UK constitutional debate

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Scottish independence referendum has got people talking about the broader constitutional situation within the UK. The West Lothian Question, regional assemblies for England, devolution to the cities, House of Lords reform, and many other constitutional questions have been brought to the surface. Given the energy of the nationalist movement in Scotland and the implication that it has for Northern Ireland and Wales, I don't think these questions are going to be going away.

The further devolution promised to the Scottish Parliament is going to make the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English-only issues even more problematic. It seems to me that despite the No victory, the constituent parts of the UK are going to be increasingly going their own way, and this trend will be irreversible if the many anomalies and injustices of the present system are not addressed.

So, this thread is to be for people to discuss just how they would go about constitutional reform within the UK.

As for me, I would make a progressive constitution that settles some of the core issues the separatists have been using to sow discontent - enshrine the right to government-run healthcare and require a referendum on entering/leaving any international organisations. This would silence all the scare tactics the separatists have been using about the NHS/EU.

Abolish the devolved parliaments, and leave the Commons as it is. However, there needs to be big changes in the House of Lords. I would say have 400 seats - 200 taken in the existing way, and 200 to go to elected Lords representing the regions. Divide these into 5 blocks - Southern England, Northern England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each block gets a veto on any constitutional change, to silence the SNP with their NHS/EU scaremongering about what Westminster will do against Scotland's wishes. And finally they will be exposed as separatists at heart and not champions of social justice.

Thoughts?

[Beskar]

I have always had my wacky ideas, but I have always been in favour of a federal British model. However many of the things you bring up would be unfeasible. The exception to this is your idea of a 'Progressive Constitution', this would work and probably appear in some form or another.

- Dissolving the Scottish Parliament is a ship that has long sailed, and the SNP will turn revolutionary, akin to the IRA, if that occurred. The backlash from Scotland and the Scottish people would be enormous.
- A 'north-south' split in England wouldn't happen. It would be the entirety of England or it would be more regional.
- I dislike the Half-way house idea for the House of Lords. It kind of needs a total makeover or simply needs removing/replacing with something else.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm glad you agreed on the constitution point since I know its a bit unorthodox for British politics. As to the points you raised...


- Dissolving the Scottish Parliament is a ship that has long sailed, and the SNP will turn revolutionary, akin to the IRA, if that occurred. The backlash from Scotland and the Scottish people would be enormous.

You are right it is not a practical solution. I was thinking of two possible roads to go down when mulling over these proposals:

1. use them as a moderate and progressive unionist solution - in this case, a clause would be used to allow for existing devolution arrangements to continue, and the wider constitution would hopefully allow for longer-term reintegration of Scotland into British politics.

or...

2. adopt them as part of a sort of vanguard position within unionism - by adopting such an anti-devolution stance, the aim would be to redefine the parameters of the debate and shift the mainstream position more towards my own, without expecting my own measures to be fully adopted.


- A 'north-south' split in England wouldn't happen. It would be the entirety of England or it would be more regional.

I don't see why not. It would allow a distinct voice for the more Labour-leaning north of England. Also, the bonus of splitting up England into two regions is that it denies any sort of recognition of nationhood to the 4 constituent parts of the UK. It represents regions, rather than nations. This deligitimises separatist claims to Scottish/Welsh/whatever and any non-British nationhood.


- I dislike the Half-way house idea for the House of Lords. It kind of needs a total makeover or simply needs removing/replacing with something else.

I think having non-elected members is a good counter-balance, so long as they are a minority and do not serve in the prime legislative body. It gives an alternative to the tackiness and populism of electoral politics.

[Beskar]

I'm glad you agreed on the constitution point since I know its a bit unorthodox for British politics. As to the points you raised...

I have suggested a constitution myself. Perhaps not have it as some Holy Grail the Americans have, but have body of laws which set-out and can be amended with popular support. I like having laws and regulations all up to date in many ways. It stops silly arguments like the fight between the Canoeists and the Fishermen, where the Canoe people are pointing to the Magna Carta.


You are right it is not a practical solution. I was thinking of two possible roads to go down when mulling over these proposals:

1. use them as a moderate and progressive unionist solution - in this case, a clause would be used to allow for existing devolution arrangements to continue, and the wider constitution would hopefully allow for longer-term reintegration of Scotland into British politics.

or...

2. adopt them as part of a sort of vanguard position within unionism - by adopting such an anti-devolution stance, the aim would be to redefine the parameters of the debate and shift the mainstream position more towards my own, without expecting my own measures to be fully adopted.

You could devolve everything to a certain point, make Westminister akin to Washington D.C, and that becomes the 'British only' forum, their the regions take care of themselves in many ways. That would address most of the issues you bring up, and it would be a lot less 'English' and more 'British'.


I don't see why not. It would allow a distinct voice for the more Labour-leaning north of England. Also, the bonus of splitting up England into two regions is that it denies any sort of recognition of nationhood to the 4 constituent parts of the UK. It represents regions, rather than nations. This deligitimises separatist claims to Scottish/Welsh/whatever and any non-British nationhood.

I don't really see 'North-South' working. The issue isn't much the 'South' other than 'Greater London' due to the high centralisation and focus on that area. You could do a 'Greater London' and 'Rest of England' but then there poses a bunch of other issues, such as making this divide stronger.

I think regions based on population, kind of what was originally proposed would work best. This would allow the regions to develop differently and play to their strengths, leading to a more diversive set up economically which would profit the union even more than the current arrangement. It could hypothetically set up a 'Silicon Valley' in the North West, or 'Agricultural Supercomplex' in the South West, or those kinds of specialisms (those two were random examples).




I think having non-elected members is a good counter-balance, so long as they are a minority and do not serve in the prime legislative body. It gives an alternative to the tackiness and populism of electoral politics.

I think an appointed or applied 'house' could work, perhaps something like a supreme court where law-makers can go through new legislation to suggest improvements to it. But anything not elected would be powerless in comparison to the commons. If you want a strong 'house of lords', then you are looking at some kind of Senate system the States have. In some ways, your proposal does this.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You could devolve everything to a certain point, make Westminister akin to Washington D.C, and that becomes the 'British only' forum, their the regions take care of themselves in many ways. That would address most of the issues you bring up, and it would be a lot less 'English' and more 'British'.

I don't like this federalist approach because separatism is IMO a logical consequence of federalism/devolution. It is no coincidence that Scotland had this referendum just 15 years after it got devolution.

If the UK is to last, all of the UK has to be politically integrated.


I don't really see 'North-South' working. The issue isn't much the 'South' other than 'Greater London' due to the high centralisation and focus on that area. You could do a 'Greater London' and 'Rest of England' but then there poses a bunch of other issues, such as making this divide stronger.

I think regions based on population, kind of what was originally proposed would work best. This would allow the regions to develop differently and play to their strengths, leading to a more diversive set up economically which would profit the union even more than the current arrangement. It could hypothetically set up a 'Silicon Valley' in the North West, or 'Agricultural Supercomplex' in the South West, or those kinds of specialisms (those two were random examples).

It's more to reflect the differing political opinions across the regions. The South tends to vote Tory while the north does not, in this regard London has more in common with the north than the rest of the south.

But remember, under my proposals these regional MP's are in the Lords, not the Commons - they are really only there for the constitutional issues where like I said each region would get a veto.


I think an appointed or applied 'house' could work, perhaps something like a supreme court where law-makers can go through new legislation to suggest improvements to it. But anything not elected would be powerless in comparison to the commons. If you want a strong 'house of lords', then you are looking at some kind of Senate system the States have. In some ways, your proposal does this.

I don't want a powerful House of Lords, more just one to cast a non-partizan eye over legislation. The only real powers that matter in my Lords would only go to the elected regional ones anyway, and I suppose in that sense yeah, it would function a bit like the US Senate.

[HoreTore]

Stop caring about the stuff that won't matter, and start doing the things that does matter. England needs decentralization, but that has nothing to do with introducing new elections.

Money is what matters: start moving stuff out of London. Take oil, for example. Don't give Scotland an extra piece of revenue: move the oil industry from London to Scotland. That is the way to retain the oil money.

[InsaneApache]

Direct democracy. Job done.

[HoreTore]

Direct democracy. Job done.

For those living in a black and white world, that is indeed perfect.

For normal people, it's nonsensical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gotta love the Scot and the Communist arguing about how to divide England up.

Why not ask the English who they are and how they divide up first?

[HoreTore]

Gotta love the Scot and the Communist arguing about how to divide England up.

Why not ask the English who they are and how they divide up first?

Pay attention PVC, I'm arguing against carving up the UK ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pay attention PVC, I'm arguing against carving up the UK ~;)

Nooooo

You're the Socialist, Beskar is the Communist.

But seriously - asking "North East" England whether they want a regional assembly is pointless - dividing the UK by regions according to population has largely failed, nobody outside Westminster pays much attention - it's like in the 1970's when they tried to break the counties, within 20 years they had brought back "Ceremonial" Counties so that people could have their sense of local identity.

I would say that at least a decade of consultation and argument would be required before we could say how many regional assemblies the UK needed and what areas they should cover.

[Pannonian]

Nooooo

You're the Socialist, Beskar is the Communist.

But seriously - asking "North East" England whether they want a regional assembly is pointless - dividing the UK by regions according to population has largely failed, nobody outside Westminster pays much attention - it's like in the 1970's when they tried to break the counties, within 20 years they had brought back "Ceremonial" Counties so that people could have their sense of local identity.

I would say that at least a decade of consultation and argument would be required before we could say how many regional assemblies the UK needed and what areas they should cover.

Politically, England is split between the cities, which are largely Labour, and the counties, which are mostly Tory (and Tory in the old sense). Economically, England is split between London and not-London.

There needs to be some outsourcing of business away from London, and I don't suppose Londoners would mind too much, and would even welcome increasing taxes to facilitate this (and with the distribution of earnings, this falls on Londoners most of all). Probably the greatest issue for Londoners is living costs, which are exorbitant. Having other commercial centres should help bring them down a little.

[Noncommunist]

Bring back the heptarchy to divide up England, give the western isles back to Norway, and give the Isle of Wight to the Argentinians compensate them for the loss of the Falklands.

[InsaneApache]

Bring back the heptarchy to divide up England, give the western isles back to Norway, and give the Isle of Wight to the Argentinians compensate them for the loss of the Falklands.

No.

[InsaneApache]

For those living in a black and white world, that is indeed perfect.

For normal people, it's nonsensical.

Ladies and gentlemen, there speaks the true voice from the left. All those lumpen proles eh? What with all their false conciousness. God forbid they may have a say in their lives,

You Sir are a fascist. You just don't realise it.

[HoreTore]

Nooooo

You're the Socialist, Beskar is the Communist.

Dang it!


But seriously - asking "North East" England whether they want a regional assembly is pointless - dividing the UK by regions according to population has largely failed, nobody outside Westminster pays much attention - it's like in the 1970's when they tried to break the counties, within 20 years they had brought back "Ceremonial" Counties so that people could have their sense of local identity.

I would say that at least a decade of consultation and argument would be required before we could say how many regional assemblies the UK needed and what areas they should cover.

Regional assemblies are pretty much pointless wherever they they appear...


Ladies and gentlemen, there speaks the true voice from the left. All those lumpen proles eh? What with all their false conciousness. God forbid they may have a say in their lives,

You Sir are a fascist. You just don't realise it.

What nonsense. Direct democracy is bad because it largely eliminates compromises. I happen to love compromises. How that turns me into a fascist is beyond me.

Direct democracy is happy with a 51% majority(and a forced 51% as well). I'm not happy until the majority is far bigger than that, and that can only be achieved through compromises.

[Beskar]

Gotta love the Scot and the Communist arguing about how to divide England up.

Why not ask the English who they are and how they divide up first?

I am not a communist! I am classed as pretty far on the left, though. Mostly because I am looking forwards into the near future and this is different to the current trend where people keep on struggling with political catch-up with the present. Because those people will be in a big shock when the vast majority of our economy is ran by automatons.

Though, what is amusing is how you exclude me from the title of being 'English', even though I was born and raised here. :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Direct democracy. Job done.

InsaneApache, I don't know where you live and I don't know what experiences you have had with direct democracy in politics. But as someone living in California, home of the direct democratic referendum system that allows 50% + 1 person to change the Constitution, it is terrible, terrible to live under. Please take another look at the downsides by seeing some of California's failures with direct democracy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

InsaneApache, I don't know where you live and I don't know what experiences you have had with direct democracy in politics. But as someone living in California, home of the direct democratic referendum system that allows 50% + 1 person to change the Constitution, it is terrible, terrible to live under. Please take another look at the downsides by seeing some of California's failures with direct democracy.

Ah California....proof of De Toqueville's sagacity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not a communist! I am classed as pretty far on the left, though. Mostly because I am looking forwards into the near future and this is different to the current trend where people keep on struggling with political catch-up with the present. Because those people will be in a big shock when the vast majority of our economy is ran by automatons.

Though, what is amusing is how you exclude me from the title of being 'English', even though I was born and raised here. :laugh4:

You don't self-identify as English - you've repeatedly suggested a bureaucratic dismantling of the UK so that we can be better integrated with mainland Europe.

[Beskar]

You don't self-identify as English - you've repeatedly suggested a bureaucratic dismantling of the UK so that we can be better integrated with mainland Europe.

I have repeatedly suggested a bureaucratic dismantling of the world into a more localised form of governance whilst being unified as a 'world' sharing an agenda/constitution which promotes Liberté, égalité, fraternité. In short, Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

Not simply specific to England. We live in a global age, with global issues, with a global economy. We would all be better off if we acted like that, as partners instead of rivals.

[a completely inoffensive name]

First things first Rhy, PVC, InsaneApache and Tiaexz you gotta make sure your Constitution doesn't allow this garbage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11129474/Extremists-to-have-Facebook-and-Twitter-vetted-by-anti-terror-police.html

[rory_20_uk]

First things first Rhy, PVC, InsaneApache and Tiaexz you gotta make sure your Constitution doesn't allow this garbage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11129474/Extremists-to-have-Facebook-and-Twitter-vetted-by-anti-terror-police.html

This is from the nation where the courts pass secret edicts requiring companies to give up data about people? When they're not spying accidentally on them - which is apparently OK if they didn't mean to?

In this way, countries are like Enron - they all have high minded sentiments but when it gets down to it they all want to take the money (and in the case of countries strip away every privicy) - in the name of whatever scare works at the moment.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Rhy might actually be right about an united 'North'. There is this article from the Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/viking-referendum-demands-northern-state-4360115).

Most interesting aspect of it, the poll is 81% for yes.

Also, this is a picture of the 'wealth suckage' London has on the North, Wales and Northern Ireland, making Rest of the UK one of the poorest areas of the European Union.

https://i.imgur.com/DA3RAyF.jpg

[Sarmatian]

Most interesting aspect of it, the poll is 81% for yes.


Yeah, but that's not relevant as anyone in the world can vote in that poll. One "yes" is from me, for example.

[Husar]

Yeah, but that's not relevant as anyone in the world can vote in that poll. One "yes" is from me, for example.

That only makes UN approval more likely.

[Kralizec]

https://i.imgur.com/DA3RAyF.jpg

I assume that ranking is based on Eurostat, as Groningen is on it.

Groningen is not actually rich; it is one of the poorest in the Netherlands. It's counted as rich because of the huge gas reserves in the soil, but those are controlled and spent by the national government.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Perhaps, Groningen refers to the city and immediate surroundings, not the entire province... given that Brussels is on the list, too.

[Kralizec]

Apparently not (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistical-atlas/gis/viewer/)

EDIT: nevermind, it depends on wether they're using NUTS-2 or NUTS-3. Brussels and surroundings is counted as one in both.

[Beskar]

Perhaps, Groningen refers to the city and immediate surroundings, not the entire province... given that Brussels is on the list, too.

It has 'Inner London', so I am guessing it is that way.

[HoreTore]

Rhy might actually be right about an united 'North'. There is this article from the Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/viking-referendum-demands-northern-state-4360115).

As they spelled his name wrong, it should be dismissed immediately.

(It's Eirik or Eirikr)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have repeatedly suggested a bureaucratic dismantling of the world into a more localised form of governance whilst being unified as a 'world' sharing an agenda/constitution which promotes Liberté, égalité, fraternité. In short, Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

Not simply specific to England. We live in a global age, with global issues, with a global economy. We would all be better off if we acted like that, as partners instead of rivals.

I really have no words for how terrible this is.


As they spelled his name wrong, it should be dismissed immediately.

(It's Eirik or Eirikr)

Spelled correctly in English. :P

[Greyblades]

I really have no words for how terrible this is.

I do: untennable. Even the uber idealistic star trek admitted it would take a world war and alien contact for that sort of thing to happen in anything close to a reasonable timeframe.

[HoreTore]

I do: untennable. Even the uber idealistic star trek admitted it would take a world war and alien contact for that sort of thing to happen in anything close to a reasonable timeframe.

It's basically a leftist EU.

Yeah, that's a utopia alright.

[Husar]

I do: untennable. Even the uber idealistic star trek admitted it would take a world war and alien contact for that sort of thing to happen in anything close to a reasonable timeframe.

Corporations will probably force something much worse yet very similar onto us, so there is no need to worry.
Governments are already unable to reign in international corporations because they just use all the tax loopholes and other things they can find while the single jobseeker sees a rise in international competition for the job he wants. In other words corporations reap all the benefits of globalization without suffering any of the downsides. The content mafia can even localize releases of entertainment so if the global citizen leaves Europe to work in the US, he can buy all his 200 Blu-Ray movies again there. :dizzy2:

But hey, let's keep up the illusion that the government of Britain or Germany can reign in the big international companies on its own without getting bribed or loopholed aside.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's basically a leftist EU.

Yeah, that's a utopia alright.

The EU is a great example of it not working - they fudged, trying to push economic Union without political Union (hey, Salmond, easling, you listening?). Now even Germany is looking at stagnation due to low demand.

The idea of a Viking North" at least has some historical and cultural logic to it, it's something you can argue for - breaking England up into economic regions isn't something the average man can be expected to support - as it prevents no tangible benefit.

Made much harder by the Local Government Act 1974, of course.

[HoreTore]

The EU is a great example of it not working - they fudged, trying to push economic Union without political Union (hey, Salmond, easling, you listening?). Now even Germany is looking at stagnation due to low demand.

....And yet it remains, and will remain for a long, long time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....And yet it remains, and will remain for a long, long time.

People believed the British Empire would last for ever - it didn't.

People also believed Russia was on the inexorable road to democracy and European integration, that all turned around in about five years.

Given the current situation in the Eurozone and the general rise in xenophobic Far-right parties from France to Greece I would not assume the EU has any staying power - not as-is.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The EU can only survive in its current form for so long. You cannot separate monetary integration from political integration in the long term. Eventually Germans, French, Polish etc... will become "Europeans" or the EU will fall over very dramatically like a row of dominoes as soon as one big player decides to pack their bags and leave.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU can only survive in its current form for so long. You cannot separate monetary integration from political integration in the long term. Eventually Germans, French, Polish etc... will become "Europeans" or the EU will fall over very dramatically like a row of dominoes as soon as one big player decides to pack their bags and leave.

UKIP gains first MP, also comes second to Labour in another By-Election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29549414

[InsaneApache]

UKIP gains first MP, also comes second to Labour in another By-Election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29549414

Aye vote Tory get Milliband!

ROFLOL

They still don't get it do they? Change is coming and That Right Soon.

[Pannonian]

I have repeatedly suggested a bureaucratic dismantling of the world into a more localised form of governance whilst being unified as a 'world' sharing an agenda/constitution which promotes Liberté, égalité, fraternité. In short, Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

Not simply specific to England. We live in a global age, with global issues, with a global economy. We would all be better off if we acted like that, as partners instead of rivals.

Isn't Libertarian Socialism a contradiction in terms? One cannot be the other in the real world. Practically, a move towards one necessitates a move away from the other. The only way the two can be conciliated is if everyone believes in "the cause", and is willing to sacrifice everything including immediate application of the principles towards the end (since non-believers will muck up this assumption). And believers in "the cause", whatever it is, are worse than the cesspit of corruption that they claim "the establishment" to be.

[Pannonian]

Aye vote Tory get Milliband!

ROFLOL

They still don't get it do they? Change is coming and That Right Soon.

Rhetoric reminiscent of believers in "the cause".

[LittleGrizzly]

The one positive about UKIP is they can split the right wing vote whilst looking unlikely to get any serious power themselves, although it may seem a bad thing on the surface for too long in the UK has the right wing vote been solidly behind one party whilst the left wing vote has been split between at least a couple (just talking the major ones)

A stronger UKIP means less Tory governments. Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

In practical terms, don't they pretty much have to be somewhat centrist to end up as a major party?

[Pannonian]

In practical terms, don't they pretty much have to be somewhat centrist to end up as a major party?

All parties have to adhere to some Thatcherite tenets to be deemed electable by the electorate. Socialism and the Labour party in its old form is pretty much dead. The old Tory party isn't much better. The old ideas of communal rights (Labour) and responsibilities (Tories) hardly exist any more, in England at least. Nowadays it's all about individual rights (neo-liberalism, aka Thatcherism).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All parties have to adhere to some Thatcherite tenets to be deemed electable by the electorate. Socialism and the Labour party in its old form is pretty much dead. The old Tory party isn't much better. The old ideas of communal rights (Labour) and responsibilities (Tories) hardly exist any more, in England at least. Nowadays it's all about individual rights (neo-liberalism, aka Thatcherism).

Ultimately, all governments must balance all four for real, long-term success. I'm all for individual rights and responsibilities -- Reagan was my first Presidential choice when I became a voter (and it was an active choice, not an acknowledgement that Fritz was second tier as a candidate). Even so, communal rights and responsibilities must be part of an effective system as well.

I'd probably draw the intersect point a little differently than would you, but you cannot ignore the second vector entirely.

[Pannonian]

Ultimately, all governments must balance all four for real, long-term success. I'm all for individual rights and responsibilities -- Reagan was my first Presidential choice when I became a voter (and it was an active choice, not an acknowledgement that Fritz was second tier as a candidate). Even so, communal rights and responsibilities must be part of an effective system as well.

I'd probably draw the intersect point a little differently than would you, but you cannot ignore the second vector entirely.

Vector is the right word to describe the opposing angles of communalism (old school UK politics) and individualism (post-Thatcher UK politics). The latter is free market capitalism as applied to politics, with the language of the market being used to define politics (why settle for less when you can have it all, now, at no cost?). If your whole society is used to the language of the market, it takes a conscious effort to force yourself to think in a different mode, where the customer isn't the omnipotent centre of the world. If the electorate is conditioned to think in that way, how can the government act any differently and expect to be (re-)elected?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The one positive about UKIP is they can split the right wing vote whilst looking unlikely to get any serious power themselves, although it may seem a bad thing on the surface for too long in the UK has the right wing vote been solidly behind one party whilst the left wing vote has been split between at least a couple (just talking the major ones)

A stronger UKIP means less Tory governments. Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

I would say you are still screwed. From my understanding Labour is not even that far off from the Tories anymore and the Lib Dems formed a coalition with the party they identify the least with. Who is going to trust either? More likely the left will lose morale and turn up less for elections in the near future. Meanwhile the UKIP is giving right leaning voters a choice in the matter and is more likely to energize voters who identify along those lines. The vote may be split among them, but together they are still going to dominate the national conversation and thus the direction your country takes.

[Beskar]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

It was obvious they should have forced a minority Conservative government. The Lib-Dems painted themselves as the outsiders, of course it was going to backfire when they began bargaining with the devil. The people who supported them probably didn't care "they have no experience in power" they just wanted a party with the numbers and the will to push big reforms into the public dialogue. I don't follow your politics that much, but "tempering" the conservatives only led to temperedconservative policies and a half assed push for electoral reform which failed spectacularly. What a joke the Lib-Dem leadership is. Maybe they really don't know anything about politics and power.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If anything, the idea that the Lib Dems had no experience in power might have worked to their advantage nowadays with all the anti-establishment rhetoric. But now nobody is in doubt that they are looking out for their interests as a party and in that regard are no different from Labour/Tories.

As for UKIP, hopefully if they do make a push to gain disaffected Labour voters, they will temper their extreme Thatcherite stance on economic issues. You can only get so far with a populist stance on immigration/Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

Terrible for them to be punished for good government and prioritising the national interest.

It's primarily because the "Left" like to describe the Tories as the "nasty party", a term actually coined as a warning by the current home secretary and true of none of the Cons currently in parliament - although some of the Cabinet in the 1980's are on record as being fairly nasty.

I don't honestly think it was to "prevent the age old argument..." I think Nick Clegg saw it as being in the national interest, and a genuine opportunity to do some good. On that basis I think he has been wildly successful - it's also forced him to admit that eliminating tuition fees whilst widening access was never a viable policy - contrary to what Tim Farron said recently.

But then, Tim Farron has never been in government, has he?

[Beskar]

I think Nick Clegg made the right move, unfortunately, it seems no one else felt the same. Also, all those "What Party are you?" all annoyingly put me closer to the Lib-dems than anyone else, at least if it said 'the greens', it would be a party which is gaining support opposed to slash'n burnt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Nick Clegg made the right move, unfortunately, it seems no one else felt the same. Also, all those "What Party are you?" all annoyingly put me closer to the Lib-dems than anyone else, at least if it said 'the greens', it would be a party which is gaining support opposed to slash'n burnt.

The Lib-Dems have now lost the protest vote as there are credible politicians, the party has shed it's pointless flab.

The Greens are just picking up that protest vote, as are UKIP - proof the Lib-Dems were never really "Left Wing".

But hey - if you want to trade in yellow for Green to spend another 10 years oohing and arring over a party that can makes outlandish promises on the principle they'll never have to implement them...

[Beskar]

The Lib-Dems have now lost the protest vote as there are credible politicians, the party has shed it's pointless flab.

The Greens are just picking up that protest vote, as are UKIP - proof the Lib-Dems were never really "Left Wing".

But hey - if you want to trade in yellow for Green to spend another 10 years oohing and arring over a party that can makes outlandish promises on the principle they'll never have to implement them...

I was jesting.

I would probably be voting Labour as I actually know the candidate running for the position and they are a good hardworking person who shares many of my values. So, voting the person, not the party. So even though I am not a fan of the current Labour person for my current constituency, I am a fan of the person who is the prospective candidate for my new constituency (which is currently conservative held).

I think most of the old Lib-dem votes have switched to Labour and lesser extent, the Greens (or SNP in Scotland), whilst some of the Labour switched to UKIP. UKIP seems to be mobilization support of the working classes and middle classes.