Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before self-destruction


4:19 pm - March 15th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

I’m not sure Libdem activists and party members appreciate the colossal hole their party is in. You may expect a Labour member to say this but bear with me.

The NHS Bill debacle is a symptom of broader problem not just a bad patch. This week the Labour party tabled a motion specifically worded so it would be compatible with the motion Libdem members voted for at conference. It was a no-brainer.

And yet Libdem MPs voted against it. And they were most likely whipped to do so too. So much for independence huh?

Libdem members pride themselves on party democracy. But at key junctures like this it has started to dawn on many that party democracy becomes an inconvenience when faced with the political considerations of governing.

Libdem member also pride themselves on deciding what goes into the manifesto. But this is also proving to be a sham.

On the key issues: tuition fees, VAT rise, the NHS (even the Coalition Agreement was against ‘top down re-organisation’) and deficit reduction (where the LD plan was closer to Labour’s plans) – the party has ignored its own manifesto.

Policy is being driven not by manifestos but by what the Quad decides and wants. On the economy, the environment, the NHS, the grass-roots on either side have hardly any purchase.

Party morale aside – the problem for the party with Libdem voters is even more severe.

Most voters don’t shift allegiance that quickly because they don’t pay much attention to politics. Big events and gut instinct define parties, and voters rarely bother with careful scrutiny of policy.

The Libdems have not even recovered from their crash following the education vote – from over a year ago. Every party, including Labour and Conservatives recover from temporarily blips after a few weeks.

Such changes are only permanent if its a big shock to people’s perceptions. That happened with the tuition fees u-turn. It happened again with VAT. And now it will happen again with the NHS.

And it happened to the Libdems because their voters aren’t used to pragmatic positioning unlike Tory voters. The party that trumpeted its principles is now saying it has the courage to “take tough decisions”.

As I keep saying – that is what Tony Blair said too. But lefties get easily angry over ‘betrayal’ and don’t forget very easily. Blair never recovered from his fall from grace.

Unless Libdem peers manage to kill the NHS bill, it’s highly likely the Libdems won’t recover from their fall anytime soon either.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Health ,Libdems ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


This was a little peek into Labour fantasy land. Labour members are really unlikely to vote LibDem – well get away!

The NHS Bill is a symptom of nothing at all. The NHS isn’t very good and most of it (notably the GPs who are the gateway to any treatment) is run by private businesses and always has been. The bill won’t make much difference, but there’s a faint chance it might improve the current mess. Labour may think the NHS is holy, but all Labour did was prove that a lot more money just bought a lot more carpet in managers’ offices.

Im afraid something that is opposed by 88% of the population means quite a lot, pal.

Funny how during the whole Iraq debacle the LibDems rightly attacked Blair’s war based on the fact that the public did not want the war and most experts did not want it, either.

Now that they are in power and have broken several promises to the public, they press ahead with their fingers in their ears and ignore the public and the experts. The majority of the public do not want this bill. It was not in their manifesto and the coalition agreement specifically states there will be an “end to top-down reorganisations”.

The LibDems have gone from the party most likely to listen to disgruntled voters to a party where the public are just a distraction. They will never be forgiven for selling out the NHS, selling out sick and disabled people via the WRB and tuition fees. They care only about keeping Cameron and the Tories happy. The public do not matter to them. Why would anyone vote LibDem in 2015? They are a national joke now.

They are just as bad, if not worse, than Labour and the Tories. We expect Labour and the Tories to do what they want regardless of public sentiment, but the speed with which the LibDems decided to sell out their voters for a slim share of power is breathtaking.

When you point out to them that they are ignoring the public on this, and insisting they know better than the experts, they just go quiet or call you names like “Labour troll”, even though many people who voted for them did so because they were disillusioned with Labour. They will never, ever get my vote again.

Chris doesnt get it – Joe states it concisely – if the majority don’t want it and you continue to ignore our wishes then you will be punished as a party. The Lib Dems don’t even see that they are destined for oblivion.

God help the first Lib Dem that has the gaul to knock on my door.

The LD Lords aren’t likely to do any more than their feckless MP’s.

The NHS Bill simply demonstrates that the supposed benefits of the Faustian Coalition are pretty thin gruel indeed. The issue for the LD’s is not about converting Labour members (way to miss the point Chris!), it’s whether they can recover from their current polling position of around 10%, to anywhere near where they were before the GE.

Current evidence suggests not, becuase the >50% drop in their support is represented overwhelmingly by left of centre / social democrat types who (as Sunny notes) have rather long memories. They aren’t about to forget what has happened, and aren’t impressed by the arguments that the LD’s have made a difference, or didn’t have any alternative etc.

The chances are that the LD’s have hit their “core” support, and will more or less stay there until the next GE. If they are lucky they might manage to pull off the smae trick at the next GE if the Tories and Labour are neck and neck…. but I wouldn’t count on it if I were them. They face the bleak prospect in Scotland of going the same way as the Tories, and will be lucky to retain any Westminster seats. At Holyrood they will retain a few seats due to the voting system, but their poll ratings are even lower there than in the UK generally.

The issue for Sunny and the Labour party isn’t so much whether the LD’s can recover, it’s how do they persuade the 10-15% of people who used to vote for them to support Labour.

I think that the certain Lib Dems might have the decency to collapse like Alec Guiness at the end of Bridge on The River Kwai: ‘What have we done? We were so greedy for power we abolished the NHS by mistake!’
But they aren’t decent. Just greedy and deluded.

You forget the Lib Dems still haven’t recovered from their fall when, having campaigned for months that a vote for them would kep the Tories out, they then went into government with them. That too permanently dented voters’ perception of them.

Current evidence suggests not, becuase the >50% drop in their support is represented overwhelmingly by left of centre / social democrat types who (as Sunny notes) have rather long memories.

And will therefore vote Labour in the south, allowing the Tories to win lots of lovely seats. The end of tactical voting would be terrific news for the Tories. Disastrous for Labour of course.

It would be ironic if people deserted the Lib Dems in favour of Labour, over either tuition fees or changes to the NHS. After all the new tuition fee arrangements are much better than what Labour did with them in their 13 years and the current NHS Bill does fix some of the stuff (such as preferential rates for private providers) that Labour put in their 2006 and 2008 reforms, which if unchanged would have lead to a much more insidious creeping of privatisation than under this Bill. And it would be truly tragic if the Lib Dems really suffered more for the NHS reforms than Labour did for killing many thousands of people in an illegal war.

To those who resent the Lib Dems going into government (“greedy for power”, etc., etc.) – people stand for election in the hope of getting into government, local or national. That’s the whole point. If you’re standing for election but have no intention of ever forming part of a government or wielding any influence then you have no business being in politics. To be in a position to take office but to refuse because you can’t face working alongside those you traditionally oppose is to disrespect people investing their vote in you.

“But lefties get easily angry over ‘betrayal’ and don’t forget very easily.”

And that’s why the right will always beat the left in the end. The left is far too undisciplined and would rather concentrate on being “right” than winning. You only have to look at the amount of splitting among left organisations compared to right – the Liberal and Labour splits of the 20s and 30s which ensured Tory domination until 1992/7 are testament to this. If you want another 20 years of Tory rule there’s no better way than people switching to Labour (or another party) in Tory/Liberal marginals.

“Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before self-destruction”

Well, you’re basing this on the assumption that unless they come out and do whatever Labour tell them to, they’ll burn at the next election. This is rather faulty as (a) Lib Dem voters aren’t just Labour voters in self-imposed exile waiting for an excuse to come home to nanny, even if that is Sunny’s own trajectory, and (b) is it really going to be a path to electoral success if following 2 years in Government with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems do a complete volte face and jump into bed with Labour? Will that give them some special fillip in the polls, perhaps a reward for decisiveness?

Richard: If you want another 20 years of Tory rule there’s no better way than people switching to Labour (or another party) in Tory/Liberal marginals.

You do realise that the ‘Polly Toynbee’ line of tactically voting LibDem to keep the Tories out died the moment the Coalition was formed?

‘Test’ asks:

is it really going to be a path to electoral success if following 2 years in Government with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems do a complete volte face and jump into bed with Labour?

Except that if Labour merely end up the largest single party in 2015, Clegg is toast and the LIbDems will either have to form a centre-leftish coalition or ‘come out’ as a centre-right leaning bunch of Orange Book readers – and that’s assuming they don’t end up looking even more foolish as a result of running agianst their coalition partners during the election.

The bill won’t make much difference, but there’s a faint chance it might improve the current mess.

Wow. I didn’t realise there were such blinkered people still out there.

Lib Dem voters aren’t just Labour voters in self-imposed exile waiting for an excuse to come home to nanny, even if that is Sunny’s own trajectory

Not all, but a big proportion moved to Lab. Polls show it, anecdotal evidence does too… Just wishing it away won’t work

@11. Chris

The NHS Bill is a symptom of nothing at all. The NHS isn’t very good

which you assert without any proof.

and most of it (notably the GPs who are the gateway to any treatment) is run by private businesses and always has been.

Gosh you are voicing the Tory wet dream. The *majority* of NHS (in terms of where the money is spent) is in hospitals (about half the budget, GPs cost about one tenth).

GPs are not private businesses for these reasons

– they have a nationwide contract (UK-wide actually, even though health is devolved)
– they have NHS pensions
– they have their premises paid for by the NHS (ie NHS pays their rent or mortgage)
– they get much of their training from the NHS paid for by the NHS
– they are restricted to earning less than 10% of their income from non-NHS

If you compare GPs to any other partnership business (eg lawyers, accountants or architects) they do not have any of these things. GPs *are* NHS.

Whenever someone calls GPs “private businesses” it simply shows that they have not looked at the facts.

The bill won’t make much difference, but there’s a faint chance it might improve the current mess.

The current “mess” was created by Lansley. There is a good reason why, when he finally could be bothered to work out what the Bill was about, Cameron exclaimed “we’re fucked!”. Ask anyone who knows anything about the health service and they’ll tell you: abolishing PCTs was the very worst thing to do, and Lansley did it at the very worst time. The result is that Osborne will have to pump more money into the NHS, sometime in the autumn of 2014. If he doesn’t, then he will go into the 2015 election with the NHS in a financial crisis (as is always the case when there is a Tory government).

Labour may think the NHS is holy, but all Labour did was prove that a lot more money just bought a lot more carpet in managers’ offices.

You are clueless. Look at the figures. The NHS is doing far more work now – treating far more patients – than a decade ago. That is where the money has gone. Why don’t you look up the figures?

Ryan Shorthouse makes the unanswerable, long-overdue case for merger between the two Coalition parties on their undeniable shared basis as organs “the liberal-right”. He seems to want that new party to be led by David Laws, the thief. How fitting.

The Conservative Party has been hoovering up Liberals for a very long time: Country Whigs, Patriot Whigs, Liberal Unionists, Liberal Imperialists, National Liberals as one of whom Michael Heseltine first sought election to Parliament, Alfred Roberts’s daughter, those around the Institute of Economic Affairs (although its founders and its founding backer, like Roberts, never actually joined), and now the Liberal Democrats.

Among those last, the most blatantly obvious outrider or trailblazer is Elizabeth Truss, a veteran anti-monarchist campaigner, and also possessed of most unorthodox opinions regarding the institution of marriage, but whom the Conservative hierarchy forced upon a safe Conservative seat in time for the 2010 General Election.

It is entirely incorrect to say that members of the present Coalition are the first Liberal Cabinet Ministers since the War. By the time that he was Home Secretary between 1954 and 1957, Gwilym Lloyd George had ceased to be a member of either of the Liberal parties that had each separately asked him to lead it in 1945, but nor had he joined the Conservative Party. One third of the Cabinet Ministers dismissed in one night by Harold Macmillan were National Liberals, raising yet more among the many serious questions about how conservative or Tory the sacked six’s economic views, which went on to become monetarism, really were or were not, are or are not.

The feud between the former Miss Roberts and the present Lord Heseltine was fundamentally and ultimately an intra-Liberal affair, and it remains so. Even if vicariously and posthumously, Margaret Thatcher’s father was the last great Liberal commercial magnate from the provinces to exercise national political power.

The Conservative Party is itself therefore two parties in one, which would be entirely separate in many other countries, competing hardly at all for the same votes and co-operating hardly at all on any issue of policy. The metropolitan, urban, capitalist, secular, libertarian, make-the-world-anew party has finally defeated and banished the provincial, rural, protectionist, church-based, conservative, mind-our-own-business party. The Whigs have finally defeated and banished the Tories. But preferably in a context of electoral reform, which can only suit the Tories down to the ground.

They are not the only ones. As it took shape, Labour adapted itself both to Radical Liberalism and to populist Toryism, depending on the pre-existing culture at least of its target electorate. Labour was never the party of anything like the whole of the working classes, nor did those classes ever provide anything like all of its support. There was never any incongruity about the presence of middle or upper-class people in the Labour Party, and not least among Labour MPs. Nor about their having come from, and far from cast off, either Liberal or Tory backgrounds, routinely including activism, and indeed parliamentary service.

Both Radical Liberalism and populist Toryism were very open to central and local government action. They were therefore open to many aspects of the never-dominant Socialist strand in Labour as surely as they acted as checks and balances on it. Deeply rooted in the chapels, the Radicals had a pronounced streak of moral and social conservatism, especially where intoxication and gambling were concerned. Toryism, properly so called, upholds the organic Constitution, believes in carefully controlled importation and immigration, and advocates a realist foreign policy which includes a strong defence capability used only most sparingly and to strictly defensive ends. And so on.

The movement that drank deeply from both of these wells did in fact deliver social democracy in this country, a good both in itself and in its prevention of a Communist revolution. It is time to reconstitute that movement.

Buy the book here.

I am affraid the lib dems have been sally to policies that are not either liberal or democratic. Recover from them they dont need too, It seems like the rest of the government, in and opposition sickness is concurrent to their total embodiment, pro quata.

As a lifetime LibDem voter I agree with you 100%

As a lib dem since 1988, I simply shall not vote for them.

This is Cameron’s Iraq.

If 88% of the population are against the NHS reforms you would think they say so, but of course it’s only England this will affect so it’s 88% of England which are against it, very silent bunch.

Those of us that switched from Labour to the Lib-dems will certainly not forgive and forget. If the Lib-dems think that when the next election comes along that we have no where else to go, well we can always decide not to vote. After all why worry about what the tories might do if their coalition partners cannot stand up to them on something as important to the people of this country, as the NHS.

And now (unless it is a very elaborate machiavellian feint on the coalitions part, which I dont quite credit those fucktards to have the self-awareness for) as was so predictable, the lib dems will acquiese to a removal of the top rate of tax. They really are absolutely buggered. Cowardly quislings doesnt even start to describe it.

@8 TimJ

“And will therefore vote Labour in the south, allowing the Tories to win lots of lovely seats. The end of tactical voting would be terrific news for the Tories. Disastrous for Labour of course.”

No, sorry, I think that’s far too simplistic. A fairly large section of former LD voters WILL vote Labour for a variety of reasons, mainly because they were probably “natural” Labour voters who temporarily supported the LD’s or because they feel there is no realistic alternative.

A significant number however aren’t going to vote Labour again (absent some huge change in Labour’s outlook which hardly seems likely before the next GE). Some of these people will probably vote Green, some won’t vote at all, many in Scotland will vote SNP.

Bear in mind that by the time of the next election the LD’s will be faced with losing a large number of seats in Westminster… but these will be split between Labour, the Tories, the SNP in Scotland and some token Greens or Independents. Labour are also likely to lose a bunch of Westminster seats in Scotland to the SNP, as are the LD’s.

Since the LD’s managed to queer the pitch for voting reform, as well as destroy their own party, the next GE should be interesting. Glegg and his Orange book mates may be content to become the UK version of the German FDP to the Tories CDU of course. No wonder the Scots are increasingly attracted to independence……!

Hmmm, with further thought I’m actually kind of torn on whether this is another manufactured ‘split’ conveniently close to an election, and this much-touted abolishment won’t materialise, or whether this is just a balls-out ‘we dont give a f*ck about anyone but our 0.1% real constituency and there is nothing you can do about it’ to the general public.
Given the clear craven nature of the lib dem leadership I think its still odds-on for the latter.

The Health Bill is a complete mess. Even if you think that the NHS should be reformed you wouldn’t do it through such a muddled piece of legislation. The Commons’ committee said that it was a terrible mess and difficult to implement. Even the Tories are only voting in favour of it so as to save Lansley’s reputation and because half of it has been implemented before the legislaltion has passed (so it would be even more difficult to unimplement the Bill than to implement it!).

After the experience with Blair getting his MPs to vote for legislation that they didn’t understand and maybe didn’t agree with, a certain section of the electorate turned to the LibDems expecting them to be a block on this kind of behaviour. Yet here we have the LibDems voting for seriously flawed legislation and talking rubbish about why the transitional risk register should not be released. The LibDems appear not to have noticed that they had picked up the votes of people who take a close interest in what politicians say and do, and who are more interested in what the Health Bill will actually mean than in how many amendments it has. The LibDems have lost those voters and won’t pick up any from anywhere else. The LibDems will either split or go back to meeting in a telephone box.

‘After the experience with Blair getting his MPs to vote for legislation that they didn’t understand and maybe didn’t agree with, a certain section of the electorate turned to the LibDems expecting them to be a block on this kind of behaviour. ‘

Bingo. Scum of the earth.

26. Man on the Clapham Omnibus

Personally, I feel the spat about the NHS is representative of a wider political malaise. Its not only the Libs that will cop it.
That malaise is sadly often missed by the anally fixated amognst us who get their kicks by examining the ebbs and flows of opinion polls.
The principle of Democracy I thought was fairly straightforward . In order for representative democracy to be legitimate , parties should present proposals at election time for the voters to endorse one way or another. This clearly doesn’t happen so the real big question is why do we vote or indeed why should we be interested in politics at all! I believe our governance is best portrayed as a highly manipulated constituency voting for what is essentially a Ruler, rather than any form of representative democracy. Long live the King!

27. Man on the Clapham Omnibus

@25

Except they didnt. Clegg made no difference to the LD poll at the last election.
In fact I think it was lower than Charlie Kennedy’s effort in the previous election.

@1. Chris.

This was a little peek into Labour fantasy land. Labour members are really unlikely to vote LibDem – well get away!

The NHS Bill is a symptom of nothing at all. The NHS isn’t very good and most of it (notably the GPs who are the gateway to any treatment) is run by private businesses and always has been. The bill won’t make much difference, but there’s a faint chance it might improve the current mess. Labour may think the NHS is holy, but all Labour did was prove that a lot more money just bought a lot more carpet in managers’ offices.

Hmmm, I actually think that that post perfectly displays the delusional mindset now shared by many of the remaining Lib Dems. Chris and others like him are displaying a classic case of what psychologists would call “cognitive dissonance” (look it up on google) whereby people rationalise their actions which are in conflict with what they previously believed, by changing their views and attitudes to be in line with their actions.

So apparently now the NHS wasn’t much good anyway (they didn’t believe that two years ago) so wrecking it is ok. Oh, and I see Chris is now repeating the tory line about Labour’s extra spending not making any improvements….Except of course much lower waiting times and improved standards!…….. Excuses and rationalisations!

It’s not hard to understand really. If a political party stands on one political platform to win votes. And then when once in power proceeds to support things which are in direct contradiction to the things they previously claimed to believe in. Their voters are perhaps justified in asking why they should trust anything they say ever again.

Now some compromises here and their are ok. But the Lib Dems have gone way, way, way, beyond any reasonable threshold of compromise, and have utterly disgraced themselves! The only people who cannot see this are people like Chris!

I’m afraid the Lib Dems have effectively committed suicide as a viable political party for the sake of a few ministerial positions and a minuscule amount of influence. Unfortunately a lot of them are so drunk with the thrill of power that they can’t see what they’ve done, or why they are heading for a well deserved oblivion!

Chris – I’m a patient – usually an in-patient for a month or so a year.

It’s not often you can say this on a comment thread with utter certainty, but you are wrong.

The money paid for nurses and doctors and midwives and MRI scanners and getting waiting lists to an all time low and a 2 week cancer guarantee and improved it’s approval rating from the 40s to the 80s and made it the most efficient health service in the world. And equitable Chris – did you know that? We have the most equitable health service in the world totally unrelated to ability to pay.

All that stuff improved my life Chris.

Drs take 5-7 years to train. Nurses take 3-forever.

This bill will not help,.

You confuse the correct argument = that the NHS needs reform
with the incorrect one = that it needs THIS reform.

As the NHS must cut 20 billion with growing demand over 5 years, ANY vast restructuring is simply not possible. GPs, hospitals and all the rest must stretch every sinew just to survive the storms coming.

They don’t have time to implement Lansley’s reforms Chris, that’s what they’re trying to say over and over again.

30. Charlieman

@29. Sue Marsh: “It’s not often you can say this on a comment thread with utter certainty, but you are wrong.”

There are few political certainties. Proclamations that “you are absolutely wrong” are thus disregarded.

“We have the most equitable health service in the world totally unrelated to ability to pay.”

This may or may not be true. As an aspiration, I agree.

“Drs take 5-7 years to train. Nurses take 3-forever.”

Medical education is a concern for medical educators.

“You confuse the correct argument = that the NHS needs reform
with the incorrect one = that it needs THIS reform.”

I agree with this proposition, partially. Sue acknowledges at this point that the NHS cannot operate as it has done for years.

“As the NHS must cut 20 billion with growing demand over 5 years, ANY vast restructuring is simply not possible. GPs, hospitals and all the rest must stretch every sinew just to survive the storms coming.”

If administrators run the NHS on traditional fashions, it will run out of money sooner or later. The NHS will become unaffordable. This is only a problem for the unthinking.

Responsible people believe that if you wish to deliver a public service, you must accept change.

“You must accept change”

Wrong. We are faced with a large-scale structural change of the NHS. Large-scale structural change of a body like the NHS is only acceptable if:-

– a problem has been identified that is due to the structure of that body
– a solution has been identified that deals with the problem identified
– the costs and risks are commensurate with the possible benefits
– for a public mandate, the case is presented to the public.

This is not the case with the proposed restructuring of the NHS. Such as change is in no manifesto and was in fact ruled out. No clear problem has been identified and no case has been made as to why this change deals with an identified problem. We are not allowed to see the assessment of risks. The parliamentary committee admitted that the Bill is a mess (but the Tories are willing to press ahead for party political reasons and because changes have already been made ahead of legislation that makes it tricky to go back). The Bill is complex and ambiguous, and areas like parts of public health have been left in complete limbo.

So there is no reason to accept these changes. No rational case has been made for why these changes are needed. No case has been made as to why the present structure cannot deal with any improvements that are needed. No case has been made why the Minister wriggling out of his responsibilities is needed so as to improve health care.

As I said above:- ‘After the experience with Blair getting his MPs to vote for legislation that they didn’t understand and maybe didn’t agree with, a certain section of the electorate turned to the LibDems expecting them to be a block on this kind of behaviour. ‘

We expect parliament to scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is rational. This hasn’t happened. The LibDems have put into the Bill lots of amendements, which has made it more complex but has not made the Bill more rational.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Nick H.

    Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/ZbNprrnC #NHS

  2. Sam Kington

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/0PN50aS4 #NHS

  3. Design Observer

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/0PN50aS4 #NHS

  4. Coz Hyatt

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/0PN50aS4 #NHS

  5. sunny hundal

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  6. Jim Lawrence

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  7. Chris Paul

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  8. TapselteerieO

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  9. John McNeill

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  10. Alex Perkins

    And me > 'Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before the party's self-destruction over NHS Bill' http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  11. iamwhoiam

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/0PN50aS4 #NHS

  12. Alex Braithwaite

    Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before self-destruction | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/VNNHehh3 via @libcon

  13. SAF Housing

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why the Libdem Lords may be the party's last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/0PN50aS4 #NHS

  14. sunny hundal

    @digitalpolitico oh and this too… which relates to this issue too http://t.co/ZbNprrnC

  15. Iain Wood

    RT @libcon: Why Libdem Lords may be the last firewall before self-destruction http://t.co/s5SCgsVc





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.