politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This morning’s must read

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This morning’s must read

Guardian front page via @suttonnick

Clegg offered to resign as Lib Dem leader in May 2014

http://t.co/gTWlPjXRRw pic.twitter.com/zTWhL3GspY

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

First?

Best line: "Vince Cable’s reputation isn’t enhanced by this story."

It would be hard for his reputation to be diminished, in my mind at least.

If Clegg had resigned in 2014, it's interesting to consider what would have happened to the coalition.

foxinsoxuk

Second!

It will take the LDs a long time to recover, and they certainly made plenty of mistakes in government, but who doesn't?

old_labour

From the article:
Charles Kennedy, the keeper of the social democratic flame, who died a few weeks after losing his Highlands seat, was keen to keep his distance from Clegg: a suggestion that Clegg might visit Kennedy’s constituency in Scotland was met with a curt two-word reply.

Scott_P

old_labour said:

a curt two-word reply.

"No thanks" ?

SimonStClare

‘Vince Cable’s reputation isn’t enhanced by this story.’


What a surprise. I've always regarded him as the Lib Dems and Coalitions pet fifth columnist.

foxinsoxuk

The final couple of paragraphs hold some hope of a bounceback:

"Meltdown has left many supporters feeling shellshocked. Recently, Clegg was approached by a distressed woman while shopping on his local high street in Putney. Speaking through tears, she told Clegg that his party did not deserve the battering it had received from the British electorate. Buoyed by the heartfelt sympathy from a wellwisher, Clegg told the woman not to worry and thanked her for supporting the Lib Dems – only to be told that she had voted Green.

“People were quite angry,” Coetzee said. “They wanted to dish out a slap on the wrist – and then found they’d cut the hand off and were quite horrified by what had happened. Then they went around saying: ‘Oh I’m terribly sorry, I’ve cut your hand off.’”"

But if the British electorate treat coalitions, whether in reality like the LD/Con one or the prospect of a Lab/SNP one as completely toxic, then no third party is going to want to enter one. It is going to be a real problem next hung parliament.

Moses_

Balls losing his seat was just a common sense move by the electorate but Cables loss of his seat was pure poetic justice with a flourish. As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

foxinsoxuk

Moses_ said:

Balls losing his seat was just a common sense move by the electorate but Cables loss of his seat was pure poetic justice with a flourish. As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

I was happy to see Cable finished myself. It was his clumsy undermining of the Coalition that was so poisonous. It prevented a more controlled exit from coalition.

JosiasJessop

Moses_ said:

Balls losing his seat was just a common sense move by the electorate but Cables loss of his seat was pure poetic justice with a flourish. As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

The tuition fees outrage was very unfair on the Lib Dems, especially given Labour's mendacious behaviour wrt their 2001 manifesto, and the fact that labour set up the Browne Review in the first place.

Sandpit

Another very good article, great to see these long-form pieces from all sides so soon after the election.

For me the key passage was about the coup in May 2014, where Oakshott was finally forced out. It all played out as Cable was on a trip to China and incommunicado:

Oakeshott tried to ring Cable, who was in China on a ministerial visit, to tell him what was afoot – but they missed each other by a matter of minutes. Pugh, meanwhile, was alarmed by Oakeshott’s leaking of the polls; he feared it was premature, and that it would look devious. Pugh worried – correctly – that the story would quickly shift from Clegg’s failure in the European and local elections to one focused on unmasking the identity of the mystery pollster.

At this point Stephen Lotinga, the newly installed Lib Dem communications chief, decided to try to flush Cable out. Without consulting Clegg, Lotinga telephoned Cable’s team in China and confronted them with an ultimatum: “Either you distance yourself from this, or you and Oakeshott are going to be named in tomorrow’s papers as the people behind it.”

Lotinga now admits that he was bluffing. He had no definitive evidence that Oakeshott was involved.

Scott_P

The lesson from this might be that it is possible to judge a party's competence for Government by their ability to organise an internal coup. Labour can't do it either...

Sandpit

foxinsoxuk said:

Moses_ said:

Balls losing his seat was just a common sense move by the electorate but Cables loss of his seat was pure poetic justice with a flourish. As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

I was happy to see Cable finished myself. It was his clumsy undermining of the Coalition that was so poisonous. It prevented a more controlled exit from coalition.

Agreed. Pretty much any other minister would have been forced out by the oldest journalistic trick in the book when the Telegraph ambushed him with two flirty young ladies - but instead entire government departments we re-arranged around him as if he was too big for the sack.

I'm amazed that there wasn't either a new leader in place or a formal breakup of the coalition before the election, if only to allow some distance. The LDs spent most of the campaign talking negatively about what their government had achieved in office, yet wonder why they lost 6 out of 7 of their seats at the subsequent election.

AlastairMeeks

This is fabulous journalism. Patrick Wintour should be very proud of both this and his pieces on the Labour campaign.

Casino_Royale

It's an excellent article - thanks for sharing. It does make the Lib Dems seem an absolute shower though.

Personally, I'm not sure ditching Clegg in 2014 would have made much difference to the end result.

Moses_

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:

Balls losing his seat was just a common sense move by the electorate but Cables loss of his seat was pure poetic justice with a flourish. As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

The tuition fees outrage was very unfair on the Lib Dems, especially given Labour's mendacious behaviour wrt their 2001 manifesto, and the fact that labour set up the Browne Review in the first place.

I absolutely agree. Something rarely mentioned by Labour (or the Guardian) .

DecrepitJohnL

Moses_ said:

As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

No, Clegg said something far worse: he said that any LibDem policy, manifesto pledge or campaign promise was worthless because it might be negotiated away in coalition talks.

Innocent_Abroad

antifrank said:

This is fabulous journalism. Patrick Wintour should be very proud of both this and his pieces on the Labour campaign.

No it isn't. It can't be - it's in the Grauniad. It's a rule on this site that only child molesters think for themselves, everyone else lets the Daily Mail do their thinking for them and thereby makes the world a far better place.

matt

Is this more than a spoiling campaign against Tim Farron?

Alistair

I am still confused as to how everyone in government was apparently fooled or did not see coming Lansley's health reforms.

How did he manage to 'sneak' in a bill that included a massive top down reorginisation of the NHS?

Casino_Royale

Further thoughts, the Lib Dems come across as pretty spineless too.

The Ashdown-Clegg relationship is very interesting; consistently very strong and almost father-son like.

This seems absolutely crucial for Clegg and his leadership, even dating right back to the formation of the coalition in 2010. Would coalition have even happened without Ashdown's strong endorsement?

It's a fascinating dynamic.

Moses_

DecrepitJohnL said:

Moses_ said:

As for Cleggy and the tuition fees , he did say sorry......

No, Clegg said something far worse: he said that any LibDem policy, manifesto pledge or campaign promise was worthless because it might be negotiated away in coalition talks.

Well yes..... Of course it does. That's what happens in coalitions and not everyone gets what they want or what they thought honestly they could deliver. This was the same for the Tories as well. If you think it would have been any different under a LibLab pact then you are mistaken because previous history relates.

This is one of the big negatives of PR in my view because if you think a coalition was bad for discarded promises just wait till you see how a rainbow parliament would eliminate promises and effectively any point of manifestos.

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

antifrank said:

This is fabulous journalism. Patrick Wintour should be very proud of both this and his pieces on the Labour campaign.

No it isn't. It can't be - it's in the Grauniad. It's a rule on this site that only child molesters think for themselves, everyone else lets the Daily Mail do their thinking for them and thereby makes the world a far better place.

You're a fool if you let the Daily Mail do your thinking for you, and you're a fool if you let the Guardian do your thinking for you.

The main issue I have with the Guardian is that they try to constantly pretend to have the moral high ground whilst actually occupying the same malaria-riddled swamp as the rest of the press.

DavidL

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

foxinsoxuk

Alistair said:

I am still confused as to how everyone in government was apparently fooled or did not see coming Lansley's health reforms.

How did he manage to 'sneak' in a bill that included a massive top down reorginisation of the NHS?

Lansleys reforms were like IDS, worked out in advance and in the manifesto. Similarly rather theoretical and hard to implement in practice.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Moses, I quite agree.

A very interesting piece by the Guardian. Amused to read below (in this thread) of how Oakeshott got thrown overboard.

Innocent_Abroad

foxinsoxuk said:

Alistair said:

I am still confused as to how everyone in government was apparently fooled or did not see coming Lansley's health reforms.

How did he manage to 'sneak' in a bill that included a massive top down reorginisation of the NHS?

Lansleys reforms were like IDS, worked out in advance and in the manifesto. Similarly rather theoretical and hard to implement in practice.

The NHS has to be abolished. The political problem is to deliver healthcare to a generation (now pensioners) who made no insurance provision at a time in their life when they could have affordably done so. Or perhaps to retain their votes whilst denying them healthcare.

Casino_Royale

Innocent_Abroad said:

antifrank said:

This is fabulous journalism. Patrick Wintour should be very proud of both this and his pieces on the Labour campaign.

No it isn't. It can't be - it's in the Grauniad. It's a rule on this site that only child molesters think for themselves, everyone else lets the Daily Mail do their thinking for them and thereby makes the world a far better place.

You let yourself down with comments like that. You are usually a very interesting and insightful poster.

Pulpstar

I think the Lib Dems could have ended the coalition after the Autumn statement, "We recognise that..... had to come together for the national interest... will not stay in a formal arrangement any longer.... economy back on track... confidence arrangement."

rcs1000

DavidL said:

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant their dreams.

SimonStClare

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant their dreams.

Having been granted their wish and the decision had been made at conference to form a coalition with the Tories, the Lib Dems should have embraced the opportunity and strived a damn sight harder to show coalitions can work, and work well.

But, instead of privately fighting their corner around the cabinet table, there were far too many that acted as an opposition party within the government, leaking stories and briefing against their ministerial colleagues to hostile papers. – A worse ‘endorsement’ for future coalitions is hard to imagine.

dr_spyn

Don't do this in public, during a live Copa America Match.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/uruguay/11697775/Uruguay-star-Edinson-Cavani-sent-off-for-slapping-Chile-defender-who-inserted-finger-into-his-anus.html

Morris_Dancer

Indeed, Mr. StClare. The Lib Dems sought the trappings of opposition by trying to keep short money despite being in office.

The constant bitching made it difficult for them to claim any credit.

JosiasJessop

SimonStClare said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant their dreams.

Having been granted their wish and the decision had been made at conference to form a coalition with the Tories, the Lib Dems should have embraced the opportunity and strived a damn sight harder to show coalitions can work, and work well.

Instead of privately fighting their corner around the cabinet table, there were far too many that acted as an opposition party within the government, leaking stories and briefing against their ministerial colleagues to hostile papers. – A worse ‘endorsement’ for future coalitions is hard to imagine.

I have to disagree with that - as far as I'm concerned the coalition worked really well with not much infighting (especially if you discount Cable).

For instance: surely there was far less infighting in the coalition government than there had been within the government during Brown's leadership? The same question could be posed about Major's governments as well.

It's a shame the Lib Dems were thumped for their maturity.

rcs1000

Re Greece:

The gap between Greece and the troika appears very small. The counter-proposal from the troika largely accepts Tsipiras last proposal, with the following exceptions:

1. Pensions: Greece wanted to retirement age increase phased in to 2025. The troika wants it by 2022. Furthermore, the "solidarity grant" for the poorest pensioners was to be eliminated by 2020; the troika wants it to be by the end of 2017.

2. Taxes: in a rare moment of sanity, the troika has "vetoed" a lot of the tax rises on the basis they would negatively affect the Greek economy.

3. Other Spending Cuts: the Greeks have a bizarre system for subsidising diesel for farmers (that usually ends up being sold on the black market), which the troika wishes to abolish. It also wants cuts to the defence budget.

My forecast.

Pensions - the troika caves, so that Tsipiras can claim a big victory.
Taxes - there is general agreement
Other spending cuts - Greece agrees (the diesel subsidy is so abused its hard to see it continuing)

The big question is whether Tsipiras can sell SYRIZA on this, or whether SYRIZA will split. And if it does, what happens next... My money is on Greece calling a referendum on the deal, to happen next week, which will be passed 60:40. But any number of options are possible...

dr_spyn

SimonStClare said:

‘Vince Cable’s reputation isn’t enhanced by this story.’


What a surprise. I've always regarded him as the Lib Dems and Coalitions pet fifth columnist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19597005

St Vincent of Textmessage.

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

It's an excellent article - thanks for sharing. It does make the Lib Dems seem an absolute shower though.

Personally, I'm not sure ditching Clegg in 2014 would have made much difference to the end result.

I don't know: some kind of public beheading might have been a YouTube sensation...

Tissue_Price

SimonStClare said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant their dreams.

Having been granted their wish and the decision had been made at conference to form a coalition with the Tories, the Lib Dems should have embraced the opportunity and strived a damn sight harder to show coalitions can work, and work well.

But, instead of privately fighting their corner around the cabinet table, there were far too many that acted as an opposition party within the government, leaking stories and briefing against their ministerial colleagues to hostile papers. – A worse ‘endorsement’ for future coalitions is hard to imagine.

It all goes back to the decision to go turquoise (Lib Dems in every department) rather than Picasso (splashes of yellow - maybe Health, Energy, Scotland and Transport would have worked?) There were some good PB discussions on this at the time.

I second antifrank's praise for Patrick Wintour.

Plato

Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse.

The First Minister vowed to help clean up Scottish politics after this newspaper unmasked some of the country’s most vile cybernats.

Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail, the SNP leader said the time had come to ‘send a clear message that politics in Scotland will not be sullied by this behaviour’.

She also called on politicians who ‘follow’ online abusers to ‘stop feeding the trolls’. A Mail investigation has found that 72 Nationalist MPs and MSPs, including ministers and senior party figures, have online links with cybernats responsible for some of the worst abuse in public life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138313/Nicola-Sturgeon-says-ll-purge-party-cybernats-pledges-crack-trolls-end-online-abuse.html#ixzz3e3daWXvh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

dr_spyn

Plot from Social Democratic wing to save liberalism...What was liberal about the SDP?

"After he became leader in December 2007, Clegg had begun to shift the party away from the social democratic populism that had defined it throughout the 2000s. Clegg and a circle of like-minded MPs, including Chris Huhne, David Laws and Vince Cable, wanted to move the Lib Dems towards the centre group"

Vince Cable, like Janus was looking both ways. Was he looking to appease or appeal to those leftwing 2010 voters who were borrowed from Labour?

"After wrestling with his decision, Cable decided to remain, in part because he loved his department and wanted to protect it from cuts".

Vince appears to have preferred the trappings of power, the ministerial car, access to fawning media.

Slackbladder

rcs1000 said:

Re Greece:

The gap between Greece and the troika appears very small. The counter-proposal from the troika largely accepts Tsipiras last proposal, with the following exceptions:

1. Pensions: Greece wanted to retirement age increase phased in to 2025. The troika wants it by 2022. Furthermore, the "solidarity grant" for the poorest pensioners was to be eliminated by 2020; the troika wants it to be by the end of 2017.

2. Taxes: in a rare moment of sanity, the troika has "vetoed" a lot of the tax rises on the basis they would negatively affect the Greek economy.

3. Other Spending Cuts: the Greeks have a bizarre system for subsidising diesel for farmers (that usually ends up being sold on the black market), which the troika wishes to abolish. It also wants cuts to the defence budget.

My forecast.

Pensions - the troika caves, so that Tsipiras can claim a big victory.
Taxes - there is general agreement
Other spending cuts - Greece agrees (the diesel subsidy is so abused its hard to see it continuing)

The big question is whether Tsipiras can sell SYRIZA on this, or whether SYRIZA will split. And if it does, what happens next... My money is on Greece calling a referendum on the deal, to happen next week, which will be passed 60:40. But any number of options are possible...

Might kick the can further down the road politically, but always, always, economics will trump politics eventually.

dr_spyn

Plato said:

Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse.

The First Minister vowed to help clean up Scottish politics after this newspaper unmasked some of the country’s most vile cybernats.

Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail, the SNP leader said the time had come to ‘send a clear message that politics in Scotland will not be sullied by this behaviour’.

She also called on politicians who ‘follow’ online abusers to ‘stop feeding the trolls’. A Mail investigation has found that 72 Nationalist MPs and MSPs, including ministers and senior party figures, have online links with cybernats responsible for some of the worst abuse in public life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138313/Nicola-Sturgeon-says-ll-purge-party-cybernats-pledges-crack-trolls-end-online-abuse.html#ixzz3e3daWXvh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Night of the long i-knives.

Innocent_Abroad

Slackbladder said:

rcs1000 said:

Re Greece:

The gap between Greece and the troika appears very small. The counter-proposal from the troika largely accepts Tsipiras last proposal, with the following exceptions:

1. Pensions: Greece wanted to retirement age increase phased in to 2025. The troika wants it by 2022. Furthermore, the "solidarity grant" for the poorest pensioners was to be eliminated by 2020; the troika wants it to be by the end of 2017.

2. Taxes: in a rare moment of sanity, the troika has "vetoed" a lot of the tax rises on the basis they would negatively affect the Greek economy.

3. Other Spending Cuts: the Greeks have a bizarre system for subsidising diesel for farmers (that usually ends up being sold on the black market), which the troika wishes to abolish. It also wants cuts to the defence budget.

My forecast.

Pensions - the troika caves, so that Tsipiras can claim a big victory.
Taxes - there is general agreement
Other spending cuts - Greece agrees (the diesel subsidy is so abused its hard to see it continuing)

The big question is whether Tsipiras can sell SYRIZA on this, or whether SYRIZA will split. And if it does, what happens next... My money is on Greece calling a referendum on the deal, to happen next week, which will be passed 60:40. But any number of options are possible...

Might kick the can further down the road politically, but always, always, economics will trump politics eventually.

Evidence? (I know that Marx said the opposite, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Scott_P

Plato said:

Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail

...is the best bit of that whole story. There are a bunch of Cybernats who condemned other politicians for writing in that particular organ that are choking on their porridge this morning

Barnesian

matt said:

Is this more than a spoiling campaign against Tim Farron?

If Ashdown is behind it, it could be part of the spoiling campaign.

“Our vote was being seriously eroded by the Labour/Salmond thing,” Ashdown recalled. “There was a sort of hidden army of people who were so worried about Labour that they literally came out to vote for the first time.”

Ashdown is quite delusional or deliberately misleading to deflect blame. The reason ex LibDems deserted the party was not fear (of the SNP) but anger at the unnecessary betrayal on fees, NHS etc.

I think Ashdown, who was in charge of the General Election strategy and leads the party "elite", has been as harmful to the LibDems as Clegg. He would do the party a favour if he shut up.

Bond_James_Bond

I think history will be kind to the Lib Dems and to Clegg in particular. They did a lot of the usual scrotish lefty scumbaggery in coalition of course. But it is to their genuine and enduring credit that they stepped up to ensure the country got the honest, clean, competent and effective leadership it so desperately needed after the corruption, mendacity, backstabbing, spite, and sheer envious nastiness of the Blair-Brown nightmare.

Arguably it wasn't only in 2010 that they did so.

TCPoliticalBetting

(Charles Kennedy on St Vince the Cable) "Ahead of the debate, he took Porter up to the Commons gallery, and told him: “From here you can stare into Cable’s eyeballs as he sells out the party’s principles.”"

TCPoliticalBetting

Barnesian said:

matt said:

Is this more than a spoiling campaign against Tim Farron?

Ashdown is quite delusional or deliberately misleading to deflect blame. The reason ex LibDems deserted the party was not fear (of the SNP) but anger at the unnecessary betrayal on fees, NHS etc.
I think Ashdown, who was in charge of the General Election strategy and leads the party "elite", has been as harmful to the LibDems as Clegg. He would do the party a favour if he shut up.

Ashdown is a real piece of work. Runs the least successful GE campaign, predicted that Cameron was finished, oblivious to the near extermination of LD MPs. Now he goes around re-writing LD history and predicting that Labour are in a worse position than the LDs. Delusional? A master of strategy fit only for the LDs.

TCPoliticalBetting

SimonStClare said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Removing Clegg would only have made sense in the context of ending the Coalition. The idea that Cable wanted Clegg removed but to keep his department just shows what a political chump the man was.

It might have been possible for the Lib Dems to go to a more distant supply and confidence arrangement but the fact is that all of my adult life Lib Dems have been arguing that Coalitions, like on the continent, are the way to go. They supported electoral systems that made such a result more likely. It was their raison d'etre. That being the case walking away would have seemed deeply eccentric and simply demonstrated that they were not reliable partners.

So in reality Clegg had very little choice. Be careful what you wish for seems to sum it all up.

Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first grant their dreams.

Having been granted their wish and the decision had been made at conference to form a coalition with the Tories, the Lib Dems should have embraced the opportunity and strived a damn sight harder to show coalitions can work, and work well.
But, instead of privately fighting their corner around the cabinet table, there were far too many that acted as an opposition party within the government, leaking stories and briefing against their ministerial colleagues to hostile papers. – A worse ‘endorsement’ for future coalitions is hard to imagine.

The only bad point about the Guardian article is the lack of balance in its conclusions. They make no mention of the impact of this strategy on the LD potential voters. A shame that they allow leftie bias creep into it.

SandyRentool

I keep hearing that the Tories don't have much of a policy on what to do at BIS as they weren't expecting to be running the department. Vince's legacy.

SquareRoot

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Barnesian said:

matt said:

Is this more than a spoiling campaign against Tim Farron?

Ashdown is quite delusional or deliberately misleading to deflect blame. The reason ex LibDems deserted the party was not fear (of the SNP) but anger at the unnecessary betrayal on fees, NHS etc.
I think Ashdown, who was in charge of the General Election strategy and leads the party "elite", has been as harmful to the LibDems as Clegg. He would do the party a favour if he shut up.

Ashdown is a real piece of work. Runs the least successful GE campaign, predicted that Cameron was finished, oblivious to the near extermination of LD MPs. Now he goes around re-writing LD history and predicting that Labour are in a worse position than the LDs. Delusional? A master of strategy fit only for the LDs.

I just hope Paddy "Pantsdown" doesn't try to take the moral high ground....

http://sunheadlines.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/classics-its-paddy-pantsdown.html

Financier

A few things gleaned::

If an Oakeshott invites you to dinner, make sure you have your poison taster with you.

You cannot build a career on a joke about Mr Bean - so failure all round there.

If you join an alliance, then support it or leave it - half-way measures and constant complaining just irritates all interested parties and none.

If you have been the recipient of the NOTA votes and then you form an alliance with a big boy, then you become one of the establishment and will lose the NOTA vote.

Scott_P

Financier said:

If you have been the recipient of the NOTA votes and then you form an alliance with a big boy, then you become one of the establishment and will lose the NOTA vote.

You have to recognise that you were the recipient of NOTA votes. If you kid yourself you had a distinctive and attractive message, you won't realise this.

Casino_Royale

Financier said:

You cannot build a career on a joke about Mr Bean

The thing is: he did.

TOPPING

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

SandyRentool

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

There is a big difference between not being able to enact a policy and embracing a policy that is the exact opposite of one of your most important pledges. LibDem voters would have easily accepted that they could not push for tuition fees to be abolished, but supporting the increase was something way beyond that.

Financier

Casino_Royale said:

Financier said:

You cannot build a career on a joke about Mr Bean

The thing is: he did.

He tried to and all except him knew he was not up to the job - which was proved by his poor performance.

Sandpit

SandyRentool said:

I keep hearing that the Tories don't have much of a policy on what to do at BIS as they weren't expecting to be running the department. Vince's legacy.

Scrap it?

Most of the key decisions affecting business will come from the Treasury anyway, get rid of the BIS bureaucrats and their red tape. Appoint a trade minister of the old school and give him a ministerial plane instead of a car - I'm sure Airbus will be happy to lend him one if they can put a couple of salesmen in it.

TOPPING

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

There is a big difference between not being able to enact a policy and embracing a policy that is the exact opposite of one of your most important pledges. LibDem voters would have easily accepted that they could not push for tuition fees to be abolished, but supporting the increase was something way beyond that.

Not really.

They went into coalition with the Cons. There were always going to be hitherto red-line issues that were on the table. According to Nick, this enabled them to gain elsewhere plus I think Cam & GO would have ensured some kind of quid pro quo for such a marquee policy u-turn.

I appreciate that the nuances of all this might be too much for us the electorate who prefer to see things in primary colours, but not being a LibDem supporter, I see no issue with it.

Otherwise, fine, stick with the principles and dissolve the coalition. As indeed it seems that plenty of LibDems came to prefer as time went on. Almost Life of Brian-esque in their irrelevant in-fighting.

JEO

I have read this morning that among the 300 child grooming suspects in Rotherham are sitting councillors, and that the West Midlands police knew about street grooming for five years but did not alert the public.

Is there a possibility that these local councils will be closed down with fresh elections required, as in Tower Hamlets?

DecrepitJohnL

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

Financier

Question Time - will they all turn up?

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Southampton. On the panel are Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd MP, Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham MP, deputy chairman of Ukip Suzanne Evans, Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson.

calum

The irony of the LibDems being reduced to boasting about the talent among their over representation in the House of Lords - says it all about how far they have drifted from their much vaunted Liberal values:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrat-committee-appointments-in-the-lords-spotlight-the-talent-on-our-benches-46415.html

As for Paddy Ashdown maybe he should lead the way and give up his H of L seat.

welshowl

Financier said:

Question Time - will they all turn up?

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Southampton. On the panel are Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd MP, Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham MP, deputy chairman of Ukip Suzanne Evans, Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson.

Shouldn't Mr Varoufakis be doing his day job? Or is he wanting to see what life is like in a country outside the Euro first hand?

TOPPING

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

Sandpit

JEO said:

I have read this morning that among the 300 child grooming suspects in Rotherham are sitting councillors, and that the West Midlands police knew about street grooming for five years but did not alert the public.

Is there a possibility that these local councils will be closed down with fresh elections required, as in Tower Hamlets?

It would be nice to think so. The Panorama programme last week clearly showed that the problems in some of these places are institutional, as they have gone on for over a decade with huge efforts to cover it up when the media got hold of any stories.

There are also arguments for finding a way of avoiding how some of these councils become one party states with no opposition voices to be heard. This has been shown over hundreds of years and hundreds of authorities to inevitably lead towards corruption.

TGOHF

Financier said:

Question Time - will they all turn up?

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Southampton. On the panel are Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd MP, Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham MP, deputy chairman of Ukip Suzanne Evans, Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson.

Blimey

watford30

Casino_Royale said:

It's an excellent article - thanks for sharing. It does make the Lib Dems seem an absolute shower though.

Personally, I'm not sure ditching Clegg in 2014 would have made much difference to the end result.

A shower? A loose grouping of complete and utter shits, scheming and squabbling like a bunch of awkward children. Many, but not all, deserved all they got at the GE. Cable should have been booted out long ago.

AlastairMeeks

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

Sandpit

Financier said:

Question Time - will they all turn up?

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Southampton. On the panel are Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd MP, Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham MP, deputy chairman of Ukip Suzanne Evans, Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson.

One might dare to suggest that maybe just possibly there's a slight chance that Mr Varoufakis should have more important things to think about right now!

Was there not also a row in Labour the other day about Burnham getting himself too much airtime in the context of the leadership election? He might also be replaced.

TOPPING

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

And storm triumphantly into the wilderness.

Not what being a political party who seeks to make the world a better place is all about. Plus (I have no idea) did the overwhelming approval of the coalition by LD members come after the coalition talks, wherein the tuition fee policy was amended?

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

antifrank said:

This is fabulous journalism. Patrick Wintour should be very proud of both this and his pieces on the Labour campaign.

No it isn't. It can't be - it's in the Grauniad. It's a rule on this site that only child molesters think for themselves, everyone else lets the Daily Mail do their thinking for them and thereby makes the world a far better place.

You're a fool if you let the Daily Mail do your thinking for you, and you're a fool if you let the Guardian do your thinking for you.

Are you calling Michael Gove an (April) fool?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY-WBBKDQJg#t=3m05s

calum

Plato said:

Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse.

The First Minister vowed to help clean up Scottish politics after this newspaper unmasked some of the country’s most vile cybernats.

Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail, the SNP leader said the time had come to ‘send a clear message that politics in Scotland will not be sullied by this behaviour’.

She also called on politicians who ‘follow’ online abusers to ‘stop feeding the trolls’. A Mail investigation has found that 72 Nationalist MPs and MSPs, including ministers and senior party figures, have online links with cybernats responsible for some of the worst abuse in public life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138313/Nicola-Sturgeon-says-ll-purge-party-cybernats-pledges-crack-trolls-end-online-abuse.html#ixzz3e3daWXvh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Classic example of why Sturgeon is a new style of politician, an old style politician would be evasive etc, she just takes the challenge head on which immediately blunts much of the DM criticisms of her.

As she notes she receives hundreds of abusive tweets everyday, I've seen some of these tweets which are so vile that I don't think any news paper would print them, she chooses to ignore these as this is the price which must be paid for politicians and public figures who want to use social media to further their careers and party messaging.

I fear that the Cyberyes v Cyberno battle during the EU REF is going to make the Cybernat v Cyberunionist look like a minor skirmish.

LadyBucket

Listening to Nick Clegg on LBC, any sympathy I felt for him has just rapidly disappeared. He is still just as arrogant and sanctimonious as he ever was. Now the Lib Dems are not in government, the tories are reverting to "swivelled-eyes loons etc, etc. Good riddance!

Scott_P

@bbclaurak: Senior figure close to the attempted coup to remove Clegg told me 35 MP s were ready to go before rumbled by Oakeshott polling

DecrepitJohnL

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

Were tuition fees a major plank of the Conservative campaign in 2010 then?

felix

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

Ironically the tuition fee rise appears to have had no negative effect on student numbers - suggesting the hardship argument was the usual crock. A pity because far too many people are doing pointless degrees and would be more usefully employed on apprenticeships. Sympathy for the LDs - no way, they tried to have the coalition and then sniped about it. They got found out by the voters. Just like Labour pretending to want cuts and immigrstion controls while voting against every single measure to achieve them. I'm completely bored by the attempts of the GE losers to explain away their crap campaigns, leaders and messages.

Sandpit

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

Yes, if there was one LD policy that the Tories were expecting to be a red line it was tuition fees. They should have either held it as a red line or agreed to abstain -
and then shut up about it!

Cable being the minister introducing the bill really didn't do them any favours, they should have let Business be run by a Conservative at least until the fees bill passed.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. P, if they had 35 of about 57 they could've continued anyway. It was enough to defenestrate Clegg or to effectively end the Coalition's majority.

That QT panel is incredible. One suspects the Greek chap may send someone else.

AlastairMeeks

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

And storm triumphantly into the wilderness.

Not what being a political party who seeks to make the world a better place is all about. Plus (I have no idea) did the overwhelming approval of the coalition by LD members come after the coalition talks, wherein the tuition fee policy was amended?

The Lib Dems sold themselves too cheap at the beginning, sold themselves too cheap in the middle and sold themselves too cheap at the end. They were far too compliant with the Conservatives throughout and should have made themselves royal pains in the arses about anything and everything they really cared about. Then in 2015 they could have said that they had made a positive difference to the coalition.

The much-touted good relations between Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, David Cameron and George Osborne worked exclusively to the benefit of the Conservatives. They were supposed to be running a government, not a social club.

Tissue_Price

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

And storm triumphantly into the wilderness.

Not what being a political party who seeks to make the world a better place is all about. Plus (I have no idea) did the overwhelming approval of the coalition by LD members come after the coalition talks, wherein the tuition fee policy was amended?

Where they were given the right to abstain! Yet, brilliantly, they ended up with the minister responsible, and in the end nearly all voted for the policy he designed (which is actually not too bad a policy, in my view).

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

Were tuition fees a major plank of the Conservative campaign in 2010 then?

Labour had instituted a review of the whole subject in 2009 (by Mandelson), which didn't report until after the 2010 election. There was broad agreement outside of the LDs that the review would be implemented on a cross-party basis, although that's not what happened in practice when it suggested unlimited fees decided by universities, the new law allowed only 9k per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review

Financier

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/our-counter-terrorism-policy-is-a-mess-and-its-about-time-labour-said-so/ by Sunny Hundal

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/how-will-the-leadership-race-finish-four-paths-to-victory/

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/liz-kendall-pledges-to-make-britain-a-living-wage-society/

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corbyn-right-to-buy-should-be-extended-to-private-tenants/

Alistair

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

He did dreadfully.

This notion that the Lib Dems had no choice but to sign up with the Cons on the appalling terms that they did is entirely fanciful.

calum

The LibDem voice responds to the Guardian, it is even worse than the Guardian has reported- sounds like the SPADS were running the show:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-clegg-catastrophe-what-the-guardian-didnt-mention-46551.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

logical_song

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

He did dreadfully.

This notion that the Lib Dems had no choice but to sign up with the Cons on the appalling terms that they did is entirely fanciful.

OK , prove it. Bear in mind the economic situation and tell us what government you would have put together in 2010.

Sandpit

calum said:

The LibDem voice responds to the Guardian, it is even worse than the Guardian has reported- sounds like the SPADS were running the show:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-clegg-catastrophe-what-the-guardian-didnt-mention-46551.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

LOL. Some poor bugger at LDV was up all night writing that response!

Scott_P

@afneil: Eurozone officials confirm FT report saying creditors will hand Greece an ultimatum at the Eurogroup meeting.

Alistair

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems sold themselves too cheap at the beginning, sold themselves too cheap in the middle and sold themselves too cheap at the end. They were far too compliant with the Conservatives throughout and should have made themselves royal pains in the arses about anything and everything they really cared about. Then in 2015 they could have said that they had made a positive difference to the coalition.

The much-touted good relations between Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, David Cameron and George Osborne worked exclusively to the benefit of the Conservatives. They were supposed to be running a government, not a social club.

Bingo. It really does seem like Danny Alexander laid down and begged to be hurt by the Conservatives in the most bizarre fashion.

The Lib Dems basically seemed to ask for nothing to become part of the government, no wonder Hague said he had destroyed the Liberals.

GarethoftheVale2

Sandpit said:

Financier said:

Question Time - will they all turn up?

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Southampton. On the panel are Conservative energy secretary Amber Rudd MP, Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham MP, deputy chairman of Ukip Suzanne Evans, Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson.

One might dare to suggest that maybe just possibly there's a slight chance that Mr Varoufakis should have more important things to think about right now!

Was there not also a row in Labour the other day about Burnham getting himself too much airtime in the context of the leadership election? He might also be replaced.

Has QT ever had a panellist who didn't live in the UK before? clearly there will be questions about Greece, migrants and ISIS but you would think something UK only would come up which he would need to comment on.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Vale, yes. Benazir Bhutto[sp], the Pakistani politician and presidential candidate who was assassinated, appeared. There have also been overseas editions (I think South Africa was the most recent).

Scott_P

Labour's record continues its unbroken streak...

@politicshome: Speaker Bercow has granted an Urgent Question on child poverty at 1030

@politicshome: Child poverty 'at lowest level since 1980s', government says http://t.co/6Iahqj1WT8 http://t.co/m46AchozFM

Alistair

logical_song said:

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

He did dreadfully.

This notion that the Lib Dems had no choice but to sign up with the Cons on the appalling terms that they did is entirely fanciful.

OK , prove it. Bear in mind the economic situation and tell us what government you would have put together in 2010.

At the very least the LDs should have demanded one of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary or Health Secretary. I'm willing to accept that Foreign Secretary was not viable as a position for the LDs. If the Conservatives were not willing to give up one of those then they weren't willing to be in a coalition, they were only wanting human shields and lobby fodder.

The economic situation in 2010 was OK. It wasn't great, it wasn't good, it was fine. The notion that the UK was teetering on some kind of apocalyptic precipice is, once again, fanciful and used as justification for the LDs destroying themselves

Pulpstar

By the time the General Election was near, the Lib Dems had gone full native.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/01/lib-dem-ed-davey-labour-pledge-cut-tuition-fees-stupid

So from proposing to abolish fees, they've labelled a policy to reduce them as stupid...

Right oh - As Tissue Price points out, they could have abstained on that proposal and voted in favour !

Regardless of the merits of the policy, their manouvres and U-turns on tuition fees were a sight to behold.

Flightpathl

Vince Cable? What reputation? Cable was the figure who could have told the party and its supporters to wake up and smell the coffee. Cable was the figure who could have worked to ensure the LDs were still in government now (whether good or bad for the county is another matter) - he could from his and the LD perspective have been loyal to the common cause of a broad centre coalition. He Clegg and the LDs failed totally hamfistedly. They showed they were afraid of govt in the end, far too many of them had no ambition beyond limp wristed lefty protest. Well they have achieved their ambition now in spades.

Flightpathl

Alistair said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems sold themselves too cheap at the beginning, sold themselves too cheap in the middle and sold themselves too cheap at the end. They were far too compliant with the Conservatives throughout and should have made themselves royal pains in the arses about anything and everything they really cared about. Then in 2015 they could have said that they had made a positive difference to the coalition.

The much-touted good relations between Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, David Cameron and George Osborne worked exclusively to the benefit of the Conservatives. They were supposed to be running a government, not a social club.

Bingo. It really does seem like Danny Alexander laid down and begged to be hurt by the Conservatives in the most bizarre fashion.

The Lib Dems basically seemed to ask for nothing to become part of the government, no wonder Hague said he had destroyed the Liberals.

Absurd analysis from both of you.

Pulpstar

I think this thread shows something of the wider population, in the end the Lib Dems were seen as mischief makers and troublesome Gov't partners on the right, and limp wristed sellouts by the left.

They managed to get the worst of both worlds.

TOPPING

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

hem.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.


I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His mr."

And storm triumphantly into the wilderness.

Not what being a political party who seeks to make the world a better place is all about. Plus (I have no idea) did the overwhelming approval of the coalition by LD members come after the coalition talks, wherein the tuition fee policy was amended?

The Lib Dems sold themselves too cheap at the beginning, sold themselves too cheap in the middle and sold themselves too cheap at the end. They were far too compliant with the Conservatives throughout and should have made themselves royal pains in the arses about anything and everything they really cared about. Then in 2015 they could have said that they had made a positive difference to the coalition.

The much-touted good relations between Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, David Cameron and George Osborne worked exclusively to the benefit of the Conservatives. They were supposed to be running a government, not a social club.

IMO it was the Cons that rushed to coalition. Before you knew it when everyone was discussing C&S there was Cam's speech identifying and offering movement on each LibDem policy area - the four "fairs". It was well-researched and crafted and left the LDs nowhere to go but into coalition. Of course tuition fees were an issue (mentioned after class size reform in the manifesto, my googling has just reminded me) but no more than any other policy that would have to be on the table in a coalition and yes, despite the pledge. This is politics. And we were in unchartered territory.

So in retrospect I think the Cons jumped too quickly and yes, the LDs played it badly perhaps even on tuition fees, but they got into govt, which presumably is the aim of every political party and, perhaps analagously to the Cons, they didn't realise how many cards they held - but then they after all got their AV referendum and many other things besides.

Coming back to topic, although high profile, I don't think that solitary u-turn was justification for the shellacking they and Nick got (although as a Cons I am delighted).

Flightpathl

logical_song said:

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

He did dreadfully.

This notion that the Lib Dems had no choice but to sign up with the Cons on the appalling terms that they did is entirely fanciful.

OK , prove it. Bear in mind the economic situation and tell us what government you would have put together in 2010.

Correct. Thereafter the LDs ran away from govt and did their best to constantly rubbish the very govt they were a part of. Stupid is as stupid does.

Flightpathl

Tissue_Price said:

TOPPING said:

antifrank said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

LibDems being angry at Nick for rowing back on tuition fees (or other manifesto policies) are as idiotic as Cons backbenchers being angry at Cam for the compromises he made.

The junior and senior members of a c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n government respectively.

I mean it takes a special kind of dim to act that way.

No, because tuition fees -- which was the main plank of the LibDem campaign -- was dropped in the coalition talks, when Clegg could have made it a pre-condition. (Come to think of it, did not one of the "inside stories" at the time suggest the Conservative negotiators were surprised to find they knew more than the LibDems what was in the yellow manifesto?)

In a current parallel, it has been suggested that some Conservative proposals were designed to be negotiated away, and now they are stuck with them.

And if Clegg's pre-condition had been rejected?

Perhaps it was.

What was his move then? Go to Lab when Cons rightly would have said: "but you said you would go with the largest party", to say nothing of the backlash "held to ransome" media narrative it would have engendered. Or to flounce out back to the cold outside, have C&S, likely an election in Sep (this was of course pre-FTPA) at which the public would have been given an inkling of weak government, and would have reverted to Lab or Cons?

I don't think he did badly, tuition fees and all.

His move then would have been to say: "This was my signature policy that I and most of my MPs signed personal pledges on. I am going to keep my word and the Conservatives are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think otherwise. They didn't win an election either, remember."

And storm triumphantly into the wilderness.

Not what being a political party who seeks to make the world a better place is all about. Plus (I have no idea) did the overwhelming approval of the coalition by LD members come after the coalition talks, wherein the tuition fee policy was amended?

Where they were given the right to abstain! Yet, brilliantly, they ended up with the minister responsible, and in the end nearly all voted for the policy he designed (which is actually not too bad a policy, in my view).

Correct - it was a better policy for the poor students that was then currently in place and the report itself was diluted by the coalition. Getting worked up about it and protesting was typical of the thick nature of LDs. The tories went out of their way to help the LDs over tuition fees and as you say the report was a Labour report nothing to do with either coalition partner.

Slackbladder

Scott_P said:

Labour's record continues its unbroken streak...

@politicshome: Speaker Bercow has granted an Urgent Question on child poverty at 1030

@politicshome: Child poverty 'at lowest level since 1980s', government says http://t.co/6Iahqj1WT8 http://t.co/m46AchozFM

The left continuing their disconnect from reality.