of starting Lib dem achievements

it depends how well they negotiated the coalition tbh -its pretty hard , beyond the PR vote, to think of starting Lib dem achievements

There wasn't a PR vote. There was a vote on Alternative Vote which is not PR; it should have been in the coalition agreement that the Tories would support reform to a proper PR system (AV Plus as used in Scotland if not STV) or no deal. It obviously wasn't.

If I were Clegg I would be laughing my way to the bank after taking you lot for a ride. Yes, I would retire happily and charge extortionate price for public speaking etc, with other roles in the corporate world being bonus. Then thank you for the contribution to his performance. 😆

No one at the time expected the LibDems to enter into a full coalition with the Tories.

Yeah they did. I think a lot of people don't understand what the LibDems stand for, in many respects their views are far nearer that of moderate Tories than they are of any of aspects of Labour. The tories and libDems are particularly aligned in terms of less state involvement and more competition. Neither want old school central control, nationalised industries, which labour traditionally has seen as the answer.

Still when we get a full on Tory government after the next election, you might start to understand the moderating influence the LibDems are having now.

dragon - Member
Still when we get [u]a full on Tory government[/u] after the next election, ...

That will not happen. 🙄

Lib Dems - RIP 🙂

There was a vote on Alternative Vote which is not PR

Aye fair point my error.

their views are far nearer that of moderate Tories

Newsnight did a vote and their conference and it was over 2/3 who would prefer a coalition with labour than the tories- cannot remember how long after the coalition this was.

Yes they moderate the tories but they also enable them.

I can think of one LibDem policy that has survived the coalition - increasing the basic income tax threshold significantly. So Nick has managed to get one significant LibDem policy implemented. You could argue that's more than any other LibDem leader has managed in the last few decades. Or you could argue that the old policy of 1p on income tax to fund the NHS was co-opted by New Labour as a 1p increase on NI to fund the NHS, so maybe he's evens with Paddy Ashdown or whichever leader it was then.

In my opinion the 2010 election results were the first thing to screw the LibDems. You can't be a party that supports PR if you're not willing to enter coalition agreements. I sort of suspect that Nick Clegg realised this was going to end badly for the party long before most people did, possibly while most of the media was hailing it as a great day for the LibDems.

The coalition negotiations were the next thing to screw the LibDems and a lot of that can be laid at the feet of Nick Clegg. He got beaten by the Tories who after all had a lot more experience in their ranks about playing in the big leagues than the LibDems did. He got the tax threshold change (which apparently was opposed strongly by some Tories, while it's a tax cut, it's one for the poor not the rich) but while what he got on electoral and House of Lords reform was hailed in some circles it was barely more than smoke and mirrors. In return he agreed to the tuition fees farce and the NHS reforms, the latter of which wasn't even something the Tories campaigned on.

Given that a chunk of the LibDem vote has long been a protest vote it's not surprising that it has evaporated now that they've been in power. Doubly not surprising because it's much easier to see the Tory side of the coalition's policies than the LibDem side. Even if Labour had gotten in they'd have probably implemented some Toryesque policies purely because even they were saying that big spending cuts were on the way. Tory voters expect spending cuts so didn't desert the party until Nigel Farage started promising them spending cuts and xenophobia. LibDem voters want peace, love, understanding and nice fluffy things so being in a coalition for a government that was inevitably going to deliver hard knocks was never going to work out well for them.

Incidentally, for those still surprised that there was any common ground for the LibDems and Tories to build a coalition on, I recall reading back when Nick Clegg became leader about the division within the party between "Orange Book" liberals such as Clegg who are more economically liberal (like free market Conservatives) and those in the party who are more left wing economically.

Public perception of the party for a long time seems to have focused on the social liberal and wishy-washy lefty aspect of it, but in recent years the economic liberalism side of it has had a lot of influence. Possibly following the next general election a lot of the Orange Book side of the LibDems will be burned out of the party and whatever remains will realign itself further left, but whether the electorate would acknowledge that change or keep punishing them is hard to call.

No one at the time expected the LibDems to enter into a full coalition with the Tories.

Yeah they did.

They didn't. A hung parliament was very much on the cards before the last general election. At no time did the Nick Clegg or any LibDem suggest that they were willing to consider entering into a full coalition with the Tories, in the event of the Tories emerging as the largest party.

The most people expected was that the LibDems would vote to allow key legislation such as the budget through. It came as a shock to many LibDems and also to many more LibDem voters.

Support for the LibDems fell as soon as full coalition with the Tories was announced. Not something which would have happened if full coalition with the Tories was a recognised LibDem policy.

And now that it is, we see the deep hole the LibDems have dug themselves.

And now that it is, we see the deep hole the LibDems have dug themselves.

Six feet down would be about the right depth!

"And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain"

Shame he didn't do it our way, but it was the backstep on fees that did him for me. Yellow streak runs right through to the spine.

Who would take up a leadership of such a disaster?

He looked terrible on the news, I feel for him, erm....

We have a mostly Tory government because more people voted Tory than for anyone else.

So the policies of this government are mostly Tory, because of the support shown for them at the polls.

The Tories were not put in power by Nick Clegg, they we're put there by voters.

Now, given that, how do we have a taxation system that's more progressive than under Labour?

Were the Tories talking about reducing direct taxation on the poor, and raising it on the rich, before the coalition agreement? No, they were talking about reducing inheritance tax for the rich.

Spending cuts? Whoever was in government, they would have happened anyway. Just look at the complete absence of any promise to increase spending, in any department, by the next Labour Government.

No, they were talking about reducing inheritance tax for the rich.

They were talking about reducing the top rate of tax, which they did, and thereby gifting the rich a far bigger slice of cake than the crumbs they scattered for the poor.

increasing the basic income tax threshold significantly. So Nick has managed to get one significant LibDem policy implemented

he will still be remembered as the ****er who took us into an illegal war.

The Tories were not put in power by Nick Clegg, they we're put there by voters.

they were talking about reducing inheritance tax for the rich.

The top rate of tax is higher now than under Labour.
Except for a few weeks before the election.
And even that rate was declared temporary when announced.
A political trick.
It was 40% for years. And years.
And super low CGT kept the wealthy happy anyway.
Comfortable with making the rich richer.
Taxing the poor more.

You can spin it how you like and yes Labour sold them a trick
The facts are the tories cut tax on the rich though and the Lib dems for the poor. Its higher than under labour not because of what the tories did but because of what labour did

A more progressive tax system. Despite main party being Tory. An unexpected thing.
The rich pay more in tax now. The poor pay less. The middle also slightly more.
But the poor hit harder by spending cuts. But spending cuts not going to be reversed by Labour.

So… why is Clegg hated so much? Tribalism. A hatred of Tories. Ignoring that a government that includes Tories has been kept in check, and isn't a million miles from where a Labour government would be really.

I'm angry with this government about so many things. But scapegoating Clegg achieves nothing. In fact, it'll help Tories to win more seats, and allow Labour to keep getting away with being Red Tories.

So… why is Clegg hated so much? Tribalism. A hatred of Tories. Ignoring that a government that includes Tories has been kept in check, and isn't a million miles from where a Labour government would be really.

Thank goodness they've been kept in check. Otherwise things like NHS privatisation would have started and things like a bedroom tax.

There should have been some pretty strong red lines that the LibDems had in coalition talks. It looks as if they simply turned up with a bucket of vaseline and loosened trousers at the sniff of any kind of power.

I voted for them last time, thinking they were more left of centre than Labour. Never, ever again.

NHS privatisation has been under way for nearly 20 years now. Wake up.

I voted for them last time, thinking they were more left of centre than Labour.

The LibDems have long described themselves as a centrist party. OK in recent years they haven't been so literal as they once were but they still claimed that position.

During Labour's tenure in power Labour shifted to the right, partly through intent (getting a bit too enamoured with markets) and partly due to an apparent tendency for parties in power to become more authoritarian. So the LibDems started to seem more left wing but probably by staying still as Labour sailed rightwards past them, not through much movement on the LibDems' part.

Now that Labour's back in opposition the scales can fall from their eyes and they can start espousing more left wing views again, while it's the LibDems who are in power and end up compromising on their principles. (Even moreso because of being in a coalition with a right of centre party and having cuffed up the coalition agreement.)

Maybe one day we'll get some proper evidence about whether or not the LibDems managed to curb the excesses of what a purely Tory government would have done in this parliament. The LibDems for too long seemed afraid to show any indication that there were disagreements between the coalition parties, possibly out of fear that the electorate (or the markets) weren't ready to grasp the idea that coalition government involves negotiation and compromise. This seems currently to be yet another of the poor decisions which has left them in their current parlous state.

teamhurtmore - Member
...largely Uncle Vince playing Machiavelli...

I take it back Vince old boy, seems like your old mucker Sneaky Lord Oakeshott has been playing the dirty games this time. There's a particularly virulent seam of nastiness among the innocent-sounding LDs.

Cleggie's back must be rather sore from all the stabs by now.

Yes, because that doesn't happen in other parties.

Really, I thought it did.

Cable is a ****.

I almost feel sorry for the bloke. He did his best to establish support and votes by making a strong statement on tuition fees. Then he got dragged into an ongoing car crash, and could only be a loser. Meanwhile the Nasty Party removed from their website any potential problems by deleting everything pre-2010.

To be fair, Tories are also losing votes due to having to compromise in government. Not as dramatically as the LibDems, but neither party has managed to explain to the electorate how coalition government works.

Voters see compromise in coalition as being untrustworthy, or selling out.

Nick Clegg couldn't deliver on his manifesto and other pledges because he had to work with the Tories.

Cameron couldn't deliver on his because he had to work with the LibDems.

We'll that was a rather sad attempt at a coup.

Vince's attempts to distance himself from his mucker's activity are amusing in a depressing kind of way.

He did his best to establish support and votes by making a strong statement [s]making false promises that he knew at the time he was making them could never be afforded in order to cynically capture floating votes [/s]on tuition fees.