A few months ago we were waiting for David Cameron’s stately procession to 10 Downing Street as leader of yet another majority Conservative government. No point voting Lib Dem, we were told – they had no chance of getting power and putting their policies into practice.
And yet here we are, with a Lib/Con coalition after Labour decided they preferred to be in opposition. Those who voted Lib Dem look like they will get Lib Dem policies put into law. Not all of them, but a surprising number of the important ones.
Is it risky? Hell, yes.
Labour activists, and some Lib Dems too, are already laying into the party for abandoning the tribal politics where a party governs alone or not at all. Many say the Lib Dems will lose votes and seats – it’s quite possible they’re right, but time will tell.
But look at the prize.
A government heavily influenced by liberal values and instincts – something we’ve not had for over three decades.
A government that, if it goes according to plan, will see those on low and middle incomes paying less tax, will give children a better chance in our schools and will reform our broken political system with fixed term parliaments, a referendum on voting reform, and reform of the House of Lords.
A government opposed to ID cards and many of Labour’s authoritarian measures (though there are some we’ll have to work on to persuade the Tories, I’m sure – the fate of the DEBill is still unclear).
When we leave aside our tribal political instincts (hard as that is, I’ll admit), this coalition deal is clearly better for the country than the alternatives and offers the best chance in generations of the Lib Dems really making a difference.
It won’t be easy, and there will be problems to overcome and tough decisions to make. But at the very least it deserves to be given a chance.
The Conservatives haven’t turned into Lib Dems and the Lib Dems haven’t turned into Conservatives. We remain very different parties with different policies and traditions. We’ll still be opposing each other in town halls up and down the country, and fighting each other at each election to come – each party putting the case that its way is better.
But we can work together – just as parties have done in local government, in Scotland, Wales and of course in most successful countries across the world.
Had the voters cast their ballots for a majority Lib Dem government, I’d have been happier. Had we won more votes and more seats, I’d be happier. But the people decided, and they’ve given us this opportunity to really change things. To fail to grasp it would have been the much greater mistake, for our country and our party.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
62 Comments
Wise words mate.
Getting LibDems to agree is like herding cats, but last night out of the 100 members of the MPs, the Peers and Federal Executive, 99 voted in favour. That is unheard of, *unheard of* in the thirty years I’ve been involved with the party.
I think we need to see the agreement (being published later today). People will hopefully recognise that what the LibDems were after was the maximum number of policies getting put into practice. I hope this works, it is the sort of government they have have argued for for decades – not to take the chance of putting it into effect would have been hypocrisy and cowardice.
spot on. the labour lie machine is already at work. we need to stick together and hold our nerve
I think Nick’s decision took tremendous courage, it was for me a very difficult one to swallow. I don’t know if he was right or wrong, I can only wait and see but I recognise that if we really believe in a truly democratic electoral system we will need to accept that sometimes we will have to accept partnerships with other parties that we don’t like.
Sorry, but I just can’t agree with Nick or the lib dems any more. I am against the tories in every way possible and have no trust in David Cameron. I feel like such a fool that I ever believed in the lib dem policies – I wish I listened to people when they said Clegg would jump into bed with Cameron. I was such a fool not to believe it! I will be voting either Green or Labour from now on, and I know many people who voted lib dem will not be voting for them anymore either.
@Juliette
>>>Sorry, but I just can’t agree with Nick or the lib dems any more. I am against the tories in every way possible and have no trust in David Cameron. I feel like such a fool that I ever believed in the lib dem policies – I wish I listened to people when they said Clegg would jump into bed with Cameron. I was such a fool not to believe it! I will be voting either Green or Labour from now on, and I know many people who voted lib dem will not be voting for them anymore either.
I’m sorry to hear that, but, nevertheless, this was the right thing to do. When you see many of our progressive policies implemented, I do hope you will reconsider.
Who was the one dissenter?
That’s because they had failed both in cast vote and returned seats. To think it’s a mark of virtue to insist Clegg would have been prepared to enter into a deal with a Party opposite to the Tories, in defiance of what those king-makers the public voted for, so the Party could then implement policies which were rejected by 77% of the electorate is… well… suggestive of naked power-lust.
Spot on Juliette
So Nick turns out to be a Tory Wannabe like Blair..
99 out of 100 is highly suggestive of an excellent deal.
Can’t all you Tory haters put your ideologies to side for another 24 hours to at least see the details before you start flinging dummies around? Would you really prefer to still be in opposition with no hope of getting a single policy through?
Brian, at least Blair was successful at elections… Whiggy Clegg needed to piggyback on someone else. What makes me chortle at the “preferred opposition” line is the obvious incomprehension that anyone could not be primarily interested in clawing as much power for themselves as possible.
Something else I’m not going to bother doing, Ellie, is looking through this site for hysterical screeds against the Tories or common use of “Tory troll” as the only response to criticism. My guess is that use of the latter is going to be continued for sometime, rather like British commanders habitually referred to the Tsarist forces at Crimea as “French” even though the French were their allies.
I’m glad that the deal is done, if only that the Lib Dems were starting to lose the PR war in this. However, I am a progressive first and a Liberal Democrat second. I will wait and see what we are getting, what we are de facto now supporting, and then decide where I stand on all this.
One things for sure, its going to be interesting.
“New politics”
You people really are funny. This won’t be a Government heavily influenced by “Liberal values and instincts”. It’s a TORY Government with a few appeasing caveats. The fact that Clegg has seemingly jumped at the chance to sit beside his mate Dave….says it all really. The people who voted Lib Dem in good faith (myself included)…..have a right to feel horribly betrayed and let down. May as well have voted Conservative. Welcome to the “New politics” indeed.
After 65 years of being a Liberal ‘against the government’ it is going to be strange supporting it.
I do however welcome this opportunity to see Liberal policies introduced at last. When electors sees the benefits they are likely to want more, and the Liberal Democrats will go from strength to strength.
I was disappointed that Labour couldn’t join forces and talk with others. Though the experience in Wales is that they talked with LibDem then suddenly did a deal with Plaid Cymru. I suppose all that I can be positive about is that it is not a Tory governement through and through. I don’t know how it will affect my voting I have always voted Liberal/LibDem, taken advantage of PR on Wales & voted green once as second vote. I could never vote for a Conservative.
It really is wait and see.
So the cats were herded…is it power or change that lured them? I think it was Paddy Ashdown, a long time ago, who said most people that went into politics, no matter how idealist, were seduced by power.
Alec,
Please read comments properly before you respond to them with unfounded allegations. If you read what I wrote, I think the context makes it quite clear I meant haters OF Tories not haters who ARE Tories.
Flo, that sounds right. Although, perhaps uniquely amongst the current senior LibDems, Ashdown has held serious political power (and managed it quite well).
Admittedly, the (old or new) Labour policies and government were tired and worn out.
Admittedly, there’s been a bit of new flavour in conservative recipes (e.g. low-carbon economy).
Admittedly, the Lib Dems’ score was not up to expectations (yet more than one fifth of the votes is no small beer).
That said, why embarking on a coalition with the Tories?
I see two reasons, and both are wrong.
The first is, once again, the tyranny of -short-termist- markets. “They” (who are they) want(ed) a majority government, assuming this could guarantee tougher spending cuts and deficit/debt reduction, which were at least partly due to the folly of the past period, lest some forget. Anyway, the markets got it. How long will it last? The market operators don’t care (I wrote short-termist). I find it weird that someone like Vince Cable, who has written and spoken brilliant words about the crisis, swallows that coalition.
The second is something often seen in politics, but that I wouldn’t have expected from Nick Clegg. It is about sacrificing strategy and the long term to tactics and the short term (here we go again).
My bet is that there won’t be any electoral reform any time soon. Because there are other things to do. Because a referendum would be too complicated and tricky. Because people would, in any case of vote, find a coalition so difficult to manage, that they’d rather stick to the current voting system. With, as a consequence, a return to the two-party system in the next election. Etc. It’s a hollow promise from the Tories.
The other aspect of that sacrifice is the likely disappointment of the radical or progressive liberals and their flight from the party.
Coming from the grand old tradition of British liberalism (the Lib part) mixed with a modern social democracy (the Dem part), the Lib Dems are (were?) one of the most original and least conservative (and even largely progressive) liberal parties in Europe. They are in for losing that identity and diluting their ideas (I don’t write ideology, because we are liberals) in a centre-right maelstrom.
I find it wrong and sad.
What should have been done then? Simple, a minority Conservative government supported from outside when necessary. This has worked without any problem in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries for decades (and under a… proportional system). How long would it last? Probably not that long. But what would have been the outcome for the Lib Dems in the next elections? Probably better than the disaster to be expected in the next ones.
That has not been the option. So a number of Lib Dems might be waiting for a new “Gang of Four” to emerge. This time not from the Labour as in the early eighties but from the Liberals. What is at stake is to keep the progressive liberal tradition alive.. and to break the mould of the two parties.
Back to square….
You’ve fallen into group think and self justification mode. A handful of ‘progressive’ policies will not be enough to placate people who see George Osbourne slashing public spending and William Hague being the face of Britain abroad. As a teacher I’ve heard many many students in my time trying to talk themselves into justifying what they know deep down is worng and they are desperate to be told that actually they are right …. that is what this echoes. You won’t be forgiven. Enjoy your moment in the sun because there are dark and cold days ahead.
Ellie, go back and read what I wrote. I said precisely that. Not a very good start, seeing criticism and thinking it’s malicious and not in need of deconstruction.
Nick Clegg appears not to have chosen not to have a departmental power base; why do people think that is?
On Newsnight, Alistair Campbell (when he stopped baiting Evan Harris for two seconds) made the observation that this would turn out to be a mistake. As he has a fair idea about how the “old politics” worked and cabinet colleagues interact, I am interested to know what people think about this state of affairs?
An optimistic interpretation might be that he is going to attempt to umpire the game of Grandmother’s footsteps that is about to take place between ambitious Tory MPs and can’t-believe-their-luck Liberal MPs.
It will be quite a thing to see almost half of the parliamentary Liberal party become ministers.
I think it’s a short-term gain, but it’ll be an enormous long-term loss.
In the short term you might be able to take the edge off some of the more extreme Tory policies and get a few concessions out of them for pet policies of your own, but rightly or wrongly you’re going to get wiped out at the next general election and the voters are going to be left with the same old choice between Labour and Tory. Again.
If you’d kept out and allowed the Tories to have a go as a minority administration you’d have lost out on a negligible bit of influence in this parliament but you would have been in a much stronger position going into the next election from opposition, with a reasonable chance of a workable coalition with a revamped, detoxified Labour party.
Honestly, this line that cooperation and “new” consensus politics requires deals like this and anyone who opposes this coalition is against coalitions in principle is a total non-starter. For many Lib Dem voters the Tories were, are, and always will be The Enemy, and you have no more business in coalition with them than Labour would. This is not so much coalition as collaborationism, and collaborators are rarely treated well once the occupiers are removed.
Sorry about the double negative.
Anyone else enjoying the “Debt Problems?” ad running under the comments? Was that a deliberate choice of advertiser?
Mark, I agree ’bout the working with a minority administration where conscience directs, but I’m still wary of PR. Said countries have less than 10% of Britain’s population, and are largely socially/ethnically homogeneous without the wheen of “special interest groups” (read “political nutters”, oh Nick!).
I’m prepared to wait and see.
As for budget cuts – I think Cable has to come out and say the horrendous financial situation we are in from new Labour.
Others will have to see that money has a value – you can’t go on spending more than you earn if you want to provide for those that can’t.
I know some Lib Dems like to hold on to the comfort blankets but those times are gone.
Mike Guillaume,
Which is better:
1) A coalition with the promise of a referendum on AV which, if delivered, would provide a vital step towards full PR at a future date coupled with a fully elected Lords as well as a raft of other LibDem priorities made law.
It may not happen, we don’t know, but there is a chance and with the Lib Dems given so many cabinet seats, the coalition has been set up to succeed, not to fail.
Or
2) Another spell in opposition with absolutely no chance of getting even our smallest policy acted on and no likelihood of increasing our vote share at the next election. If we couldn’t do it this time, we never will. I see very little practical difference between a collapse down to a handful of MPs and our current levels without a coalition; neither would see us get anything done.
“Hatched man Cable” – I get a Pizza Hut ad. What is this ad-bot implying about me???
Ellie – Indeed. We are getting Lib Dem policies implemented. We are an active part of government. No small feat!
Sorry to keep asking, but who was the dissenter?
Well I did. And then I went back and read what I wrote. All I’m getting out of it still is that I made an appeal to everyone who is getting upset about this deal to hold off on making knee jerk opinions at least until they have read the agreement, and then you suggested I was accusing people of being Tory Trolls. I can’t find any other way of reading it, so please enlighten me. What exactly are you accusing me of/assuming I am accusing others of?
Iain, the risks are enormous. But we are right to take them.
The level of support in the pldp and FE for the coalition deal is a remarkable testimony to our negotiators and the way in which the negotiations were conducted and reported back on.
We must keep insisting that it can only be described as a COALITION government. It is not a Conservative government and we could not be part of it if it were.
We are engaged in an extraordinary effort to change British politics for good…and dealing with something that was bound to happen at some stage: a balanced parliament. It was inevitable, at some point, that we would be a target for which ever part of the old politics got left out. It has come in a rush and in a way that few of us expected. In this case it was Labour that ran away from taking a shared part in cleaning up the mess – a mess that it had a major part in creating.
One of the most interesting – and least commented upon aspects of what has come to pass – is Cameron’s clear determination to use the coalition to change his own party. Nick Clegg is not the only party leader engaged in high risk business. David Cameron will face mounting criticism from the irreconcilables in his own party if the coalition government keeps to the commitments its leaders have made to one another.
There are a great many – including some Liberal Democrats – who will throw (are throwing) their toys out of the pram…but it is heartening to see and hear how many calm, thoughtful and generous spirits there are in the party and on its margins.
Labour party members – especially the Labour tribalists, and there are a great many of them – have only one code. You are either for us or against us. It is the code that George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have lived by. If Ed or David Milliband get the Labour leadership it may be modified…but I wouldn’t count on it. People like Ben Bradshaw must fear what Labour is about to do to itself…but there lack of courage over the years meant that they were incapable of seizing the opportunity when it came there way.
While this is true, without power delivering your idealistic policies is impossible. How is an idealistic person supposed to get stuff done without appearing to be sacrificing their morals?
Hatchet man Cable asked why Clegg didn’t take a department.
There have been various public briefings on good tactics for a coalition government, and one of them suggested that the leader not have a department to run. I think this makes sense. Clegg won’t be swamped in detail, he’ll then be free to get involved across the board, and in keeping the LibDem side of the coalition together.
Ignore what Alistair Campbell said. He sometimes makes very insightful comments, but he’s also a clever manipulater, and he’s primary objective now will be to undermine grassroots LibDem support. Besides, what does he know about coalition government?
I live in a Con-Lab marginal, which the Tories gained from Lab in 2005. At this election, I was firmly intending to vote Lib Dem, since Labour were unlikely to regain the seat so I thought I might as well vote for the party closest to my views.
At the last minute – in the polling booth – I couldn’t do it. Partly swayed by Brown’s rallying in the last few days of the campaign, I voted Labour. Now I am so, so grateful that I did not vote for a party which has made a pact with the devil as far as I’m concerned.
OK, some of your MPs have their bums on cabinet chairs. But weren’t you sick to the stomach to see Cameron on the steps of No.10? And the crowing of the Tory media?
And as for all the talk about LibDems gaining fantastic concessions from the Tories: the only concession worth getting was an assurance that Cable should be Chancellor – the vile Osborne should never have been allowed near No.11. Instead of which, Cable is his deputy?? Unbelievable. Osborne is not fit to clean Cable’s shoes, and now he’s his boss?
I’m sorry to say, because I like the party and admire its independence, but this is the beginning of the end of the LibDems. One bloc will be absorbed into the Tories, as the Liberal Unionists were 100 years ago, many others – perhaps a majority of the party, and surely most of the voters – will defect to Labour, and the small rump in the middle will be left to represent true liberalism. A tragedy.
A little, it must be said. But thems the breaks if you want to Get Stuff Done.
I was going to give an opinion on Vince as deputy, but I’ve been so wrong on every analysis I’ve made in the last week, I think I’ll keep schtum! Suffice to say, deputy is not a position without power.
Well good luck to Nick Clegg and co., and it may well be the best result for the country. However, I think the Lib Dems will now be obliteratred as a party. Who is going to vote for them in future elections? Most of the floating voters will now think that they may as well vote Conservative. As for those from Labour who recently switched allegiance to the Lib Dems…they are lost forever and will never forgive. Sure, you will still have a hard core of voters, but one that will become smaller and smaller at election time.
As for the promises of the coalition, any AV vote will be lost and it is not PR in any case…. so whats the point?
OK, you will get a few concessions on taxation approoach and maybe on education – but then the LibDem MPs will have to bite their lips over some Tory policies. Unwittingly, this is now going to strengthen the Conservative-Labour two party system, which Nick Clegg so expertly argued against in the run-in to the election. I wish him and the Lib Dems the best of luck, but I cant help but feel that my true home is now elsewhere.
Nigel wrote: “I’m sorry to say, because I like the party and admire its independence, but this is the beginning of the end of the LibDems. One bloc will be absorbed into the Tories, as the Liberal Unionists were 100 years ago, many others – perhaps a majority of the party, and surely most of the voters – will defect to Labour, and the small rump in the middle will be left to represent true liberalism. A tragedy.”
I could have written the same;
You really are not getting the hang of this “justify my position without assuming dissenters are not just wrong but malicious” malarkey, are you? You stated that dissenters here were motivated out of negative Tory-hatred rather than positive support for their principles (whatever that may be). I observed that this site is littered with articles and comments which either called a vote for the LibDems to be a vote to keep the Tories out, or were dripping with tribal hatred of Tories (which I have objected to).
I said no such thing. Although, you do have a habit of assuming dissenters are not just wrong but malicious, and of admitting to low negotiating principles and daring others to cling to a higher virtue.
You are Ronnie Heslop and I claim my five pounds!
I have fought the Tories for 37 years. BUT – I have also campaigned for fixed term parliaments, an elected House of Lords, a movement towards PR, a fairer tax system and protection of our civil liberties. I know we have all had to swallow hard on this deal but I say one thing – if you offer a starving man a slice of bread instead of a whole loaf, he’ll take the slice of bread. I don’t mind moving this nation towards a Liberal future in small steps rather than standing on the sidelines yet again.
Nigel and Mike, I think the Party has bypassed the tragedy bit and gone straight to farce. Sandals to the left, Whigs to the right.
In the end the options came down to a Minority conservative government or a Coalition in which the Lib Dems can act as a moderating factor. Of the two the choice was a no brainer.
In the short term the two parties can work together on an agreed programme.
In The longer term, their totally different philosophies, which advise the formation of their individual policies, will make their positions untenable.
The nation has spoken, national interest has prevailed over all else. If we can solve the nations financial black hole, every party worker and every voter will see that Cooperation and compromise can work, and is a better path to follow than constant unremitting conflict in which victories never extend beyond the length of a parliament.
The Lib Dems Philosophy is one of fairness,liberty, openness, cooperation and honesty.
We now have the chance to demonstrate that these are not just empty words, If we do not succeed the electorate may never trust us again.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100039420/the-heir-of-blair-exceeds-his-mentors-10-year-record-of-betrayal-in-just-24-hours/
What’s most shocking in this thread is not the indifference to selling out principles (that’s a given for anyone who’s worked with LibDem party structures; as opposed to individuals), but the attempt to pin the Coalition on Labour for not loving the Party enough (including Paddy Ashdowne, whom I previously respected).
Nonsense. It’s the Party’s choice.
I got two leaflets from the Lib Dems both with one core message, “Only the lib -dems can beat the Tories” – with bar charts and everything.
This morning I feel nothing but visceral disgust and in future when I hear the words Lib-Dem I will just think of people who tell BIG FAT LIES.
Mind you what a progressive cabinet with all those woman and ethnic minorities.
I would vote for Satan before I would ever let you steal my vote again!
Gerry – why do you think the leaflets were lying? You do realise that you vote for a local MP, and that the Lib Dems were absolutely clear that they’d go into coalition discussions with the Tories if they had the most votes and seats in a hung parliament.
Iain, you’re not even trying.
I’m sorry, did you think that meant “beat them with a stick”? It just meant “block them from doing whatever they want”. That’s what has happened here.
There is no ‘new’ politics about any of this.
When you have a party that has become almost synonymous with its central liberal policy of seeking to establish a fair voting system in the UK, a proportional one, to have so clearly sold-out on this principle and to not even extract the slightest concession in this direction in a position of unprecedented power and opportunity for the Liberal democrats for over 80 years…. They are clearly bereft of any integrity or principle and are evidence of what is wrong and corrupt in politics in the UK.
In essence the problem with politics in the UK is that the electorate are being lied to by the parties, their leaders and the media on a daily basis. People are casting their votes for Labour thinking that it still represents the working class and the poor and disadvantaged when the evidence is that under Labour’s term the inequality between the rich and poor has risen, not fallen. People vote for the Liberal Democrats believing they are getting a progressive, liberal, reforming party yet this is clearly not the case. At the moment the Conservative Party are the ones who have the highest standards of outward integrity as is demonstrated with David Cameron clearly outlining ‘red-line’ un-negotiable areas of Conservative policy and by only making trivial concessions towards Liberal Policy.
Essentially all 3 parties are coalescing around who can pander to the rich the most, disadvantage the poor and carry the country furthur down the fearful, reactionary, broken path of politics in the UK of the last 20 years. However as is clearly demonstrated, there are no values, integrity or ideals about any of the 3 main parties. All they care about is attaining power and not offering people a genuine choice or actually campaigning on the basis of policy, values or ideals.
They will rebrand themselves, spin, lie and betray people at all levels of society and even within their own parties, just to have a time with the levers of power.
The whole thing stinks.
Iain
Please don’t patronise me.
This my friend is the new scenario with the new political reallingment. Tory right will squeeze the centre over Europe with the result that UKIP will be re-energised. They only scored 3% on the back of a train wreck campaign led by a fool who reminded me of the admiral who stood with Ross Perot. Still if that vote swung even in part to the Tories they would probably have an overall majority. A small rise in their vote and the Tory seats start going down rapidly. UKIP will be re-energised and will become more professional with defections from the Tory right..
The nutty right will be pitching to a potential 15%-25% of the population.
The Tory base will therefore shrink and that my friend is the same voting demographic that you will find yourself scrambling for, on the back of a squabble over Europe which is the catalyst. You will be fighting with the Tories for 35-45% of the vote.
The labour party is anything but a spent force, and replete with talent in contrast to the new cabinet. In a years time their electoral demographics will be a swathe across the soft centre to the radical left. A potential 60-65% of the vote.
Every election is only ever a reflection of the demographic and political base that they can get votes from. After you have been with the sharks your party will find itself with a very leaky net fishing in a very small electoral pond.
So maybe I do have some understanding of the electoral system, maybe even at the level of “Verstehen” (go educate yourself).
However, maybe your response on educating me that I vote for an MP is telling. Heffer observed this morning that Lib-dems are either Tories with low self esteem or somehow think they are an intellectual cut above Labour. I see plenty of evidence of the former and the latter is laughable.
The paucity of your reply to my original post speaks volumes on this front. Your party has labelled itself as intellectually redundant anyway. Lets leave aside the fact that you are directly allied to “nutters and anti-semites” now with your buddies , but did not St Vince Cable say using classic Keynsian arguements that taking out billions “was dangerous and foolhardy”. He has therefore labelled himself “dangerous and foolhardy”.
Beside the intellectual incoherence do you not understand the wealth of televisied material of promises delivered with passion by Clegg, Cable et al which will be used ad nauseam by Labour and by satirists alike. I can see the “liars rap” being a hit on U-tube with lots of lovely clips of the “big lies”. It really is not very clever politics. Even worse for the lib dems this narrative is one of betrayal at an almost moral level. Betrayal engenders disgust and that is the most hard wired of our emotions. It is one reason why politically when you get to a certain level of being dislike you can never make up lost ground.
The lib-dems in future with always have to deal with a visceral dislike by the progressive left in all future dealings. Just watch some of the receptions that Charles Kennedy gets when exposed to the public in Scotland (he especially should hang his head in shame ).
So tawdry, politically niave and intellectually incoherent.Yep that sums up the shiny Lib Dems.
So Iain , thank you for bestowing to me your searing insight. Enjoy today, because tomorrow your party like any harlot will have to perform the services for which they are being paid. In the Lib Dibs case it is not just metaphorical but almost literal. Your party is going to find itself truly screwed.
I hope Kennedy and Campbell remember their Robert Burns.
‘We’re bought and sold for English gold’–
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Ive just finished watching the joint press conference held in the garden of Number 10 & the first thing that struck me was that Camerons speech could have been given by a Liberal Democrat. The Conservative Party is now tied to the success of 3-Party/Coalition Politics, that is our Politics.
Gerry – I was happy to have a sensible discussion before you piled in with the insults.
Iain “”You do realise that you vote for a local mp? Your response to my first post which is not only patronising but insulting. My second post is yes an expression of my disgust, but the insults are observations.
I note you don’t critique them but instead inform me you are a bit hurt.
So a patronising response that assumes that as a lib -dem voter I don’t even know that I am electing an MP and a second post that disengages when the discourse gets a bit critical. Not really a good omen for when the heat gets turned up.
I understood that a homophobic Latvian group – Latvian Voice? – was allied to the LibDems beforehand. And that’s before we get onto the antisemites, or LibDems who were prepared to stand alongside Hungarian neo-Nazis. 😉
@ paul barker – Jolly nice of David Cameron to join our party, makes up for all the flakey voters (flakey in the sense that they didn’t understand or look at our policies or take them onboard, because PR on any level is much more likely to end up with something like this) “defecting” to Labour.
i will give you a chance to counter the observation I made with one central point given that all flows from the economy.
If Vince Cable says “it is foolhardy and dangerous” to take 6 Billlion out of the economy a week before the election, then why is it no longer “foolhardy and dangerous” a week after the election?
This in the light that George Osbourne has just announced that the speed of cuts will be accelerated, which if Vince Cables position is coherent must be even more “foolhardy and dangerous”. This is now your OFFICIAL POLICY- signed up , sealed and delivered.
There is only two possible answers for this strange conversion . 1. Vince Cable was wrong and has now recanted. 2. Vince Cable still believes he is right but is willing to gamble with the livliehood of millions in order for a sip of power.
Can you provide an answer to this strange conundrum or can the labels of tawdry and intellectually incoherent be applied to this shameful expediency?
Have a good think, but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is usually a duck.
How long does this torture have to go on before we extricate ourselves?
I thought I was having a nightmare, but I’m not.
When can we get back to working for the Liberal Democratic Party rather than propping up the likes of Osborne and Duncan Smith under the illusion we are acting in the national interest?
What are we doing, people?
I know in my bones this is WRONG!
Well, i have to say that the last few days of browsing the blog comments on this website have been for the most part… disappointing.
Politically i suppose you could say i am positioned centre Right which puts me between tories and Libs (although i’m not sure the old distinctions of left-centre-right are really as clear among the main parties as it was two decades ago).
I have also never agreed with the policy of tactical voting. The concept of “i’ll vote for this party, which i don’t really support, in order to keep this other party that i hate even more out of power” just leaves me cold, makes me feel the amazing gift of democracy is being wasted. And it is bizarre that people that DO openly admit to tactical voting, can then exclaim fury over their adopted party, which they didn’t really support in the first place, taking decisions they don’t agree with – perhaps they should have voted for their actual party/candidate of choice in the first place!
When i have voted i try to vote for the candidate that i most want to represent me in parliament, usually due to their party policy, but also to some degree to the person in question. When i moved to Yate i chose to vote for Steve Webb not only on the basis that i came to trust his integrity and judgement, but also because i found myself increasingly agreeing with Lib dem policy over Tory ones. When i cast this vote I knew it was unlikely to help produce a majority government, but its my genunie choice and we all have to accept where the electoral chips fall.
When the hung parliament was clear, and talk of coalitions began in earnest i logged on to this website with anticipation of seeing a fair minded debate over the best choices ahead for the Libs. Instead i was met with a veritable wall of Anti-tory, almost venomous, fury that left me slightly taken aback. I know histroically Lib dem and tory have not exactly been bed fellows, but at the end of the day the Lib Dem party is most centrally placed of the three main contenders. If you are to increase your popular support you must expect that this can come from both directions on the political spectrum (disaffected torys voting lib to keep out labour is nothing new), in addition, if the grassroots is true to its strong belief in PR, being the centre party you must surely be willing to accept (even grudgingly) that the compromise that comes with forming coalitions should be considered in both directions on the spectrum as well – as the centre party you are always placed to be the moderating force.
Stating a willingness to always compromise, as long as its only with Labour and that you would rather cut your left testicle off than join Tories in government really doesn’t seem much like a willingness compromise to me.
I am pleased that the Libs are in the Lib-con coalition, not because i lean to the right (i still don’t think Cameron is up to the task of reforming the Tories closer to the centre, and don’t get me started on the wet fish that is Osbourne!) but because it was the least worst option available for progression of the liberal democrat party AND for serving the nations interests and i genuinely hope a success can be made of it.
I guess i’m in a minority, possibly of one, but thought i would share my thoughts anyway.
Steve
Gerry
It’s not a duck; it is the most fatal miscalculation I have ever seen in politics in my entire life.
This in no way can possibly last 5 years when things start to happen, which we all know will begin to happen soon.
P.S: I’ll say this last thing. Sacrificing your party on a gamble that probably wont pay off is magnificent but it isn’t politics.
What it says to me is that we choked on PR at the finish line. 5 cabinet seats is frankly 4 too
many in a Tory government, and we should have accepted no policies and no seats for better
PR concessions than the psuedo-offer of maybe A.V. To then nail it shut for 5 years tells me we’ll
be Tory props for the forseeable future. We had to shoot for the deal with the biggest upside
, not the one with the smallest downside, which is what we did.
I don’t believe that nor have I ever said anything to suggest that I do. While I enjoy the juicy irony of being accused of doing something by a person who persists in doing precisely that thing that they are getting so upset about, I’d prefer it if you stopped.
Ahhh, I see. You are a member of the school of thought that says the best way to get stuff done is to shy away from the responsibility of all offices that hold any real possibility of making a difference, whilst at the same time yelling abuse at those with the courage to take on the challenges for their supposed moral bankruptcy.
I think we are done here.
are any of these comments from real libdems???