Now what for the LibDems and Nick Clegg?

[Rollo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13303862
Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown has accused the Tories of a "breach of faith" over the AV referendum campaign.
He told the Guardian the coalition had been "lubricated by a large element of goodwill and trust. It is not any longer."

I've started a new thread about this because this is a wider issue than just the Alternative Vote.
I think that there probably is a case to be made to suggest that the Tories have acted in bad faith over the AV issue, but if this is the case, does this then have the potential to blow apart the coalition?

If the LibDems dissolve the coalition, it them leaves the Tories with a minority government, however under a Westminster system, there is still the outside possibility of forming a new government with Labour and the minor parties.

The problem is that if you add Labour's 258 to the LibDem's 57, you only get 315 which is 11 short of the 326 required to form government.
Of course you could always ask the Scottish National Party, Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru and the Social Democratic and Labour Party to try and help you and between them they'd all spill to 337 which is fine, but that would be like trying to organise the heads of a Hydra.

There could be a push for a Vote of No Confidence and try to force another election but that might leave the LibDems on either more or less seats than they currently hold.

The third option is this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13303885
Nick Clegg is facing calls from the party's local government chiefs to step down as leader after heavy losses in the English council elections.
Gary Long, ousted party leader on Nottingham City Council, said he must quit immediately, while Ken Ball, party leader on Chorley council, said he had "let the party down".

If Clegg does quit, it leaves the LibDems leaderless and rudderless and with a loss of credibility. If Clegg doesn't leave and they do nothing then they still face a loss of credibility because they'd look impotent against the Tories.

So now what for the LibDems, if anything? I suspect they'll do nothing and then fade again to a political irrelevancy after the 2015 General Election.

[BDunnell]

So now what for the LibDems, if anything? I suspect they'll do nothing and then fade again to a political irrelevancy after the 2015 General Election.

Well, this morning Clegg is attempting to demonstrate how the Lib Dems still have their own identity — http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13325442

This is all very well, but it seems so contrived. I doubt it will cut much ice. So much for all Clegg's protestations during the campaign about somehow being different from your average politician.

[ArrowsFA1]

For me it is increasingly clear, if it wasn't at the time, that the LibDems were a means to an end for the Tories. Without them Cameron would not be PM, but now it appears they are a minor inconvenience for him.

Somehow the LibDems have borne the brunt of the blame for Tory policies in the local elections and essentially they are in a no-win situation. Strike out alone and break up the coalition and Clegg will get the blame for breaking up what was called the government of national unity (there's a misnomer if eve there was one). Remain in power and Clegg will be blamed for the worst of the Tory policies. Either way, his party look to be consigned to the margins of British politics for sometime to come.

We should have seen this coming, but in reality what alternative was there for the LibDems? After the hope that we may see a positive change at the general election comes the depressing reality that nothing has changed.

[BDunnell]

We should have seen this coming, but in reality what alternative was there for the LibDems?

Not entering into a coalition, with the possible result of another General Election. Had that happened, the Lib Dems would without doubt have been blamed for the lack of a stable government, but I am sure that the damage to them would have been far smaller. And let's not forget that it would have been possible for a Tory minority government to function, were it prepared to compromise on key issues in order to secure support from MPs of the other parties in Commons votes. Again, to me, this would have been a much cleaner solution than what we now have.

[christophulus]

I'm still looking at the long game on this. Without the Lib Dems I very much doubt the personal allowance would've gone up (aiming for £10,000 by 2015) - and for a lot of people (me included) that's been a significant increase in basic pay.

I think it's the problem with tuition fees that has really killed the Lib Dems - if they were serious about keeping their identity they should've blocked the increase, or fought for more safeguards against all unis charging £9,000 a year. If they'd at least put up a fight they'd have a lot more credibility in their supporters' eyes.

[BDunnell]

I'm still looking at the long game on this. Without the Lib Dems I very much doubt the personal allowance would've gone up (aiming for £10,000 by 2015) - and for a lot of people (me included) that's been a significant increase in basic pay.

I think it's the problem with tuition fees that has really killed the Lib Dems - if they were serious about keeping their identity they should've blocked the increase, or fought for more safeguards against all unis charging £9,000 a year. If they'd at least put up a fight they'd have a lot more credibility in their supporters' eyes.

Instead of which, they followed Tory policy in the meekest fashion imaginable. It was as though 10 years of opposing the concept of tuition fees, and campaigning against them, had never happened. But you can understand why he took the risk. A lot of people do forget things fairly quickly.

[Mark]

We can speculate on the coalition breaking up but I don't think it will happen tbh.

[BDunnell]

We can speculate on the coalition breaking up but I don't think it will happen tbh.

Nor do I, with the inevitable consequence of a Lib Dem meltdown at the next election.

[christophulus]

A lot of people do forget things fairly quickly.

Not with politics. Hardcore Labour voters haven't forgiven Thatcher for shutting the mines, and that was what, nearly 30 years ago?

[BDunnell]

Not with politics. Hardcore Labour voters haven't forgiven Thatcher for shutting the mines, and that was what, nearly 30 years ago?

People forgot about Iraq pretty quickly and re-elected Blair, didn't they?

[Mark]

There's a difference between something you only really see on the news, such as a war, and something that directly affects you and the area in which you live.

[BDunnell]

There's a difference between something you only really see on the news, such as a war, and something that directly affects you and the area in which you live.

But nor does everybody live in a former mining area, nor will every area or family be affected by the raising of tuition fees. To them, those issues are just things they see on the news, surely?

[Rollo]

People forgot about Iraq pretty quickly and re-elected Blair, didn't they?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/28/election2005.uk3
The full 13 pages of the attorney general's formerly confidential advice on the legality of the Iraq war were today published as the prime minister, Tony Blair, battled accusations that he misled parliament and the cabinet over its contents.
- 28 April 2005

The debate about the legality of the invasion of Iraq was only really starting to be had after Lord Goldsmith's minutes were released. Although they were reported in April of 2005, they probably didn't enter the public conscience until after the General Election which was on May 5, 2005. Ironically they were probably drowned out by the election itself.

Had the election been held in either June or July, then the results may have very well been different and determined by a very angry British Public.

[Mark]

But nor does everybody live in a former mining area, nor will every area or family be affected by the raising of tuition fees. To them, those issues are just things they see on the news, surely?

No. But the likes of the mine closures affected a much wider area than just the pit villages. Pretty much the whole of the North East suffered under Tory rule in the 1980's.

[BDunnell]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/28/election2005.uk3
The full 13 pages of the attorney general's formerly confidential advice on the legality of the Iraq war were today published as the prime minister, Tony Blair, battled accusations that he misled parliament and the cabinet over its contents.
- 28 April 2005

The debate about the legality of the invasion of Iraq was only really starting to be had after Lord Goldsmith's minutes were released. Although they were reported in April of 2005, they probably didn't enter the public conscience until after the General Election which was on May 5, 2005. Ironically they were probably drowned out by the election itself.

Had the election been held in either June or July, then the results may have very well been different and determined by a very angry British Public.

The legality, yes. But I doubt whether it would have swung the opinions of many, to be honest. Too detailed and nuanced a point for your average voter. No, in my view it was the general anger about the fact of going to war in the first place that ought to have done for Blair even two years later, but didn't. The mood soon passed.

[wedge]

"I agree with Nick" may have some skills but his leadership is terrible. His stupid mug of a stiff upper when it came to accountability of the coalition was truly terrible and pathetic.

'Progressive' is the most abused word in British politcs.

[BDunnell]

"I agree with Nick" may have some skills but his leadership is terrible. His stupid mug of a stiff upper when it came to accountability of the coalition was truly terrible and pathetic.

'Progressive' is the most abused word in British politcs.

I agree with wedge. Clegg seems to believe that if he applies the word 'progressive' to a policy, that automatically makes it so, regardless of whether it actually is.