What would you have done if you were Nick Clegg and what would you do now?

[tabouleh]

Those of you attacking Nick Clegg on the webchat thread, where you are meant to be asking QUESTIONS , I have a question for you?

What would you have done if you were Nick Clegg?

Your answer may well be - go in with Labour, but it would not have been sustainable to have GB remain as PM, Labour had no strategy for negotiating with the LDs and the Tories had the most seats.

Do you realise that the UK economy may have been about to freefall around the time of the election, following the Greek and other European countries banking crises there could have been a Sterling Crisis - also the long term prospects for a tory minority government would have had serious consequences for the markets.

I think that Nick Clegg has done a very noble thing, he will get lots and lots of flack but he's done the right thing; he enabled a stable coalition.

He's possibly ruined his political career but he's done the right thing for the country.

For those who are ideologically opposed to the Tories - do you not see that having LDs at the table is of benefit?

Once AV system comes in the future of UK politics will be changed for ever.

The posts on the webchat are coming out like a rant to me.

Look, for those who are ideologically opposed to the Tories - newsflash - there are Lib Dems in cabinet.

The coalition document was a revolutionary concept - never before have Governments set out exactly what they are going to do, they always ignore aspects of their manifestoes.

How about engaging with Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems them rather than attacking them?

Ok, this is why I am angry with the Liberal Democrats.

Before the election they had a liberal progressive agenda. Nick Clegg himself described some of the Tory policies as "a disaster for standards" (free schools), and that is just one example. He said that it was a travesty for the party that comes 3rd (spectacularly losing was how he described the 3rd placed party) to be ruling the country. So he must accept the LDs have no mandate whatsoever in the country.

For those who say Tory policy is tempered by there being LibDems in the cabinet, that is just rubbish. They have NO say in anything of consequence. Free schools are happening (despite Nick Clegg's condemnation of them before the election), the IFS has described the budget as regressive, despite the LD claims to be a progressive party, tuition fees for university are likely to be a thorny issue - Nick Clegg pledged to oppose ANY rise in tuition fees, but the terms of the coalition allow him and the other LDs to abstain only. He hasn't GOT AV - there will be a referendum. The Tories AND Labour are going to campaign against it, it won't come in. Interesting article here - What is the point of the LibDems?

They are there solely to share the blame for the unpopular decisions. Nick Clegg can't say it's 'just the numbers' - there is ideology that is important too. If it was the BNP, not the Conservatives, who won the largest proportion of the vote, would he have gone with him too?

So what SHOULD they have done? Forming a coalition with Labour would have been wrong too - Labour NEEDED to regroup, and take time to reflect and replan. Clegg should have said to Dave that he should form a minority government. The LibDems would have had REAL power then - they could have supported everything they wanted to get through, but would not have been constrained by the spoils of power, and so could have stuck to their election pledges and their core principles, which have been abandoned. They say "We needed strong and stable government", but this coalition is not strong nor stable. The Libdem backbenchers hate it. The right of the Conservative party hate it. And I think the spending review will be a killer. If the coalition collapses, we are worse off than had we had a minority government.

Read this page, think about what is happening, and then tell me they are not hypocrites.

What Nick Clegg did was not only right but it was brave. What he and Cameron are doing now is not only right but brave. The deficit needs to be reduced even though doing it will be painful and even though there will be all kinds of people out there trying to sell the illusion that they can put things off until tomorrow because of this and because of that.

Mandy - it is not brave to cut the deficit by producing regressive budgets. It is not brave to cut the deficit by targeting oppressed groups. It is not brave to pretend we are all suffering together whilst supping tea in Chequers. The most vulnerable in society are the least able to stand up for themselves.

It is not brave to cut disability living allowance, under the guise of 'encouraging people to work'. It is not brave to cut housing benefit so that poor families may lose their homes, whilst the taxpayer provides you with 2 state homes, pays 21k a year towards your country home (which you own), allowing you to make rental income from your London home of 72k a year. How is that brave?

Brave would be cutting the deficit by hitting banks who caused the recession. Cutting MPs expenses altogether. Hit the richest, wealthiest, most able to cope people. But they won't. Because they are scared. And because it might hit them.

Why is that brave? Because he would have known that he would have to withstand waves of emotional rhetoric such as yours. It is easy to make statements like those that you have made but it is in all of our interests that our politicians govern like grown-ups and that we show them that we appreciate them governing like grown-ups. There is no money left. End of.

Cutting MPs expenses altogether?

FFS - most MPs could earn much more outside parliament - why on earth should they not receive basic expenses back.

Part of the reason these cuts are required is because Labour went craaaazzzzzzyyy spending money in the public sector.

I am not talking about DLA or CA I am talking about public sector jobs which are unecessary and unsustainable.

Housing benefit - of course this is needed but thse huge huge rents for massive families living in central London? No, not needed - there has to be a cap.

Ok, I'll tell you why I would cut MP's expenses altogether - because actually I think being an MP should have vocation attached to it. Yes, they could earn more in other professions, but I would rather people weren't doing it for the money, but so that they could actually make a difference to people.

tabouleh - you do realise that although the public sector is large and unwieldy (i don't deny that there is 'blubber' in it), when they talk about public sector jobs they are not just talking about administrators or civil servants, they're also talking about teachers, nurses etc etc.

Housing benefit - I don't have so much of a problem with the cap actually. I DO have a problem with forcing lone parents onto JobSeekers Allowance (from Income Support) as soon as their youngest child starts school, and then giving them a year to find a job (think about the logistics of this - a job that either is school hours/term time only or costs them an absolute fortune in childcare costs, and they may be a lone parent through no fault of their own). If they don't find a job within a year, then through the '1 year on Jobseeker's Allowance then your HB is reduced' policy they would have their HB reduced. Added to which they are CUTTING jobs, making it EVEN HARDER to find any work, let alone work that will allow them to make enough money to survive. It is grim.

Mandy - it's brave, because any cuts to the wealthiest is attaching those who are poweful, and can fight back, whether through blackmailing by withholding party donations, or whatever. And affecting the rich the most proportionately is against traditional Tory values. Even though it's right that the richest (who can afford it) can pay the most. They're not scared of 'emotional rhetoric' as you put it. They are scared of upsetting the 'ruling classes'.

tabouleh, I DO think they should be given London accommodation, but it shouldn't be a big family house. Is it really right that David Cameron who is very wealthy should be able to claim 21k a year in mortgage interest? Especially as his other house has NO mortgage on it. The rest of us have to pay interest. I understand that he didn't have a mortgage on the London home, because he paid it off having taken out a large mortgage on the Oxfordshire house, which the taxpayer paid the interest on story here

So yes, I think Parliament should PROVIDE accommodation, but it shouldn't belong to the MPs.

Lily those issues re expenses were all there during Labour's 13 years!

Really you think they'd have done something about them, but no!

The trade union leaders are just the same - huge wages relative to their members, posh lunches, second homes even Arthur Scargill has had one of these since 1982?!

And, yes I do realise teachers and nurses jobs may be at risk and it is going to be very difficult, but I do blame Labour;
for spending too much on quangos/initiatives/dupliation of services plus for riding an economic wave, turning a blind eye to what the banks were doing and not "saving for a rainy day".

TBH I do not have strong political convictions of any flavour. I thought the Tories had had too long in 1997 and was glad to see a fresh Government.

I am attracted by the new politics of coalition Government because I hate it when people become entrenched in positions and don't work collaboratively.

I don't think Labour were the answer at the last election. But I think the Lib Dems had the choice of joining with the Tories and being swallowed into them (as they have been), or retaining their identity and integrity by remaining independent. As far as I am concerned, they have lost both.

I fail to see how abandoning the country to a Tory minority government could be viewed as 'retaining their integrity' - all legislation would have been subject to haggling and negotiation, and the implications for the markets was truly dreadful.

You may have preferred to see a struggling Tory government, ineffective and short-lived, but the coalition was what was best for the country at the time.

The reality of coalition government is that not everyone in every party will be happy with the outcome. If the LibDems had sided with the defeated, discredited Labour party, giving us another unelected PM (a Milliband?) & propping them up in power for another 5 years, the old Liberals - and I daresay the country - would have been up in arms. Siding with the Conservatives, the old Social Democrats are no happier, but at least the outcome struck the electorate as reasonable.

As for manifesto pledges, the LibDems, never having a real chance at power, could afford to say anything pre-election. It's easy to make popular promises when there's no likelihood of having to carry them out. If the reason that they are supporting the measures so far is that they've had to temper their views by the political/financial reality then at least they are being pragmatic rather than dogmatic - a fine quality in a political party.

Lily, I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT I don't think Clegg really had any other realistic option. Had he insisted that the Tories form a minority government, his whole argument about coalition governments working would have been discredited. I don't see how he could have lived that down. When the minority Tory government subsequently fell, as it would surely have done, the LDs would have been blamed for acting irresponsibly and against their pro-coalitionist principles in a time of political crisis, and the Tories would probably have achieved a larger majority at the next election. Any change on AV, let alone PR, would have been out of the question.

The whole situation could not have been worse for the LDs, despite having got a bit of power. It's a lose-lose for them and I don't see how they will recover from this. On the other hand, Labour is in a pretty strong position to regroup and reorganise.

btw there's a copy of Nick Clegg's Times article on welfare up on his website here (under the title "Our welfare system is broken", as opposed to the Times' one of "Poor must accept benefit cuts," which the article doesn't actually seem to say.)

It says "cuts to the welfare budget are unavoidable" but goes on to say that at the same time "We are not willing to simply cut back a failed welfare system ? it needs root and branch reform."

In other words he's explicitly backing IDS in his tussle with George Osborne.

He does say that there will be winners and losers, however and a lot of people who class themselves as poor will automatically assume they will be a loser... IDS needs backing in what he's trying to do. Some of the welfare reforms will require significant up-front investment to reap long-term rewards.