If the Lib Dems do badly today (that's a given) then only a "Yes" to AV will save Nick Clegg.

The problem for the "No" camp is that those who want AV are far more likely to get out and vote than those who don't, so although the polls say "No" are in for a landslide win by 30% the "Yes" side may still win due to simple apathy.

"although the polls say "No" are in for a landslide win by 30% the "Yes" side may still win due to simple apathy."

Which polls? UK polling report has been saying about 20%

An ICM survey for the Gruaniad gives "No" 68% and "Yes" 32%.

The Lib Dems are going to have a very bad day today. I have voted "yes" to AV but I'm fairly sure the referendum result will be "no".

I hope the coalition does collapse, or at the very least Nick Clegg gets the boot from his party. He is a spineless, unprincipled opportunist who has betrayed his party and their supporters and significantly set back the cause of electoral reform.

"I hope the coalition does collapse, or at the very least Nick Clegg gets the boot from his party. He is a spineless, unprincipled opportunist who has betrayed his party and their supporters and significantly set back the cause of electoral reform. "

Ooh I love it when people make rational statements born out of logic and evidence rather than pale emotive rubbish the mass media has told them to.
Jamiet - if Clegg had not entered the coalition, the Lib Dems would have had NO power at all. As it is, they have had a say on some of the big issues, and managed to get this referendum at all. They have less than a fifth of the number of seats the Tories have, so why should they be even partners.

Jamiet99uk: "He is a spineless, unprincipled opportunist who has betrayed his party and their supporters and significantly set back the cause of electoral reform."

Once again, you misunderstand. Upholding principles doesn't mean you have to be stubborn and uncompromising. As figle has already addressed, the Liberal Democrats have approximately a fifth of the seats that the Conservatives do - and as such the Lib Dems or not equal partners in the coalition and should not expect to be able to see all of their principles put into legislation, just as the Conservatives have had to compromise on certain issues.

Nick Clegg has championed electoral reform and was an important voice in the general election last year. The party owes its success in the last election due to his activities as leader, most notably in the huge popularity he garnered for the party in his Leader's Debate performances. It's unfair for people to call him spineless and unprincipled when fulfilling the entirety of his manifesto as a junior member of a coalition was something he was never going to be able to do.

The problem for Clegg is the media built him up deliberately misrepresenting the situation, then turned and shot him down when he didn't fulfil their claims.

Clegg is beleaguered with problems.

@ figle: "Ooh I love it when people make rational statements born out of logic and evidence rather than pale emotive rubbish the mass media has told them to."

Don't patronise me.


"Jamiet - if Clegg had not entered the coalition, the Lib Dems would have had NO power at all."

Power is not an end. It is a means. Clegg appears to believe that "getting into power" is an achievement that is worth something in itself. It isn't if he can't use that power to achieve some of the outcomes his party members and supporters want from him.

On the subject of the Lib Dems' power I should also point out that they are in line for an absolute hammering in the council elections taking place at the same time as the referendum. Losing hundreds of seats on local authorities won't exactly increase their power, will it? Way to go, Cleggy.


"As it is, they have had a say on some of the big issues,"

Oh yes. Big issues such as university tuition fees. They really used their membership of the coalition to ensure they kept their pre-election promises on that one, didn't they?


"...and managed to get this referendum at all."

A referendum on a change to a voting system that THEY don't support!




I disagree with Nick.

*... a change to *the* voting system.... (typo)

@ Sargmacher:

"The party owes its success in the last election due to his activities as leader"

You mean "lack of success in the last election", surely? They suffered a net loss of 5 seats.

Just as a guess, I'd think the Lib Dems would be more likely to split then pull out of the coalition. I mean, if only because the ministers they do have must relish being in government for once. The Conservatives have 306 seats and the Lib Dems have 57. 326 is needed for a majority. That means the Conservatives need only 20 Lib Dems to stick around to keep there from being an election, which doesn't seem that hard.

I'm quite happy I don't like under a parliamentary government. I'd rather have corrupt individuals in weak parties than corrupt individuals in strong parties.

Jamiet, this referendum is precisely because the Liberals want it. As the middle ground between the two major parties they stand to gain most from it.

Power should not be a target no, but without it you can do nothing. I still maintain that had he not entered the coalition they would have got even less through. They would not have been able to get this referendum which was one of their key policies, and most notably one that did not directly contradict a Tory policy.
Tuition fee's - well universities have got to be paid for from somewhere, and since the country has no money it had to come from students. Anyway, that's a side issue.

The reason they're in such trouble is that the media told people they would be able to get their policies through and made a big thing about how the coalition was going to be equal. As stated above, they are BY FAR the minor party in this. Why should they be able to do more than this?

The media built it up to say "Look, we have a coalition government, isn't Clegg doing well". Then, now he hasn't, people are turning on him for not doing something that 15months ago they wouldn't have even dreamed of him being able to.

@ Invictus - Wow, I hadn't considered the possibility of the Lib Dems actually splitting into two parties... but I suppose it's possible. That would be an interesting scenario.


@ figle: "Jamiet, this referendum is precisely because the Liberals want it. As the middle ground between the two major parties they stand to gain most from it."

Ummm, if AV is Nick Clegg's preferred system, why did he describe it as "a miserable little compromise" as recently as April 2010?


"Tuition fees - well universities have got to be paid for from somewhere, and since the country has no money it had to come from students. Anyway, that's a side issue."

I don't think it is a side issue. It's crucial to the issue of what the Lib Dems are delivering in government. They're delivering broken promises and betrayal of their principles.


"As stated above, they are BY FAR the minor party in this. Why should they be able to do more than this?"

Because without the Lib Dems, David Cameron would not have been able to form a workable government AT ALL. Clegg should have:

(a) held out for a proper referendum on PR, not AV.

and:

(b) kept his promise - a promise he PERSONALLY made during the campaign - and personally voted against tuition fee increases as well as encouraging all the other Lib Dem MPs who signed the pledge to do the same. He should have told Cameron that this pledge had been made unconditionally prior to the election result and therefore could not be backed out of, even in coalition.

I meant that my view on why increasing tuition fee's wasn't a bad thing is irrelevant - we're not discussing that issue.

So you're saying Clegg should have put up with getting nothing he campaigned for rather than having to give up on some in return for others?

All this time I thought the Lib Dems whole political philosophy was opportunism. Isn't that what liberalism is all about? They have no coherent economic philosophy (look at the policy swing between Kennedy and Clegg), and since they completely surrendered on immigration and are in league with the largest Eurosceptic party in Europe, they don't have much of a social and foreign policy stance now do they?

My hope is they have a Bloc Quebecois style meltdown and completely disappear from the political scene of Britain. The country will be better off.

@ figle: "So you're saying Clegg should have put up with getting nothing he campaigned for rather than having to give up on some in return for others? "

Kind of. It's a question of balance. Sure, Clegg has probably achieved a few positives thanks to being in the coalition, but at the same time, by being in the coalition he has enabled David Cameron to achieve many things which are the exact OPPOSITE of previously stated Lib Dem policy (such as increasing tuition fees). These must be seen as negatives.

It's my view that the negatives outweigh the positives, and therefore the overall impact of Clegg's decision to join the coalition *on the terms he did* is negative.

To use a silly example, imagine you quite like ice cream. But you HATE pickled onions. Now imagine David Cameron comes along and makes you an offer: if you eat 100 pickled onions, he'll give you a spoonful of ice cream. Do you accept his offer?

Nick did.

As opposed to not forming a coalition and the UK being ruled by a weak minority Conservative government? In such a case, we would have still had to swallow pickled onions (in your puerile analogy) but we would have got not ice cream at all.

I believe Jamiet was saying that Nick should have asked for 2 spoons of ice cream for 50 pickled onions. Bargaining, my boys.

Haha.

Then they became embroiled in a furore over which flavour ice cream to have.

It went to national conference and they decided vanilla would be the safest, most egalitarian option.

They ended up pleasing no one.

Apart from Jamiet who was happy because he got more reasons to moan moan moan.

Gigantor is pretty much right. As per my previous comments, my main issue isn't that Clegg agreed to the coalition, but that he agreed to the coalition on such poor terms.

Sarg, if the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition, the Tories would have been *so* weak they would have been unable to govern, and we would have had another election within a few weeks. Couple of months tops. In my view the most likely outcome of this second election would have been a Lab/Lib coalition, which would have been much more palatable.

I could have sworn I heard Nick on the radio last night saying how despite them not being his ideal snack he's always seen the wisdom behind pickled onions and how eating them is what's best for Britain

+1 Sarg. National ice cream flavour conference indeed.

Sorry, but that argument is too simplistic.

Suppose your family are going to the zoo, but you don't like the zoo. They know you don't like going, and offer you an icecream if you go happily. This is the important bit: they are going to go, and you are still going to have to go with them, even if you kick up a fuss. So, do you go begrudgingly, or do you accept the position and make the most of it.

Historically (well, in my experience, since the 70's) whenever the Liberals have looked anywhere close to gaining power they always press the Self-Destruct button. And the Lib-Dems are themselves a coalition anyway, so I expect that when things go badly for them in the local elections and especially if they also lose the AV vote, then Clegg will be sacrificed on the alter of public opinion.

Whether the Con-Dem alliance fractures is another problem - Cameron doesn't want another full-scale election in the next few months because there's too much bad stuff still to happen before they start digging us out of the mess Labour left us in and come up smelling of roses in time for the next election. It may actually end up that Cameron saves Clegg, at least for another couple of years, while Cameron still needs him.

Clegg is cut from the same cloth as the PM, and the Tory plurality runs roughshod over the LibDem MPs ...
Meanwhile, Scotland has not raisedd College Tuition.
The greater outcome of the vote is the Scottish Nationalist majority in their parliament.
Compton Mackenzie's MONARCH OF THE GLEN --- go read the novel; it's better than the {BBC?} TV series