Nick Clegg, is arguably the best modern Liberal Democrat British Politician by virtue through taking the party into power in 2010. You may be thinking why does he need defending within our own party? That is a good question considering if he was in the Conservative and Labour Parties, he would be feted (apart from Tony Blair due to Iraq) for taking the party into Government for the first time since the Second World War. Yet Mathew Hulbert suggests it would be wise for him to make fewer public interventions as possible, despite being a former Deputy Prime Minister.
Why do some members of our party feel this way about Nick Clegg, considering the Coalition was ten years ago? The British public seem to have reluctantly accepted that the Coalition cuts were necessary compared to the current Labour Government ones. As Mathew says in his article, Nick did help to bring in Equal Marriage with Lynne Featherstone, but Nick also helped to bring in the Pupil Premium, lifted three million people out of Income Tax, and restored the link between pensions and earnings. I can go on, but the main achievements can be found here.
Admittedly, I accept that the Party lost 49 seats at the 2015 General Election. It is clear that the negotiating team could have got a better deal from the Conservatives, particularly on constitutional and political reform, and on the issue of Europe. Let us not get started on the issue of tuition fees, which should have been handled better especially the politics of it, although I think Nick is not completely to blame here.
However, it is only fair to assess the legacy of the Coalition, when both constituent parts are out of Government completely. The Financial Times has pointed out that we could benefit from the coalition legacy, as Labour faces the reality of governing.
Nick may not have broken the mould’ in challenging the Conservative and Labour dominance within our electoral system during his time as Leader, although I argue even more important was that he could see that the political axis was changing from the traditional economic axis of redistribution v tax cuts, to a cultural axis of liberalism v authoritarianism.
Nick Clegg was the first mainstream politician to tackle Nigel Farage head on on his support for authoritarian leaders. He also warned David Cameron about aping Farage, and the political and personal costs it would have for Cameron, but more sadly for the country. Would Brexit have happened if there had been a Coalition 2.0?
I am proud that Ed Davey is taking Farage head on, and continuing to call him and Reform out for their support for authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Putin. We need that liberal alternative to Reform, and we have always been the beacon of liberalism within British politics, despite that setback at the 2015 General Election.
Ed Davey and the Parliamentary Party are in good health, and with Ed having been in Cabinet as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, he is starting to score hits on the Government on issues such as Health and Social Care and the Winter Fuel Allowance. He is using his Cabinet Experience to ask awkward questions of the Government, as any opposition worth their salt should.
We may have an important decision to make at the next election, which could be whether we should enter into Government. John Rentoul argues that we should not enter Coalition, although I have argued previously we could be the Official Opposition by this year. I think we should consider each coalition proposition on its own merits and see if it is good for the country, and whether we change our political culture to a more consensual one such as Germany, for example.
We should be using Nick Clegg’s experience from the Coalition, to prepare the Parliamentary Party for the trade-offs which are needed in power. We will be in a better position than in 2010, to argue for electoral reform and a written constitution, if another coalition was needed when the votes are counted after the next General Election.
I do think as a party, we need to be warmer towards Nick, and although I accept that it may not be helpful for Nick to make a public intervention from the main conference hall, I hope we can welcome him to Conference and here him speak at fringe events. He brought us into power, and it is time for us to reflect the benefits of that and allowing the ghosts of the Coalition to heal completely as a party. That will be a start.
* Adam Robertson is a member of East Suffolk Local Party, and a member of Liberal Reform. Adam currently works for a Local Principal Authority. Former Parliamentary Candidate for Lowestoft.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
David Raw
paul barker
Matt (Bristol)
Rif Winfield
68 Comments
Never mind the 2015 election, let’s look at how the Lib Dems performed in 2010. We suffered a net loss of seats (down from 62 to 57). Some commentators say that the centre party tends to perform badly when Labour does badly. However, I really don’t think we should be using that as an excuse, especially considering that with a tired, unpopular Labour government, we *lost seats to Labour* and missed out on low-hanging Labour-facing fruit. This should not have happened, simple as that. By an accident of Parliamentary arithmetic (a hung parliament), our disappointing seat tally enabled us to be a junior partner in government. Had it not been for that ‘accident’, there would have been serious searching questions about the leader’s performance and I doubt he would have survived a leadership challenge.
Sorry, the tuition fees issue can not be so easily passed over. The decision to break such an absolute promise was not only shocking…it was truly reprehensible. And he never, ever, apologised properly for that decision – he apologised for having made the promise in the first place! Even now, I find myself becoming angry when I recall how sickened I felt for months after that decision was taken.
According to Adam Robertson, “Nick Clegg, is arguably the best modern Liberal Democrat British Politician by virtue through taking the party into power in 2010”.
Oh, no he isn’t…… and I say that with the confidence of having known and met every Liberal/Lib Dem Leader since I first joined the party back in 1961. But equally, he shouldn’t be turned into a non-person. Making somebody a ‘non-person’ is a completely illiberal thing to do.
I’ve no doubt Sir Nicholas he will have learned something from the experience and sometimes downright wrong decisions of the Coalition 2010-15 and there is every reason to hear what he has to say and for his fellow knight of the realm Sir Edward Davey to listen (assuming he’s still going to be Leader in the next election which he may not be).
Nick Clegg did more damage to the Liberal Democrats and the cause of Liberalism than anyone in the past 100 years. He was a conservative entryist who with a combination of luck, guile and wealthy backers assumed the party leadership he then went on to take the party into coalition with the Tories. An act that nearly destroyed the party.
The coalition agreement he ok was a negotiators dream for Cameron who saved his skin without having to give any real ground. The tuition fees pledge was ripped up and any commitment to real proportional representation binned. I had the misfortune of being a Liberal Democrat local council candidate in 2011 and 2012 which was very tough, at least I didn’t have a seat to lose like hundreds of my fellow Liberals.
Having played poker and lost badly, our MPs led by Clegg went along with cuts that hurt the most vulnerable in our society. No wonder we went from 57 MPs to 8 in the 2015 General Election!
The Tories took him for a ride but it was a ride that he willingly went on. After all Cameron went to Eton and he had to settle for a lesser public school.
US historians regularly rank James Buchanan as the worst US President ever, Nick Clegg is the worst Liberal leader in the long history of our party and its predecessors.
Probably a bit under 100 years. Sir John Simon is a good candidate but others in that era didn’t cover themselves in glory.
@ David Warren “Nick Clegg is the worst Liberal leader in the long history of our party and its predecessors”.
David, I think you’ll find that Lord Rosebery was far worse. Lloyd George, money and peerages makes an interesting combination. I also happen to agree with Peter Davies on Sir John Simon – though he was never Leader.
In more recent times, allowing a prominent personality to sleep it off in an Edinburgh police station was extremely kind and sensitive, whilst Asquith and Clement Davies appear to have suffered from the same personal weakness.
Alex – I agree that we went backwards in 2010, although I think we were squeezed by both Labour and Conservatives when the real threat of a ‘hung parliament’ loomed large, actually helping to result in a ‘hung parliament’. If we had more seats, we could have had more leverage within the negotiations, although I accept that the Tories needed us more than we needed them – but then they could have went to the country six months later and won a majority.
David – I was a Council Candidate in 2013, and came completely last. I think you are mischaracterising Nick unfairly by saying he was a ‘Conservative entryist’, he may have come from a comfortable background but he clearly stated that he was a Liberal from a young age. His Mum made him sceptical of the entrenched class system within Britain, hardly upholding one of the bastions of Conservatism.
In terms of Tuition Fees, I agree that the party handled the politics of it wrong. However, I think there are lessons to be learnt especially for the Federal Policy Committee to test policies out as they may need to be fully costed to be credible and to be implemented.
Also Labour who brought in Tuition Fees, and brought in the Browne Review, then decided to vote against the Browne Review when they were in opposition. They have subsequently since returning to Government, have had to put them up.
In terms of calling Nick Clegg, the worst leader in Liberal History for 100 years. How many Liberal Leaders have had real power over the 100 years – the only ones I can think of is Sinclair (through the Second World War), Thorpe/Steel (Lib/Lab Pact) and Clegg.
In terms of delivering liberal policies, Nick has had the most impact as leader by delivering Equal Marriage, helping to raise the threshold for tax income. He has helped to turn the party from merely being spectators on the sidelines, to being a party of power. He has helped to bring in young professionals who are aspirational for this country, to join the party because it wants to drive liberal change into action through sharing power to communities, and wanting to be a governing party in Westminster.
A welcome back for Clegg is about as likely to impress the voters as a welcome back for Blair. Both do have redeeming features, but both are rightly seen as yesterday’s men. They had their chance, they fluffed it. Understandably, the voters now want to try someone with a new approach, and unfortunately, Farage offers that. Davey should seek to beat Farage at that game.
Why do so many Lib Dems want to praise Clegg? Are they, in truth, loath to accept that the Coalition record tarnishes all those who were part of it, themselves often included?
NB, if you don’t like the idea of politicians being “tarnished”, ask yourself – Was Blair tarnished by Iraq? Was Cameron tarnished by the Brexit referendum? And is Starmer now tarnished, perhaps irretrievably, by his early decisions on the winter fuel payment and the two-child benefit cap?
The problem with Nick Clegg was that he simply didn’t listen and thought he knew it all. The party had a wealth of experience of coalitions at local government level and in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Clegg simply ignored all the warnings and spurned all the offers of help and advice.
He surrounded himself with yes men (and most of them were men). He never appointed one woman to the cabinet and he went along far too easily with what the Tories wanted.
I do actually think that the coalition was the only logical outcome of the 2010 election and I voted for it at the special conference. The mistakes made at the outset – accepting a referendum on AV instead of insisting on PR and the tuition fees debacle – lost us the support of our voters very swiftly. Who knows if a different leader might have fared better?
By the way, he might not have been leader at all except for the postal strike.
Clegg is many things, but it is neither correct or fair to say he was a Tory. He was simply a man wholly out of his depth and cleverly out manoeuvred at every turn by Cameron
Herbert Samuel was Home Secretary in the National Government 1931-1932 before leading the party across the floor. Whether we would have performed better if Clegg had done that is debatable. We were trounced in 1935 and Samuel lost his seat.
There’s a lot of interesting points here, but claiming that someone is an entryist is a serious assertion and needs properly backing up, otherwise it’s just insulting. I’m very happy to both defend and critique Clegg on different aspects of his leadership and the results that followed, but he had safe Tory seats dangled in front of him by Leon Britain and flatly refused.
The Irish greens have just been reduced from 10-ish seats to 1 (the leader) because they were the junior party in a centre to centre-right coalition. There’s doubtless done legit criticism to be levelled at the leader, but no-one bar the self-appointed guardians of green left purism are saying he’s not a real green.
Clegg never seemed to understand that having secured thousands of student votes by making a solemn pledge not to increase tuition fees, and then tripling them, was more than a mistake. It was one of the most electrifying breaches of faith ever seen in modern British politics. He is an able man but his reputation is shot. The party would be well advised to continue to steer clear of him.
David – If you look at the Conservatives record in Government, the first five years were the most stable. I think this is partly due to the nature of Coalition, compromise is already built and daft policies do not see the light of day.
Mick – I think your comments are fair. I think the party should have listened more to Scottish and Welsh Colleagues. Although, it could be pointed out that in 2007 – we walked away from a Rainbow Coalition with Plaid and the Conservatives, and also rebuffed Labour to form a minority Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition in Scotland with Tory support.
We did have Andrew Stunnell, who helped to oversee the Progressive Partnership in Birmingham, and had a wide variety of knowledge of coalitions in Local Government. I think though your comments are fair.
Anthony – I think you are wrong to solely blame Nick on Tuition Fees. I think the FPC should have withdrawn that manifesto pledge, but I do understand its attractiveness to students. I prefer a Graduate Tax, so the more you earn – the more you pay back for your university education.
I am reminded of the scene in Fawlty Towers where a guest confronts Basil and says ‘this is the worst hotel in the country’ at which point the Major states ‘I will not have that’ Basil smiles and says ‘thank you Major’ only for the major to add ‘There is a place in Eastbourne that is much worse!’
It is always interesting to see how authors try to nudge the good old Overton Window their way using hyperbole when beginning an article on LDV. Here is an alternative fact-based approach.
Nick Clegg is the worst Lib Dem leader ever by virtue of his losing 54 of our 62 MPs in two general elections: 5 in 2010 and 49 in 2015. Some say he led us into government, but those 62 MPs were not his, they were ours, and he willingly sacrificed almost all of them to prop up David Cameron and protect him for five years from the responsibility of controlling the Conservatives Eurosceptic fringe, instead giving him the time to totally undermine us instead. As an aside the Eurosceptics also used the opportunity to strengthen their position within the Conservatives.
His legacy includes a vote share collapse from 22% to 7.9% – a loss of 4.4 million votes. Councillors were down by nearly half and membership down nearly a third.
For all except the Nick Clegg uber loyalists, many of whom are still in positions of substantial influence now, the writing was probably crystal clear after 18 months. However in the 2014 Euro elections when we almost lost every MEP we had, it was clear to all, and still he refused to stand down. Resignation then would have probably saved us half our seats. Hanging on guaranteed the Cons would win a majority and Brexit followed.
I could go on, but the 250 word limit approaches.
David Evans – If I remember correctly that there was three steps before any coalition could be ratified. They were that the Parliamentary Party, then the Federal Executive and then it had to be ratified at a special conference. History showed that all three bodies voted for us to be in coalition with the Conservatives, so to say that Nick Clegg sacrificed them is inaccurate as it had to go through a set process. For example, the Rainbow Coalition in Wales in 2007, did not go ahead because some AMs felt uncomfortable going into coalition with the Conservatives.
The fact that Nick and the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives, meant a bulwark to the Eurosceptics within the Conservative Party. As soon as we departed the scene, Cameron was forced to have his IN/OUT referendum on the EU to try to keep the Conservatives together, yet the Conservatives broke the country while trying to solve their own internal differences. Would Brexit have happened if there was Coalition 2.0? Be interesting to see when Not Another One Podcast discuss at the weekend, what would if happened if Remain won the referendum.
“I think you are wrong to solely blame Nick on Tuition Fees. I think the FPC should have withdrawn that manifesto pledge”
The problem was not the manifesto pledge or any FPC decision. I disagree with the idea of a graduate tax but that’s what conference passed. The pledge to not increase tuition fees was an NUS initiative and the fact that all our MPs signed it is entirely down to the parliamentary party and its leader.
@David Evans. I wonder who the Nick Clegg enthusiasts are who are still in positions of great influence? Only two members of the current parliamentary party remain from the 8 elected in 2015 and four constituencies that did return LibDems in 2015 have subsequently been lost. Only one MP is a former Cabinet member, Ed Davey, and he lost his seat in 2015 and regained it in 2017. A further two MPs who were in the 2010-2015 parliament have just been re-elected after a 9 year gap. So, even if you assume that these 4 were Clegg acolytes, which seems doubtful, that’s four out of 72. In the Lords there are 4 members who served in the 2010-2015 government (one has since died), only one of whom is any any kind of leadership position now and I’m confident that William Wallace has never been a Clegg acolyte.
The party’s staff have seen an almost complete turnover since 2015 and most party committees have changed greatly since 2015.
So, I fail to understand the point you are making
“Would Brexit have happened if there had been a Coalition 2.0?”
Apologies for a premature click.
“Would Brexit have happened if there had been a Coalition 2.0?” Possibly not. But that overlooks why wasn’t there a Coalition 2.0. The answer is because the Party, led by Nick Clegg proved themselves to be incompetent, the Tuition fee debacle is a good example. But Clegg can’t be totally useless, otherwise he wouldn’t have lasted so long at Facebook/Meta.
But what Adam also overlooks is that Brexit, although not inevitable, was not a purely Conservative issue. It was obvious for many years that many people did not and do not think the same way about the EU (not Europe: I note that elsewhere in his essay Adam refers to “Europe” when he really means the EU) as most Liberal Democrats. Part of the evidence is the ongoing success of UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. If you need further evidence look at Peter Shore’s speech to the Oxford Union in 1975, the year of the previous UK referendum on the common Market. If you don’t accept that then you are part of the Brexit problem rather than the solution.
I completely agree with David Warren and others. Bringing back this seemingly shallow and entitled person would undo all the good work done since he went to Facebook. We can listen to him and be polite but don’t make him a special case. I’m sure he can’t win or hold a seat.
“Would Brexit have happened if there had been a Coalition 2.0?”
Why would it have made any difference?
Didn’t nearly all Lib Dem MPs vote, in 2015, to have a referendum? Only the SNP opposed it.
Andrew – On the issue of Europe, I accept that historically Britain has been ambiguous on whether it wants to play a full part within the European Union.
However, on the issue of the Brexit Referendum. David Cameron called in his Bloomberg Speech for an IN/OUT referendum to see off Nigel Farage, and to quell the Constitutional Nationalists within his own party. Would have the Liberal Democrats agreed to a EU Referendum under that scenario, if there was a Coalition 2.0?
In terms of Peter’s point, the MPs voted after the General Election for an IN/OUT referendum. Even I agreed that an IN/OUT referendum was needed to lance the boil, considering the Conservatives won a majority in the 2015 General Election on that pledge.
Oops. There are of course 5 LD MPs from the 2010-15 parliament and two of them were cabinet ministers, Ed and Alistair. My main points remain the same.
I was rather disappointed to read so much vitriol towards Sir Nick in the comments above. I rejoined the Party in 2010 after many years of inactivity when we went into coalition. I didn’t agree with some of the things we went along with but it was five years of better government than we had in the preceding decade or in the decade that followed.
It does not follow, because Lib Dem MPs voted for the Brexit referendum (mistakenly, but Let Bygones Be Bygones), that the party would have run the referendum if it had been in power. We certainly would not have run it in the form in Cameron’s Tory government run it. The referendum commitment was, in any case, something that Cameron intended to ditch in the anticipated Coalition 2.0 negotiations.
Nick’s mistake on tuition fees was to accept the FPC’s insistence that we make such a firm pledge, although well aware that if in government it would be undeliverable. Labour had set up a ‘review’, to report after the 2010 election, to avoid admitting that was the unavoidable outcome. I recall two attempts in FPC meetings to agree on a more manageable policy on tuition fees, both pushed back by Even Harris and others who clearly thought that it was a vote-winner and that we were in no danger of finding ourselves in government.
I agree with Mick! (Taylor 7.56pm)
In 2010, my late wife, Ruth Coleman-Taylor and I were both candidates for Leeds constituencies. We argued strongly against signing the NUS pledge, on the basis that it was undeliverable and that it left us no room to manoeuvre should we be in a position to influence the issue. We were browbeaten continuously, mainly by the Leeds NW MP, to sign it and eventually we did because we were in a small minority. It gives me no pleasure at all that we were right and that had that pledge not been signed then the betrayal that followed could have been avoided. I sincerely hope that the party never again signs pledges to follow a particular course of action that we are not 110% certain can be delivered in any circumstances that might arise.
The basic problem about going into coalition is our appalling FPTP voting system. At every level (Welsh Assembly, Scots, local councils) where LDs have shared power, and where we are the smaller party, we have lost out badly at the following election. We did a huge amount of good while in coalition, and the stability of that government was in wonderful contrast with the horrors of the single-party government that followed. I agree about the tuition fee debacle, and it showed how important it is not to make promises you can’t keep, but it shouldn’t overshadow everything else that Nick did. I hate to disagree with so many commentators, but Nick was an inspirational leader, especially to our candidates. He was a thoroughly likeable person with a deal of empathy sadly not shared by any PM since. We were responsible for gay marriage, shared parental leave, pupil premia, free school meals, raising tax paying threshold, free childcare… Lib Dems did a huge amount of good while in power, and that was due to Nick and his team, including Lynne Featherstone, Vince Cable and Ed Davey. Thanks, Nick.
Hi Adam,
Thank you for responding to my post.
I see you have chosen not to dispute any of the facts I put forward – the consequences of Nick’s leadership of the party in coalition. I think that this is wise, as they do speak for themselves. He took over leadership of the good ship Liberal Democracy and in five years turned it into a near flaming wreck, stuck on the rocks it was steered onto through bad decision making by its captain.
On the many occasions that this sort of discussion about Nick’s leadership has been held (and there have been many) these facts have always been quickly skipped over by his supporters!
Instead, and as you have done here, there has always been some sort of attempt to dilute culpability by spreading it across the party as a whole as if the vote at the Birmingham Special Conference, made in haste days after Cameron had been made Prime Minister, excuses the manifest mistakes Nick made subsequently.
Those arguments were debunked and well and truly laid to rest each time and they really don’t deserve to be repeatedly exhumed and re-examined. We really need to accept and learn from our past mistakes and not just keep going over dead ground time and again.
Then we can prepare for the problems of the future, rather than re-writing the history of the past. This is what will ensure Liberal Democracy thrives and succeeds in years to come.
All the best,
David
William Wallace has an interesting article entirely about how We should work in the Future – it gets 2 comments.
This article which is entirely about The Past gets 32 comments.
I find that depressing.
William – Thank you for clarifying what happened in FPC over Tuition Fees. I’m glad that FPC now make sure policies are credible and cost-funded.
David – I can’t argue with the fact that Nick electorally took the Liberal Democrats from 63 to 8 MPs in his time as Leader.
However, to call his time as Leader as ‘a near flaming wreck’ and ‘stuck on the rocks’ is completely unfair and solely basing his record on electoral considerations.
If you look at what we achieved during the Coalition. The fact that provided stable government during the five years, should not be overlooked. It was certainly more stable than the Conservatives in Government by themselves.
In terms of Policy, we got Equal Marriage passed. This would not have got passed without the determination of Lynne Featherstone in Government. Liberalism in action.
Another underrated achievement within the Coalition, is Steve Webb reforming Pensions. Not just passing the ‘triple-lock’ for pensioners, but being one of the pioneers for ensuring that the concept of Workplace Pension was put into place. Employees now have to be auto-enrolled into a Workplace Pension, if they pass the threshold for automatic enrolment.
Even you must agree, David, that our worst day in Government is better than our better days in Opposition?
I sometimes wonder whether l am supporting the correct party. John Kelly and Paul Parker Hear Hear.
So sorry Paul, l should have said Paul Barker.
I joined the Lib Dems around 45 minutes after the first leaders’ debate of the 2010 election (the famous “I agree with Nick” one). I then attended the Birmingham special Conference and voted in favour of going into coalition, so I accept part of the responsibility for what followed.
I think it is unfair to blame Nick Clegg personally for everything that followed. As William Wallace and Mick Taylor say, the real mistake on tuition fees was to sign the pledge in the first place (and a lot of Lib Dems did), rather than ending up in a position of not being able to deliver an undeliverable policy.
A lot of what followed was “events, dear boy, events” – especially the duplicity of David Cameron and the Tories.
To reuse that phrase, of the comments on this post ‘I agree with John and Alison’.
When it comes to electoral performance it cannot be put down solely to either the party leader or even performance in government. The Conservatione vote share consistently increased from 2010 to 2019 under Cameron in 2010 it was 36.1%: 2015 36.8%, under Theresa May 2017:42.3%, Johnson 2019: 43.6% until their vote befan to crash after Covid under Sunak 2024:23.7%. While we were the beneficiary of that collapse winning 72 seats on a vote share of 12.2% (up 0.4%) the great majority of the Conservatives near 20% loss in vote share went to Reform albeit spread to widely to result in seats.
As Conservative support contnues to implode, It is Refom that is now presenting a new challenge to both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Barry Lofty an easy mistake. One of my great aunts was born Parker and became Barker on marriage!
@ Alex MacFie,
If I understand you correctly on the question of the vote to have the EU referendum, you’re saying that the LibDems can be in favour of something whilst in opposition, and vote accordingly, but against it when in Government.
Isn’t this the main reason why many voters have become somewhat cynical about politicians?
Mick, and others: For the record, I’ve known Nick Clegg since he was a student: Helen taught both him and Miriam. He did not rely over-heavily on women: he had several women in his Cabinet Office team, 2 of whom are now in our Lords group. Nick (like many other Liberals) was too trusting of Cameron, too determined in the first two years of coalition to demonstrate that coalition government could work, and unable to counter the vitriol he got from the outset from the Tory press. We did demonstrate that coalition government can work; the chaos of 2015-19 has shown that our 2-party system is bankrupt. And now we need to prepare for what happens in 2029, not rake over the past. (And in terms of quality of leaders, has everyone forgotten Jeremy Thorpe?)
“However, on the issue of the Brexit Referendum. David Cameron called in his Bloomberg Speech for an IN/OUT referendum to see off Nigel Farage, and to quell the Constitutional Nationalists within his own party.”
Adam, suppose I grant you that. So what. In the 2016 Referendum more than half of those who voted, voted leave. Do you really seek to argue that with roughly half the Country, perhaps mainly in England, in favour of leaving that a referendum could have long been delayed? If you do what would have been the cost to the Country? (Please don’t say less than the cost of Brexit, because it’s not an answer.)
Andrew – I accept that the Conservatives after winning the 2015 General Election, had a mandate to hold an IN/OUT referendum on the European Union.
However, David Cameron hold the referendum on a false premise, which was to keep his party together. What happened to the country was an afterthought, after all he said during the Scottish Referendum, that Scotland could have the best of both worlds by being part of the United Kingdom and also the European Union.
Perversely, one of the political impacts of Brexit has seen our politics become more continental than Anglo-American. We have an Anglo-American electoral system, where as our politics has become more continental with five parties being between 30% and 10% in the polls, and six in Scotland and Wales.
William Wallace: ii is not a question of whether a coalition works or not it is what happens to the minor party in that situation, normally that leads to disaster as happened to us in 2015. That cannot be repeated, We must move on from such discussion and focus on how we re-establish ourselves in the hundreds of seats which we sacrificed in the cause of strict targeting,,
The party needs to get over the tuition fees issue. It is well over a decade ago and both of the major parties have had their turns in office since then and neither of them has ever expressed the slightest intent to actually do anything about tuition fees.
As it was back then, their was no majority for doing anything about tuition fees in Parliament and the people still whinging about it should be politely asked what the current government intends to do about it.
Far too late to enter debate, just to say that hatred and vitriol heaped on a person never aided progress.
Learning honest lessons does.
@ Paul R. “The party needs to get over the tuition fees issue”.
That’s a bit back to front Paul. The people who suffered were the students who’d had a firm promise, are still trying to get over it, and are still likely to be paying off their loans.
I rather think Sir Nicholas and Sir Daniel won’t be struggling along somehow or other.
So what could we do about the toxic legacy of student fees. We can’t do much about the reputational damage of breaking a pledge except not breaking any more but when it comes to policies on student finance we could:
1. Back Universal Benefits. It never got mentioned in the debate but a significant part of the cost was giving students a small annual income (about 8bn I think).
2. Call for all benefits requiring availability for work to accept student enrolment as an alternative.
3. Support initiatives to make student loan terms more generous such as reducing interest and pay-back rates or reducing the period before write-off.
The long-term cost of options 1 and 2 would be a lot lower if combined with a corresponding reduction in student loans. That would significantly reduce the sums written off.
First of all thank you for engaging so constructively with me and other commentators Adam.
“However, David Cameron hold the referendum on a false premise, which was to keep his party together.”
And your point is?
I repeat my point that more than half of those voting in the 2016 referendum voted to leave. There is no reason to suppose that those who did not vote would have split differently. Even if you suppose that those who chose not to vote had no opinion how does that help. I contend that where around half of the population are unhappy about something important, in this case where to stay or leave the EU, then the situation has to be resolved. At some point it was inevitable that either a referendum would have to be held or a major party would have campaigned on leaving the EU and won an election. Even if you are right about Mr Cameron’s reason for the referendum the precise reason is an irrelevant side issue. The real issue is why so many people where so passionate to leave. If you try to avoid dealing with that by focusing on a minor procedural issue then, in my opinion you are avoiding the real issue.
This argument is symptomatic of the perceived inconsistency of two sorts of Liberals: those who empasise economic liberalism and those who emphasise social liberalism. It is clear both sorts exist in the Liberal Democrats; and so they should, especially in a world where the policial debate is shifting from “lefts vrs right” to authority vrs freedom.
We need to recall that the party was not a 99% bastion of social liberalism in the early 2000s. The Orange Book was published in 2004 if I recall correctly so no one can pretend the views of its authors and sponsors were not known. Nick Clegg beat another contributor for the leadership – I remember being told by a Clegg supporter I should not vote for Hulme because he was too rich or words to that effect.
I don’t think the party had a workable alternative to working with the Tories in 2010. The numbers (as everyone knows) did not support any arrangement in which Tories could be excluded, and the country was sick of Labour. There was an international financial crisis so stable government was essential. For the Lib Dems as a party that espoused PR and the inevitable consequence of coalition, to walk away would have exposed us as deeply unserious politicians.
The alternatives were confidence and supply and coalition. Confidence and supply would have been less stable (so an election would have followed shortly afterwards with both Tories and Labour squeezing us hard asking for a mandate for a stable government that I think we would have done extremely badly in not to mention being poorly funded). And we would not have made many policy gains.
Anyone, inside the party or outside, who believed before the election that coalition with the Tories was not an option simply wasn’t paying attention.
The result was the Parliamenty party went for coalition (so far as I recall the only voice against was David Rendell)
Coalition may have been inevitable but …
We didn’t have to look so happy about it. Even with collective responsibility, you can publicly state your differences with cabinet colleagues and explain to the public why you have been forced to accept compromises.
We didn’t have to treble student fees. A graduate tax paid directly to universities would have given them just as much money and left graduates with the same future liabilities but would have met both the pledge and our party policy.
We didn’t have to accept the NHS reorganisation. It was actually in the agreement that there wouldn’t be one.
Hi Suzanne,
As far as I can see, I don’t see any hatred or vitriol in the comments here. Just people who saw the hard work of decades of activists being near totally destroyed by a leader who failed in his duty to build a stronger party, even when it became impossible to deny the damage he was doing, coupled with many posts simply re-iterating misleading arguments that had been comprehensively debunked many times before.
Can you explain where you think the the hatred is, or is it just people clinging to a dangerous narrative where they still can’t accept their hero made such a mess of things?
David
@Peter Davies: The pledge on student fees was daft and irresponsible because it was unaffordable and therefore undeliverable – it worked as an electoral gimmick UNTIL the LibDems suddenly found themselves in Government and expected to make good on their promises. I would expect introducing universal benefits, paid to students as well as everyone else, would be even more expensive – and therefore even more undeliverable. Isn’t proposing that for the next election just making the same mistake again, but this time on stilts?
I think a better strategy is just to not bring up the topic at all. Student fees is not a hot topic with voters any more, and in 2029 the breaking of the student fees pledge will be nearly 20 years in the past: Almost no voters outside the political-activist bubble are going to be thinking about it when they decide who to vote for.
Andrew – Thank you for your kind words about me being constructive to people’s views about the article. Indeed I believe in constructive discussion.
Although the purpose of my article is about a revisionist view on how Nick Clegg should be seen by party members, as some members see Nick as a bit of a pariah. I will dialogue about the EU referendum.
I accept that the majority of people voted OUT, I believe in democracy and upholding the result. It does not mean though that the underlying premise of the referendum was right, and the way it was conducted was right.
What I allude to my article in relation to Coalition 2.0 and Brexit, it is highly unlikely that a referendum would have happened. David Cameron insisted this would have been a precondition of any Coalition 2.0, but other politicians argued (and I tend to believe) that we would have vetoed a referendum if there was a Coalition 2.0.
Hello Adam,
Thank you for your reply.
However, I am rather puzzled by your main point where you say it is completely unfair to judge his time as leader based on electoral consequences. To me the objective of being in politics is quite simple. It is to make things go better and to stop things from getting worse, both now and in the future. My chosen vehicle for achieving this is Liberal Democracy as it has by far the best starting point – “The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society …”
When Nick became leader in 2006 we had 62 MPs and the chance to build a better Britain. When he finally resigned in 2015 we had only 8 MPs and for the next nine years we were totally unable to safeguard any of it.
Now our country is in an even bigger mess than ever – Brexit, huge national debt, the economy flatlining and almost every council effectively bankrupt are just a few headlines.
It was the electoral consequences of Nick’s failure that allowed this to happen. Without a Conservative absolute majority of MPs in 2015:
No referendum – therefore no Brexit,
No cancellation of the implementation of the banking review;
No sell off of the Green Bank;
No Boris Johnson PM;
No Liz Truss;
No handouts to our mates for duff PPE equipment.
Electoral consequences have real consequences. You have to be strong to safeguard. We have to get real.
David
David – You seem to be blaming Nick for things that were out of his control, or things none of us could have foreseen.
I accept that Nick took the party electorally from 63 MPs to 8 MPs, and that set the party back electorally for a decade. It does not mean that Nick should be solely judged on that, he should be judged also on governance and putting liberal policies into action. I think on governance he provided stable government, as you say compared to the Conservatives by themselves. As William Wallace says in his own article, we must defend the legacy of the coalition than run away from it – if we want to be seen as a credible party what wants to govern.
In terms of Brexit, there probably would not have been a referendum if there was a Coalition 2.0. Nick was the first one to call out Nigel Farage, on his views regarding the European Union.
In terms of the Banking Review, the Financial Conduct Authority cancelled the review. I agree the Conservatives should have continued this through.
I think to say Nick has some form of responsibility for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss becoming Prime Minister, is not credible. We had the 2017 General Election before Boris Johnson became PM, and you could argue that Jo Swinson’s tactic during the 2019 Parliamentary Shenanigans over Brexit led to Johnson winning a large majority. (I think this is a superfluous reason though).
@Simon – The personal allowance has fallen in value since we debated UB. Converting the allowance to negative income tax would work out at £3 500 per adult on zero income. If we reduced all adult primary benefits by the same ammount as the tax rebate, it would only be paid in full to those who earn nothing and get no benefits. There would be two main groups of beneficiaries: UK Students (about 2 million though some have small aditional incomes) would cost £7 bn in the short term though a significant part would be clawed back by reduced defaults on smaller loans. Non-working partners in single earner partnerships would be the other big group. The existing small transferable allowance would be abolished. There would also be significant numbers of low earners who benefitted by smaller amounts and people who are effectively excluded from the benefit system by unprovable self-employed or zero-hours income. It’s obviously a big change and might require about 20 bn to be raised in taxes.
While there were lots of mistakes in the coalition we ought to remember that if we had not have had the Coalition then we would have had the terrible Tory Government four and a half years earlier. There is no doubt that if Cameron had had the power to call an election in the Autumn of 2010 he would have done so and won, probably by a landslide.
Any claim that we should have insisted on any particular policy (eg PR instead of AV) would depend on it being acceptable to the Tories on the basis of the calculation that if negotiations broke down over the issue would it rebound on the Tories or Lib Dems.
As for the Tuition Fees -the fact that Labour reneged on their manifesto promises in the previous elections when the had majorities in Parliament did stop them winning again. The Universities needed much more cash and no Party could put more money in the sector above more going into early years in particular. Labour and Tories were committed to keeping the Fees and Debt system of funding and they recieved the majority of votes and seats, so we were in Avery weak position to change it. Even so the modification that were achieved meant that for those who earned lass than £30,000 would pay less.
Adam Robertson might be right in saying that the UK general public “reluctantly accepted that coalition cuts were necessary” in 2010, but that is not the position of the majority of economists.
Books such as “End this Depression Now !” by Paul Krugman, “Austerity, the History of a Dangerous Idea” by Mark Blyth and “The Lies We Were Told” by Simon Wren-Lewis are all part of a powerful canon that shows that austerity under the coalition was diametrically the wrong policy. (Note in passing – all three authors held prestigious chairs in economics, whilst Krugman is a Nobel Laureate).
Having got that off my chest, I should add that I have much sympathy with the thrust of Adam’s post. Nick Clegg has a chequered past history but for me the good outweighs the bad. Recently he had a long, thoughtful piece in “The Observer” about how the EU might be re-purposed and revived (including UK involvement). Also on the Institute for Government website is a link to a talk plus Q and A that he gave.
Re-reading the Robertson piece and the ensuing comments, my thoughts go to the New Testament parable of the Prodigal Son. Might this be apposite? Perhaps a bit of Christian charity is in order.
Ten years after the end of the Coalition, we have had our best result in seat terms for over a hundred years.
There is life after the Coalition.
Everyone should move on and look forward. That is what the party as a whole is doing.
A preponderance of elderly posters on LDV keeps the conversation on here looking back in self-flagellation. It’s totally unrepresentative of the mood and focus in the Party.
For many people, the coalition was the last sensible government that the UK has had. Some ordinary people were quite glad to see two parties in government NOT indulging in ‘yah-boo’ politics. Unfortunately, there is no place on the ballot for ‘continue with the coalition’. In the coalition (5 sixths Tory and 1 sixth LibDem) the Tories were able to take credit for policies that had come from the LibDems and persuade voters that good things would continue if people voted Tory.
Meanwhile, Labour had been attacking the LibDems for 5 years as no better than the Tories. Somehow they managed to forget for 15 years that their interest is served by people NOT voting Tory; nice for them if people vote Labour, but also in their interest if potential Tory voters vote for other parties, including the LibDems.
Now if we had achieved the ‘miserable little compromise’ of Alternative Vote, people could have voted Coalition by making the coalition partners First and Second Choice…..
There is history and there is NOW.
I suggest given what Nick is currently saying concerning the shredding of copyright to permit the unfettered usage of copyrighted materials as AI training data; namely siding with big businesses that considers themselves above the law and regards whatever you and I produce to be theirs, and to this end getting governments (*) to dance to their tune and legislate to deny you your rights over your works. that the LibDems should be rapidly and publicly distancing themselves from him.
Obviously, it should be noted the big businesses behind this snake oil pitch, haven’t and won’t be giving anything away for free, especially their copyrighted works…
(*) This was discussed by the HoL recently, who penned an amendment (see: https://ppa.co.uk/lords-vote-in-favour-of-amendments-to-protect-copyrighted-works-from-ai-companies). However, as Starmer has been blinded and brought, the government is blocking it (See: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/uk-ministers-to-block-amendment-requiring-ai-firms-to-declare-use-of-copyrighted-content )…
I just want to thank all of you for the comments made on my piece about Nick Clegg, it is good to have an engaging constructive discussion on LDV.
I agree with Mike and Ian, that the Coalition provided stable and sensible government. The fact is that the two parties had to compromise beforehand before policies saw the light of day in legislation. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats helped to ensure Equal Marriage got passed into legislation, along with the Pupil Premium to help disadvantaged pupils.
I fully agree with Mike, that we had not agreed to a Coalition, David Cameron would have went to the country in October 2010 – and said we need a majority government to get legislation through. I understand the option we should have taken a ‘confidence and supply’ option but that meant us taking the blame for bad legislation, and not getting anything in return. I think Chris Huhne was right to include a Coalition Option with the Conservatives, when the party looked at all options before the 2010 General Election, when it looked like a Hung Parliament was possible.
As many people have said, coalition with the Tories was the only realistic option in 2010. Confidence and supply, the Tories would have gone to the country again in 6 months and were the only party who could afford to. Coalition with Labour, the numbers didn’t add up and there were Labour diehards who would have ensured any coalition failed.
That said, Cameron and Hague ran rings round Clegg. Anything good, the Tories took the credit for. Anything bad, Danny Alexander was wheeled out to announce. Cameron kept the right of hire and fire, so when Nick Harvey got sensible on defence, he simply got sacked.
And the tuition fees pledge may have been a bloody stupid promise to make, but having made it, it had to be a red line. Only in the Westminster bubble is a pledge to vote against fulfilled by abstaining.
And after all of that, the Lib Dem’s had the chance to redeem themselves by derailing Lansley’s ridiculous top down NHS reforms and labelling themselves The Party That Saved The NHS, and blew it.
I don’t doubt there is a lot of good in Nick Clegg, but he is irremediably damaged goods. As, for different reasons, is Blair. Blair’s interventions don’t help Labour. Clegg doesn’t help us.
Adam you’re right that my comments have wandered from the main point of this article and in also we appear to be talking across each other rather than to each other. I think that the fact that many of the commentators on this thread believe that stopping the referendum was more important than the fact that so many of your fellow voters were dissatisfied with and detached from the EU is worse than anything Clegg did. To repeat, if half the country is prepared to vote to leave the EU then it seems to me that blocking a vote on the matter would have made things worse not better. When the vote finally came, as it must have, the referendum would have been even more contentious.
I see that you live in East Suffolk. I was born in Lowestoft and remember growing up there in the ’70s. The town I remember was prosperous. With Eastern Coach Works, two canneries, two shipyards. All now closed. A large fishing industry, now only a shadow of it;s former self. This coincided with the UK’s membership of the EU. How much of the decline was caused by the EU is debatable but there can be no doubt that the decline in fishing was connected with the EU CFP Had the UK government insisted in the ’70s that more of the fish shares in UK waters had been reallocated to UK fisherman I doubt whether 62.9% of people in Lowestoft would have voted to leave.
Adam,
Thank you again for your latest two replies. I and others appreciate it, as open discourse is the best way to learn from each other.
However, I have to disagree with you and Mike and Ian, not because of the points you have made (i.e. the good stuff), which I agree with, but because of the points that you have ignored (i.e. the massive long-term damage to the country and the Liberal Democrats over the following years).
Sadly, it seems that like so many loyal Lib Dems before you, you prefer a self-comforting mantra that we did a lot of good, to totally skew your view to the extent you ignore the fact that we still allowed the Cons to force through lots of bad stuff while in coalition and, by ignoring the inevitable destruction of our party as a parliamentary and local government force allowed them to carry on even worse bad stuff afterwards.
The number of otherwise sensible Lib Dems who came out with one liners like “I would willingly sacrifice my seat, because we got equal marriage” totally ignores the fact that by sacrificing everything for five years of minor power to get something half the Conservatives wanted anyway, is not a good deal for future generations with no hope of power.
Until we as a party own and accept the consequences of our mistakes, we will doom later generations of Lib Dems to repeat our failures.
All the best
David
Andrew – Thank you for your constructive comments. I live in Lowestoft, and I think the fishing industry has declined for a number of factors, some of which are linked to the EU and others not.
David – I respect your views and I have not argued that the Coalition was perfect. I would invite you to compare and contrast the Coalition to majority Conservative Government, and what was preferable. I agree with you that we need to learn from the mistakes of the coalition, to ensure we are better prepared to enter Government again. We should be prepared to walk away from a potential bad coalition agreement if policy alignment cannot be achieved, for example.
Hi Adam,
I only just noticed your reply, so apologies for this late response.
However, I have to say that your response remains profoundly disappointing, because despite your nice words, you have repeatedly failed to engage in any way with my main point – that it is totally insufficient to just look at what happened during coalition as you are doing, because you are thereby totally ignoring the things that went so wrong after coalition. These things only went wrong because of the massive losses we suffered in 2015 and cannot just be wished away as you seem to want to do.
All in all, and regretfully therefore, I have to conclude that your viewpoint is as misguided and blinkered as it is possible to be on this matter and as such remains an obstacle to our party ever learning anything from the mistakes Nick made as leader.
I hope one day very soon you will realise this.
In the meantime, all the best in what you are trying to achieve for Liberal Democracy in your local area.
David