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
he is worse than I thought then 😉
Aye fair point my error.
their views are far nearer that of moderate Tories
No they are not hence why they are partly formed from a party that split from Labour- that is a strange claim to make tbh.
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 has but tony blair introduced the minimum wage and human rights legislation
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.
If that was the case it would not be a coalition government. Clegg was the king maker
so they settled for reducing top rate tax and ignoring the wealth tax that Lib dems failed to getthey 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.
