We all know the gloomy picture: I don’t need to re-hash the scale of our losses, or present you with the same statistics you know so well. Let’s leave it like this: we don’t just have to win back seats and votes.
We have to find a way to win back lost trust, in the face of anger, disappointment and – perhaps worst of all – plain disinterest.
That means finding a way to signal a clear break with the past, but without disowning the party’s achievements in government. It means offering a distinctive alternative to the Tories and Labour, but without chasing after protest votes. And above all, it means working out what we can say to make people listen, when many don’t even want to give us the time of day.
So – how should we go about it?
There will be as many responses to that question as there are members of the party. Here’s what I have to offer:
I say treat the next five years as one long, hard, focussed campaign. A campaign for local, national and European votes, but also for trust, for credibility and, yes, for forgiveness.
Let’s begin by tackling the anger head on. It’s not enough to hope that the storm will pass. We need to demonstrate the honesty and integrity that some think we lack and say to voters, “you’re angry and we hear you.” To say, “we’re going to spend the next five years working to earn your trust.”
Then we set about doing precisely that.
I’ve argued in a recent piece on this blog that we should fight on two fronts: on the defining causes that matter to liberal-minded voters, and, at the same time, on convincing mainstream voters that there is such a thing as a credible, distinctive, liberal alternative to the status quo on the most important issues of the day: wages, housing, immigration, tax evasion, inequality, terrorism, crime.
I now want to go into more detail on how to fight those fights.
First, let’s wholly abandon the notion of positioning the Lib Dems equidistant between the two other parties. We all know it means that we stand for nothing. Let’s focus instead on being distinctive by being liberal.
Second: let’s ask difficult questions of ourselves, so we can pick the right issues.
We need to be honest and admit that some headline liberal causes will do little to regain trust with voters. Will even the best campaign to stay in the EU do anything to restore our reputation with British voters? I’d hazard not. The same goes for the Human Rights Act, and perhaps the Snoopers’ Charter too. No matter how important, the more abstract the cause, the less relevant to re-building trust with voters.
So let’s fight those fights, but let’s not confuse them with the campaigns we need to wage to show we deserve voters’ trust.
Let’s pick three or four issues that people can rally around, that directly demonstrate what makes us different, and that we know we could deliver upon next time we have a shot at government.
Third, let’s put our weight into national campaigns directly on those issues. Let’s learn the right lessons from the protest parties and not allow our beliefs simply to languor on the books as official party policy.
Let’s set ourselves instead the challenge of turning our values into the causes that define how people vote.
Fourth, we can do this by playing to our strengths: by foregrounding the democratic nature of the Lib Dems. Extend to the campaigns the same commitment to listening that marks our policy-making. Cede enough control to allow each issue to become a movement in itself, in which the Lib Dems serve only as the spokespeople in Westminster.
Fifth, form civil society and business coalitions around each campaign. By partnering with others who share our goals we demonstrate our commitment to achieving real change, while at the same time bolstering the appeal of the flagging – should I say toxic? – Lib Dem brand. And by taking the fight outside the walls of Westminster, we connect with the many who despair of today’s politics.
At its heart, rebuilding trust means fighting the right fights. The ones we believe in, that set us apart, and that we can in all honesty commit to deliver. We need to get this choice right.
The best way to do so would be to vote on them at Conference, so that the party membership owns the process. What better way to inspire five years of hard fighting than to pick the battles together?
* Jim Williams is the founder of Your Liberal Britain
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
expats
David Raw
Tom Reeve
35 Comments
“The best way to do so would be to vote on them at Conference, so that the party membership owns the process. ”
If you want the party membership to own the process, then the membership needs to be given the means to vote on it.
Conference does not equal the membership.
Very true TCO…….. Im sure in these days of broadband – electronic voting could be organised, with results declared the next day to give time for members the watch/hear the debates after their work then vote for many issues.??? Quite how amendments etc are dealt with??? I know some members don’t have access to computers though, but it would widen participation??.
I agree entirely with TCO and Greenfield. So, it seems, does Norman Lamb. I’d commend p28 of his “Giving Power to People” booklet: http://backnorman.co.uk/index.php/book/
Specifically, “the people who attend party conferences as voting representatives are elected by local parties, and they become in turn the electorate for a range of other structures. It means that people who get very few votes are given a mandate for a range of other elements, and are given huge influence about which way the party swings. We have to question the democratic legitimacy of this. There are plans to open up voting at conference so every member who attends is able to vote. But this isn’t enough. It must be possible now to allow every member access to the
conference online, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to vote online as well. Because if we don’t give our new members a sense of engagement, they will drift away, and their attendance at conference anyway depends on a range of things like wealth, disability, work and family commitments. Let’s lead the way again in opening up party democracy.”
Hello all. Thanks for commenting. I couldn’t agree more. My understanding is that Conference is moving towards one member one vote, but yes: we can do far more to include members and the public. LibDem issue campaigns are often still centralised and top-down. Bringing people on board won’t just be about votes at conference: it’ll be about letting people take ownership of a campaign, and support it in their own words, amongst their friends, peers and communities. Letting go of the reins will mean that we reach more people, ensure we don’t just preach to the converted, and allow our most active contributors to contribute more than just their time.
Concentratwe on the future and stop reminding people of the coalition. Move on completely I say.
Hi Jim – I agree with much for this – I don’t think we should aim for equidistance for the reason you gave, and we need to make sure that we present, as you say ‘a credible, distinctive, liberal alternative to the status quo on the most important issues of the day’. These include (in my opinion) the economy as issue #1 (wages, business, jobs), and I think housing defo makes it into the top 3. We can still be strong on the headline distinctive liberal issues, but these should not dominate our offering – they just don’t resonate with enough people.
Theakes – I think I agree. We should defend the record of achievements when challenged – and rightly so – but let’s make the message about the future. Unless you’re disagreeing with me about acknowledging voter anger?
James – completely agreed. Housing’s an odd one because the issue is emotive and matters deeply to many people, but the solutions are hardly beat the drum material. Can we get people to rally round the idea of building more homes? If we can, then yes absolutely. Housing and wages are my top two, so long as the message doesn’t get too technocratic. What do you think?
I agree with Theakes !!!
Time to move on ………………………….
Jim Williams
First, let’s wholly abandon the notion of positioning the Lib Dems equidistant between the two other parties. We all know it means that we stand for nothing. Let’s focus instead on being distinctive by being liberal.
Which means what? We keep getting these waffly articles saying how we must be “distinctively liberal”, but if you try to find actual real political positions in them, either they are people who have hijacked the word “liberal” to mean what in my day was called “Thatcherism” and was most definitely NOT considered to be what “liberal” meant, or they are people obsessed with various fringe issues that may be important but are rather abstract and background to most of the population and so make us look out of touch and elitist when we go on and on about them.
We used to define “liberal” as “freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity”. So let’s have some proper POLICIES that tackle these issues, not just waffle.
Good article -gets the scale of the problem.
Kind of agree with theakes though -we just need to move on. The problem with talking about achievements of the Coalition is there are relatively few of them compared to other areas where many people’s perception is that the Lib Dems have let the Tories get away with too much. I agree it would have been worse without the Lib Dems but it was still pretty bad! It would be refreshing if we had a leadership candidate who accepts that, looking back, going into Coalition on the terms offered was the wrong call and the price was too high in terms of what the Lib Dems would have to support. That would at least show some sort of learning of lessons.
Also agree with Matthew. Lots of talk of being “distinctively liberal” but I’m not sure what that really means in policy terms. You can get too tied up in ideology trying to decide what sort of policies are “liberal” and what aren’t. What matters is outcomes, i.e. what works. I’d suggest we need more to decide whose side we’re on, who we’re standing up for and what policy areas are important to help those people. The issues I would be concerned about tackling are the low wage economy / in- work benefits, the housing crisis and things like unpaid internships that are acting as a barrier to those from ordinary backgrounds getting a foot on the career ladder in many professions. In short the increasingly wide gulf between old and young. Who’s standing up for the young? Why not let that be the Lib Dems?
As a slightly different pesrpective on the way forward I recommend the new pamphlet by David Howarth and Mark Pack. This says that campaigning on some of the “peripheral issues” is what builds your core vote. Tim Farron coming out in favour of taking our quota of Mediterranean refugees is a good example. The right thing to do, so the right thing to say, even if not the most popular! When you are at 8%, there is not much to protect!
http://www.markpack.org.uk/building-a-core-vote-for-the-liberal-democrats-the-20-strategy/?utm_source=Mark+Pack%27s+email+lists&utm_campaign=fe0b11e93d-LDN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4474065684-fe0b11e93d-312584037
Andrew
I recommend the new pamphlet by David Howarth and Mark Pack.
I find its idea that the key thing in our revival in 1988 was our position on Yugoslavia and Hong Kong to be daft. I am pretty sure that is NOT what led to us winning Downham ward in Lewisham in 1989, which is where we started off and built up to be the opposition breathing down Labour’s neck.
What actually happened in 1988 was that the media completely misreported the Liberal-SDP merger, people didn’t want to vote for us because they thought something terrible had gone wrong, but in reality it hadn’t. In reality it was the opposite of how the media reported it: the media reported what happened as the parties shattering into pieces, but actually the merger went very smoothly. We just needed time and work on the ground for people to realise that.
I think there is a similarity to that position now.
The issue I have with the “core liberal” thing is that that was very much what those at the top thought they were doing with our party 2010 to 2015. They were very much about pushing the idea that this meant “economic liberal” i.e. supporting Tory economic policy, along with “social liberal” i.e. gay marriage and a few other issues. They even wrote stuff saying those who disagreed should go off and join Labour, we should wave bye-bye to all those “protest votes” we’d built up and hung on to, since 1974 in some cases, because they were just “borrowed from Labour”.
Matthew – thanks for both comments.
If we want to win back even a part of what we’ve lost, then we need both clear policy positions, as you quite rightly call for, and a winning strategy.
We have 8 MPs, around 25% of our former vote, 1 MEP, a reputation in tatters and barely two pennies to rub together. Stretched that thin, we can have all the policy positions in the world – and the most progressive, persuasive and compelling policy positions – but without a strategy they’ll get us nowhere.
With a guideline of 500 words or so – I’ve cheated and gone closer to 700 – articles on this blog require a focus. My focus here is upon strategy. I also hope to write two or three policy-oriented pieces over the next few weeks.
So with regards to strategy, the previous Lib Dem approach, of giving the Tories a heart and Labour a brain, was a disaster. In this piece I’m proposing a new one. That we don’t use some sense of ‘positioning’ to encourage voters to support us: we use our values. Further, we communicate those values not in abstract terms, but by talking about specific, concrete, issues that matter to people. We focus on fighting for what we believe in, and invite the public to join us. In short, we put the policies first.
I imagine this might not be all that disagreeable to you. Especially if the policies advance freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity – which I sincerely hope they would.
Kevin – thanks for writing; I’m glad you liked the piece.
I suppose there are two or three different elements to ‘moving on’. One is to not make a fuss about defending the record in government, one is to not address public anger, and another is to play a new tune entirely. I’m in favour of defending the record only when required (responsively, not pro-actively), of addressing public anger head-on, and of playing a new tune as soon as possible and as loudly as possible.
What about you?
As for joining the coalition, though, I do disagree with you. In his Gladstone Club speech, Tim Farron talks through the different options the party had in 2010: coalition, supply & confidence, and doing neither. His analysis is spot on, I think: entering coalition was the least bad thing to do. You can find it here: http://timfarron.co.uk/en/article/2015/1086283/tim-s-gladstone-club-talk
My connection’s not good enough to download the pamphlet you link to, frustratingly. It’s on my list though – thanks for the recommendation.
I completely agree with you on focussing on young people (not exclusively, but as an important constituency), and with all of your policy priorities too. I’d stand up for working out what’s liberal though. It’s important that voters know what the Lib Dems stand for – and that can’t just be a particular group of people in society.
Ah – the link was from Andrew. Sorry Andrew! Thanks for sharing. I look forward to reading it.
I’m arguing for a dual focus on the ‘peripheral’ issues and the bread and butter issues, both. I’d be interested to see what Mark and David are arguing.
I’m only opposed to us assuming that the abstract issues (however peripheral, however mainstream – whether EU membership, federalism, the human rights act, the snooper’s charter) will win back any serious support. I believe it’s the concrete issues, whether core ones like housing or peripheral ones like cannabis legalisation, that are most pertinent to people, and so most likely to win back their trust. What do you think?
“equidistance” was about our relationship with the Tory and Labour parties, in the past. There was a lot of space between Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot, less so now.
We must recognise current realities, one of which is the SNP parliamentary party in the Commons.
Under their interim leader Labour is agreeing with the Tory government too often for healthy politics, leaving no space for in-betweeners.
Please do not waste Nick Clegg’s resignation, just start again under a new leader.
Jim Williams
So with regards to strategy, the previous Lib Dem approach, of giving the Tories a heart and Labour a brain, was a disaster.
Again, some of the problem is the way the media likes to write our strategy for us. Most of us agreed to the coalition not because we particularly liked the Tories but because we could see that it was the only stable government that could be formed, yet the media immediately wrote it up as a “marriage” and started writing commentary about how we’d make a deal over seats with the Tories in the next general election as if it really was a permanent union. Most of us knew from the start that being very much the junior partner in a coalition is not a position to relish, and one we’d be glad to lose, yet the media wrote up the 2015 general election as if we were all panting for it, and our whole goal was to continue as part of the Cameron-led government.
Most people outside the party, of course, saw us as the media painted us, just like in 1988 when the media painted us as having split into a whole load of warring micro-parties whereas we had actually harmoniously merged with even most of those who voted against merger (I was one) accepting it as the majority decision. So most voters thought we had formed the Coalition because we were in love with the Tories, and that we wanted to continue that “marriage”, so therefore they assumed that voting for us was just a funny way of voting Tory.
It didn’t help, of course, that our leadership did almost nothing to stop these damaging misconceptions.
As I’ve said previously “giving the Tories a heart and Labour a brain” sounds at first neutral, but a bit of thought shows it up as thoroughly biased to the Tories, essentially saying their policies are good ones, and Labour means well but their policies are bad ones. However, to some extent it did face up to the reality: we were not going to be leading the next government, so surely it made sense to be honest about that and talk in terms of what might be the realistic outcome.
Richard Underhill
Under their interim leader Labour is agreeing with the Tory government too often for healthy politics, leaving no space for in-betweeners.
Yes, it’s very odd how Labour, having destroyed us by jeering “nah nah nah nah nah, nasty dirty rotten Liberal Democrats, you’ve just rolled over and abandoned your principles and given in to the Tories”, now seems, Jeremy Corbyn excepted, to have diagnosed its election loss as down to not doing what it accused us of doing, and its leadership contenders are rushing to agree with the anti-Labour propaganda pumped out by the right-wing press about tax on money made not by working but by sitting on your bum and owning something being an attack on “aspiration” and other such nonsense.
Kevin Manley
The problem with talking about achievements of the Coalition is there are relatively few of them compared to other areas where many people’s perception is that the Lib Dems have let the Tories get away with too much.
Well, we are already seeing some of the extreme right-wing things that we stopped while in the Coalition being pushed forward by the Tories now we have no influence on the government. My belief is that this country will be in a horrible state by 2020, so much of what the Tories are doing is short-term spivery and selling-out to global fat cats stuff, so much of it is short term budget cuts with long term expensive consequences (social and economic). We need to push it again and again, the Tories are the ENEMIES of real hard workers, they are the party of the idle rich, the party that believes sitting on your bum and making money from other’s hard work is good and noble, not like dirty pleb money earnt by working. We should pour contempt on the right-wing press’s support for the Tory bum-sitters policies making out it is an attack on “aspiration”, not kow-tow to them like three out of four of the Labour leadership contenders. We should pour contempt on the Tories’ claims to be the party of national sovereignty when they have sold so much control of vital aspects of our country to global companies who have no real interest in our country and its people.
We should make it absolutely clear now, what our leadership failed to do 2010-2015, that accepting the coalition and doing what we could as just a small part of it did NOT mean we were big fans of Tory policy, and much of what came out of the Coalition was things we’d only reluctantly accepted as a compromise to save other things. Talking about our achievements in the Coalition should not mean singing the praises of the Tories or claiming they have “brains”.
In 5 years’ time, I predict we will be in the position to say “See, now do you understand our point?”. And we must condemn Labour again and again and again for handing complete control to the Tories on just 37% of the vote as part of their Old Pals agreement to retain our distortional representation electoral system, as they campaigned for in 2011.
I agree with theakes I am done with sack cloth and ashes watching our old leader doing penance and beating him self up over and over again on a policy he could not deliver move on. Lets get this bird of liberty out of the ashes of the past and set it free to fly again in genuine liberal democratic values and principles and with policies the public can support because the know they are right and not just a vote grabbing gimmick.
Jim’s article is very helpful in attempting to focus our thinking on the future. One way to regain trust, over time, is to concentrate on a few issues which resonate with the public and to contest elections on that basis. But an additional need is for the party to re-connect with the centre left as a whole and to work with others in alliances that will both oppose unmitigated Toryism and seek a renewal of a different political culture.
In this context, I am worried about aspects of the push Mark Pack and David Howarth are making in relation to building a 20% core vote. I can see the logic of that position but it also emphasises the need to sustain our “tribe” at a time when we should be looking to work with others in radical alliances. The messenger, in our case the Liberal Democrats, is not as important as the message. We should be seeking to define our values, principles and objectives and then seeing what mechanism is best able to deliver them.
Neal – thanks for commenting. I think we’re not a million miles away from each other. You’re saying move on entirely and straight away; I’m saying yes, but tackle the anger head on first – one comprehensive message to the public, then done.
Simon – thanks for the kind words! And agreed about building coalitions on the centre-left. Who do you have in mind?
@Jim Williams I agree to a point, but how do you address anger without acknowledging that, in retrospect, it was wrong? We are never going to address that anger by saying it was the right thing to do and it was worth it because we achieved the pupil premium, a rise in the personal allowance and equal marriage. Did the Lib Dems achieve some good things in government? Yes, undoubtedly, and I’m sure things would have been much worse without the Lib Dem influence. Were they worth the price of having to support massive and un-mandated reform to the NHS, the bedroom tax, a raid on self-funding teachers’ and doctors’ pensions, a full-frontal attack on local government, a tax cut for millionaires, LAPSO Act (which both Tim and Norman are now calling a “mistake” despite both voting for it), a bonkers education policy of setting school against school and forced / bribed academisation with private companies and faith groups running schools, and – dare I say it – tuition fees.
Others may disagree, but from my perspective the answer is a big fat no. It’s like saying “Yes we know it was really bad, but hey it could have been even worse!” – that’s a bit negative and is not going to win anyone over. If Tim thinks otherwise then I disagree with him, but what I took from that speech is that what he really thinks is that it seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, or the only option they had, but in retrospect the price was too high, particularly on tuition fees and the party should have said no.
@Simon Hebditch Absolutely agree 100%. There is a lot to disagree with Labour on but it is the Tories that are the enemy of everything the Lib Dems should be standing for. People go on about adopting distinctively “Liberal” policy positions forget that “Democrat” in the name is shorthand for social democrat. The party should be as much a European-style social democratic, centre-left party as it is a liberal party, and seems to have lost sight of that in recent years (not just during Coalition, but earlier), and with it many of its voters.
Matthew H “we wanted to continue that “marriage”, ”
But that’s exactly what Clegg et al wanted. They gave that clear impression because that was the truth. I also pretty sure most MPs also wanted the Coalition to continue. But being in Coalition finally made the Tories electable as their true ‘badness’ was shielded from the electorate by the Lib Dems. So this Tory majority is at least as much the fault of the Lib Dem leadership as anyone else.
Come on Phyllis, you finally have to admit that the coalition was greatly improved by the Lib Dems and somehow it is still our fault. It was not us, but Labour and the left wing press, and yourself, that painted the Tories as getting their way all the time in coalition, and so as being not as bad as they actually are. This makes the Tory majority your fault and not mine.
Joe Otten 7th Jul ’15 – 12:29pm ………………….Come on Phyllis, you finally have to admit that the coalition was greatly improved by the Lib Dems and somehow it is still our fault. It was not us, but Labour and the left wing press, and yourself, that painted the Tories as getting their way all the time in coalition, and so as being not as bad as they actually are. This makes the Tory majority your fault and not mine……………………..
Utter rot! At what point and on what issue did the LibDem leadership (or even MPs) stand up and say, “This is NOT LibDem policy; it is being forced upon us by the dominant partner in the coalition”?
Tuition fees? Secret courts? Bedroom tax?……Instead we had “75% of coalition policies are LibDem”…
Jim, I believe that it is important to make common cause with other political interests on what I would describe as the centre left. For example, we should be involved (even if our credibility is nil) with the Peoples Assembly to End Austerity. That means revisiting our policies on the economy and finance. By the way, I am not hearing any Lib Dem voice on the situation in Greece.
Other possibilities for joint work must lie with the Greens as a political movement, the efforts being made by Compass, a campaigning organisation dedicated to trying to put together a progressive alliance across political parties and campaigning groups, and engaging with significant campaigning organisations such as 38 Degrees and the emerging housing movements on estate regeneration etc.
There must be a close relationship between extra-parliamentary organisations and movements and whatever parliamentary forces can be put together to contest the current government. The more insurgency the better!
An ever increasing number of graduates will have personal debt to reming them of the coalition.
How to move past it? Two things I would suggest:
1. Ask/force every remaining MP who voted for tuition fees to step down.
2. Make a new rule that says nobody who voted for tuition fees can ever be selected as a lib dem candidate for public office again and issue a public statement to that effect.
That would be my suggestion.
Simon Hebditch
“I am not hearing any Lib Dem voice on the situation in Greece.”
Well there was a number of voices in this discussion on LDV here:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a-liberal-postcard-from-athens-2-46598.html#comments
There isn’t time to explain what is wrong with the rest (Peoples Assembly, Greens…).
There must be commercial opportunities if minds are applied.
How about installing lots of solar panels and feeding some of the resultant electrictity to neighbours via interconnectors?
@Richard Underhill – Behind your comment is a rather big issue around LibDem green policies and the practical re-orientation of our society away from policies that are based on an abundant supply of cheap energy, with little regard for the waste emissions. the challenge is to make it a positive move and not a bad news story; a bit like our membership of the EU…
We can’t ignore the EU referendum – it is going to dominate the news fotr months and is the biggest single issue facing the country in the next two years.
I was very pleased to hear Tim Farron push the internationalist case for the EU, not the narrow economic one that will come from the Tories. On a roundabout just off the M62 today I saw a handwritten poster saying “Polish plasterer”…. In their hearts many people know that if you want a good job, hire an eastern European… Tim is the only politician I have heard say that immigration has been good for Britain, and he stressed how the EU has made war within its boundaries far less likely. Although these messages will not win us a majority (although i believe a majority will vote for EU membership unless the whole ship hits a rock due to Grexit). But I think 30% of voters can be persuaded to agree, and if we are the only party that articulates that view, we can gain from it! And believe me we are so far from attracting a majority of the votes that it is a bit pointless pushing any policy on that basis – better to push policies that we believe to be right! I think David and Mark are correct to talk about valence issues and building up even 12% of the electorate who will vote for us even when we can’t win would be great! But they did not say that we should not go after the borrowed votes as well.
I Think Nick Clegg was right to debate with Farage. The trouble was that it was Nick Clegg. If Tim Farron had been in those debates I think we would have more than one Euro MP now…
Phyllis
Matthew H “we wanted to continue that “marriage”, ”
But that’s exactly what Clegg et al wanted. They gave that clear impression because that was the truth.
Who is that “et al”? As I’ve already said, even Clegg himself did not formally state a preference between the two parties in the event of a no-majority Parliament, and in any case as the 2010 situation showed, the likelihood is that there wouldn’t have been a choice because coalition with only one of them would give a majority.
So far as I could see, most Liberal Democrats could see how damaging the coalition was to our party and did not want it to continue. So, here we go again Phyllis, you are painting all of us Liberal Democrats as if we are Cleggies. Perhaps that;s because you are a Leninist and cannot conceive of a political party in any terms except one with a fixed party line set down by The Leader. Or perhaps you wanted to join in with Labour to destroy us by painting us that way, in order to secure victory for Cameron this time with a full majority.
Congratulations, Phyllis, you and all the other “nah nah nah nah nah”s have what you wanted. You have contributed your part to the horrors of the majority Cameron government we are now seeing.
@Joe Otten
>you finally have to admit that the coalition was greatly improved
>by the Lib Dems and somehow it is still our fault
Hofstadter would love you!