Over at Comment is Free, Nick Clegg explains the shared aims of the Lib-Con coalition:
The third runway at Heathrow has been cancelled. ID cards have been scrapped. There will be no more child detention. And reform is now under way to make taxes fair for millions of ordinary people.
These are some of the early achievements of a government that had its first cabinet meeting just two days ago. A new government but, more important, a new kind of government: plural, diverse; a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition that defies the rules of old politics.
I know the birth of this coalition has caused much surprise, and, with it, some offence. There are those on both the left and right who are united in thinking this should not have happened. But the truth is this: there was no other responsible way to play the hand dealt to the political parties by the British people at the election. The parliamentary arithmetic made a Lib-Lab coalition unworkable, and it would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people. Equally, a minority administration would have been too fragile to tackle the political and economic challenges ahead.
So, given that the people told us, explicitly, that they didn’t want just one party in charge, we had a duty to find a way for more than one party to govern effectively. And we have.
You can read the rest of Nick’s article here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Chase Park fair photos
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Iain Donaldson
Peter Martin
theakes
20 Comments
The coallition is not ideal and many people didn’t want David Cmeron in power but as 23% voted for Lib Dems and due to dense populations in certain regions their vote was minimal (mine 0.053 of a vote) meant labour and conservative strongholds came through. With less seats Lib dems had to make some sort of deal to get their voice heard, I think people who are taking offence by this forget that without Lib Dems in parliament non of the policies we voted for would be heard and as you mention a Lib/Lab coalition wouldn’t have majority other deals would have to be made with scotland and wales and these come at a price to the British public.
I am not over the moon with the result but see how it is the best way to get Lib dems policies heard out perhaps there will be another election in the next 12 months? Although a Lib Dem supporter I did think that Labour were better placed to help the economy (purely from experience) would be interested to see the Lib/Con approach to this as I have no faith in Conservatives when it comes to funding, taxes and public sector spending.
Heap of nonsense. “The British people told us, explicitily, etc etc”. Wrong! Each voter only has control over his/her own vote. This suggest a degree of collusion which simply does not exist. Politicians understand this, but they think the rest of us are too stupid to see it.
Shame on you, LibDems, you’ve lost my vote forever. And have done Labour a great favour.
The results of the election are the electorate’s collective opinion. Whether you like it or not Maria, the Tories won more votes and seats. A Lib Dem-Con Alliance is not necessarily how I’d have liked to see Lib Dem ministers in Government, but it’s certainly better than an entirely Tory one.
Further, if you actually support PR then you’ll have to get used to coalitions. And if coalitions are to be possible, they have to be actually possible with any party. If we’d only ever go into coalition with Labour, we might as well give up now and join the illiberal, anti-progressive, top-down controlled Labour party.
Whether we ever had your vote in the first place Maria, I guess we’ll live without it.
@Maria
I know you think the Lib Dems are Labour’s bitch and should only ever join a coalition with Labour (and you only voted for them, allegedly, because you wanted to vote for Labour but had some prissy middle class objection to doing so), but there was no chance of that happening. Many many many more people would’ve objected to it anyway, keeping your loser party in power.
If you voted Lib Dem because you like Lib Dem policies, then you can’t really complain that some of those policies as opposed to none of them are being implemented – because that is the choice, remaining on the Opposition benches and never having any of your policies implemented, or having some of them implemented. If you think that choice was the wrong one, have fun in Labour – they will spend a long time in opposition.
@ Grammar Police and blanco – hear, hear.
We’ll probably lose many members and supporters of the variety that either a) just see us as an offshoot of Labour or b) just want to stay in perpetual opposition and don’t like the compromises (or associated policy rewards) of power.
Group a) will probably go back to Labour and try to forget about Iraq, ID cards, a widening gap between rich and poor, and a host of other illiberal policies. Group b) will probably turn to the Greens for the comfort of perpetual complaining from the sidelines and never actually getting anything done.
But I expect us to gain more members and supporters than we lose – people who a) wouldn’t join us previously because they thought we were just an offshoot of Labour or b) wouldn’t join/support us because they thought none of our policies would ever become reality.
A coalition was the only responsible thing to do, and the Lib Con one was the only legitimate offer on the table.
We are not blood brothers of Labour any more than we are of the conservatives… we are free to make our own decisions in the best interest of the country, even if it does upset some of those who voted for us.
Those who are most upset are those who least understand Liberal values and philosophy.
Which, if anyone from any LibDem Press Office is listening was exactly the wrong thing to say.
“Nick Clegg today defends his decision to spurn a progressive coalition government with Labour,” – may have lost us the next election. Not because it’s wrong but because it vindicated a media narrative which a) is inaccurate b) which Labour wants and is actively reinforcing and c) vindicated the feelings of those who ‘feel betrayed’.
Contrast this with Simon Hughes explanation: “Over the weekend Labour indicated they would also be willing to talk to us about forming an alternative progressive coalition. I believed strongly that we should do this and our party agreed on Monday that we should also open talks with Labour. These began on Monday evening and immediately after the cabinet meeting when Gordon Brown announced that he would stand down later this year as Labour leader and Prime Minister. The first meeting with Labour was not encouraging. Labour negotiators were unwilling to move on any of the issues where we had different views on major areas of policy. For example, they wouldn’t accept that a third runway at Heathrow should not go ahead; they were unwilling to abandon identity cards; they insisted on keeping nuclear power, and perhaps most importantly, they were unwilling to consider any further progress towards a fair voting system in the House of Commons. Indeed they made clear that they couldn’t guarantee that all Labour MPs would even vote for a referendum on the Alternative Vote.”
Now I don’t know, because I wasn’t there but given what I do know (e.g. about the temporal ordering of events making Lord Adonis account impossible) I’m inclined to believe Simon’s account to be 100% accurate. What’s the difference; the account being given by Labour and vindicated this morning by the Nick pieces in the Guardian implies there was an active choice between Labour and the Conservatives whereas the reality was that Labour retreated to the opposition benches and the choice was between coalition or Tory.
To reiterate: either what Simon is saying and what I’ve been told by LibDem MPs is a lie and left- inclined LibDems should feel betrayed or it’s accurate and whoever picked what to say in today’s Guardian ought to be fired for screwing up in the worst possible way by vindicating the story Labour are using to steal some of our voters. Nice going guys. I agree with part of what Maria said; you’ve done Labour a great favour by publishing these.
Personally I’m glad we are working with the Tories, we were endanger of going too far to the left. I mean which left wing Labour sympathising nutter in the party came up with the Trident idea. How did they expect to market that? I’m glad the Liberal wing is in the ascendancy at present.
“But the truth is this: there was no other responsible way to play the hand dealt to the political parties by the British people at the election. The parliamentary arithmetic made a Lib-Lab coalition unworkable, and it would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people. Equally, a minority administration would have been too fragile to tackle the political and economic challenges ahead.” – Yeah, not to Labour the point but this could have done with the addition of a sentence from Simon Hughes: “Although the combination of the votes of the other parties (Democratic Unionists, SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and the single Alliance Party, Green and Independent MPs) would provide a total which gave a majority if they all voted with all Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, more and more Labour MPs were going public in the media saying that they would not vote for a referendum on the new voting system and calling on Labour to go into opposition. By Tuesday afternoon it was clear that Labour negotiators were unable or unwilling or both to reach a secure coalition deal on behalf of Labour with my party.”
If you can’t tell the difference then you’re blind. If you had the difference included and the Guardian took it out then they’re just doing Labour’s bidding and you should tell people. If the article is as you intended it to be then whoever okayed it from the press office should reflect on the fact that you missed an open goal and that it would be better for the party if Simon Hughes had your job than you did.
ChrisD, I don’t think that scrapping Trident is necessarily an illiberal idea; Liberalism of course tells us, that one of the core functions of the state is to defend its citizens. However, this can be done also without nuclear weapons, and in the other hand I don’t think its very liberal to waste tax payers money to excessive weapon systems, or in general to waste them.
@ChrisD – What… subjecting trident to the strategic arms review process and not renewing it or changing the programme if military experts think its unnecessary? Hardly lefty radicalism, is it? Unless you don’t actually know what the policy is and decided to believe the way our opponents framed it. Which means no one in a position to do so ever corrected your misunderstanding….. I’m starting to think that it’s not really that the media are biased against us; I’m starting to think we hire press officers with zero sensitivity to news frames and no understanding of what our objectives should be as regards changing them.
It really is staggering reading the comments to that article how many Labour supporters seriously think they have a God-given right to be propped up by the Liberal Democrats.
Screw them and their authoritarian, illiberal party. Well done Nick. Let’s make it work.
Ryan M, these people are not Labour voters they are your own voters that are now going over to Labour. Mind you you didnt seem to mind having those Labour voters who voted for you to keep the Tories out. In my own area we kept being told that the only way to keep the Tories out was to vote Lib Dem as Labour couldn’t win. Lo and behold we took the Lib Dems on their word and ended up with the Tories.
Its all well and good now saying you didn’t want those Labour voters but maybe a bit more honesty could of been used during the election.
“Lo and behold we took the Lib Dems on their word and ended up with the Tories.”
You ended up with the Tories because millions of people voted for them, not because you voted Lib Dem. I don’t think you understand how elections work.
blanco, oh I am fully aware of how elections work. So much so that i understand to get a majority in the house of commons you need 326 seats i believe. Now unless im mistaken the Tories never got that and could of only formed a minority government. With the help of the Lib Dems they now have a healthy majority, and the only resistance the Lib Dems will put up against bills they don’t agree with is abstaining.
I do understand blanco that you are far superior to me hence why you seem to have to talk down to anyone you don’t agree with rather than debate in a sensible grown up manner. So could you please enlighten me as to what part of the election process i don’t understand so that i can bow to your superior knowledge.
Many thanks.
I’ll do my best, but even the best painter can’t make a Picasso out of a mound of ****.
If the Tories had formed a minority government, the only way they could have governed is with the Lib Dems agreeing not to just block everything they proposed. You would have called the Lib Dems EVIL EVIL TRAITOROUS SCUM in that instance too. With me so far? If the Lib Dems had been irresponsible and decided to bring down the Tory government, people would most likely have then voted to give the Tories a majority. And then you’d blame that on the Lib Dems too.
If the Tories had formed a minority government, they’d be able to pass any laws they want without having to compromise or negotiate with anyone else. Having the Lib Dems in every department of government, and in the Cabinet, and ensuring a majority, means that the Tories cannot do whatever they want: they have to convince the Lib Dems.
Now, you probably don’t care about the third runway, or about child immigrants being locked up, or about ID cards. But the fact that all of these things are being stopped is because the Lib Dems negotiated it with the Tories. There are plenty of other things: take the time to look at the actual agreement, rather than ejaculating your faux outrage all over Lib Dem blogs. I bet you didn’t actually even vote Lib Dem. If all of the online moaners had actually voted Lib Dem like they claim to have done, the Lib Dems would’ve got more votes than they actually did!
I know you are having trouble understanding that more than one party can be in power at any one time, and that not all things the Tories do are EVIIIILLLLLLL, and that it actually doesn’t matter who is in power because policy is what counts.
If you wanted a Labour government, you should have stopped all those people who voted Tory. Oh, and it would’ve helped had your party not been such control freaks when in power.
Armando Iannucci in the Indy:
“…most people’s reaction is probably a new emotion they never thought they had. It’s a positive cynicism, an optimistic worry, a sort of yearning for it all to work combined with an unsettling feeling that comes from wishing people well whom you never voted for and possibly hated with every fibre of your being. In short, it’s a coalition of emotions.”
That describes my feelings perfectly. Optimistic worry.
I am sick and tired of all this talk of this being ‘grown up mature politics’ with some people looking down their noses with a morally superior air on those who do not agree with this coalition as being immature, reactionary and incapable of compromise. Its strikes me as quite the opposite. As people mature they become comfortable in there own skin, they know who they are, what they are, what they stand for, what is acceptable to them and what is not. They become capabe of saying I respect your right to have a point of veiw but no thank you, I know who I am and whats important to me and I do not wish do join you.
As you grow up and mature you pick your friends and partners more carefully with wisdom knowing which relationships and friendships work and will flourish and which do not. Certainly in terms of choosing a long term partner, you begin to look deeper as you mature, chosing your relationships carefully based on shared values and beliefs, shared interests and being comfortable with each other. You are able to look back an see how naive you were about past relationship choices you made where you failed to take these things into account. For many many people this wisdom is learned through having had previous often disasterous relationships in their earlier years which they have jumped, rushed or fell into only later to find unreconsilable differences in attiudes, beliefs or values which caused no end of conflict and exhaustion and ended up tearing their relationship and their family apart.
As for Cables comment that arrange marriages often work better than love marriages. Most sucessful arranged marriages are very carefully arranged by close family members who know the couple very well and have put them together because they have tried to carefully match the two parties values, beliefs, attitudes and lifestyle. Those arrange marriages which often don’t succeed or are dreadfully unhappy are when two very different individuals have been forced together, in a hurry with little reguard for the couples values or differences but to apease outside social and family pressures.
So please stop taking the moral high ground that you are playing grown up politics and its so grown up to compromise. What has been compromised is the trust of many people who voted Lib Dem and the party’s intergrity. It strikes me as being very immature misguided politics, two parties caught up in the heat of the moment and thinking they are being radical without the foresight to see the dangers, to me this looks like teenage politics.
Blanco, first of all thanks for the reply although i would say you really need to get a lesson in how to debate matters in a mature way. I thought that this is all about mature politics isn’t it, well mature politics is about debating with people that don’t agree with you not treating them like something you have just stepped in.
Now moving on, all of that was a great explanation but had nothing to do with your original statement about me not knowing how elections work so i can only assume my explanation was correct and the Tories did not have a majority without the Lib Dems help.I personally believe that the Lib Dems could of achieved their goals and kept many people onside by supporting the government on a bill by bill basis. You obviously differ from that opinion which i respect although i must say its a shame you don’t seem to respect others views that dare to differ from you.
To be honest you seem to be somewhat of a schoolboy bully but there you go thats a fault in your personality not mine.
Oh and as for being Labour , i will probably vote for them next time round as i have voted Lib Dem in the last two elections and i now feel betrayed. What with your condescending attitude as well i feel the Lib Dems is not the party for me.
*sits back and waits for more abuse*
I wonder how many supporters of the coalition are aware of the full facts? Take a look atthis artice, printed in The Daily Mail in Feb 2008 entitled :”Lib-Con pact? Clegg offers to prop up a Tory government if Cameron agrees power-share deal”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513240/Lib-Con-pact-Clegg-offers-prop-Tory-government-Cameron-agrees-power-share-deal.html#ixzz0o51RwNMx
This does make me wonder if there was a VERY long term strategy on the part of Nick Clegg & David Cameron to do what he has been done. I wonder how many cosey chats had occured with David Cameron prior to 2008 about how they could share power in govt. It looks like one big stich up to me, and might also explain why the Cons didn’t get an overall majority, because David Cameron didn’t actually want one! Nick Clegg is a Tory!
I could be wrong of course, but I honestly don’t think I am! Anyway, why don’t you make up your own mind?