Is Nick Clegg the Roy Tucker of Politics?

[french frank]

If we are not to replicate the disasters of the 1930s there has to be a change in representative politics, and one change would be for establishment parties not to be invariably gravitating to some centre ground (which has in fact appeared to move more to the right over the last 30 years).

Which is why the onus is on Labour (since the likelihood that a new left wing grouping can be successful is small). Or on the Liberal Democrats to go back to their social democratic/social liberal roots.

The conundrum, though, is that whatever one says about the effects of austerity, such a solution would not necessarily attract the support of the electorate.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

and the Liberal Democrats really had no mandate to do anything at all - their proposed manifesto was rejected decisively, which is why, arguably, they had no reason not to abandon it.

Where do conscience and principle come into this? The Lib-Dem MPs themselves were elected by people who had a significant measure of agreement with their manifesto. Of course, in a coalition a degree of give and take is essential, but it was the extent to which Cleggetcetera buried their principles to get a brief taste of political power (to prop up a party whom they had little in common with).

[french frank]

A manifesto is drawn up as a blueprint of what an elected government will do. What you seem to be saying is 'I voted for that manifesto, and the fact that 75% of those who voted didn't vote for it, doesn't matter: they should still keep faith with ME.' And in the same post you're saying that coalition requires a 'degree of give and take'. But not giving what I think is important because that's what I was supporting when I voted.

You have effectively written off the idea of PR with your argument if it means parties 'propping up' other parties with whom they have little in common. In other words, no matter how the electorate votes, you must only form some sort of alliance with a party with which you do have something in common. But much of the illiberal policy of the Labour government was no more something that the LDs had in common. The legacy of Blair's period in office hardly made it a party that LDs had much in common with. Clegg said he would talk with whichever party won the most seats. I think the coalition has been a disaster principally for the LDs - but faced with an indecisive election result how can you, one voter, be sure that any other course of action would have been any better?

Not having any sort of initial 'give and take' agreement would have meant stalemate. What policies might have been passed on the basis of opting for an issue-by-issue parliament?

[P. G. Tipps]

Where do conscience and principle come into this? The Lib-Dem MPs themselves were elected by people who had a significant measure of agreement with their manifesto. Of course, in a coalition a degree of give and take is essential, but it was the extent to which Cleggetcetera buried their principles to get a brief taste of political power (to prop up a party whom they had little in common with).

I can well understand your obvious hurt and disappointment, but aren't you ignoring the Lib Dem policies that these same people voted for and would never have come to fruition if it hadn't been for the same Mr Clegg & Colleagues agreeing to the Coalition?

Of course the LIb Dems had to compromise, but so did the Tories. It was a two-way process in both parties' interests and some would argue the country's as well.

Surely Mr Clegg should be congratulated by Lib Dem voters for his 'positives' (in their eyes) as well as being derided for his one big 'negative'?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Of course the LIb Dems had to compromise, but so did the Tories. It was a two-way process in both parties' interests and some would argue the country's as well.

A centre/left coalition with a right wing party might reasonably have trimmed extreme policies. Apart from putting a break on the reintroduction of fox-hunting, there seems to have been little evidence of the Lib-Dem influence at all in the major issues. Instead, the LDs supported the extreme policies of Gove and Osborne.
Apart from Vince Cable, who does make an effort to stand up to the bullies.

[MrGongGong]

Apart from putting a break on the reintroduction of fox-hunting, there seems to have been little evidence of the Lib-Dem influence at all in the major issues. Instead, the LDs supported the extreme policies of Gove and Osborne.
Apart from Vince Cable, who does make an effort to stand up to the bullies.

Quite
So the "we got Lib-Dem policies enacted" seems a bit of a fantasy narrative.

[P. G. Tipps]

A centre/left coalition with a right wing party might reasonably have trimmed extreme policies. Apart from putting a break on the reintroduction of fox-hunting, there seems to have been little evidence of the Lib-Dem influence at all in the major issues. Instead, the LDs supported the extreme policies of Gove and Osborne.
Apart from Vince Cable, who does make an effort to stand up to the bullies.

Well, the raising of the personal tax allowance to help the lower paid was not exactly a Tory aspiration and 'gay marriage' was certainly not an urgent measure endlessly talked about in the leafy shires and suburbs (and I suspect most other places). There has also been Lib Dem influence on Pension reform and Climate Change policies, I understand.

I stress again that I have no more time for the Liberal Democrats than any other political party, just attempting to strike a little bit of balance to counter the currently popular 'Clegg is useless and a liar/traitor' argument!

[french frank]

Well, the raising of the personal tax allowance to help the lower paid was not exactly a Tory aspiration and 'gay marriage' was certainly not an urgent measure endlessly talked about in the leafy shires and suburbs (and I suspect most other places). There has also been Lib Dem influence on Pension reform and Climate Change policies, I understand.

The pupil premium for schools with children from low income homes, the tying of raised tuition fees to the provision of additional bursaries and scholarships for applicants from the most disadvantaged backgrounds (now twice as likely to go to university as ten years ago, and paying less than previously) plus 1.25m more apprenticeships, childcare support, the green investment bank.

The 'compromise' depends on whether you want this to be 'trimming extreme policies' or whether it's the balancing act of introducing alternative benefits - whether the Tories get some of their policies through and the LibDems get some of theirs. But they blocked, for example, the plan to raise the inheritance tax threshold (intended as another tax benefit for the wealthy), the Gove plan for 'O' levels, the arbitrary power of bosses to sack employees ... It's rather like the lot of the sub-editor - no one ever knows what silly mistakes they've corrected because they don't appear in the paper.

[ahinton]

Well, the raising of the personal tax allowance to help the lower paid was not exactly a Tory aspiration

No, but then it's now being paraded by critics of both Tories and LibDems while still in coalition government - even more so since the most recent Tory party conference in which DC "pledged" to rise it again to £12,500 - as the excuse for decreasing income tax receipts at a time of decreasing unemployment and increasing employment, on the grounds that so much of the new employment is being taken up by the low-paid and so many self-employed sole trading businesses - some of which are run by previously unemployed people - are generating very small income tax revenues.

[french frank]

No, but then it's now being paraded by critics of both Tories and LibDems while still in coalition government - even more so since the most recent Tory party conference in which DC "pledged" to rise it again to £12,500 - as the excuse for decreasing income tax receipts at a time of decreasing unemployment and increasing employment, on the grounds that so much of the new employment is being taken up by the low-paid and so many self-employed sole trading businesses - some of which are run by previously unemployed people - are generating very small income tax revenues.

But I don't think that's a criticism of the policy in isolation, is it? but the overall effect - which could be improved by e.g. increasing the taxes on the wealthy. Which is where the bind comes for the Liberal Democrats: 'You've got your policy through - you can't expect to get us Tories to change ours as well.'

[ahinton]

But I don't think that's a criticism of the policy in isolation, is it?

Maybe not as such, but it still bears due consideration when the government of the day is supposedly exercising itself over means to reduce the deficit; the fact that http://citywire.co.uk/money/state-pe...tion-y/a770297 and http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-advi...k-tank/a777230 each illustrate the problem that the present climate of supposed increases in employment which nevertheless generate decreasing tax revenues is exacerbating a situation in which the funding of state retirement benefits might increasingly need to call upon income tax receipts; I don't see that extra taxes on the wealthy would go far to overcome that one!

I've long regarded the so-called "National Insurance Scheme" as the kind of state-sponsored Ponzi one that will one day collapse just as most such schemes eventually do, but a policy to take ever more of the lower paid out of the tax system altogether, whilst obviously laudable and to be welcomed, is bound to have its downside.

[french frank]

I don't see that extra taxes on the wealthy would go far to overcome that one!

Nor do I! Significant revenues are raised from the 'masses' - that is, the most numerous sections of society - not from the 'wealthy'.

But what we see (it seems to me) is that coalitions in this country (mainly due to the alignment of the parties) is possibly not workable at all unless the electorate gives a 'clear' mandate to closely aligned parties.

But 'trimming extreme policies' is an illusion: and the diabolical tuition fees fiasco is simply one more example of that. It's not: We want a £9,000 increase - We'll offer £3,000 - How about £6,000? - Not a penny more than £4,500. The Agreement didn't work like that. It was: You get your £9,000, in return we want considerable benefits which increase the chances of those whose background has discouraged them from even applying to go to university.

[ahinton]

Nor do I! Significant revenues are raised from the 'masses' - that is, the most numerous sections of society - not from the 'wealthy'.

Quite - and not just because the wealthiest are usually better able and motivated to plan their tax affairs to their advantage, either.

But what we see (it seems to me) is that coalitions in this country (mainly due to the alignment of the parties) is possibly not workable at all unless the electorate gives a 'clear' mandate to closely aligned parties.

But how can this country - or rather its electorate - give any such mandate when FPTP requires each of its voting members to slect a single candidate rather than a list of preferences? - and even if it did that, I still don't see how any such "clear mandate" could possibly emerge.

[french frank]

But how can this country - or rather its electorate - give any such mandate when FPTP requires each of its voting members to slect a single candidate rather than a list of preferences? - and even if it did that, I still don't see how any such "clear mandate" could possibly emerge.

Accidentally, starting with the party that won the most seats? UKIP and the Tories might be a better match, or Labour and the Lib Dems/Greens. But it still centres on the old Tory-Labour division.

[ahinton]

Accidentally, starting with the party that won the most seats? UKIP and the Tories might be a better match, or Labour and the Lib Dems/Greens. But it still centres on the old Tory-Labour division.

To the extent that chance is what it is, be it music or politics(!), I cannot see any "clear mandate" for anything emerging from anywhere by accident, can you? My concern here, however, is that if the result of next May is, as I anticiapte, anything other than two parties with most of the seats between them but no overall majority, it won't be a simple question of which of the also-rans can carve out an agreement with either in order to create an overall majority in coalition - it will likely be a rather more complex argument with more theoretical (if not practical) possibilities than this.