Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:29 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

I could always see why the Lib Dems would want to take a role in a governing coalition, but they accepted an unbelievably bad deal. Essentially handing over their support for Conservative nothing meaningful, taking responsibility without getting any power.

I remember seeing Danny Alexander challenged on how little they’d got and him talking about how many more MPs the Conservatives had than the Lib Dems. True enough, but you’d think that the party of proportional representation might have tried arguing their position based on share of the vote. It remains my gold standard for bad political decision making. Still, Clegg was able to use being Deputy Prime Minister (hah!) to convince Zuckerberg to give him an undoubtedly well-paid job and I assume he gets to spend a lot of time in the States where people don’t know the damage his decision did to his party. So leading that party worked out better for him personally than for Tim Farron or Jo Swinson, for example.

Spot on, singlehanded clegg virtually wiped out the Lib Dem’s. Then his pal Cameron cheerfully destroyed any semblance of conservative values in the Conservative party.

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:44 pm  

Another day another lie. https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/stat ... 50888?s=21

Another day another lie. https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/stat ... 50888?s=21

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:27 pm  

Backwoodsman wrote:

Spot on, singlehanded clegg virtually wiped out the Lib Dem’s. Then his pal Cameron cheerfully destroyed any semblance of conservative values in the Conservative party.

The electoral consequences are not and should never be an impediment to doing the right thing. The UK needed a government, Labour and Brown had neither the numbers nor the public support to continue. The Lib Dem negotiating team made some bad errors but the government they produced was stable and relatively moderate. In stark comparison to the ****show of instability, self-inflicted economic damage and incompetent governing which has happened to this country since 2015.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:44 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

The electoral consequences are not and should never be an impediment to doing the right thing. The UK needed a government, Labour and Brown had neither the numbers nor the public support to continue. The Lib Dem negotiating team made some bad errors but the government they produced was stable and relatively moderate. In stark comparison to the ****show of instability, self-inflicted economic damage and incompetent governing which has happened to this country since 2015.

To an extent, I agree. However, they could have achieved the same without metaphorically cutting their own throats. If the Conservatives were going to give them nothing (no important/signature Lib Dem policies and deputy PM, business secretary and devolution-era Secretary of State for Scotland isn’t even crumbs, imo), they could have gone confidence and supply. Might have given them some leverage and wouldn’t have cost them so much credibility and support.

I’m curious as to how that negotiation unfolded. What were the first offers if that is where it ended? Has there ever been an insider’s account? I don’t suppose it is anybody’s interest to give one.

The cynic in me thinks that some of them just got giddy at the prospect of ministerial cars and the opportunity to play at government, which they might never see again.

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:59 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

I could always see why the Lib Dems would want to take a role in a governing coalition, but they accepted an unbelievably bad deal. Essentially handing over their support for nothing meaningful, taking responsibility without getting any power.

I remember seeing Danny Alexander challenged on how little they’d got and him talking about how many more MPs the Conservatives had than the Lib Dems. True enough, but you’d think that the party of proportional representation might have tried arguing their position based on share of the vote. It remains my gold standard for bad political decision making. Still, Clegg was able to use being Deputy Prime Minister (hah!) to convince Zuckerberg to give him an undoubtedly well-paid job and I assume he gets to spend a lot of time in the States where people don’t know the damage his decision did to his party. So leading that party worked out better for him personally than for Tim Farron or Jo Swinson, for example.

Whatever happened to the 'Ginger Rodent' post politics?
I'd take a guess he went into investment banking or the like.

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:07 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

To an extent, I agree. However, they could have achieved the same without metaphorically cutting their own throats. If the Conservatives were going to give them nothing (no important/signature Lib Dem policies

The big Lib Dem policies which were enacted were the first £10k everyone earns being tax free (this was number 1 in the 2010 manifesto), the pupil premium (number 2), the reinstatement of the pension link with earnings and the free school meals policy which was later reversed by the Tories once they were in power alone.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:31 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Whatever happened to the 'Ginger Rodent' post politics?
I'd take a guess he went into investment banking or the like.

It’d be a pretty good guess.

Jo Swinson is a visiting Professor at Cranfield Business School. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I do wonder at the difference in perception and post-politics career trajectory between her and Facebook VP Nick Clegg. I mean, life is unpredictable and irrational at the level of the individual, I know that - but I still can’t help thinking ‘WTF?’ from time to time.

I suppose that brings us back to the OP’s question. There’s no good reason, life just chucks up weird confluences of circumstances sometimes. They might be happy (I’ve just read Bob Mortimer’s autobiography and he could very easily have remained a solicitor in South London if things hadn’t turned out just so, leading to him meeting Jim Moir/Vic Reeves) or less so, in the case of the country stumbling into becoming a prop to Boris Johnson’s shallow narcissism.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:52 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

The big Lib Dem policies which were enacted were the first £10k everyone earns being tax free (this was number 1 in the 2010 manifesto), the pupil premium (number 2), the reinstatement of the pension link with earnings and the free school meals policy which was later reversed by the Tories once they were in power alone.

From a Lib Dem perspective they may be big, in fairness. It’s not exactly my perspective, so I’m left wondering why they didn’t hold out for a referendum on proportional representation or at least some decent cabinet jobs. Tbh, I’d have to look up the pupil premium. They certainly found a way to make sure they didn’t get any due or undue credit.

The two takeaways from the coalition for me were austerity for the many and the Lib Dems shooting themselves in the face. The electoral consequences, I am relying on hindsight. However, even back then, I thought comedy pop artist who reached number 5 in the charts with his song about Boris Johnson last Christmas, summarised Clegg’s negotiation position pretty accurately (I can’t be more precise than that without melting the swear filter).

Re: Why ? : Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:29 am  

Mild Rover wrote: I’m left wondering why they didn’t hold out for a referendum on proportional representation . The 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum

Mild Rover wrote: I’m left wondering why they didn’t hold out for a referendum on proportional representation . The 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:31 am  

I stand corrected and reminded.