Unfortunately it doesn't look as though this will be the Clegg bloodbath I was hoping for, although there was a significant defeat for him this morning when the conference passed a motion condeming the Coalition's "free schools".

 

Clegg's keynote speech before was well-delivered, but was utter bollocks in terms of substance. He hammered Labour for "taking the country to bankruptcy", in spite of the fact his party fully supported Labour's spending plans and he personally supported the banking bail-out and called for an even bigger stimulus during the recession. Very odd. The two big pledges this conference were a pledge to crack down on tax evasion (which seems somewhat at odds with the fact the Lib Dems' top economic representative in the Coalition approved a serial tax avoider's appointment) and a pledge to allow local governments to borrow (which is completely at odds with Clegg's rhetoric about debt being evil).

Well, I suppose it's for the best in the long run if the Lib Dems don't pull out. It at least guarantees that we're not going to have a Tory government for another generation after the next election...

I thought his speech was pretty uninspiring. He performed far better in the Q&A session yesterday.

 

He did at least list some of the things that wouldn't have happened if the Lib Dems hadn't been in government. He and his ministerial colleagues need to do that a lot more. If they think they can get that message across purely in a four week election campaign they are making a very big mistake.

 

The pledge to crack down on tax avoidance was good as long as it actually happens. It was also a nice change to hear him blaming the banks as well as Labour for the deficit.

Unfortunately it doesn't look as though this will be the Clegg bloodbath I was hoping for, although there was a significant defeat for him this morning when the conference passed a motion condeming the Coalition's "free schools".

 

Clegg's keynote speech before was well-delivered, but was utter bollocks in terms of substance. He hammered Labour for "taking the country to bankruptcy", in spite of the fact his party fully supported Labour's spending plans and he personally supported the banking bail-out and called for an even bigger stimulus during the recession. Very odd. The two big pledges this conference were a pledge to crack down on tax evasion (which seems somewhat at odds with the fact the Lib Dems' top economic representative in the Coalition approved a serial tax avoider's appointment) and a pledge to allow local governments to borrow (which is completely at odds with Clegg's rhetoric about debt being evil).

 

I don't know quite what you were expecting today tbh he was hardly going to announce the end of the coalition

 

Clegg is a good salesman, am sure I would buy a used car from him, so I am sure that he will be there for several years as leader, we will all have to get used to the coalition as it is not going anywhere, it would take something incredible to happen to break the coalition so it is here to stay for the lifetime of this parliament.

I thought his speech was pretty uninspiring. He performed far better in the Q&A session yesterday.

 

He did at least list some of the things that wouldn't have happened if the Lib Dems hadn't been in government. He and his ministerial colleagues need to do that a lot more. If they think they can get that message across purely in a four week election campaign they are making a very big mistake.

 

The pledge to crack down on tax avoidance was good as long as it actually happens. It was also a nice change to hear him blaming the banks as well as Labour for the deficit.

 

I have no objection to clamping down on tax avoidance and tax loopholes as long as it is done in a way that does not result in Britain's top business leaders and top brains and top sports people leaving the county

I have no objection to clamping down on tax avoidance and tax loopholes as long as it is done in a way that does not result in Britain's top business leaders and top brains and top sports people leaving the county

When public sector unions threaten strike action if their low-paid, tax-paying members don't get a decent pay rise they are accused of holing the country to ransom. When the highest paid, tax-dodging people in the land threaten to leave the country if they have to pay tax in the same way as "the little people" isn't that also holding the country to ransom?

When public sector unions threaten strike action if their low-paid, tax-paying members don't get a decent pay rise they are accused of holing the country to ransom. When the highest paid, tax-dodging people in the land threaten to leave the country if they have to pay tax in the same way as "the little people" isn't that also holding the country to ransom?

 

A dustman or a road sweeper is easily replaceable a good heart surgeon or someone like Alan Sugar is less replaceable

A dustman or a road sweeper is easily replaceable a good heart surgeon or someone like Alan Sugar is less replaceable

They're still both doing the same thing. They whinge if taxes are raised, now are they going to whinge if they're actually made to pay taxes?!

A dustman or a road sweeper is easily replaceable a good heart surgeon or someone like Alan Sugar is less replaceable

Alan Sugar doesn't need to avoid tax to be able to feed and clothe a family. A dustman or road sweeper may well need a pay rise to do just that.

Reform of the tax system is going to take some 800,000 of the lowest paid out of the tax system altogether which would presumably include many public sector workers though

Reform of the tax system is going to take some 800,000 of the lowest paid out of the tax system altogether which would presumably include many public sector workers though

Yes, thanks to the Lib Dems. Although it isn't really "reform" of the tax system, it's just increasing the basic allowance.

 

But you still haven't explained why people threatening to leave the country if they have to start paying tax like the "little people" are not holding the country to ransom.

Yes, thanks to the Lib Dems. Although it isn't really "reform" of the tax system, it's just increasing the basic allowance.

 

But you still haven't explained why people threatening to leave the country if they have to start paying tax like the "little people" are not holding the country to ransom.

 

I am not against the idea of closing tax loopholes in principle, of course the billionaires etc should pay their way but go after them too hard could also be counter productive

 

I would do something like a 60% tax on bonuses for those earning over x amount of money as they don't need bonuses really

All I can say is I'm glad I don't vote in Great Britain (although NI elections are no better, and let's not even start on the elections here in America).

 

Despite the opposition from some Lib supporters, and despite my own personal objections, I can see the current coalition running for the full 5 years. As pointed out before, the Liberals will be decimated at the next general election, perhaps being left with a single digit number of seats, so they'll be more likely to cling onto power.

All I can say is I'm glad I don't vote in Great Britain (although NI elections are no better, and let's not even start on the elections here in America).

 

Despite the opposition from some Lib supporters, and despite my own personal objections, I can see the current coalition running for the full 5 years. As pointed out before, the Liberals will be decimated at the next general election, perhaps being left with a single digit number of seats, so they'll be more likely to cling onto power.

Decimate technically means to lose one in ten. Some people might think losing five or six seats would be a good result at this point.

 

As I've pointed out elsewhere local by-election results - when there will have been an actual campaign - are somewhat out of line with opinion polls. It is also the case that the Lib Dems' current poll rating is pretty much the same as it was in late 2007 / late 2008 and they recovered from that. Not long after the merger with the SDP the party was as low as 3% (within the margin of error of zero) and they recovered to get around 20% in the subsequent general election.

And the latest YouGov poll finds that the Lib Dem conference 'bounce' has translated into 11%. I'm sure it wasn't this low in late 07/early 08!

And the latest YouGov poll finds that the Lib Dem conference 'bounce' has translated into 11%. I'm sure it wasn't this low in late 07/early 08!

But the polling for that will have been done while the news was dominated by some old German bloke in a frock coming over here to meet, among others, an elderly German woman and her Greek husband.

I don't know quite what you were expecting today tbh he was hardly going to announce the end of the coalition

 

Clegg is a good salesman, am sure I would buy a used car from him, so I am sure that he will be there for several years as leader, we will all have to get used to the coalition as it is not going anywhere, it would take something incredible to happen to break the coalition so it is here to stay for the lifetime of this parliament.

 

You need to start getting used to the idea that it's the Lib Dem MEMBERS who hold the cards. Even if Clegg remains personally supportive of the Coalition for the full 5 years, that doesn't necessarily mean it survives; unlike in the Labour Party and the Tories, it's pretty easy for a Lib Dem leader to be ousted. While the party might be reluctantly supportive of the Coalition for now, we'll see how they feel after next year's locals or, at the latest, next year's conference.

 

 

All I can say is I'm glad I don't vote in Great Britain (although NI elections are no better, and let's not even start on the elections here in America).

 

Despite the opposition from some Lib supporters, and despite my own personal objections, I can see the current coalition running for the full 5 years. As pointed out before, the Liberals will be decimated at the next general election, perhaps being left with a single digit number of seats, so they'll be more likely to cling onto power.

 

Or it could work in reverse, and, when, in 3 years' time, Lib Dem MPs see they're on course for certain whitewash if they stay in the Coalition, they may feel they have nothing to lose by withdrawing. Or perhaps the new Labour leader will offer the Lib Dems an electoral pact or a looser alliance, on condition of them ditching Clegg and withdrawing from the Coalition.

 

I'm still pretty certain this Coalition will have imploded by the end of 2011. There's just too many fault-lines. Tuition fees is a landmine, the Lib Dems bitterly oppose the Coalition's flagship policies on health and education, they hate the immigration cap and I seriously doubt we've heard the last about Trident. And that's before we even start to talk about the spending cuts. Once the AV referendum even passes or fails, I don't see what exactly the Lib Dems would have to gain by staying.

But the polling for that will have been done while the news was dominated by some old German bloke in a frock coming over here to meet, among others, an elderly German woman and her Greek husband.

I'd say the latest new low is probably because of Clegg writing an article saying left-wingers weren't welcome in the Lib Dems - a BIT of a faux-pas, I would say, considering a poll of current intended Lib Dem voters (who collectively I would assume lean a bit more to the right than the Lib Dems' total voters this year, given most of the very left-wingers will have abandoned the party by now) showed 65% of them identified themselves as left-wing or left-of-centre.

Apparently Cameron insisted on checking through Clegg's speech before he made it :lol: Not surprised, as I'm pretty sure some of the sections about not overspending on household bills and wasting money on "debt interest" that could be spent on schools were quoted from past Cameron or Osborne speeches verbatim.

 

In the words of Polly Toynbee (who was championing Clegg and the Lib Dems before the election):

 

Clegg speaks pure Cameronomics

 

Here was a leader at the top of his game – but this may be is as good as it gets. He cajoled and persuaded, certain of that old girl TINA – There Is No Alternative. This coalition and these spending cuts are "the right government for right now", promising his party, "hold your nerve and we will have changed Britain for good".

 

Who does he remind you of? Could it be Tony Blair in the Iraq war debate and other times when he hauled his doubting party round to believe that same There is No Alternative?

 

A similarly trepidatious Liberal Democrat party has been persuaded that this coalition is the only option. "We will take risks in government but we will never lose our soul." They buy it. What else can they do but trust he is right and give him the benefit of the doubt. A party facing local elections in May and a daunting referendum needs to believe him. "The new politics, plural politics, partnership politics, coalition politics." Wasn't that their life-long goal?

 

Yes, but … are they equally willing to be bloodied, wielding an axe 50% deeper than Labour planned? Spending cuts are "the only choice if we want to steer Britain out of the economic mess Labour made".

 

He reached for that disreputable old populist fallacy, comparing the national economy with a household budget: how can you spend more than your income?

 

It works with the public, though he knows it's a sham: the Treasury is not a handbag as national incomes are not fixed and can be crippled by those very spending cuts. That is Keynes's painful "paradox of thrift", the counter-intuitive need for nations to spend their way out recession.

 

Nick Clegg knows his Keynes but now he talks pure Cameronomics. (And yes, Cameron had agreed this speech in advance.) No return to the 1980s or 1930s Clegg proclaimed, his reasoning more urgent than accurate, with prestidigitation in his figures. Spending would return to 2006 levels, 41% of GDP he said – but with a sleight of hand omitted to add, minus 6%, making cuts deeper than ever before.

 

Is the party with him? Ask most delegates and they say cutting the deficit is top priority. But like the public, presented with particular cuts, they stall.

 

His rallying speech came hours after an overwhelming vote against the coalition's education policy: no to making best schools academies and no to free schools, angry that a policy never in the coalition agreement was rushed through without debate.

 

These are not the bearded, heads-in-the-air brigade of yore, here are council leaders long in power, headteachers, public and voluntary sector people of seriousness and experience who understand very well how this and other policies will impact on their patch.

 

Councillor Peter Downes, moving the motion, was not the only one to make a devastatingly forensic critique of how poorer schools will lose funds to the better off, fair admissions no longer scrutinised by local authorities, the gulf between school intakes growing, for which the small pupil premium cannot compensate. Here was the first real policy test – and the party rejected the Conservative's flagship. As the axe falls, expect the Lib Dems obliged to implement them in local councils to rebel time and again. Listening to the speech was Warren Bradley, leader of the 37 Lib Dems on Liverpool council, a firefighter and until May running the council. When the coalition cut the Building Schools for the Future programme he exploded with anger: "I will not be toeing the national party's line. I feel physically sick. The weak coalition will deliver nothing but total electoral demolition. There are times when Clegg has to say 'no more'."

 

But reassurances since, and promises of schools for Liverpool, have tamed him. "The speech was very reassuring," he said afterwards, adding that the people of Liverpool won't be swayed by national politics, confident he'll be back in the leader's office next May despite the national polls. Many delegates also think their local reputation will see them through – and local byelections show they may be right.

 

But distinguished old pollster, Sir Robert Worcester, strolling through the exhibition halls murmured, "David Cameron has Nick Clegg in a death hug. What's Clegg's Plan B?" Good question, asked timidly by some delegates alarmed at too much boat-burning in Clegg's speech.

 

Clegg himself was insisting on coalition unity on every policy. But he would have no "synthetic" divisions, no proving his liberalism by hanging out coalition dirty washing in public. "We're keeping our eyes on the horizon, not on the headlines," he said. "We're in it for the long term." But as Keynes warned: "In the long run we are all dead."

 

However, let no one write the obituary yet of a party so experienced in resilience.

I wonder if Clegg will insist on seeing Cameron's conference speech then!!