I looked down at the assembled members during Nick Clegg’s speech yesterday. I was “up in the gods”. It was noticeable that Tim Farron was seated right at the end of the front row. The opposite end to the leader and his coterie, that is. There may have been nothing significant in that seating arrangement. We had got used to Tim being part of the leader “doughnut” in conference speech coverage, while he was an excellent President of our party. He is no longer holder of the official copy of “On Liberty”, which is part of the trappings of the office of President. But the chair positioning was emblematic of what happened on Sunday. Dear Tim was cast out into outer darkness.
At Friday’s conference rally, with that gruff humour we all love, Paddy warned us all that he was no stranger to meting out “cruel and unusual” punishment. He made clear he would not hesitate to bring that punishment crashing down on the head of any conference rep he saw without the requisite number of “I’ve done my ten” (phone calls on the Team 2015 phone bank) badges on their lapel.
In the old days there was the Spanish Inquisition, which no one expected. Well, no one expects Paddy either. The 21st Century equivalent of a pair of red hot tongs clamped around discreet body parts is Paddy going onto Pienaar’s Politics on 5Live and saying:
Tim’s a very able guy but at the moment judgement is not his strong suit…I know Tim very well. He is a great campaigner, a good friend of mine. I think his well-known ambitions would probably be better served with a little more patience and a little more judgement.
Ooh! Ouch! Nasty! You can smell the singeing as the tongs are applied! You can hear the hiss, the screams and the moans! Poor Tim! He won’t be able to sit down for a week – whether it is in outer darkness or not!
And what had brought on the ire of the great sage of Norton-sub-Hamdon?
Well, it started with a summary of an interview in the FT “published” on Friday. I say “published” because if something is published in the FT, you have to be a particularly determined anorak to read the text. Bless them, the FT do have a pay wall, but they allow you to peak in through the gaps in the bricks for free. So that is what I did. “Two out of ten” is the memorable quote from that rather short article.
That was the score which Tim gave the party for our handling of the politics of coalition. To be fair, he also gave us eight out of ten for the handling of the original coalition negotiations, which was very generous of him. Then there was a further interview in the Mail on Sunday where Tim said we had been “tarnished” in coalition, and issued a range of statements distancing Brand Farron from all our bad bits.
Of course, friends of Tim have been doing the rounds with the ritual “That’s not what he actually said” bovine scatology. As if an experienced player such as Tim doesn’t know what he is doing with the press…
To be fair, Tim is right. We probably don’t deserve 10/10 for handling the politics in coalition. But that’s the problem. You can be right in private. But you don’t say these things out loud to a succession of eager journalists eight weeks out from a general election, while candidates and campaigners are risking their health with non-stop campaigning around the country. Not so unsubtly, anyway.
I can see what Tim is doing. “Putting down a marker”. And perhaps, in the long-term, it may do his leadership ambitions a lot of good.
But in the short-term, in three days, we have gone from Tim being the obvious successor to Nick, by a country mile, if we need him, to it being “Oh gosh, can’t we have dear Norman instead?” and “Well, Nick had a great conference…”
Tim Farron was a fabulous President of our party, who loyally supported, and provided cover for, the party in coalition. He is, to a large extent, the ‘keeper of the flame’ of a large chunk of what is liberalism in our party. He could be perhaps described as the ‘soul of the party’. But, the problem with 2/10-gate is that it reminds us all of Tim’s little weaknesses. Being too obviously, gratingly, painfully ambitious is one of them. He jumps up and down with those big puppy eyes going “Me! Me! Me!” Needing to be liked too much is another. Lacking “bottom” is another. Trying too hard is another.
Time for more hill climbing/canvassing in Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think, Tim. That’ll work the singe marks off!
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
theakes
Peter Martin
Chloe
Jana
90 Comments
I should think that attacks on Tim will merely increase his support, especially attacking him for being critical of the coalition.
Although 8+2=10 so maybe he was giving us 10/10 after all đ
Methinks Paddy protesth too much! It is we, the members, who decide the future path of the Liberal Democrats.
Why is Paddy so public about this? Looks to me he is making the same mistake he is accusing Tim of. Can we have some better judgement please?
I happen to agree with TIm Farron (assuming he did say something pretty much like what is reported) – the coalition negotiations went (unexpectedly for most of us) pretty well, and a lot of LibDem priorities and potential opportunities for future manouevres appeared to have been created. Then, yes, the difficult job of outmanouevrring the Tories when nose-to-nose with them, was not handled as well as could have been the case (Nick never promised us a Rose Garden).
I think on the whole, going into coalition was not an irrational thing to do, and in itself not a betrayal (I have a lot of friends who don’t think that, who have stopped voting for the Party).
I also feel that a party which sometimes suggests it wants to hold the ‘centre-ground’ of British politics should not make future ongoing coalition with the Right a priority.
So Tim Farron probably speaks for me at this moment – coalition wasn’t a disaster, but it wasn’t a victory – continuing this specific coalition (if the opportunity is open to us) on a weaker hand, probably would be a disaster.
I also wonder whether, in a dispassionate, objective private moment, Paddy Ashdown would not disagree with us. Clearly, what may have got Mr Ashdown’s goat is that this was said in public. But I thought we were about honesty in politics???
Gosh, a sanctimonious blog attacking a senior Lib Dem for sanctimoniously attacking other senior Lib Dems.
Tim is, of course, right. As a party of government we have done well. We have punched above our weight and got far more of our policies implemented and far more Tory policies blocked than a party with 1/7th of the MPs on the government benches had any right to. We have shown ourselves to be a mature and steely party of government.
Politically, however, we have allowed ourselves to be outflanked and outmanoeuvred time and time again. That is to be expected, perhaps; the Tories are experienced at this stuff and we are not. We will learn from this experience, I am sure, and be stronger for it next time we have the opportunity to go into government and take it.
@ Matt ( Bristol)
‘ But I thought that we were about honesty in politics’.
Well done on holding on to that idea for so long, Matt.
I’m with Alan Bennett. As he asserts, we pay lip service and hold double standards. ‘Then we wonder why things the top do not change or society improve. But we know why. It’s because we are a nation of hypocrites’.
matt (Bristol) 16th Mar ’15 – 9:18am… â coalition wasnât a disaster, but it wasnât a victory â continuing this specific coalition (if the opportunity is open to us) on a weaker hand, probably would be a disaster….
Define disaster? 1 MEP left, hundreds of hardworking LCs gone, lost deposits, single figure ratings…..
Where we stand might not be “The end of the road but I can see it from here”
Much as it is true that this article might be poorly timed, I think it’s equally (actually even more so) a bad idea for Paddy to stridently criticise our (probable) next leader…. especially given that he could be leader by the end of this summer (following a contest which should definitely be happening if we finish with less than 45 seats)… what he should be doing; like all of us, is focusing energy on ensuring the parliamentary party he might inherit is as large as possible.
I would rather see Paddy acting as an elder statesman than as Nick Clegg’s bulldog.
That role threatens to demean both of them.
Expats — define disaster?
For the country, I would define it as exit from the EU, secession by the Scots, curtailment of human rights law, further cuts, further sanctions, further pandering to the wealthiest pensioners at the expense of the working poor. For the party, I would define disaster as a findamental, wounding, long-running split.
That’s what we’ll get if we go into coalition with the Tories again, particularly if UKIP and their paramilitary wing on the Tory backbenches up their support in the country and their leverage over the PM, whoever they are.
Comment rebounds on Paddy by drawing attention to Tim’s remarks and shows they have hit a raw nerve. Whose judgement is more questionable in these circs???
matt (Bristol) …….
So,,like me, you believe where we stand might not be âThe end of the road but, unless things change, we can see it from hereâ
Enough said folks,Tim is spot on. Let’s now Concentrate on 7th May!
Expats – I can see things going in several directions from here, and it is a risky time for the party, yes. But like Steven Howse, I don’t think we need to repudiate the 2010 coalition and all the leadership’s actions in the last to rebuild and refocus the party. I don’t want more rightward drift, but I am wary of those who think everything since Gordon Brown resigned was the result of the party succumbing to demonic posession. That, too, is wrong.
In the 1880s and 1890s, the old Liberal party had a torrid, awful time and came near to a compelte collapse. Leaders and senior parliamentarians bickered, dithered, slandered one another. Whole swathes of the country were lost to the party. They came back in the 1900s with constructive, progressive, refocused government, and meaningful change for the country that shaped the future of the UK.
Sorry, ‘…actions in the last 5 years’.
This article is harsh, IMO. What Tim said was entirely true, and can be seen more in the context of the party giving a mea culpa to the electorate than Tim looking at the leadership. Paddy’s response was also harsh, and looks like positioning for Norman Lamb more than anything else. So when shall we expect the article gunning for Norman, based on his clear “manoeuvres”? Anyone? No?
Those who support the coalition will see it as a valuable learning experience, a reality check on policies and realisation of the effect that real responsibility has on ministerial power.
Those who see the coalition as a betrayal will mourn the apparent abandonment of cherished policies and beliefs, and a rejection of the heart of liberalism.
So who is right? There is no doubt that government is valuable experience for any political party. It is more than that, it is its raison dâetre unless the plan is to be a club of inward looking, like minded individuals with no external purpose.
Government brings responsibility and realism, it sorts the practical policies from the ideological dreams. I suspect the party has grown up during the last five years.
The party now needs a leader who understands these issues and has the skills to bring the two sides together. The party must seek power again, though perhaps not with the desperation exhibited by Mr Clegg. To vow never to be in coalition is to consign the party to being an irrelevant club.
Logic would suggest that someone with experience in coalition government would make the best leader. This would build on the valuable experience gained, but would probably bring howls of protest from the ideological purists.
matt (Bristol) 16th Mar ’15 – 10:37am . I donât want more rightward drift, but I am wary of those who think everything since Gordon Brown resigned was the result of the party succumbing to demonic posession. That, too, is wrong……
I think we have moved too far to the right….As for demonic possession; hmmmmm…. What ever possessed Danny Alexander to ‘stand in’ for Osborne on so many media appearances? What ever possessed Nick to sit next to Cameron smiling and nodding at every PMQ?
Whatever moderating effect LibDems had, behind the scenes, was completely overshadowed by leadership presentation which, in today’s politics, is almost everything…..
Judgement is hardly Paddy’s strongpoint-as leader he tried to merge the party out of existence so we could all be part of ‘Team Blair’…
@ expats
I suspect that in coalition moderation is a two way process. Whether it produces a more electable party or one that has lost its soul depends on your position in the right-left spectrum.
“in three days, we have gone from Tim being the obvious successor to Nick, by a country mile, if we need him, to it being âOh gosh, canât we have dear Norman instead?â”
Rubbish. We have gone from “stop Farron, he might upset our right-wing donors” to “now let’s wheel in Paddy to stop Farron, he might upset our right-wing donors”.
On the Clegg speech thread, Jonathan Pile says “This is a good speech from Nick Clegg and an important one. Britain needs the moderate influence of Lib Dems but what Tim Farron says is right too â we need to reconnect with moderate 2010 Lib Dems, so no more put downs Paddy please â we are a broad church party…”
I fear that Pile will be proved right. Farron will be allowed to stay in the broad Lib Dem church, provided he sits quietly in a side aisle, and doesn’t go near the pulpit. The Money Men rule!
Peter, which of our current “grown up” ministers who have helped the party grow from 3,944 councillors in 2010 down to 2,285 in 2014, who have undergone this “valuable learning experience,” and are no longer tainted by “ideological dreams” like ‘An end to broken promises’ do you work for? đ
Paddy’s judgement has been far from perfect more than once. His comments at the time of the Parliamentary vote on military action on Syria were hard to believe and his latest views on Tim in the run up to the election are not what could be described as constructive.
@ David Evans
Logic would suggest that someone with experience in coalition government would make the best leader. – I still think that logically this is true. However, if it is the case that there is a huge gulf between the most senior party members and the grass roots, then the party really does have a serious problem.
Peter 16th Mar ’15 – 11:40am…@ expats… I suspect that in coalition moderation is a two way process. Whether it produces a more electable party or one that has lost its soul depends on your position in the right-left spectrum.
The ‘soul’ bit may still need to be decided.. However, ‘the more electable party’ is beyond dispute….If our performance over the last 5 years has shown us as ‘more electable’ I shudder at the thought of what ‘less electable’ might look like.
For me the crucial point is that Tim Farron is wrong. The thing so many voters claim they cant forgive us for is going into Government at all. The best most voters can manage is a very grudging acceptance that some Government is neccesary & that a particular Government has done alright. There is now a substantial minority of voters who wont vote for any Party that has been in power at Westminster, in Scotland they may well form a majority.
Being apologetic for forming a Government with the Tories will only make any damage worse, we have to be proud of what we have done.
I am on the center right of the party, a firm supporter of the coalition but it has been a political and electoral disaster for the party. Ashdown is fast becoming one of yesterdays people and should graciously step aside. I have no problem with Farron, good to hear a northern accent, and would support him for the leadership if Kirsty Williams is unfortunately not in a position to stand..,
“Tim tries too hard, and ends up singed”.
Really? Reading the subsequent comments I rather feel this may be Paddy Ashdown singing his own eyebrows and hopefully elsewhere.
Paul: “We probably donât deserve 10/10 for handling the politics in coalition.” … Bloody hell, there is understatement and there is the deeply subterranian.
Paul Barker, being proud of what we have done in government must also involve not overpraising it, where that would be excessive, and not overpraising the Conservatives by extension. In discussing the rightness or wrongness of the situation we have gotten into, there are several distinct positions that must not be blurred:
a) Coalition in 2010 was wrong because it was coalition and a compromise on our manifesto.
b) Coalition in 2010 was wrong because it was with the Tories.
c) Coalition in 2010 was wrong because it was badly negotiated.
d) Coalition in 2010 was probably OK, but only as a short-term compromised marriage of convenience and has not brought much benefits.
e) Coalition in 2010 was right on the merits in retrospect, has brought benefits but should not be continued even if the opportunity arises.
f) Coalition in 2010 was emphatically right, has brought many benefits and should be continued if we can.
g) Coalition in 2010 was emphatically right, has brought many benefits and can and should be continued because the Conservatives are the best fit for the LibDems under the current circumstances.
Which one are you? I hear Tim Farron saying e), which is roughly what I think myself (perhaps I’m reading him wrong, then) – you seem to think he is saying b).
Tim Fallon is “singed” in the sense that it is looking increasingly likely that there will be another Coalition between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, perhaps leaving him on the sidelines for another five years.
What do you all think of the prospect of another centre-right Coalition?
MBoy16th Mar ’15 – 10:45am
” … Paddyâs response was also harsh, and looks like positioning for Norman Lamb more than anything else. So when shall we expect the article gunning for Norman, based on his clear âmanoeuvresâ? Anyone? No?”
Indeed – the very same thought occurred to me.
It is enough to make you very cynical regarding the differential handling of stories concerning the leadership aspirations of these two MPs.
The collapse in voter support is due to two quite different reasons.
Many voters who regarded the Lib Dems as a safe alternative to the two main parties were taken aback when the extra publicity of coalition government revealed that the party is passionately pro EU, pro immigration and therefore completely at odds with the concerns of most voters.
In addition, it has lost the usually staunch supporters who see coalition as a betrayal, so both wings of traditional support have been alienated.
I donât think Ashdown or Farron are helping.
Philip – I’ve already said that although I won’t condemn the existing coalition, another Tory-LibDem coalition would be a disaster.
I don’t think we would have a stronger hand to play, we wouldn’t make any more headway on constitutional change (with the possible exception of slowing down EVEL, a proposal which in the Tories’ current form should just be laughed out of court), we would – even more than in 2010 – be reduced to fiddling tax boundaries, trying to stop Scotland being forced out, and trying to moderate an increasingly Europhobic tone as Cameron lost control of his own party. I’ve only just joined last year, but I’d be seriously tempted to leave. It would be in nobody’s interests except Cameron and Clegg as individuals.
If – if if – it happens it could be a minority coalition which would be lunatic, as it wouldn’t even be justifiable on the 2010 basis that it would bring stability to the country.
The Lib Dems have some of the best politicians in British politics and need to work together. I see no one without any weaknesses, but think what could be achieved if the party worked together more…
The party still has a problem with its brand. We need to take the best of Farron, Clegg, Lamb, Davey, Ashdown, Ming, Featherstone and Swinson etc. and add them all together.
So let’s not descend into sniping and factions.
The person lacking judgement is Paddy who advised David Laws to stay on after his expenses convictions and advised Nick Clegg to stay on after the Euro election drubbing. It is no surprise to see the Norman Lamb being lined up as the stop Farron candidate. Of course we can all learn lessons from Newbury Liberal Democrats – they are doing soooo well, and Nick Clegg hasn’t got any gratingly obvious little weaknesses.
“But you donât say these things out loud to a succession of eager journalists eight weeks out from a general election, while candidates and campaigners are risking their health with non-stop campaigning around the country. Not so unsubtly, anyway.”
No what you do is go on pretending the polls are wrong pretending that not being in contention is 620 seats is fine e and that some how asking people to make 10 phone calls is going to make a difference, when it won’t.
I think it would very much help the Liberal Democrats in the forthcoming general election if the message could be spread that actually many of us aren’t that happy at the way the coalition has gone, and aren’t taking a gung-ho “isn’t it wonderful? let’s carry on with it” line.
My feeling is that the damage done to the party at the weekend was not Tim Farron’s word, but those quoted of a “source close to Nick Clegg” about how the party might lose seats but still be able to carry on with this coalition as if that was all we were about now. There was an air of desperation in that. What a bad message it was, as it helped put across the image our opponents are so keen to put across about us, that all we care about is “power” and by that they mean holding titular office in a right-wing Conservative government and not real power. It is unfair, yes, I’ve been arguing that against this sort of attack since 2010, but why should a “source close to Nick Clegg” be so keen on using words which give support to these unfair attacks?
This sort of message that all we want to do is carry on with this coalition turns the election into one where you vote either for or against this government, with a Liberal Democrat vote being seen as a vote for it. Well, if that’s how people think, all those people who used to vote for us because they thought of us as the best (either in terms of policy or in terms of chances of winning) opponents of Conservative government aren’t going to want to vote for us. And that is MOST of the people who used to vote for us, MOST of the people who elected those who are our MPs. If you want to throw away our chances, make sure we have few or no MPs, putting out the sort of words that “source close to Nick Clegg” put out is the way to do it.
No doubt there are people “close to Nick Clegg” who know nothing about how this party works at grass-roots level, how it has built itself up over the years, what motivates those who have been involved all that. Instead, all they know is Nick Clegg and the trappings of government office, and they are terrified at losing those. So, destroying the party, while maintaining a handful of MPs who are just the local brand of this government due to historical peculiarity, while in most places it’s the Conservative brand, seems fine to them. That, of course, is what happened to the National Liberals.
But, Matthew H, most of those who used to vote for us wouldn’t have liked whatever we chose to do as soon as we made a choice to enter or support a Government of one side or another. The third who used to vote for us because we were always opposing and hounding the Government of the day were lost whoever we backed. Gone to UKIP, the Greens, wherever. And then either the third who were more Tory or the third who were more Labour-leaning were lost depending on who we went into an agreement with. They’ve gone ‘home’. So we are looking at a bedrock of 7-8%; exactly where the opinion polls put us. If we had not gone into Coalition, who knows where we’d be polling. Could be 20% plus from those same-old sources. Or could be 2% as we were seen as a laughing-stock, not serious about putting our ideas into practice when we finally got the chance.
Could it have been better handled – should we have looked less cosy in Government and been more of the ‘outsiders’; should we have insisted on a full-house of Ministers in two or three Departments etc? – quite possibly. But frankly, the rules of the game have changed forever and we should aim to build the overall vote on the basis of our record and our Liberal, unaligned, approach to issues and to focus on seats we hold and where we stand a chance. I’d rather we’d made areal difference in the last five years, polled 12% nationally and held 35 seats with a chance of doing good in office for the next 5 years than polled 20%, got 60 seats and be shouting from the sidelines – yet again. However easier permanent opposition may be on the doorstep., and as one who’s canvassing in London right now, I know it would be.
Peter 16th Mar ’15 – 1:09pm …..The collapse in voter support is due to two quite different reasons.
Many voters who regarded the Lib Dems as a safe alternative to the two main parties were taken aback when the extra publicity of coalition government revealed that the party is passionately pro EU, pro immigration and therefore completely at odds with the concerns of most voters
In addition, it has lost the usually staunch supporters who see coalition as a betrayal, so both wings of traditional support have been alienated.
I, and I suggest many like me, fall into neither camp…
The idea that many LibDem voters were ignorant of the party’s stance on the EU and Immigration is both ludicrous and patronising…No wonder we are where we are if the answer is to tell erstwhile LibDems that they were too stupid to know what they were voting for…Anyway, even if it were true that we had large numbers of anti-European/Immigration voters, why would they leave when we went into a coalition with a party that reflects their views?
As for those who immediately decided that ‘coalition with the Tories was the end’, where have they gone?
I’d suggest that most are like me; willing, if sceptical, to give coalition a chance. Instead what we saw was our leadership actively embracing and espousing policies that, prior to 2010, they despised….We had “75% of policies…”etc.. Where was the “We are reluctantly voting for this because we have negotiated that”? Clegg signed up for the original NHS reorganisation bill and it was only the fall in support that sent him back to try and “Make a bad bill a little less bad”…
Pathetic article, Paul. Is this what our politics is about now?
But of course Tim is right about the politics of the coalition. We are half destroyed as a political force and that is down – not to the fact of coalition, or the legislative outcomes of coalition, or the achievements and non-achievements of coalition – but of the politics of the coalition. Incompetence does not begin to describe it.
If we do not recognise that now and understand how the politics of coalition went so badly wrong, we will destgroy ourselves completely if it happens again
Tony
As the smaller party going into coalition with a much bigger party you get hated by all sides.
What the Lib Dems did was in the interests of the country through strong and stable government.
Whilst voters look forward and don’t give credit for heroic action (Churchill lost the election after the war) the voters may yet see the sense in getting as many Lib Dem MPs as possible in the next parliament.
David
I believe what you have written is dangerous, and is an insult to those who have worked hard to build up our party in the past.
The most dangerous part of it is the underlying message that as circumstances meant a coalition with the Conservative Party was the only realistic option in May 2010, we have to accept that our party has shifted permanently to the right, and so we have lost forever all those voters we used to have who were somewhat to the left politically. Would those who seem keen on pushing this line be saying the same sort of thing had the party numbers of the Conservative Party and Labour Party been the other way round after the May 2010 general election, so that only a coalition with Labour was realistic? Would they say “OK, now we have to accept we have lost forever those of our supporters who were more of the economic liberal type”? NO, I don’t think so.
It seems to me the situation we are in is being used by a faction within our party to push it that way. That is NOT how agreement to the coalition was sold to party members when they agreed to it in 2010. If that faction win their way, then they are agreeing with the line taken by our Labour opponents that we did not tell the truth in the 2010 general election and that actually we were secretly much more right-wing than we let on. How damaging is that? If that right-wing faction win their way and use this coalition situation to permanently push the party their way, then they are doing the OPPOSITE of what Nick Clegg said he wanted to do in 2010. He said he wanted to show that coalition can work, but if it means that the junior coalition party gets permanently changed in what it stands for, then obviously is doesn’t work.
I have been a member of the Liberal Party and then the Liberal Democrats throughout my adult life. I would say that most of those I’ve convinced to come over to our party are people who in the past would have voted Labour. In supposedly true-blue areas that meant working with the hidden low-paid and poorly houses people in those places who had abandoned Labour because Labour never seemed to speak for the likes of them, and convincing them that actually they should not fall into political apathy because “the Conservatives always win round here”. That is what helped us win so many of the seats we now hold, seats that were once seen as “true blue safe Tory”. In Labour-dominated areas, such as the London Borough ward I represented for 12 years, that means working with people who have found Labour complacent and arrogant, and showing them that there is a different style of political party which is close to the people, and just as radical (if not more so) in tackling the inequalities of Britain as Labour.
I resent what you are saying, which in effect is that I should not have bothered, that all those people I helped win over are people whose real political “home” is still Labour, and they should be let go back “home”.
Of course, any coalition we went into was going to be difficult, which is why we needed to be cautious, make clear that what we were doing involved necessary compromise, and that it did not mean a permanent change of heart on our part, no matter how much the party we did not form a coalition with tried to paint it that way. We should have made it clear that in May 2010 we did NOT “choose” to go into coalition with the Conservatives having been just as much able to coalesce with Labour. No, the choice was largely determined by the way the people of this country voted and the distortion of the electoral system which meant a coalition with Labour was unviable, also a general feeling that it was time for a change. Just because I am more to the left of Liberal Democrat members does not mean I think we should only ever have contemplated a coalition with Labour and never with the Conservatives.
I think if we had better explained our position, we could have kept more of our old support. Anyway, it looks like you want neither that old support, nor me as a helper in the party. So, you don’t have it. With people like you around and your sort of view dominant at the top, I’ve already dropped out of active campiagning. Do you want to force me out permanently? Well, good luck to you and the spad-ridden party we are becoming, but you’ll need it because I don’t think there’s any other way you’ll get votes.
Tim Farron does have many admirable qualities but surely those who agree with his judgement on the Coalition must acknowledge that it was pretty stupid to express them so publicly weeks before a General Election. Ministers in any government face a difficult enough task having at times to support policies with which they at heart may disagree. The role of LD MPs not members of the government must surely therefore be to elucidate what a majority LD Government might look, but without slagging off the record of those fellow LD MPs who have had to walk the ministerial tightrope of working in coalition with Tory ministers. Tim Farron has surely failed this test. As for Paddy Ashdown’s retort, this is a case of he is damned if his does, and damned if he doesn’t. Silence on Paddy’s part would undoubtedly have been interpreted by the media and our political opponents as support for Tim’s views, but of course expressing opposition underline the fact that the Party is divided between those who believe real change can only be achieved through participation in government at Westminster, and those who see the Party returning to the role of a pressure group which fights elections and criticises from the sidelines
Tim Farron was stating what most of us voters know already. Please do not insult the electorate by treating us as though we are totally stupid. We all know that the Lib Dems had no choice but to go into Coalition with the Tories in May 2010 but the subsequent handling of the Coalition has been very poor. I think Tim was being generous to give 2 out of ten. As for Paddy’s retort, it is just embarrassing and not very statesman-like. I thought the Lib Dems were above this sort of paternalistic ‘slapping down’ of others. Where are the politicians these days with any sort of ‘gravitas’? I despair.
The damage been done is by Nick’s office…both by telling Paddy to talk and then briefing against Tim. I read the story…Tim didnt attack back. He was dignified and he’s doing the job that Nick gave him! The only comment he made that was the 2/10.. but does anyone bar the people in the bunker think the NHS reform was over 2? I doubt it. My sister called me when she read it and said at least one âsenior person [Farron] in your party seems to be connected to the real worldâ (She votes Labour by the way)
You have to worry about a leader if his staff do things like this.
A second thing to add to my comment earlier: the greater the privilege the greater the expectations – you might get people like me being fairly reluctant to criticise Farron, but it would be a different story if he became leader and it is also why Clegg gets such a hard time.
Do you remember Lord Ashdown’s reaction after the Euro debacle? It was basically “lay off Nick”. I recall thinking at the time that perhaps the intention was to give Clegg the opportunity to resign with dignity rather than being dragged off the stage with a shepherd’s crook. But no. Ashdown really meant “lay off Nick”. And where are we now? Today ICM (the “gold standard”) put us on 8% and Clegg’s personal ratings are down with the Titanic. Great call, Lord Ashdown. And now he “slaps down” Tim Farron for stating the blindingly obvious. Heaven forfend that a politician might actually point out the reality on the ground rather than spouting vacuous platitudes that nobody actually believes.
@Phyllis I think it a rather a sweeping (if not arrogant) assumption to say that Tim Farron was stating “what most of us voters already knew”. I doubt whether anyone contributing to this forum has much insight into what most voters think about this subject, though personally I suspect that most voters have no idea who Tim Farron is. What people say here is essentially an expression of their own personal opinion, perhaps bolstered by mixing with people who have a similar outlook. However, if a person whom the media considers as an important figure in the Party expresses publicly a highly critical view on the performance of the Party in Coalition it will inevitably be seized upon by the media and by our political opponents and used against us. Such behaviour by Tim therefore shows at least poor judgement, if not stupidity, and at worst a cynical belief that he can bolster his own standing post the general election by distancing himself from the Party’s role in Government.
Many thanks all for your interesting comments. I want to make clear that I deplore the continued briefing against Tim today by “a source close to Nick Clegg”. Tony and David, if you re-read the article, rather than seeing red based on a few negative elements that were intended constructively, you will see that I wrote some very positive things about Tim. I am still a fan of his.
A strong consensus (albeit based on few comments) is emerging – no coalition next time. What is the purpose of a political party that rejects the possibility of power sharing? Is it to build for long term electoral success? How long term? Or is there another purpose I have missed?
It seems that the party is happier to have internal coherence free from the conflicts that a coalition would bring. What is the purpose of such a club?
I don’t often agree with Matthew Huntbach but he’s exactly right on the “source close to Nick Clegg”. I’m surprised there wasn’t commentary here on this.
Matthew Huntbach 16th Mar ’15 – 4:23pm
Brilliant Post.
The idiocy is that according to Nick Clegg Labour have lurched to the left (you could have fooled me, a 18 month energy freeze is hardly Marxism gone mad) and the Tories have lurched to the right, although the Lib Dems have prevented the worst excesses (although let them get away with the benefit sanctions, food banks, the bedroom tax and NHS reorganisation that even Thatcher wouldn’t have contemplated) The result of this is we now occupy the centre ground of British Politics so it a complete mystery why we are only polling 8%. If he really believed his own propaganda, Clegg would stand down and let someone else reap the rewards of this vast constituency waiting to vote for us.
Sadly admitting that people did actually vote for us because they supported us is far too painful an admission for some people than pretending we were always a protest vote, a none of the above vote. Particularly painful for those who seemed not to support key policies anyway.
@Paul Walter
“a few negative elements that were intended constructively, you will see that I wrote some very positive things about Tim”
I think the problem is tone. It’s true that you write some very positive things: “Tim Farron was a fabulous President of our party, who loyally supported, and provided cover for, the party in coalition. He is, to a large extent, the âkeeper of the flameâ of a large chunk of what is liberalism in our party. He could be perhaps described as the âsoul of the partyâ.”
The problem with the negative things are that they’re couched in a tone that infantilises him: “He jumps up and down with those big puppy eyes going âMe! Me! Me!â Needing to be liked too much is another. Lacking âbottomâ is another. Trying too hard is another.”
He may well be ambitious, and self-absorbed, and lacking in gravitas. But he doesn’t have to be childish, too.
Graham Evans. Many of us find it very refreshing when someone veers away from the Party line and actually says something which has the ring of truth. You should be wary of thinking thst when opponents “use something against us ‘ that voters will agree with them. Very often ordinary sensible people see through the political tactics and it can backfire dramatically. For instance the Sun tried to demonise Gordon Brown for his handwritten note to a soldier’s mum; in fact it succeeded in making Gordon look very human that he had penned something himself despite only having sight in one eye.
We’re a bit fed up of politicians being ‘on message’ all the time. And frankly, I thought the LDs would be above that sort of thing. Free of conformity etc.
The combined print plus (paid) digital circulation of the FT is over 600000 compared with a typical readership of under 20000 for this site. We need to keep some sense of perspective when handing out the anoraks.
Tim’s sin, such as it is, appears to be expressing an honestly-held opinion clearly.
Of course, Tim’s regular expressions of such opinions does him such great harm electorally in his constituency of Westmorland & Lonsdale, where he accordingly has to suffer such ignominious perils as winning nearly all the seats in the constituency in successive local elections and being elected himself with monstrous majorities.
Clearly, this ludicrous behaviour, bringing, as it does, undeserved and unwanted electoral success , should never be adopted by the Party as a whole.
Some of Faron’s recent remarks are not those of a credible putative leader. Someone wanting to be a leader should not needlessly erect hostages to fortune. In this respect Paddy Ashdown is right, whether Paddy himself should be pointing this out at this time is also questionable, but not as questionable as the “sources close to” behaviour.
There will be time to debate leadership issues after May 7; anyone making false starts before this cannot be making a good case for themselves.
“you will see that I wrote some very positive things about Timâ
It’s called damning with faint praise.
“David Allen 17th Mar ’15 – 12:10am | Edit
âyou will see that I wrote some very positive things about Timâ
Itâs called damning with faint praise.”
No it’s not David. I’m a great fan of Tim and I want him to be leader of our party. I have my picture with him at the Littleborough and Saddleworth election proudly on my web site. I have exchanged relatively frequent messages with him on Twitter and Facebook over the years. I chatted with him at the Liverpool conference. I called him “perhaps the soul of the party” and “the keeper of the flame of a large chunk of liberalism in the party”.
If you think that is faint praise you need to get your eyes tested. I suspect an honest fan of Tim who is prepared to honestly state his weaknesses, which I doubt he needs me to tell him anyway and none of which are new to the public domain, is more use to him than someone who is 100% fawning.
For once, David, try not to see the party split into two irreconciliable factions. It is ridiculous and tiresome.
Bolano, I was not intending to portray Tim as childish.
Piffle!
Granted Tim maybe should have kept stum until there is a vacancy and been intensely focussed on looming election.
But Lord Ashdown, I am not afraid of his hot tongs when I say this. Maybe he should be more elder statesman and less Nick Clegg’s attack dog. Lord Ashdown: we aren’t afraid of your medevil military rituals or threats of them. Direct your skillful guns on the opposition.
Caracatus 16th Mar ’15 – 8:04pm …Sadly admitting that people did actually vote for us because they supported us is far too painful an admission for some people than pretending we were always a protest vote, a none of the above vote. Particularly painful for those who seemed not to support key policies anyway.
Two of the most apposite sentences I’ve read in LDV…
2/10 is a rubbish score. 2/10 isn’t saying ‘could do better’ it’s saying ‘well you got out of bed’. We’ve done great in government and I’m personally hugely disappointed with Tim. If he is thinking in terms of his own leadership bid, he has put himself before the party at a really crucial time. How do we convince the public of our record when popular senior figures are scoring themselves 2/10??!?!?!!!! Just making all our jobs harder.
Time to put the old warhorse out to grass. I knew Paddy had finally ‘lost the plot’ ten months ago when he started going on about cake in several live media interviews —
By The Voice | Sun 25th May 2014 – 5:59 pm
Paddy Ashdown, not surprisingly, came out strongly in Nick Cleggâs defence on the Sunday Politics this morning..,,,,
He has upset some of the people who are unhappy at the moment by appearing to trivialise their concerns by suggesting that more people had signed up to Lib Dem Friends of Cake .. ”
You see – whilst he used to be an adequate campaigner, Paddy lacks judgement.
Rosa, sadly the electorate totally disagree with you. That’s why they are not voting for us. Until you stop being in denial and accept you are wrong, you will remain part of the problem, and you will just make the job ever harder.
Election co-ordinator!!! Doing a great job I must say? Farron only said what 95% of the electorate think.
Actually this episode really shows how ineffectual we are as a political party. We may think we are the most effective since sliced bread, but the public does not. Who outside Lib Dem Voice knows much if anything about this serious argument and blood spilling between the leadership. In fact who cares.
Rather like Ashdown himself, obviously thinks much more of himself that others think of him.
Dave Jones1
My sister called me when she read it and said at least one âsenior person [Farron] in your party seems to be connected to the real worldâ (She votes Labour by the way)
Yes, this shows why we desperately need to get this sort of message out. Not just committed Labour voters, but many former LibDem voters and voters who shift between the two and voters who shift between us and Labour and the Greens, have this impression of us that all of us are 100% in favour of everything that’s coming out of the coalition. If we are to get some of those voters back, particularly in they key Tory-LibDem marginals, we need to stop giving the impression we are spokespeople for the Conservatives, and make it more clear that many of us in the party aren’t that happy with the coalition.
Rosa
2/10 is a rubbish score. 2/10 isnât saying âcould do betterâ itâs saying âwell you got out of bedâ. Weâve done great in government and Iâm personally hugely disappointed with Tim.
But it’s a mainly Conservative government pursuing mainly Conservative policies. What is so wrong with pointing that out? We have enough MPs to have some influence in it, and I agree we’ve had a good influence in it, but that doesn’t stop the fact that its main thrust is that of the Conservative Party, and we can’t push all of them that far from all they believe in, in fact all we can really do is swing the balance our way when they are fairly evenly divided.
Can’t people like you see, Rosa, that going on and on about how wonderful the Coalition is and wanting to award ourselves 10/10 for it, is damaging? If we say we think it is so wonderful when it is so dominated by Conservative Party policies and many of those who used to vote for us did so because they thought we were the best opposition to the Conservatives, how does that come across? It’s not working, we haven’t won back the votes we lost at the start when people saw what the reality of this Coalition means, and we haven’t even won a substantial new lot of votes, which right-wingers in the party were always telling us would come our way if we adopted an image that was more like the Conservative Party in economic terms.
I think it’s fine to point out we accepted it, but we were weak in it due to the disparity of the number of MPs form the two parties, and we could have done so much better if we had more MPs. What’s wrong with saying that? Isn’t it what we should be saying “Vote Liberal Democrat if you want Liberal Democrats policies”?
” 2/10 is a rubbish score. ” Absolutely: it’s far too generous.
Matthew Huntbach 17th Mar ’15 – 10:41am I think itâs fine to point out we accepted it, but we were weak in it due to the disparity of the number of MPs form the two parties, and we could have done so much better if we had more MPs. Whatâs wrong with saying that? Isnât it what we should be saying âVote Liberal Democrat if you want Liberal Democrats policiesâ?…
It’s not just about the number of MPs (if we had just the ‘casting vote’ the situation could have been the same)….There are many areas where the Tories would not have given way and, because of the disparity in numbers, we’d have to accept them or try and gain concessions.
However, there should have been “Red Lines”….The NHS and Bedroom Tax are two items which immediately come to mind. Pre-2010, Cameron promised “No top-down NHS reorganisation”…Our leadership should have reminded him of this and, privately, told him that we would, if it came to it, vote against…. Had we done so, I believe that this bill would never have seen the light of day,. What would Cameron have said, “Those nasty LibDems are preventing me from implementing a policy I promised not to implement”? I think not……Instead, Clegg couldn’t wait to put his name in support..
I did, in your words, âVote Liberal Democrat if you want Liberal Democrats policiesâ?… However, at the end of this coalition I’m left with the distinct impression that even the so called Tory policies are those that Clegg, Laws and Alexander believe in anyway.
Expats “However, there should have been âRed LinesââŚ.The NHS and Bedroom Tax are two items which immediately come to mind. Pre-2010, Cameron promised âNo top-down NHS reorganisationââŚOur leadership should have reminded him of this and, privately, told him that we would, if it came to it, vote againstâŚ. Had we done so, I believe that this bill would never have seen the light of day,.”
I agree and furthermore, the fact that the Lib Dems had stopped the costly re-organisation of the NHS would have been enough for me and everyone I know to come flocking back to the Party. That single move would have clearly demonstrated to the whole country that the Lib Dems in government were stopping ‘ the worst excesses of the Tories’. Alas now that phrase rings hollow.
Matthew Huntbach thank you for your 16th March 4.23 post. I have persuaded people to vote Lib Dem in exactly the same way so please don’t leave the party. We all need to remain to remind our present leadership that the individual battling against poverty needs our party to speak up for them because no one else will. We will live to fight another day even if the election is a disaster.
I think it is that fear which is making our leaders have a go at each other rather than targeting Labour and the Tories. They have to believe they can win in order to campaign hard which is understandable so anyone who suggests otherwise gets their head bitten off so best to remember trench warfare and don’t stick your head above the parapet. We are a broad church but just at the moment economic circumstances have forced our MPs in Coalition to agree to cut the deficit by reducing spending and this has impacted on the poor and the ill. Let’s see what the election brings, then we can all fight for what we believe is right.
@ Phyllis,
Indeed. If the negotiating team could not say no to the massive top down re-organisation of the NHS, that in my opinion, we were deceived into believing would not happen, ( despite Lansley having worked on it for years), what trust can the leaders of this party salvage?
I am utterly sick of the cherry picking of statistics that try to bamboozle us into believing that there have not been cut backs for both physical and mental health services and that these services have not deteriorated over the past five years.
Does saying Paddy Ashdown “used to be an adequate campaigner” count as damning with faint praise, I wonder? I must try to understand these code words that some seem to detect in the unlikeliest of places đ
I have my criticisms of Paddy Ashdown, but I would have thought it uncontroversial – and not just in Lib Dem circles – to recognise that he was, and probably still is, a formidable campaigner. Doesn’t mean his judgement is always right, but credit where it’s due and all that jazz…
The coalition has been good for the country (not everyone!) but politically a disaster for the party (with some exceptions). End of. Nick Clegg (and sources close) should look at the disaster inflicted on the Liberal Party by David Lloyd George when he put his career and the national interest above the long term interest (and values) of his own Liberal Party. We are either a broad church of a party with a left and a right wing in the moderate centre (left) of politics or a narrow rump of a party which excludes opinion either way. Farron has it right and we should now postpone debate and fight the election and row together. Government is not an end in itself it is a means. We should be proud of our achievements and ashamed of our failings. Only then will we learn from our mistakes.
Alex Sabine 17th Mar ’15 – 4:24pm
” Does saying Paddy Ashdown âused to be an adequate campaignerâ count as damning with faint praise, I wonder? ”
Not faint praise, Alex.
I was trying to encourage the old boy. Since he came back from being King of Bosnia he has had some duff jobs to do. It cannot be easy trying to make a decent fist of the general election with Clegg and Curtsey in the WendyHouse with him.
Perhaps we could arrange the political version of a Testimonial Match in June to send him off with a few quid in his pocket for a permanent retirement in Norton Sub PostOffice ?
Well, on the whole after an embarassing farago almost no-one will remember within the fortnight, I think I am more likely to vote for Tim Farron should he stand in any hypothetical leadership election that may or may not happen after the election and more sceptical about Paddy Ashdown’s judgement in making something that wasn’t much of an issue more of an issue than it needed to be.
Although of course if we do confound the critics, increase our seats and secure a further period of government – or significant influence on it – through coalition or agreement with party or parties unknown on terms favourable to ourselves, there would not seem to be a need for an election unless Nick should suddenly take it into his head to stand down or fall under a bus accidentally or the aforesaid putative coalition do something completely beyond the pale like commence life-fire nuclear missle testing on the beach at Bognor Regis.
Onwards and upwards…
@Paul Walter
I don’t think you were intending to portray him as childish for one moment. I think you adopted the tone you did because you thought it was light-hearted but I think for a lot of readers – outside your head – what appeared affectionate to you appeared infantilising to them.
There cant be that many people on the planet that would claim to be close to Nick Clegg. I remember going to hear Paddy Ashdown speak at the Cambridge Union before the 1997 General Election. He told the fairly small number of assembled Lib Dems that there was a good chance that the Tories or Labour would implode. Paddy needs to look a bit closer to home now and think to the future.
@david @mathew
75% of manifesto implemented, with 11% of MPs. What will it take for ‘people like you’ to stop for a minute and see the good? Stop to smell the flowers? Doesn’t mean there aren’t any weeds.
And i didn’t give the coalition 10/10, you put words in my mouth. And Tim wasn’t rating the coalition, he was rating our role in it.
Rosa
“How do we convince the public of our record”
The answer is: “we don’t”
Virtually none of the two to three dozen Lib Dem MPs who will be elected on May 7th will be elected in any way due to the Lib Dem record in this government. Thankfully, there are other factors which will ensure their success.
Unfortunately, you do not win elections by suddenly coming out and presenting something different in the fag end of a parliament compared to the flawed image you’ve been pushing for the four and a half years previously. Most people in this country have long-since attributed much of the responsibility for any ‘gains’ in the Coalition to the Tories and the responsibility for that common view has not lain with Cameron and Osborne. đ
The first and essential step in psychological recovery from a major problem – be it addiction, or denial, or living in a state of delusion – is for the patient to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Tim has acknowledged that there is a problem. The posters above who sigh with relief, and see this as a necessary step towards recovery, are right. They can see that with Tim, differentiation from Conservative policies is real, meaningful, and something that must be carried through.
Those who continue to deny that there is a problem, yet simultaneously claim not to be in David Cameron’s pocket, merely invite disbelief. Nobody wants to know Danny Alexander’s budget, because nobody believes he expects it to be implemented.
Interesting that in the recent election for Party President the candidate of the anti-Clegg activists who populate this site lost to the candidate apparently supported by the Party leadership. This perhaps demonstrates that the broader Party membership have a rather different view of the performance of the Party in Government than Tim Farron or his cheerleaders.
@ Graham Evans
I didn’t vote in the most recent party presidental elections as I could not find a “We need a new leader now” candidate amongst those running. Perhaps Graham can tell me who I should have voted for and which phrase in their manifesto I failed to interpret correctly.
A liberal activist
Rosa
75% of manifesto implemented, with 11% of MPs. What will it take for âpeople like youâ to stop for a minute and see the good? Stop to smell the flowers? Doesnât mean there arenât any weeds.
It’s not me you need to convince. It’s all those people who used to vote for us and are now saying they won’t and many of them are saying they never will again.
I have actually spent much of the past five years DEFENDING what this party has done in coalition against the attacks made on it by those I have dubbed “nah nah nah nah nah”s. Why don’t you try listening to the points I am making. about how I feel we could better defend our position and retain our support, instead of pumping out ammunition for the “nah nah nah nah nah”s to use against us?
expats
However, there should have been âRed LinesââŚ.The NHS and Bedroom Tax are two items which immediately come to mind
On the NHS “reforms”, I agree. They were clearly against what was explicitly stated in the Coalition Agreement, and therefore I think this should have been the issue where our leadership said “No, if you insist on this, you are breaking the agreement, therefore the Coalition is ended”.
On the “Bedroom tax”, I do wish people could see the other side of the argument. In the ward I used to represent as a councillor, there were many people living alone or just as two adults in three-bedroom council houses. Meanwhile, families with four or five children living in two-bedroom flats were being told “No, you will NEVER get a three-bedroom council houses. As you have a roof over your heads, you do not have enough need to qualify for one, there are just not enough to allocate, only the real homeless ever get one”. Is that fair? Please answer, yes or no, is that fair?
Why do we get all the sob stories from the people in council housing beyond what they need, but nothing about those, who because of that, are denied the council housing they do need? The so-called “Bedroom Tax” was NOT just a piece of nastiness in the way the “nah nah nah nah nah”s have portrayed it.
I appreciate that the “Bedroom Tax” was appallingly badly implemented, at the very least it should not have applied to anyone who was not offered decent substitute housing to meet their needs. Also I myself was not aware of what seems to be the case that in other parts of the country there is a different mix of council house supply and demand from London where I am familiar with the problem. In London, three-bedroom properties are like gold dust. After all, why should anyone return one to the council to re-let when such a big profit can be made from exercising right-to-buy?
Tony Dawson
Unfortunately, you do not win elections by suddenly coming out and presenting something different in the fag end of a parliament compared to the flawed image youâve been pushing for the four and a half years previously.
But this has been a government that is five-sixths Conservative and one-sixth Liberal Democrat. Quite obviously, whatever comes out of it is not going to be the same as what the Liberal Democrats on their own would regard as ideal. What is the problem in saying that?
The “nah nah nah nah nah”s want to push out the false message that what comes out of this government is something Liberal Democrats are hugely in favour of and regard as wonderful, rather than the reality, which is that it is a compromise reflecting the balance of the two parties and so very different from what a pure Liberal Democrat government would want. People like Rosa want to push out the same message as the “nah nah nah nah nah”s. I regard the both as twi sides of one coin – people intent on destroying the party of which I was once such a proud and keen activist member
Matthew Huntbach 18th Mar ’15 – 12:08pm…..On the âBedroom taxâ, I do wish people could see the other side of the argument. In the ward I used to represent as a councillor, there were many people living alone or just as two adults in three-bedroom council houses. Meanwhile, families with four or five children living in two-bedroom flats were being told âNo, you will NEVER get a three-bedroom council houses. As you have a roof over your heads, you do not have enough need to qualify for one, there are just not enough to allocate, only the real homeless ever get oneâ. Is that fair? Please answer, yes or no, is that fair…
No! That is not fair (that straight answer shows why I’ll never make a politician)
However, your final paragraph addresses the way it SHOULD have been implemented. .Instead, Clegg jumped in with both feet and further alienated those of us who view the LibDems as ‘fair’…
expats – its an iron law of politics that that those who lose from a change complain far louder than those that win offer praise.
I haven’t followed the ins and outs of this, but isn’t the issue that what started off as a good idea (your piece passim about fairness) was found, in practice, to not be uniformly applicable and there needed to be consideration of individual cases and exemptions.
Your general point also applies to housing in general – there are far too many people sitting in houses far too large for them – empty nesters, for example, clogging up the supply of family housing to those such as myself who need the extra space. As a result such houses are far too expensive and represent a considerable drain on my already stretched household resources given I’m paying for the up bringing of children who will shortly be paying taxes and providing labour to support the generation that retired in their fifties and sixties whilst working on into my seventies to pay off the massive mortgage debt that they will eventually realise as windfall.
Tabman 18th Mar ’15 – 12:34pm ….. You write as if you belong to the only generation paying for the previous…. My parents paid for the introduction of the NHS, the massive postwar clean up and council house building, etc. My taxes were still paying WW1 and 2 debt, etc. As for “paying for education”, every generation pays for their children…..