Snap General Election called

[Digby]

And we're back at Cheltenham today, an event which will be more concerned about the photos of Gordon Elliott sat on a dead horse than the involvement of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum in their industry, showing at minimum horse racing isn't that fussed about violence against women and girls and to follow a previous comment will not partner much with the government on their strategy around violence targeted at women and girls, but sit on a dead horse and they'll come for you.

[Zhivago]

Labour have a real problem. Starmer is plummeting in the ratings. See page 15.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... public.pdf

[Which Tyler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56361599

Covid: The inside story of the government's battle against the virus

[Puja]

Labour have a real problem. Starmer is plummeting in the ratings. See page 15.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... public.pdf

Page 16 is hilarious: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed Davey is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

Satisfied: 15%
Dissatisfied: 28%
Don't Know: 57%

Sums him up really.

Puja

[Digby]

Labour have a real problem. Starmer is plummeting in the ratings. See page 15.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... public.pdf

Page 16 is hilarious: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed Davey is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

Satisfied: 15%
Dissatisfied: 28%
Don't Know: 57%

Sums him up really.

Puja

Heh, the Lib Dems are busy making themselves trans acceptable. Really cracking on with the sort of thinking that's going to make them and the Greens still ever more irrelevant, on the of chance the average voter even hears about it. But I shit you not there's some thinking this is going to draw in the youth crowd, make them look active as a party on social media and start the long climb back.

[Zhivago]

Labour have a real problem. Starmer is plummeting in the ratings. See page 15.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... public.pdf

Page 16 is hilarious: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed Davey is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

Satisfied: 15%
Dissatisfied: 28%
Don't Know: 57%

Sums him up really.

Puja

Heh, the Lib Dems are busy making themselves trans acceptable. Really cracking on with the sort of thinking that's going to make them and the Greens still ever more irrelevant, on the of chance the average voter even hears about it. But I shit you not there's some thinking this is going to draw in the youth crowd, make them look active as a party on social media and start the long climb back.

That's such a road to nowhere, they also haven't a clue, clearly.

[Sandydragon]

Labour have a real problem. Starmer is plummeting in the ratings. See page 15.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... public.pdf

Page 16 is hilarious: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed Davey is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

Satisfied: 15%
Dissatisfied: 28%
Don't Know: 57%

Sums him up really.

Puja

Heh, the Lib Dems are busy making themselves trans acceptable. Really cracking on with the sort of thinking that's going to make them and the Greens still ever more irrelevant, on the of chance the average voter even hears about it. But I shit you not there's some thinking this is going to draw in the youth crowd, make them look active as a party on social media and start the long climb back.

The liberals have been trying to workout why they exist since 1916 and there’s no sign yet that they really have a clue.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Page 16 is hilarious: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed Davey is doing his job as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

Satisfied: 15%
Dissatisfied: 28%
Don't Know: 57%

Sums him up really.

Puja

Heh, the Lib Dems are busy making themselves trans acceptable. Really cracking on with the sort of thinking that's going to make them and the Greens still ever more irrelevant, on the of chance the average voter even hears about it. But I shit you not there's some thinking this is going to draw in the youth crowd, make them look active as a party on social media and start the long climb back.

The liberals have been trying to workout why they exist since 1916 and there’s no sign yet that they really have a clue.

They occasionally find it. During the 00s the joint desire of the two main parties to start an illegal war pushed them to a position of relevance and only FPTP prevented them from holding a significant chunk of parliament. Clegg destroyed all that.

[Sandydragon]

Heh, the Lib Dems are busy making themselves trans acceptable. Really cracking on with the sort of thinking that's going to make them and the Greens still ever more irrelevant, on the of chance the average voter even hears about it. But I shit you not there's some thinking this is going to draw in the youth crowd, make them look active as a party on social media and start the long climb back.

The liberals have been trying to workout why they exist since 1916 and there’s no sign yet that they really have a clue.

They occasionally find it. During the 00s the joint desire of the two main parties to start an illegal war pushed them to a position of relevance and only FPTP prevented them from holding a significant chunk of parliament. Clegg destroyed all that.

Clegg discovered that grown up politics meant compromises and took the only option open to him (aside from a a supply relationship with the Tories). Many of their supporters didn’t understand that and were used to the purity of opposition and couldn’t handle government.

[Digby]

I really liked Clegg, still do. The odd thing about him for me is that even for a political type he's hopeless at telling jokes in public. Actually given the circumstances the Cameron/Clegg government was about the best run I've seen in my lifetime, and as a consequence they were hammered by the public, go figure.

[Puja]

The liberals have been trying to workout why they exist since 1916 and there’s no sign yet that they really have a clue.

They occasionally find it. During the 00s the joint desire of the two main parties to start an illegal war pushed them to a position of relevance and only FPTP prevented them from holding a significant chunk of parliament. Clegg destroyed all that.

Clegg discovered that grown up politics meant compromises and took the only option open to him (aside from a a supply relationship with the Tories). Many of their supporters didn’t understand that and were used to the purity of opposition and couldn’t handle government.

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

[Digby]

They occasionally find it. During the 00s the joint desire of the two main parties to start an illegal war pushed them to a position of relevance and only FPTP prevented them from holding a significant chunk of parliament. Clegg destroyed all that.

Clegg discovered that grown up politics meant compromises and took the only option open to him (aside from a a supply relationship with the Tories). Many of their supporters didn’t understand that and were used to the purity of opposition and couldn’t handle government.

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

[Sandydragon]

Clegg discovered that grown up politics meant compromises and took the only option open to him (aside from a a supply relationship with the Tories). Many of their supporters didn’t understand that and were used to the purity of opposition and couldn’t handle government.

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

The idea that 50% of students would go to university was always just a New Labour gimmick. We need a properly thought out higher education system where those who are bright enough to go to university (regardless of background) can do so. Most will benefit more from an apprenticeship and can probably pick up a degree later whilst working. This idea that most young people should spend 3 years (or more) running up huge debts which they struggle to pay off on graduation because their degree is worthless is negligence writ large.

[Puja]

Clegg discovered that grown up politics meant compromises and took the only option open to him (aside from a a supply relationship with the Tories). Many of their supporters didn’t understand that and were used to the purity of opposition and couldn’t handle government.

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

The Lords reform was part of the coalition agreement, IIRC. The Conservatives reneged on whipping their MPs because they were annoyed at something/looking for an excuse and so it didn't pass.

I completely accept that removing tuition fees was never on the table, but Clegg was an absolute fool to agree to voting to increase them after basing his entire campaign around a) I'm not like those other politicians, I'm honest, and b) the Lib Dems stand against tuition fees and will always, always oppose them. Cut him off at the knees in one fell swoop.

Puja

[Digby]

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

The Lords reform was part of the coalition agreement, IIRC. The Conservatives reneged on whipping their MPs because they were annoyed at something/looking for an excuse and so it didn't pass.

I completely accept that removing tuition fees was never on the table, but Clegg was an absolute fool to agree to voting to increase them after basing his entire campaign around a) I'm not like those other politicians, I'm honest, and b) the Lib Dems stand against tuition fees and will always, always oppose them. Cut him off at the knees in one fell swoop.

Puja

Clearly the Lib Dem policy switch went over very badly with the public, though as was noted at the time it was in reality a smaller thing than Cameron going back on no top down reform of the NHS, and Cameron only gained support after a bigger volte face, so it's not obvious in advance what you'll pay a price for, they took a swing that people would accept the trade because it was a coalition government not a Lib Dem one, they weren't themselves opposed to it given the leadership thought the policy daft, hindsight made fools of them.

Cameron did bail on whipping the MPs on Lords reform once it was obvious to him he was going to have a problem and didn't want to lose. Cameron thought he'd be able to get back to the issue from a stronger position but was never able to do so, indeed one might observe it showed the crazy lunatic wing of the CPP they would be able to push on other issues too, partly because they were/are insane, and because Cameron was to them a bit of a wishy washy EU loving lefty who whilst a useful tool to get them back into power wasn't one of their own, and so for all it scuppered the Lords reform, and fractured further the Clegg/Cameron dynamic it also put holes in Cameron's leadership he was never able to recover from. Ed Miliband was an important figure in this too, he wasn't entirely wrong about some of the procedural concerns in legislating time for the bill, but his directive for Labour MPs to vote against a bill he would have broadly supported allowed the Tory MPs to have a platform to build on, had Miliband supported a bill he basically agreed with proceeding who knows what would have happened next. That's perhaps fanciful because I think the rise of the ERG, the rise of UKIP and so on was coming almost whatever.

[Digby]

Clegg got properly fucked by more experienced politicians. I don't blame him for compromising and working with the Conservatives; I blame him for compromising on a major piece of their policy that was a major driver of their vote and doing something which he'd specifically and categorically stated that he would not do pre-election. I also blame him for failing entirely to get his 30 pieces of silver's worth by allowing the AV referendum to be arranged immediately after him voting for tuition fees and allowing his coalition partners to turn it into a popularity vote on Clegg. I also blame him for losing control of the coalition and allowing the Conservatives to renege on supporting the reform of the House of Lords.

Supporting the Conservatives would've been forgiveable if they'd accomplished something. As it was, they enabled austerity and increased tuition fees, with the only part of their manifesto coming through being the raised basic tax threshold, which the Conservatives promptly adopted as their policy and their success.

Puja

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

The idea that 50% of students would go to university was always just a New Labour gimmick. We need a properly thought out higher education system where those who are bright enough to go to university (regardless of background) can do so. Most will benefit more from an apprenticeship and can probably pick up a degree later whilst working. This idea that most young people should spend 3 years (or more) running up huge debts which they struggle to pay off on graduation because their degree is worthless is negligence writ large.

There's little support for such thinking though. People want their children to go, and they want someone else to pay for it.

I've noted before the number of markers we're checking off that having us running 20-30 years behind Greece for being an economic basket case is both alarming and amusing.

[Puja]

Worth noting Clegg and other party leaders around at the time didn't want the tuition fees policy, it was a conference idea that Clegg and others never worked out how to pay for. As with many Lib Dem ideas the idea is you never have to worry how to make them reality, faced with having to account for it they were in my estimation only too happy to drop something they never wanted. I do have a solution to the problem of funding universities, bin off a huge number of universities, something like 50% now attend them which means by definition some bang average students are going, which beyond being expensive is wasteful. As ever I'd struggle to get a loyal dog to vote for me with such popular thinking. Likewise my idea to (sort of) bin GPs has never really found an audience

Not sure what he was supposed to do as Lib Dem leader to stop Conservative and Labour MPs voting against the Lords reform. It'd be far more reasonable to blame Clegg for the failure to reform the Commons, the number of MPs and the numbers in each constituency, that's something which should have happened but the Lib Dems pulled the rug from under because they were pissed off about the AV bollocks

The Lords reform was part of the coalition agreement, IIRC. The Conservatives reneged on whipping their MPs because they were annoyed at something/looking for an excuse and so it didn't pass.

I completely accept that removing tuition fees was never on the table, but Clegg was an absolute fool to agree to voting to increase them after basing his entire campaign around a) I'm not like those other politicians, I'm honest, and b) the Lib Dems stand against tuition fees and will always, always oppose them. Cut him off at the knees in one fell swoop.

Puja

Clearly the Lib Dem policy switch went over very badly with the public, though as was noted at the time it was in reality a smaller thing than Cameron going back on no top down reform of the NHS, and Cameron only gained support after a bigger volte face, so it's not obvious in advance what you'll pay a price for, they took a swing that people would accept the trade because it was a coalition government not a Lib Dem one, they weren't themselvesopposed to it given the leadership thought the policy daft, hindsight made fools of them.

I think the difference is that no-one votes for the Conservatives because they're impressed by their personal honesty and virtue. Clegg won power for the Lib Dems based almost entirely on his personal brand and that brand involved him saying "We will never vote for tuition fees" on several public occasions.

Puja

[Digby]

The Lords reform was part of the coalition agreement, IIRC. The Conservatives reneged on whipping their MPs because they were annoyed at something/looking for an excuse and so it didn't pass.

I completely accept that removing tuition fees was never on the table, but Clegg was an absolute fool to agree to voting to increase them after basing his entire campaign around a) I'm not like those other politicians, I'm honest, and b) the Lib Dems stand against tuition fees and will always, always oppose them. Cut him off at the knees in one fell swoop.

Puja

Clearly the Lib Dem policy switch went over very badly with the public, though as was noted at the time it was in reality a smaller thing than Cameron going back on no top down reform of the NHS, and Cameron only gained support after a bigger volte face, so it's not obvious in advance what you'll pay a price for, they took a swing that people would accept the trade because it was a coalition government not a Lib Dem one, they weren't themselvesopposed to it given the leadership thought the policy daft, hindsight made fools of them.

I think the difference is that no-one votes for the Conservatives because they're impressed by their personal honesty and virtue. Clegg won power for the Lib Dems based almost entirely on his personal brand and that brand involved him saying "We will never vote for tuition fees" on several public occasions.

Puja

I don't disagree the Lib Dems are being held to entirely different standards to broken commitments from the Tories, or indeed from Labour. I know people who will now only vote Tory because of the Lib Dem broken pledge, and they're not remotely perturbed by that double standard.

That said they didn't do well in the 2010 election just because of the pledge on tuition fees. The party built itself up from a long time back starting under Ashdown's leadership:

18% of the votes in 1992 for 22 seats
17% of the votes in 1997 for 46 seats
18% of the seats in 2001 for 52 seats (by now under Kennedy)
22% of the votes in 2005 for 62 seats
23% of the votes in 2010 for 57 seats

So you could argue the Lib Dem pledge actually cost them 5 seats in the first place, though that would be unwise because many factors were at play beyond tertiary eduction funding. You could I suppose also claim for all they lost seats in the 2010 election that the tuition fees pledge garnered an extra 1% or so of the overall vote.

Basically over many years, and probably driven by local government efforts as much as the charismatic leadership of Ashdown and Kennedy the party was gaining around a fifth of the votes for nothing like a fifth of the seats under FPP. That charismatic drive was continued under Clegg, I wonder of anyone now wishes Chris Huhne had beaten Clegg to the leadership, certainly since Clegg they haven't gone for charismatic leaders, and that too comes with issues.

For all I think it a misleading narrative the pledge is what put the party into power because it ignores so much else I certainly accept the broken pledge on tuition fees has destroyed their number of seats in the HoC, and they've dropped from around a fifth of votes to less than a tenth, comfortably less, and a worse showing still in actual seats. Still it's an in interesting narrative conveyed by the media on the back of just one issue that they only grew into the position that Clegg undermined because of their tuition fees pledge, a narrative put forward by Labour and Tory supporting media that does seem to overlook the reality of where the party came from but has become both accepted dogma and something of a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't recall other instances of a party gaining an extra 1% of the vote for a pledge which they broke, and all parties break pledges, doing anything like this to other parties.

But it is what it is, they'll either find a way to deal with it or continue to fail. There's no easy or obvious path for a moderate social democratic party right now, especially one willing to compromise. The electorate is keener on tribalism, almost we looked at the Clegg/Cameron partnership and said you know what, we'd rather have cooperation like they have in the Northern Ireland Assembly, quick, send for Arlene Foster

[Puja]

Clearly the Lib Dem policy switch went over very badly with the public, though as was noted at the time it was in reality a smaller thing than Cameron going back on no top down reform of the NHS, and Cameron only gained support after a bigger volte face, so it's not obvious in advance what you'll pay a price for, they took a swing that people would accept the trade because it was a coalition government not a Lib Dem one, they weren't themselvesopposed to it given the leadership thought the policy daft, hindsight made fools of them.

I think the difference is that no-one votes for the Conservatives because they're impressed by their personal honesty and virtue. Clegg won power for the Lib Dems based almost entirely on his personal brand and that brand involved him saying "We will never vote for tuition fees" on several public occasions.

Puja

I don't disagree the Lib Dems are being held to entirely different standards to broken commitments from the Tories, or indeed from Labour. I know people who will now only vote Tory because of the Lib Dem broken pledge, and they're not remotely perturbed by that double standard.

That said they didn't do well in the 2010 election just because of the pledge on tuition fees. The party built itself up from a long time back starting under Ashdown's leadership:

18% of the votes in 1992 for 22 seats
17% of the votes in 1997 for 46 seats
18% of the seats in 2001 for 52 seats (by now under Kennedy)
22% of the votes in 2005 for 62 seats
23% of the votes in 2010 for 57 seats

So you could argue the Lib Dem pledge actually cost them 5 seats in the first place, though that would be unwise because many factors were at play beyond tertiary eduction funding. You could I suppose also claim for all they lost seats in the 2010 election that the tuition fees pledge garnered an extra 1% or so of the overall vote.

Basically over many years, and probably driven by local government efforts as much as the charismatic leadership of Ashdown and Kennedy the party was gaining around a fifth of the votes for nothing like a fifth of the seats under FPP. That charismatic drive was continued under Clegg, I wonder of anyone now wishes Chris Huhne had beaten Clegg to the leadership, certainly since Clegg they haven't gone for charismatic leaders, and that too comes with issues.

For all I think it a misleading narrative the pledge is what put the party into power because it ignores so much else I certainly accept the broken pledge on tuition fees has destroyed their number of seats in the HoC, and they've dropped from around a fifth of votes to less than a tenth, comfortably less, and a worse showing still in actual seats. Still it's an in interesting narrative conveyed by the media on the back of just one issue that they only grew into the position that Clegg undermined because of their tuition fees pledge, a narrative put forward by Labour and Tory supporting media that does seem to overlook the reality of where the party came from but has become both accepted dogma and something of a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't recall other instances of a party gaining an extra 1% of the vote for a pledge which they broke, and all parties break pledges, doing anything like this to other parties.

But it is what it is, they'll either find a way to deal with it or continue to fail. There's no easy or obvious path for a moderate social democratic party right now, especially one willing to compromise. The electorate is keener on tribalism, almost we looked at the Clegg/Cameron partnership and said you know what, we'd rather have cooperation like they have in the Northern Ireland Assembly, quick, send for Arlene Foster

Bolded bit is a contender for understatement of the century.

You make a fair point that it wasn't just tuition fees that got them to power - I think you're right that it's fairer to say that breaking it lost them power, rather than the promise gained them power. I'd still say Clegg is a muppet who got utterly mugged off in the negotiations by only having one policy achievement in exchange for supporting austerity and losing any chance of future Lib Dem power. What they lost was not worth raising the basic rate of tax.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sorry guys, looks like I set off a Clegg bomb in this thread.

[Digby]

Bolded bit is a contender for understatement of the century.

You make a fair point that it wasn't just tuition fees that got them to power - I think you're right that it's fairer to say that breaking it lost them power, rather than the promise gained them power. I'd still say Clegg is a muppet who got utterly mugged off in the negotiations by only having one policy achievement in exchange for supporting austerity and losing any chance of future Lib Dem power. What they lost was not worth raising the basic rate of tax.

Puja

Maybe they got done over, well they did get somewhat done over, but they were the minority party in government and by a substantial margin. They shouldn't have had their views win out on most if any issues.

What Clegg was is a leader without a party. I suppose you could almost say he wasn't a leader because he didn't lead them anywhere, he just happened to be the supposed boss. The wider party wasn't really with Clegg on taxes, on tuition, on..., though they did do along for the ride because to begin with power is intoxicating, because they did manage to do some good, and because they thought compromise politics might be the new norm, if only they'd known.

In some ways the Lib Dems are the hardest party to lead, we go from the socialists who don't for a number of reasons like Labour and/or the unions, the sandal wearing greens, some of the woke, to centrists, through to full on free market thinkers who consider for societal safeguards you need more regulation and state activity than the Tories go for. All the parties are broad churches but the Lib Dems almost go the full spectrum, which means they need a charismatic leader to hold the party together and one who happens to be the right fit at the right time in the public zeitgeist when most the public pay very little attention to news generally and certainly not politics meaning nuance is dead in the water, a coherent plan easily loses to Get Brexit Done or Build Back Better.

[Puja]

Bolded bit is a contender for understatement of the century.

You make a fair point that it wasn't just tuition fees that got them to power - I think you're right that it's fairer to say that breaking it lost them power, rather than the promise gained them power. I'd still say Clegg is a muppet who got utterly mugged off in the negotiations by only having one policy achievement in exchange for supporting austerity and losing any chance of future Lib Dem power. What they lost was not worth raising the basic rate of tax.

Puja

Maybe they got done over, well they did get somewhat done over, but they were the minority party in government and by a substantial margin. They shouldn't have had their views win out on most if any issues.

Disagree. They were the kingmakers in a hung parliament and, if the Conservatives wanted to be in power, the Lib Dems were their only route outside of a short-lived minority government and second election. They were in a strong position to get some concessions and they used that position to get the weakest possible option to change the electoral system (which was put in the worst possible time and was completely stitched up), a reform of the House of Lords (which was reneged on) and
an increase in the no tax threshold (which the Conservatives claimed as their own because no-one was listening to the Lib Dems anymore).

Puja

[Digby]

Bolded bit is a contender for understatement of the century.

You make a fair point that it wasn't just tuition fees that got them to power - I think you're right that it's fairer to say that breaking it lost them power, rather than the promise gained them power. I'd still say Clegg is a muppet who got utterly mugged off in the negotiations by only having one policy achievement in exchange for supporting austerity and losing any chance of future Lib Dem power. What they lost was not worth raising the basic rate of tax.

Puja

Maybe they got done over, well they did get somewhat done over, but they were the minority party in government and by a substantial margin. They shouldn't have had their views win out on most if any issues.

Disagree. They were the kingmakers in a hung parliament and, if the Conservatives wanted to be in power, the Lib Dems were their only route outside of a short-lived minority government and second election. They were in a strong position to get some concessions and they used that position to get the weakest possible option to change the electoral system (which was put in the worst possible time and was completely stitched up), a reform of the House of Lords (which was reneged on) and
an increase in the no tax threshold (which the Conservatives claimed as their own because no-one was listening to the Lib Dems anymore).

Puja

It's all very well saying they were Kingmakers, but that still left someone as the King if that's the analogy.

They did get some concessions, the big one being the change to income tax, that they got shouted down in any credit for it speaks more to the media being much more supporters of their coalition partners. But also they took a view somebody needed to step up and be responsible in creating a stable governmental platform, and they did that, and they did it as it turns out at significant costs to themselves. Though as noted before they were rather thinking this was going to just be the start of compromise politics, not an end to it. Had they known it would've been one and done they likely would have behaved differently, but they took seriously they needed to be able to show Labour too they could compromise, that they could compromise with the Tories again, and still more seriously the county was in a very difficult position. And it might have helped them had Labour turned up being willing to negotiate, but Labour insisted from the outset that Brown would remain and the Lib Dems would be an irrelevance, once Labour weren't willing to seriously discuss any area of policy the Lib Dems might alter that lifted any pressure on the Tories to make further concessions

What they do next is of more interest to me. I'd like them to take on some limited campaigns rather than address an entire portfolio, so things like social care, things like housing, things like prison reform, like gambling and maybe other addiction issues. And that could be in the guise of worker rights, we've just had the high court saying social care workers having to sleep on sight, perhaps being woken 2-4 times a night to work can be paid £4 an hour for that cover, we've got people still in jail on IPP sentences with no end sight, often it seems no possible end, we've got people stuck on interest only mortgages being told they can't go onto repayment mortgages because although those would be cheaper than what they're paying they can't show they can afford them, we've got all the refurbs required post Grenfell. All those are issues which someone should be doing more about, that I think wold fall into the wheelhouse of what people might expect in policy terms for the Libs to be looking at, and they're all areas that can resonate with a wider audience.

It took decades to build up to being a minority party in government, it could easily take as long again, though who knows if we get a Change UK that actually establishes itself and/or of the Labour and Tory parties survive as they are or split.

[Which Tyler]

Completed my census today - Nationality = European

[Zhivago]

Completed my census today - Nationality = European

Does it preclude the possibility of a multi-layered sense of national identity?