Clegg accusing the Tories of breaking the contract

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212[/url

Will he and his boys walk away now? They hold the balance of power and walking away could be seen as them doing what they should have been doing from day 1, holding back the excesses of the Tories.

Personally I think, as I always have done, that Clegg et al like the trappings of power too much to leave, so they'll stick it out and moan till the election.

Not until after the Olympic bounce has subsided.

I always expected them to part company 12-18 months before the next election. If they break now the Lib Dems will have gained nothing for all of the pain they've endured. If things did start to pick up before the election they would get no electoral credit at all. They will not have a platform on which to fight the next election, will never be able to present the case for coalition government. Might as well pack up.

Their chances dont look a great deal better if they stay in the coalition, but its the only chance they've got.

If the Lib Dems do break away, surely it just consigns them to the scrap heap earlier?

Labour have already won the next election as the vast majority of people are stupid and just blame the world's woes on the current Government, without realising who caused it.

Minority coalition partners will generally be better off staying put as long as possible, as the chances of them holding the balance of power after another election are low. OTOH the Tories would dump the Libs in a second if they didn't need them.

Here in Aus we have Greens and independents propping up a hugely unpopular government. They will not walk away no matter what, because after the next election the chances are they will be out of power completely, whichever side wins. In fact if anything it could turn out to be a poisoned chalice, because the independents will be very vulnerable at the next election for supporting the government regardless.

Lords reform was a bizarre policy which was on the radar just to keep the Lib Dems happy. It was simply not a priority for the overwhelming majority of ordinary voters, and Cameron only pushed it so hard to compensate Clegg for his stuffing in the AV referendum.

True, Labour have been polling well. But I think their 'real' lead is probably substantially less than figures suggest. Let's be honest, they are ahead by default. The prospect of Ed Milliband in No 10 is frightening, and I think people will realise that as the next election draws nearer.

Yes, the economy is still screwed, and will probably be for the lifetime of this parliament and the next, regardless of who is in power.

As far as I'm aware, greedy bankers aren't standing in the next election

The Lib Dems have come across as being more bothered about furthering their political ends through electoral and constitutional reform than issues that really concern people. More likely to fall out over AV than tuition fees. More concerned over H of L reform than tax changes. They seem to have completely lost their way.

I think the LibDems will feel a "principled" break before the end of the full term may allow them to shore up their core support. If they do nothing they will be finished. So they may well break, but not yet.

People do realise who caused it, certainly wasn't any elected member who gave loans to people they couldn't afford, played pass the parcel with bundles of debt that they had no chance of recouping, lie and cheated exchange rates or p**sed it all up against the wall on bonuses and huge salaries.

Granted previous governments have made mistakes but to blame them completely for the current mess is crass stupidity.

Obviously it was a good day to try and bury bad news, this plus the Mensch story coming out in relatively short order.

It's about time the Lib Dems grew a pair and realised that they hold a substantial amount of power over the Tories and started using it. They've already sold their soul but maybe they can do a tiny amount of good now to counteract the waves and mountains of utter sh|te they've helped the Tories push through.

I think even they know that the numbers of votes they got in 2010 and could no longer count on in the foreseeable future are immense.

They attracted a large student following on their promise of no increase in and hopefully abolition of tuition fees, that will evaporate, no matter how much they try an explain it is "fairer".

Their tokenism over the Health & Social Care Bill has also lost them massive numbers of previous voters, many life-long liberals, who would struggle to reconcile any further support.

The tactical voters, like me, who knowing that in many areas (particularly in the South West), a Labour vote really is a wasted vote and voted LibDem as the lesser of two evils. Even without boundary changes and notwithstanding whatever other misery this bunch of misfits can visit on us in the run-up to 2015, many current LibDem seats will revert to Conservative.

As for the coalition, I can see it running its course. For it not to do so would be seen as a massive failure on both parties. I hope it does endure because Labour is nowhere near ready for either an election and certainly not government. Labour need to start coming up with alternatives to the worst excesses of this bunch. Such as a reversal of the H&SC Bill, an alternative to the likes of Atos and a driving back of free-market economics in the provisions of healthcare, welfare and education.

The LibDems may well lose their leader but Clegg will remain as DPM.

I wasn't aware we could vote on bankers and on a world financial collapse.
Oh wait don't tell me you belive the hype about Labour being able to control the entire world and that they were the ones who decided to slash and burn and strangle any hope of a recovery.
Right?

So what was it that the Lib Dems have got out of the coalition agreement? Oh yes, silly me... ministerial salaries.

As a life long Liberal/LD supporter, they've a lot of recovery work to do to get my vote back.

Been lied to too much, and for nothing.

The Lib Dems are a small party so its obvious they have to be a secondary partner in a coalition government and end up compromising on their principles.

However the Lib Dems want a PR system which generally produces coalitions and so their argument for that is that coalitions work.

So they cannot just take the principled stance and walk away else it destroys their own argument.

They won't walk away and I fully expect yet another u-turn from Camoron, especially when you take a look at the maths:

There are 23 LibDem ministers and if a minister votes against the government, he is expected to resign (before he gets sacked). Three of the ministers are peers, so there are 20 LibDems that either forego their ministerial privileges (and salaries), vote with the government (that wouldn't be popular with their constituency parties) or the simple solution is - they abstain.

So let's look at the maths now:

646 MPs (discounting the speaker & deputies)

305 Conservative
57 LibDems
254 Labour
30 Others

Of the 3 others, 8 are from the DUP, who usually side with the tories

So 305 (con) + 8 (dup) = 313

37 (libdem) + 254 (lab) + 22 (others) = 313

That's assuming that all Conservatives vote with the government, certainly not a cast-iron guarantee, given that some will be in danger of deselection due to merged constituencies. It also assumes that no LibDem minister has the balls to vote against and forego his ministerial bonus, in favour of keeping his constituents happy.

I have also not included the probable Labour gain in Corby, now Mensch has decided to sling her hook

It all becomes too close to call and rather than risk a defeat, I reckon Camoron will suddenly find that there won't be sufficient time in this parliament to debate the issue.

The problem is this is exactly what they didn't do. They were so determined to try and get their holy grails of PR and House of Lords reform they were prepared to wave through hugely unpopular Tory polices. As Cibaman mentioned earlier more concerned with constitutional changes than other policies that the people are bothered about.



If they wanted to convince the voters that coalitions work then they should have put their constitutional aspirations to one side as soon as they saw the proposed NHS changes. Putting a block on that would not only have been sensible in its own right but would also have made a far better case of for a coalition government.

Stopping that bill as soon as the details emerged could hardly be called reneging on the coalition agreement. It may have cost them any attempt at getting legislation through on constitutional reform but it would have been in both their political interests as well as the countries to block it.

It is also apparent that coalition government as the Tories and Lib Dems crafted it was simply to mean the Tories as senior partners got the majority of their flag ship legislation through and the Lib Dems would get much less of theirs through. A kind of 80/20 split if you like. I don't think that is what voters expected a coalition to work like. The fact most Tory policies got through and key Lib Deb ones didn't just makes it look like a coalition government means you get a government of the major partner in all but name.

The fact both parties in the coalition have clearly pursued their own agendas under the smoke screen of being all very principled about forming a government to sort out the economic crisis doesn't make much of a case for coalitions either.

In any case aren't we stuck with this lot until 2015 as they did pass the act whereby we have fixed term parliaments and a government can't be voted out in a no confidence vote unless 55% of MP's vote it out (and the figures do not allow for that)?

I despise Cameron and everything he stands for, but he's fairly transparent in what he values.

Clegg, on the other hand, is far more despicable!

I don't think most voters, and possibly more importantly the UK media, understood anything at all about how a proper coalition works. Otherwise they wouldn't have been howling about how long it took to establish the existing deal.

A 'coalition' agreement thrashed out in 2 weeks of feverish post-election activity, with no preparatory talks between parties prior to the election, was always going to be deeply flawed. It [imight[/i have been made to work if the Lib Dems had displayed sufficient testicular fortitude, but sadly they just capitulated.

What excesses? You need to specify.

In any case aren't the 'Tories' spearheading an austerity policy?

There are all kinds of excesses, in the Tories case its an excess of cruelty and indifference to those who HAVE to do the suffering to pay for the obscene other 'excesses' of the bankers (mostly Tories and mates of Dave and Gideon).

Have you been living in a cave since May 2010?

What about the sell-off of the NHS?

What about the reduction in Working Tax Credits?

What about the reductions and restrictions on Housing Benefits (most of which is paid to those in work)

The re-assessment of DLA?

All aimed squarely at the most vulnerable in society, as is typical of any tory, ideologically-driven agenda.

This bunch are spending and borrowing more than Labour ever did. June saw the largest trade deficit since records began.

It's all Labour's fault - keep repeating the mantra

Clegg screwed it all up in the deal-making between the election and forming a government.

He had the whip-hand and could have held-out for an agreement where the LibDems would abstain on some tory policies in return for for which the tories could have agreed to abstain on some LibDem policies.
Instead he agreed to a 180 degree turn on policies against which he had been campaigning (the economy, student loans etc) and ended-up being wheeled out in front of the cameras to defend policy he had vehemently fought against in the election run-up.

For a guy who supposedly wanted a more proportional government, he was totally out of his depth when it came down to the sort of negotiations that would occur much more often under PR ... and, in the process, has scuppered several of the main aims of his party and the electability of several of his MPs for years to come ... and there's nowt he can do about it except sit and watch his party sink.

The worst LibDem leader for many a decade ... and that is saying something.

I think he meant all of them.


Yes, and delaying any recovery by about a decade.