Just for the record, I don’t think it’s right to say Nick Clegg said pre the election in 2010 that Brown would have to quit for Labour to form an alliance with the Lib Dems. He was scrupulous in the campaign in saying that in the event of a hung parliament we would talk to the party with the largest mandate first – which he did. He then also talked to Labour when it looked at one point as though the deal with the Tories would not happen, and it was then that there was a conversation between Clegg and Brown in which Clegg told Brown that he would have to step aside for a deal to be done. I don’t think this would have been said if Labour had emerged as the larger party.

I am quite sure though that this is why Miliband has said he would want Clegg to step aside before any deal with the Lib Dems could happen – quite a claim this far out from the election. It will be interesting to see if Ed sticks to his guns if the electoral maths works out in a similar way to 2010 – and whether he is willing to pass up the keys to No 10 just to spite Nick Clegg.

I think he is foolish to put these Aunt Sally’s up at this stage.

Don’t assume that the LibDems would be the only possible coalition partner with Labour. Depending on how the seats stack up, there’s Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the SDLP or maybe the Greens.

I always wonder why the default next leader of the Liberal Democrats is Vince Cable, I would have thought Tim Farron would make more sense – untainted by government, etc, etc.

Don’t be misled or under the illusion that Lib Dem activists are not aware that Nick Clegg is a liability (now and for the future of our party), many of us are aware of this.

And as the Local elections last May proved, it is being felt by the loss of many good Councillors. I am and always have been not only a deficit denier but also a coalition denier. So, I am not suddenly deciding that Clegg has made a bad decision.

Hi Richard, I don’t think Ed M is rejecting Clegg in retaliation for what Clegg said (or might not have) prior to 2010.

It’s just that the consensus within Labour is that Clegg is no different to Cameron, and forming an alliance with the former is akin to going into an alliance with the latter.

Labour activists and voters hate Clegg almost as much as Cameron. A Miliband deal with Clegg would attract a *lot* of ire. To me, that is the main consideration rather than what happened to Brown pre-2010.

Good article, Sunny. Agreed that Clegg is far too much of a political liability, and we know that the LDs will happily give up much more than a mere leader to get a bit of power.

“So far, Libdem activists seem to be largely oblivious to what a liability Clegg is. ”

Probably because, from an internal perspective, he’s the most successful leader ever. That sort of thing probably messes with your analysis.

Regarding our nominations for a prospective LD leader, might I recommend my MP, John Leech? Seems to be a genuinely good guy and has a strong record on putting his money where his mouth is in terms of fighting Tory policy. It would help the LDs a lot (not to mention their potential Labour allies) to have a leader who can say “I rebelled over student loans, I was the first guy in the party to sign the EDM against ATOS”.

Interesting article.

As a non-English, non-Liberal Democrat, non-Labour voter, can I take the opportunity to say that the Nick Clegg is seen in my circle as absolute electoral poison. Although he is far less likeable than Cameron, he is disliked more.

So too are people seen a Cameron’s henchmen… Danny Alexander and Michael Moore for example. I can’t imagine them being anything but an electoral liability.

I can imagine Vince Cable being able to step into the job. He is, of course tainted a little by his acceptance of a post in Cameron’s government, but he has been visibly awkward, which seems to me to leave him with some credibility.

Of course nearly 3 years is a long way off. Many things will have changed by then. Scotland could well be independent, or at least negotiating independence. That would remove quite a block of Labour MPs from Westminster.

The idea expressed above that the Celtic Nationalist parties might be available to support a Labour government with a tiny majority (instead of Liberals) has a problem, at least as far as the SNP is concerned. Their MPs will only vote on matters if there is a Scottish dimension to the topic. , ie it is UK wide, or it is English but there is consequential funding for Scotland in it. I imagine that Plaid is the same.

Only one scenario saves Clegg’s sorry self: a repeat of the 2010 result. Anything else and he gets dtiched in the face of a majority government, or he’s a liability in any LibDem/Lab aggreement/coalition.

And that’s assuming he keeps his seat: the first batch of Sheffield students who are paying £9K fees will be just about to graduate. And they’ll all have votes.

I doubt the Libdems will be completely wiped out by 2015 – I estimate they will have at least 10 to 20 MPs elected.

What’s that ‘estimate’ based on?

With 10-20 seats they are unlikely to hold the balance of power. Remember, they had more seats in the 2005-2010 parliament than they do now and that didn’t put them into a coalition.

If the seats are that tight then coalition with the SNP/Plaid is surely more palatable than coalition with the Lib Dems.

If the seats are that tight then coalition with the SNP/Plaid is surely more palatable than coalition with the Lib Dems.

A sensible Labour strategy would be to build a Coalition was lots of partners, so that they have a stronger majority.

Besides, for many Labour people in Scotland – the SNP is the key enemy (from an electoral perspective, regardless of how you see their politics).

Tris: The idea expressed above that the Celtic Nationalist parties might be available to support a Labour government with a tiny majority (instead of Liberals) has a problem, at least as far as the SNP is concerned. Their MPs will only vote on matters if there is a Scottish dimension to the topic. , ie it is UK wide, or it is English but there is consequential funding for Scotland in it. I imagine that Plaid is the same.

I think this is spot on too.

A sensible Labour strategy would be to build a Coalition was lots of partners, so that they have a stronger majority.

If you build that coalition before the election you are conceding the election.

Nobody ever votes for a coalition – coalitions are an ad hoc compromise reached when the parties people actually vote for fail to achieve a workably majority.

What job could Vince Cable do in a Labour Coalition? DPM where he’d have no ministerial power and have no influence over either the Treasury or the DTI (which might well spend its Parliamentary time reversing most of the legislation he had ministerial responsibility for – including university tuition fees, reductions in employment law rights)?

That’s if he even keeps his seat which is substantially more precarious than Clegg’s.

What could Labour offer to the remaining rump of the LibDems in a Coalition when it hasn’t even been able to support them on their defining long-term policy aims on electoral reform and House of Lords reform which it broadly agrees with them on for largely partisan reasons? If a Lab-LibDem coalition was needed it would mean that there would be a serious risk of even a new Lords reform Bill being defeated.

If the Lords reform Bill goes through I’d be unsurprised to find Clegg and perhaps other leading LibDems in the first tranche of candidates for the Lords in 2015 with the party’s stance going into the General Election being one of not participating in any future Coalition and instead growing its power in the Lords.

Clegg is a liability, and I imagine he will cost the LibDems seats so they’d be daft to keep him on as leader imo, but if they are daft enough to keep him for the 2015 general election and if Labour need the LibDems to form a coalition then I don’t see what else Labour can do about it. Beggers can’t be choosers!

A rise in alternative left wing parties like Greens would damage Labour, this party didn’t have the balls to have an official stance on AV and that may well come back to haunt them, people voting for other left wing parties will take votes away from Labour and that could lead to Conservative wins in traditionally leftists areas (The Tories opposed it for a reason y’know) so there might not be a Labour plurality in the Commons at all if the left fails to unite behind the Red Rose.

Lastly a Lab-SNP-PC coalition might work, but what would Celtic nationalists demand from a coalition and would it be at the expense of the English working class?

If the Lib Dems had any sense they’d be pushing for Cable as Chancellor as a minimum requirement depending on circumstances.

The way the polling is going now seems to suggest we could easily end up in a sirt of mirror image parliament to what we have at the moment with Labour just falling short of an overall majority. Difference would be that the Lib Dems would likely be weakened with less seats.

The thing that really strikes me is the general assumption before the election that the Lib Dems were “more naturally” aligned with Labour than the Tories. I’m not sure that’s the case at all and not convinced it ever was; on far too many issues the Labour and Lib Dem positions were MILES apart – civil liberties is an obvious one to cite but the Lib Dems are not comfortable bedfellows with large unions, swollen government and centralisation which are all pretty fundamental Labour traits.

If the Tory vote dips further it would be interesting to see what proportion of that goes towards Labour and what to the Lib Dems. Where there’s a Conservative vote to be squeezed, might the Lib Dems take advantage of some anti-Labour sentiment? Similarly in LD-Con battlegrounds, which are more numerous, if Labour pinch more votes from the LDs than the Tories, could we see the Conservatives pinching quite a lot of seats from the Liberals? Food for thought.

Sunny, a few points:

1. Clegg’s career as an electoral politician is finished – however, the Brussels Eurocracy beckons (where he’ll grow fat at our expense!). Your piece is stating the bleedin’ obvious.

2. Labour’s lead in the polls is soft – the Tories will remind voters of the profligacy of the ‘B-liar’/Brown years, Muslim voters will register that Ed is Jewish, etc – and we’ll probably end up with another hung Parliament.

3. Probably, as I say in 2. But no-one knows. Have you nowt better to fill your blog with, lad?

Hi Sunny, well I don’t disagree that Nick is probably mightily unpopular amongst the Labour grass roots !

But should the time come when a LabLib coalition is the only viable alternative ( a million and ifs and buts there for sure) I just don’t know if Ed M will turn down the chance to be PM because Nick leads the Lib Dems. Nick may well turn out to be unpopular at the polls – in which case the scenario we are debating is null and void. But if many of the comments here are wrong in 2015 and we do offer Labour a chance of a return to government – will Ed say no?

Don’t forget – David Cameron remains a mightily unpopular figure amongst grass roots LIb Dems! we still held our noses…

Tories, Tory-lite and Red Tories. The first 22yo Pirate Party candidate to stand will get my vote. Remember! Trust no-one over 30! They’ve had illegal wars, hocked the young peoples futures, denied them jobs and social advancement and have put a stranglehold on them by hogtying them with debt (for education!! Ffs!!). This entire generation of politicians are Thatchers Children, with her policies and her basic mindset.

Not surprising Clegg says this: a refusal to work with Labour is a fatal admission of preferring the Tories; but he can’t sound too keen on it as the coalition strategy is to blame it all on Labour. Labour on the other hand have every interest in saying Tories and Lib Dems are the same as they want the votes of former Lib Dem supporters.

Despite all the gossip, hung parliaments are commonly predicted but don’t often happen. Whatever happens in the next few years, 2015 will almost certainly be a return to a mostly two party system.

Richard you say: I just don’t know if Ed M will turn down the chance to be PM because Nick leads the Lib Dems.

Sure, but there are other considerations here too. If Libdems lose about half their MPs, possibly more, is Clegg’s position sustainable as leader? I doubt it.

Secondly, the Libdems have committed to joining the party with the most amount of MPs. Is Clegg really going to turn around and say Libdems won’t do a deal with Labour because he didn’t get the DPM job (especially after an electoral beating?). I doubt it.

Clegg’s position in 2015 will be much weaker than it is now.

A rise in alternative left wing parties like Greens would damage Labour, this party didn’t have the balls to have an official stance on AV

There was an official Labour position on AV – and it was a yes. Secondly, I’d be very surprised if the Greens get more than another MP at the next election. That’s hardly a huge threat to Labour. Besides, the Greens would join a Coalition with Labour in case of a hung parliament.

You don’t need a coalition partner if you are going to have an overall majority of 90.

Clegg’s entirely understandable worries are about the LibDems being pushed to the margins of politics in Britain at the next election as the result of his leadership during the time of the present coalition government. Hence, he wants to show that, in fact, his political principles are thoroughly flexible.

The lib dems have ejected most left leaning support, and most of that has gone to labour. This is backed by the Ashcroft studies, and it is backed by a fairly simple analysis of the baseline support of the two parties (labour seem to have a new baseline of about 38% and the lib dems of 10%).

So two things need saying.

1 coalition is far less likely with a much diminished third party.

2. Labour would alienate its new baseline support by getting into bed with the party they feel betrayed them.

Coalition would thus be an electoral failure and an electoral liability for labour.

This is a bit of a joke. Cable and all the other leading Lib Dems have been fully signed up members of the Coalition. Of course it’s an equally large joke that a MIliband led government would be any different from the Coalition.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot Miliband would only have doubled, not trebled tuition fees. And he would close the deficit through the use of Gordon Brown’s fantasy growth predictions and a VAT cut. Because that will solve the fundamental productivity issues throughout the UK economy.

I hope if Labour is short of a majority they do form a coalition with the LibDems. The LibDems might be able to attenuate some of Labour’s more authoritarian and illiberal streaks. I also think it would be less damaging for the LibDems, since the party is generally perceived more as centre-left by the public.

I think most agree that Nick has to go in order for the party to remain relevant. Whether it’s Tim Farron, Vince Cable or someone else who replaces him doesn’t seem to me to matter too much (probably best if it isn’t another orange booker like Nick though, if they want to gain votes.)

“Their MPs will only vote on matters if there is a Scottish dimension to the topic. , ie it is UK wide, or it is English but there is consequential funding for Scotland in it. I imagine that Plaid is the same.”

I’m sure that would be set aside in the event of a coalition deal, and I’d imagine the price for such a deal would simply be far more powers including fiscal responsibilities for both devolved entities – it’s doubtful labour would even have to offer cabinet positions.

Dave H

I suspect the 10% of the vote that has shifted from Lib Dem to Labour since the coalition deal was signed has already moved Labour to a more liberal outlook.

That isn’t something that will become particularly evident at this early stage – but an influx of new people with a particular way of thinking – including many who have joined the party as activities and the usual political hangers on – and plenty who are now just a fairly strong voter block – is likely to change the party to quite some degree.

So I’m not sure there would be much benefit to a socially liberal agenda of the remaining economic laissez-faire-ers that now make up the lib dems being part of a labour/liberal coalition.

I really worry about labour supporters, you have built yourself a fantasy palace & its all going to come crashing down sometime in the next 3 years.
Afew months ago most of you thought milliband was holding labour back, now you all think hes great. You have a 5% lead with ICM, in midterm, in the worst recession for 70 years & yet you are all sure you will be the largest party in 3 years time.
What about the far-left takeover of the major unions, pulling labour to the fringes ? What about your dodgy finances ?
Dont mind me, go back to sleep.

Paul Barker

Who are you addressing exactly?

With Blair coming back we can have a dream team ticket of Blair/Clegg mushy middle, , I don’t believe in anything, third way clap trap. And kept in line by a tory party with Michael Gove as leader.

It will be a faith based, tambourine bashing, free market bonanza.

Sally: “It will be a faith based, tambourine bashing, free market bonanza.”

Surely with a few liberal interventionist wars thrown in as an optional patriotic diversion when folk memories of the Olympics fade. Try Chris Giles in the FT on: Joy offers to offset Olympic shortfall
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f05f5a70-d4dc-11e1-9444-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21Yc0KDvF

The remaining libdem activists that is – I know at least 2 people online who stopped doing any activist type stuff for the lib dems since they made the coalition with the Conservatives, and probably have not joined up again.

It would be quite possible to exploit political advantage for Labour to say that they would only go into coalition with LibDems if the LibDems would be happy to abandon several of their key manifesto pledges – you know those non-negotiables that are the cornerstone of an election campaign. This line could be taken, and then used as a negotiating chip in any coalition discussions. The LibDems would have to go with the biggest party, and their negotiating hand will be near to non-existent.

Oh hang on, what is the likelihood of Clegg getting re-elected? Surely if one thing is near certain following the next election, Clegg will not be an MP.

Oh hang on, what is the likelihood of Clegg getting re-elected?

Dunno, quite frankly, some suggest a lot of his support was from local students voting Lib Dem because of their alleged opposition to tuition fees, while others claim he was always supported as a Tory-lite in his own constituency. If it’s the former he’s fucked, the latter he’ll cling on.