Courtesy The Guardian, here’s the transcript of Nick’s remarks:
Last night was a disappointment for the Liberal Democrats. Even though more people voted for us than ever before, even though we had a higher proportion of the vote than ever before, it is of course a source of great regret to me that we have lost some really valued friends and colleagues and we have returned to parliament with fewer MPs than before.
Many, many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different. It seems that, when they came to vote, many of them in the end decided to stick with what they knew best.
At a time of great economic uncertainty I totally understand those feelings. But that’s not going to stop me from redoubling my efforts and our efforts to show that real change is the best reassurance that things can get better for people and their families, that it shouldn’t be something that unsettles people.
Now we’re in a very fluid political situation with no party enjoying an absolute majority. As I’ve said before it seems to me in a situation like this, it’s vital that all political parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest and not at narrow party political advantage.
I’ve also said that whichever party gets the most votes and the most seats, if not an absolute majority, has the first right to seek to govern, either on its own or by reaching out to other parties.
And I stick to that view. It seems this morning that it’s the Conservative party that had more votes and more seats but not an absolute majority.
And that is why I think it is now for the Conservative party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest.
At the same time, this election campaign has made it abundantly clear that our electoral system is broken.
It simply doesn’t reflect the hopes and aspirations of the British people. So I repeat again my assurance that whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks, I will continue to argue not only for the greater fairness in British society, not only the greater responsibility in economic policy making, but also for the extensive real reforms that we need to fix our political system.
Here’s my original paraphrase of Nick’s remarks at Cowley Street:
Last night was a disappointment for the Lib Dems – though more people voted for us than ever before, though our share of the vote was better than last time. Lost many valued colleagues. During the campaign many people seemed excited by the possibility of change, but it seems they decided to stick with what they knew best when it came to vote, and I understand that. I’m going to re-double my efforts to show them real change is the best way of making things better for themselves and their families. Vital we all act in national interest not out of narrow party political advantage. Party which has most votes and most seats has right to seek to form a government. I stick by that. So now up to the Conservative Party to prove they are capable of meeting that task. Very clear our electoral system is broken, and not up to the job. In coming days and weeks I will continue to argue for fairness in society, and a fairer political system.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
John Wood: From silly-ass curate to world-weary genius
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A quiet conference
From Creeting St Peter to the (Liberal Democrat) world...
Geoff Reid
David Symonds
Chris Cory
Peter Martin
Nom de Plume
48 Comments
Big. Mistake.
2 hours ago I was still impressed with the way he had performed and felt that the disappointment was a reflection on our broken political system and not him as a leader. Now I feel I have been sold up the river. Given coalition governments elsewhere in Europe are the norm rather than the exception, they will be far more surprised that we are happy to let a man with such a weak mandate govern than they would have been by a Lib/Lab coalition.
I find it hard to believe many ‘Dems will be impressed by this, but then I would say that as it’s how I feel.
Anyone actually impressed with this?
But Ellie a Lib/Lab coalition wouldn’t have a majority in the Commons – so what do you propose?
Stephen,
We would still have had more seats than the Tories and a real chance of getting a referendum on PR with a grand coalition of Labour and some of the other smaller parties.
It might not have worked, but he hasn’t even considered the option and instead has given what amounts to his backing to a man more than half the nation detest.
I think this will do more harm to the party than anything else that has happened in the last 24 hours because it will alienate everyone who voted LibDem mostly on the basis of electoral reform. But that may just be me…
“Welcome to savage cuts”
Er, no. Just because Clegg has said the Conservatives can now try to form a minority government, doesn’t mean they can suddenly force through any bill they want.
“he didn’t have to say that he would support the biggest party first”
Who should he have said then? The smallest party?
“but he did so knowing full well that it would be the Tories”
Only if you believe that the public were obviously going to swing to the Tories. And why should Clegg be blamed for them doing that? If you want Clegg to have supported Labour, then Labour only have themselves to blame.
Clegg has stuck to his word – he said the natural justice and the public support would always swing behind the biggest party, the ones who have the most seats and most votes. Having said that, he cant say “ah, forget the national interest for a mo, forget the big debts, Im going to act in our best interest and prop up Brown to concentrate on a change of the system for a bit.”
The pound and the markets are expecting a government next week….not waiting around for us to say we are not really interested in the national debt and how to cope with it all, only interested in sorting the system to our advantage. Nick would have been torn to shreds in the media and elsewhere with zero street-cred. Mike, wake up to reality.
This may well be the wise long-term game to play. Firstly, Clegg looks like a man of principle sticking to the words he said. Secondly, as long as we don’t go into coalition with Tories, we’re just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
He said he’d back the party with most seats and votes, and has done so. You can certainly disagree with the strategy, but it’s definitely consistent.
“We would still have had more seats than the Tories”
Wake up. Lib Dems lost seats. Labour lost tons of seats. Tories massively gained seats. A Lib-Lab minority coalition has no moral authority, and would be a disastrously short run.
Never mind that that’s actually a wide difference between the two parties. Civil liberties? Foreign policy? Immigration? Taxation? Banking regulation? The one thing they actually agree on is when to cut the deficit.
“a real chance of getting a referendum on PR with a grand coalition of Labour and some of the other smaller parties.”
You only need control the legislature to get such a referendum. You don’t need the executive.
May I just emphasise that this is a negotiation process, not a coin-flip. When negotiating with other parties, one hopes the Liberal Democrats will do so from a principled position. If the Conservatives don’t offer anything that conforms to LibDem principles, the path is cleared to listen to what Labour may wish to offer. Just give it time ….
Clegg is cleverly setting up the Tories to try and fail to form a Government.
If Labour really wants to continue in government Brown should accept that he personally has no mandate to continue and bow out this morning. Up to Labour to decide who the alternative would be but it is obvious that Brown is not a viable option. He needs to act decisively and quickly for there to be any possibility of avoiding a tory government.
Sensible statement. Personally, as a left wing Lib Dem, I think we have to recognise that the Tories are biggest party. I don’t feel sold down the river – yet.
But Cameron must do a Peel (Corn laws) or a Disraeli (franchise) and recognise that reform of the voting system is in the National Interest, even if it is not in his party’s interest.
Is he a big enough man?
If not, let him run a minority Govt, I say.
Interesting indication from the BBC of discontent with Cameron on the part of elements within his party, who are insisting that he mustn’t give ground to the Lib Dems on electoral reform.
Cleggs statement was both principled & intelligent, now we wait for the Tory response. If, as rumours suggest they offer PR for the Lords only, we are faced with a number of unpalatable options.
My choice of least-worse would be to allow the Conservatives to form a minority administration but to make them no guarantees & take each vote on its own merits. Return to your Focus teams & more work.
The Labour offer strikes me as a mirage, even if they could be trusted I dont beleive they can deliver reform, they dont have either the numbers or the internal discipline.
That’s a good point Paul – Labour rebels may well defeat voting Reform. Is there a majority for it? Maybe not.
Clegg should support any party that will guarantee full Proportional Representation.
Anything else would be a huge betrayal of all of us who joined the party and the campaign on the basis of his clear message of this issue.
Alex,
I hang out on the blog Pharyngula quite a lot where it is common practice to vote en mass to alter the results of fundie right-wing web polls. They always react badly and start whining that we cheated. Ostensibly the point is to show the easily manipulated nature of web polls and so the response is usually “well, what did you expect?”. But there is another argument; namely that in a public poll, surely our opinion is as valid as theirs? Why do they claim their poll has been broken just because people have used it for what it was intended but happen to hold a different view?
My slightly lengthy non secitur is for this reason; please could someone explain to me why a working Lib/Lab coalition has any less of a moral mandate than a smaller, less popular entirely Tory one? Surely, if it works and has popular support, it has the moral mandate?
***
As for being sold down the river, I have calmed down slightly since my first post and the point that this is a negotiation and not a coin toss is well taken.
I still feel Clegg’s announcement is likely to be interpreted as support for Cameron, though, and it was a little rash to say something like that so soon. If he is offering support to the Tory minority government in return for reforms, I doubt he will have any luck, they are too close to a majority to need the Lib Dems. Under those circumstances, we would do better to throw our lot in with Labour for the time being in return for real reforms on the understanding that, at the slightest hint of breaking the promise, they are on their own. As Alex also said above, the economy is about the only other place the two parties’ policies agree, so a Lib/Lab coalition shouldn’t be bad for the economy either. It’s the most likely way to get Vince Cable into number 11!
I feel we really have nothing to loose, we only have one bargaining chip, and that is with Labour. We would be foolish not to try for as much as we can get out of it.
Banking on a minority Tory government to fail is a big risk, what if they actually entrench their position? Even if they don’t, what is there to suggest we would come out any better in another election?
The statement was clear, and consistent with the message throughout the campaign. the only real issue with the campaign message would have been if most votes went one way and most seats the other. That would have forced a clear declaration either way.
However I don’t see a formal coalition either way as either practical or good for the party. There are too many significant policy differences. Also propping up a Labour government with no clear mandate would crucify us at the next election.
Further to all of that, the next parliament is going to be painful and messy, far more painful and messy than has been discussed over the last few months. Cuts, and savage ones, are a reality and whoever has to do it will bear the brunt of the backlash next time round. That’s the time where gains can be made.
My gut feel is that informal support to a minority tory government is the way ahead for now.
Both parties are going to hate this…
Absolutely Felix.
Trafalgar Square tomorrow?
We might get crucified in terms of vote share for supporting Labour, and still come out stronger in the next Parliament, IF we got voting Reform.
But it is a huge risk. If Reform failed, and a FPTP election took place, we might well be back to the parliamentary party meeting in a taxi.
No no no no no!
Absolutely ridiculous!
Everyone is aware that many of the people who voted Lib or Lab were doing so precisely to keep Tories out –
Getting in bed with David Cameron would be the ugliest infidelity you could commit!
I’m disappointed in the idea of a Lib/Con hung parliament – people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will not fair well in it at all.
Reform is a double edged sword – we’d get more seats but the BNP and other such wastes of space would too.
I would just like to say that I voted for Lib Dems to keep the Conservatives out!!! Any coalition with them would be incredibly disappointing to all Lib Dem Supporters!!! Don’t make us regret our decision!!!
Or surprised?
There are factors – jobs, child credits, basic security – which concern far more people than a voting method. I mean, preferential (which I assume is how you spell proportional) voting is a good idea, but if anyone joined a party for that and that alone… well… they don’t exactly have a strong commitment to improving the lot of the great unwashed, do they?
During the election Nick Clegg said that in a hung parliament the Lib Dems would allow the party with the largest number of seats and votes to try and form the Government. After the election he has said exactly the same thing. The idea promoted on here & elsewhere by Labour Party supporters that he should go back on his word and prop up a man who has now been unelected twice is extraordinary.
This is an election which nobody won, none of the parties have anything like a mandate but we do know that there is no viable majority in the Commons without the Tories and as such Nick is right it is up to them to show they can now govern ‘in the national interest’.
The situation Clegg is in is not a product oa a misguided promise to give the party with most votes and seats the first opportunity to form a government but the policy that underpins that promise. To argue that we should have voting reform in order that the public wishes are translated into parliament and then form an alliance in order to Keep out the Conservatives would be hypocritical and undermine what the party has achieved in recent years. While the result is a major setback and it seems that there is more of a personal than party vote driving support, to have any chance of building credibility for the party as a political force Clegg must act responsibly and not be seen as opportunistic and ride roughshod over principle to gain power. He needs to step back and let old politics play its course and position himself above wrangling and power seeking and stick by the idea of arguing for what is best for the nation not a particular party.
I think he is in a strong position currently but needs to be cautious and principled if he is to be taken seriously.
Just my considered opinions, Best to all
Darren
Why is no one on the BBC pointing out that although the Tories have 39% of the vote, the Labour & Lib Dem together has 52% of the popular vote, together they have the mandate to govern. C’mon Nick do the right thing, the public have voted and want a Lab/Lib coalition
Wrong. A corrupt voting system affects every voter.
No, Charles, the line being pushed by Labour supporters and Tory opponents is that Clegg knew that the Tories were going to be the larger party in both seats and votes BUT was happy to bring in anti-Tory votes for his party (and failed even to achieve meaningful success on that by a net loss of six seats).
You’re spinning as fast as Harriet Harman.
Is that what they’re teaching in undergraduate philosophy classes these days?
Besides, there is corrupt and there is imperfect… get the difference?
Sunny Hundal did, right before Clegg announced this.
He’s gone quiet since.
I voted Lib Dem because my main concern is civil liberties. This country has been turned into some kind of pseudo police state under labour, and I for one, as a Lib Dem voter, would utterly oppose any kind of Lab/Lib coalition. In fact, if this were to occur, I would most certainly never vote Lib Dems again. I would consider it a violation of everything the party claims to stand for. Labour are authoritarian scum, and it truly saddens me that seemingly so few people in the country seem to care. Have they all forgotten the horrors inflicted upon us already?
I’m sure that with the conservatives, things will be business as usual. The march towards further social control will probably continue, but at least the issue of civil liberties is on their agenda. Labour don’t even mention it.
The voice of “democracy”, horribly distorted as it is, has spoken. Let the party with the most votes rule. Just please God don’t let those fascists in Labour back into power.
Sometimes you gotta do things that are above party politics: a minority con/lab government would get nothing done and damage the country. Same with a lab/lib/SNP/other as it only *just* get you a majority.
Also I agree with some of you with that we have as many differences with the Labour party as we do with the Conservatives.
Many, many people voted Lib Dem because they wanted Lib Dem NOT Labour or a LibLab mess.
I support a minority Tory Government as voted in by people in both seats and %. With the Lib Dems voting on specific policies, allowing necessary and GOOD legislation to pass while blocking things that conflict with Lib Dem policies or aren’t in the best interest of the country. Brilliant way to show how a balanced parliament isn’t a huge mistake because parties CAN work together when they stop bickering.
And if it doesn’t work, the Tories will need to call another election.
If Cameron forms a minority government he will go to the polls in Autumn and likely get a majority. Brown’s offer is the best opportunity for electoral reform and possibly the only one in the near future. Nick Clegg must think about the long-term and grasp this opportunity
I trust that there is a strategic and principled game plan up the sleeves of our Party grandees (?).
The bottom line is that I don’t care if we end up ‘working’ (in whatever form that may be) with the Tories or Labour, provided we can work to tackle two main areas : 1) Sort out the financial mess in a sensitive but effective way;
2) Reform our political system to deliver fair votes. No wriggle room!!!
I agree anna. I quite like the idea of a minority government in fact, because it presumably would mean that any proposed legislation would have to undergo more rigorous debate than if the majority party could just push through anything it wanted.
When it comes to issues of real importance, such as the economy, surely they can all agree on what needs to be done. If a minority or coalition government leads to disaster, it will only be because the juvenile squabbling idiots in parliament can’t agree.
I’m always amused and bemused by the idea that people only really disagree about unimportant things. Makes you wonder why we bother with voting in the first place.
A minority Tory government seems the only plausible option at this point, but what do we do when Chancellor Babyface presents his “emergency budget”? If it takes the form promised during the campaign, I can’t see how any of the other parties could vote for it. (Well, the nats and the Ulstermen will vote for anything if you throw them a bone; that would be enough to swing it, I guess.)
They MUST join labour, or allow Tory to sink in a minority.
Over the next few months Cameron intends to make crazy cuts which will see him unpopular, when as the results show he isn’t THAT popular anyway. Because we’re guarenteed another election within a year should this happen he will crash and burn, eventhe Tories know this.
If Clegg gets into bed with Cameron you can say goodbye to Scottish/Welsh tactical votes, many English anti Brown protest votes and more importantly bye bye to PR.
Cameron’s offer – sounds very nice, but nothing substantial on Reform – merely equal size constituencies (ha! as if that made a difference) and the promise of a convention. No, ta! Our system is more broken than that, and we have 23% of the vote to your 36%. We have a moral right to a more substantial Reform package, to be promised beforehand.
I wonder if Trident will play any part in the negotiations?
Cameron claims he wants stable government not bickering. In that case he should not make us a derisory offer which can only promote bickering. If he wants stability he is responsible for offering it.
If he doesn’t offer it, well we stuck with our principle to let him make the first offer, now we should test the alternative.
This is a bidding war situation. We didn’t choose to have a powerful hand, but we got one. We should use it.
Right onto precisely what you decry me for:
Political Corruption: “Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents”
The system is without a doubt imperfect, but if you think for one moment that what has happened is, in any way, “repression” outwith the definitions in said undergraduate sociology and phliosophy course guides you have a stunning lack of imagination. There are much, much worse things… try harder.
You make that sound as if it were a bad thing. The unaffected defending the uneffable.
@Hardeep:
I could dig out a quotation of his insisting that what he did straight out of uni two decades ago was irrelevent to what he is now, but there’s no point… ewes know this is desperate stuff.
“negotiating hard, … and working with whoever is best placed …. Right now that is not the Labour party”
No, no, no. If you declare that you will only be avilable to do a deal with one possible partner, you are not negotiating hard. You are being a patsy.
I hate the Tories the way others hate Labour, but I think Nick is quite right to ask them to make the first bid. Unless we genuinely negotiate hard – which means pushing both sides until we get an offer we can live with – we are wasting a big opportunity.