Be Excellent To Each Other

Facebook and Twitter have annoyed the hell out of me in the past few weeks with pretty much everyone turning on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, calling them liars, puppets, two-faced and even fascists.

I wish to address a few of these points, and see what people think.

1 - The Lib Dems are doing a terrible job.

Yet they have formed a government, and as a minority have managed to implement a number of Lib Dem policies, such as fixed term parliaments, no renewal of Trident this term, and a referendum on a fairer voting system (not a perfect one, but a definite step in the right direction).

So anyone who voted LD or supported them simply MUST concede that they have, to an extent, done a good job and implemented more policies than would have come about without their presence in the coalition. That was the point of them formed said coalition, to get their policies in place. By that measure, they have been a success.

"But wait", I hear you cry. "They have also implemented policies they formerly disagreed with!"

And indeed they have. The raise in tuition fees was not something the LiB Dems wanted, and that's why they campaigned against it. But, ultimately, this is David Cameron's government, not Nick Clegg's. And they have the majority of the say. And as such the Tories will definitely be sure to give the LDs the job of delivering the shitty news to the people who voted for them.
That sucks if you're a LibDem, but as a price for influencing government policy? Probably worth it. After all, they managed to cap the fees, whereas without LD influence they may have been uncapped.

So, making lD-based policy and tempering Tory policy... seems decent enough.

Ah, but...

2 - Nick Clegg's a LIAR!!!!!

No he isn't. He just wasn't the one making the call. Cuts are coming in, and there's been discussions on how Universities should be funded. The LDs in government have tried their best to make it work, but with the money that is there, changes had to be made.

If I buy a ton of pasta, and then tell you that tonight I'll cook you a lovely pasta meal, that is one thing. If I then get home and find that a housemate has scoffed every last bit of pasta, and we're skint so can't afford any more, then me not cooking you that meal does not make me a liar! The tabloid politics that is infesting any political discussion at the moment is so black and white that if someone ever takes even a fractional change in stance on something, even if it is when they have more information, it is called a U-turn and they're obviously now two-faced and a liar. This simpleton's way of looking at the world simply doesn't work.

So, yes, he's freely admitted that his pledge was misguided, and apologised for it, but it was based on an entirely different economic model. Were the LibDems in majority, do people really think they'd be taking the exact same tack as the Tories? Really?

And either way, the capped rise is still a bajillion times better than the most talked-up alternative, the widely discredited (by all three parties) Graduate Tax, which would see, effectively, UNLIMITED payback. At least if you're stuck in a 30-grand hole there's a way out!


3 - So, what you're saying is that the LDs are just useless puppets?

No! If they were, why did Vince Cable report Rupert Murdoch's attempt to buy out the rest of Sky, completely against Tory wishes? Because it was the principle of the matter.

Ultimately, the Tories are in government, and can only be tempered to a certain degree by the Liberal Democrats. For everything that the LDs get their way on, they will have to back something they don't necessarily agree with. This is the essence of the coalition.

Quite how this makes Nick Clegg a liar and the LibDems worse than Satan, when all the criticism has been directed at Tory policies they have had to compromise on, make the mind boggle.

I agree with Curiosity. I do, however, thing that the LDs have doomed themselves for the foreseeable future.

I read a series of comments on facebook last night which says that the manner that clegg joined the coalition, the step change in policy since, and various other aspects directly correlate with the manner In which hitler tool control, and hence clegg is a facist.

Fucking dicks.

I agree with both Curiosity and Craster, annoyingly.

Will post at more length and more interestingly after a liquid lunch.

No, that's precisely the point. By choosing to form this coalition they have enabled the Tories to enact policies that they have no real mandate for and which many of their voters clearly don't agree with.

(although not the liquid lunch)

The Lib Dems have always been split between the social democrat wing and the classical liberal side. Being out of power for long has meant this has never really been a problem. Most of the anger I think is coming from those who voted Lib Dem because they weren't Labour, so we're seeing a flight back to now they've realised that the whole 'all things to all men/we're not Tories or Labour' style of campaigning has come unstuck.

Personally, I love the Lib Dems. Without them, it wouldn't have been possible to implement a 95% Tory agenda in government - particularly in economic terms - upon which people such as I believe so passionately is so long overdue. Plus, they didn't get into bed with Labour and the SNP, which is also pretty handy. Thank heavens Balls & Brown were such bellends about it all, at the time. (Had they done this, I doubt we'd have ever seen another Tory government ever again. As it is now though, with the Tories' hands firmly on the levers of power and hence their ability to undo all of Labour's 'loaded dice' constituency changes et al, I believe our good long term prospects are secured. Ironically, much to the expense of the Lib Dems themselves).

But he hasn't joined a Conservative government, that would imply he had become a Conservative. He's formed a coalition so it isn't a Conservative government anymore, is it.

I think a lot of the haters forget that the lib dems have the power to abstain on policies that they don't agree with.

I don't think I did say he's joined a Conservative government, did I?

I think he was replying to Grim...'s post. I don't think that Nick Clegg was assuring people that he wouldn't actually join the Conservative party was he?

I guess you could say if he personally had taken a ministerial post in a Conservative administration, then he would have "joined a Conservative government". However, he's help form a coalition, so he hasn't. Sort of.

I'll continue quoting a bit:

So, er, yeah. It's going to take some really creative reading to get him out of that.

I voted LibDem, by the way, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them

Also

And I too think this coalition may well have done the Lib Dems a lot more harm than good.

On the other hand, what is the point in being in politics if you don't ever have the chance to exercise power (or be able to stop it being used)? Yes, sitting in the tiny corner of the Commons speaking truth to power for years is all well and good for the soul, but at least the Lib Dems are now in a position, albeit as a junior partner, to influence stuff. I would love to be a fly on the wall on private meetings between the various ministerial teams as they thrash out a common position.

The coalition has, paradoxically, massively harmed the standing of the Lib Dems, but massively brought forward their agenda and their policies.

Regarding the LD status and ability to abstain etc, it's worth noting that some of their MPs have openly opposed these Tory policies, but there is ostensibly a deal that the Tories (who hold the main power, and quite rightly so as easily the most popular party) get the backing on certain areas in return for letting the LDs get their way in other places.

I potentially disagree with the point that it has done the libdems more harm than good. We don't know what would have happened if they hadnt joined the coalition.

I'd suggest that a minority government would put the country in a far worse position, regardless of who was the biggest player due to inability to proceed anything at all. A period of stagnation when that is the absolutely last thing we need. And all the way through, Tory and labour pointing at them and saying to the electorate that if they had been brave and made a choice, we wouldnt be in this mess. The result would have been an even more discredited party and a probable Tory majority at the next election.

This was the worst election result possible for them in some ways, and clegg probably weighed up my scenario above in deciding whether to join.

Now that complaint I can at least understand. Unfortunately the people who shout loudest about the issues tend to declare Clegg et al as Antichrists and then froth at the mouth and not make any sensible points.

Ultimately though, the Cons narrowly missed out on a full mandate, and were clearly the most popular choice. The 'democratic' thing to do would be to let them more or less run the show, with someone else who was voted for on hand to temper the 'worst' of their brand of government?

The only other option was to have a minority government, in which the LDs would doubtless have had a smaller influence (and indeed they should have a smaller influence... they're only the 3rd most popular party) and which would very probably have led to another election, during which time no progress would be made, and then we'd end up (speculating here, admittedly) with a full Tory government and the people moaning about Clegg would probably have exploded.

Andy bear. For some reason I didn't realise you started the thread. Was this prompted by the torrent of effluent from Ammie yesterday?

You complain about tabloid politics then compare politics to pasta and on twitter, a party invite you reneged on to go to Ireland. Are you being ironic or, you know, that other thing?



I've no evidence to the contrary. Maybe if you find you can't deliver on your pledges you should step aside and lt someone else have a go at delivering on theirs?

I agree with everything you've said Curiosity and was going to jump in on the debate on Twitter today but didn't because the character limit would have made it almost impossible to make points like yours.
I also agree with Craster, I really don't think the Lib Dems will recover from this for a long time.

Also, just to say again a point I made a few times around the time of the general election. I strongly believe that if the Lib Dems had not formed a coalition with the Tories we would have ended up with another election and ultimately I believe we would have ended up with a Tory majority, albeit a small one. I much prefer having a Conservative led coalition tempered by the Lib Dems than a Tory majority.

Almost entirely.



Well, that and 2/3rds of Government Yard's tweets just being about how Nick Clegg is the nastiest, most evillest person in the whole wide world!

You do realise the Tories did exactly the same things, right? We covered this before: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5544&p=409224&hilit=boundaries#p409224 (ALERT ALERT SIX MONTH OLD POST ALERT)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sensible? I'm maybe trying to dumb it down to the level at which the Clegg-haters are debating it. I don't live in this black-and-white world where any change in opinion for whatever reason is immediately a source of evil, no matter what the mitigating circumstances. Must be a strange place to live.



That's just pretty silly though, isn't it? You've entirely ignored my answer to this, which I've already given. It's a coalition. It has to involve give and take. You seem to be implying that Clegg should have overruled Cameron and cut tuition fees. Perhaps he should have done it whilst riding a unicorn and shitting out gold nuggets?

Oh absolutely Doc, I know that.

(Personally I don't think any party should be allowed to do this & should be determined by an independent body, but there we are).

I think too many people have overestimated how left-leaning the LibDems were in the first place. Yes, they are partially descended from the SDP, and thus Labour; but they've always had strong classical liberal streak too, they sit with the centre-right in the European parliament, and in local government tend to be much closer to the Tories than Labour.

Still, even I'm surprised how quickly the Westminster party as a whole has moved from social-liberalism to conservative liberalism.

All that means is that things change. If every politician was held to every statement they'd ever made, we'd be burning witches still. Or something.

Events, dear boy.

Doesn't that sort of thinking make it impossible for anyone to lie?

I think the loudest complaints are coming from those who voted LD as some kind of protest - either against ToryScum^TM (toffs and shitbags) or NuLab(R) (economy destroyers and warmongerers). These people ducked the issue and voted for someone they never thought would have a chance to make a difference. Now the LDs have this chance and have grasped it with both hands, they're complaining because their 57 MPs aren't dictating 100% of their policies to the Conservative's 303. These people need to get real and grow up.

Vote Green or UKIP next time, eh? It should be a safer bet. I agree with Nick and Andy Bear.

No.

"Lying" is a deliberate untruth. Holding an opinion on something in one year and changing your mind the next is not lying.

I was reading about this in The Times, that lapdog of Murdoch's intentions. Anyway, tehre wasa good bit in it about how politicians change to their environment, rather than the other way around, and how that's a good thing. And stuff. Unless I dreamt it. Which would be odd.

Now whose lying? The small number regarding Clegg are either links to other people's opinions or comedy tweets. You could always just not follow me if it gets your knickers in a twist.

That was comedic hyperbole!



You do seem to tweet about him a fair bit, though I might only notice it because I'm a Lib Dem.

That's guilt, that is.

Who's.

LibCon>Con>LabRainbow>Lab

... and since these were the only really plausible results from the election then I think (as I did back in May) we got the best possible result.

I voted LibDem and, after this 6 months of insight into LibCon, I'd do it again.

I think so, yes. I'd also say the majority of these things I do occasionally retweet are little more than comedic hyperbole.

I think I would have been less likely to vote LD at the next election if they'd said 'nah, don't fancy it' after all the concessions they got out of the Tories. I mean, how can you take a Party seriously if they turn down the chance to govern? Any true Lib Dem voter should be able to see that a disproportionate amount of their policies are being implemented compared with the number of MPs in the House. What's better, to compromise and have some of your policies implemented, or to languish in opposition for another 90 years?

You didn't. I was responded to MammoGrim...'s post

I take the point, but that does need to be balanced against "helping the Tories get a fuckton of their objectionable shit through".

But the alternative was, in all likelihood, being 'they shovel it all though without any concessions'.

It's not a perfect government by any stretch of the imagination... but I think it's better for having the LibDems in there.

More people voted Tory than anyone else. So that's not unreasonable.

By and large, I agree with everything Myp has said in this thread.

If we're going that road, more people didn't vote Tory than did, by a long way.

Ah, soz mate.

Cobblers, as they wouldn't have had the votes for anything, as a minority government.



Better than it would have been had it been a Lib/Lab/rainbow kiss coalition?

But that's what a democracy's all about. I don't like the Tories or their policies anymore than you do, but they won the most seats. The alternative was a minority Tory government which would have struggled to push anything through and further destabilised the markets. We'd probably have had a 2nd general election by now, which the Tories would have most probably won outright.

I know which outcome I prefer.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.

Labour were a laughing stock. If Nick Clegg had kept Labour in power it would really have hard to legitimise it, especially with the massive swing away from them in the polls. Plus it would have been much less stable due to relying on minority party MPs. What we have is the best (or least worst) outcome for the country, I firmly believe that.