The man who got his party to government off the back of promising to abolish tuition fees, then immediately tripled tuition fees landing an entire generation with massive debt has questionable character. Who’d’ve thunk it?
In contrast, the Lib Dems did manage to pass same-sex marriage (frustratingly, many seem to credit the Tories or Cameron for this despite a majority of Tories voting against it at both readings[1]).
The Lib Dems also managed to block the Digital Economy Bill, AKA the "Snoopers Charter" (the Tories later passed it, once they got a majority in parliament).
The Lib Dem's top priority has always been voting reform, and Clegg seemed to gamble away far too much in an attempt to get it. All they managed was a referendum on a watered-down AV system (AFAIK the Lib Dems want STV, as used by Northern Ireland); which was heavily campaigned against by both Labour and Tories, and failed spectacularly :(
[0] https://general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-ma...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Same_Sex_Couples)_Ac...
Then someone pointed out to me the tuition fee thing wasn't just a manifesto policy. Every Lib Dem candidate in that election had (at the direction of the campaigns department) signed a personal pledge to vote against a rise in tuition fees during the next parliament. Most of them broke that pledge in pretty spectacular fashion (at the direction of party leadership).
I didn't really have an answer to that, and still don't.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge
Agreeing to a referendum on the voting system without securing agreement that the Tories would not campaign against it was also incredibly tactically stupid.
The coalition negotiations were far too quick and cheap. It should have been over a few weeks rather than a couple of days. Anyway, the public punished the Lib Dems by re-relegating them to minor party status.
This was key for me that turned it from being the unfortunate reality of politics into a serious breach of trust. I remember saying at the time that I'd have accepted keeping fees but tripling them was like slapping your voters in the face.
I understand they were stitched up by the Tories: the budget gutted university funding, meaning the choice was increase fees or watch higher education collapse. That being said, they needed to find another way.
From a strategic perspective, too, it was the biggest cause of their 2015 annihilation. Their entire message of "we'll moderate the Tories" had the ready response of "you mean like tuition fees?"
It wasnt any more a mistake than the decision to take a bribe was a mistake.
It's my pet peeve when people claim this.
The UK already had same sex marriage, it was just not called marriage. Labour brought that in. The bill you refer to just renamed it, plus it gave religious orgs a get out from equalities legislation and tidied up non-same-sex marriage rules.
And the only reason it passed was because of Labour. The majority of Tories voted against their own parties bill. And 10% of Lib dems did too.
Like so many of Clegg's achievements, it was a triumph of (false and misleading) advertising over substance...
In exchange for not supporting a bill that didn't really do what was claimed, the tories got total support for all of their economic and social policies.
Sure, but marriage isn't just about legals/financials. Socially/culturally, civil partnerships are a "runner up prize" compared to marriage; e.g. the recent extension of civil partnership to opposite-sex couples didn't get much fanfare.
In any case, I was specifically referring to the 2013 act, rather than the broader notion of marriage/partnerships/etc. It's the inconsistency which frustrates me, to see people thanking Cameron/Tories for delivering same-sex marriage (i.e. the 2013 act) in one breath, and blaming Clegg/LibDems for delivering tuition rises in the next.
> And the only reason it passed was because of Labour
Absolutely. The LibDems couldn't do much to swing votes themselves; hence the back-room negotiations, whips, etc.
> And 10% of Lib dems did too.
True, but that's still just 4 MPs; so I'm not sure it's too statistically insightful. Still disappointing considering the whole point of liberal philosophy is personal freedom (unfortunately some like to interpret "personal" as "the corporation I own/represent", and "freedom" to include freedom to pollute, freedom to choose my own health & safety levels, etc.)
> In exchange for not supporting a bill that didn't really do what was claimed, the tories got total support for all of their economic and social policies.
To be clear, the bill which did that would be the AV referendum (which LibDems most cared about). Also, some Tory policies were blocked by the LibDems, e.g. the Digital Economy Bill.
Lib Dems target students and young people who are generally more liberal, their main selling point to them was tuition fees. Young people got them to government and they immediately turned on their voters.
For all that, I think he made a serious mistake going into coalition with the Tories when he could equally well (going on election results) have done so with Labour (plus possibly SNP I forget), whose policies I thought should have better aligned with Lib Dem.
But I'm assuming the best of intent here, and will continue to do so until proven otherwise, so this case is an interesting development.
Cameron was a disaster. Austerity was incredibly cruel on the poorest of the population, and the UK wasn't exactly a shining light in its recovery from the financial crisis. He led a weak remain campaign and then stepped aside as soon as Brexit became difficult, and the following governments have had to deal with his mess, the covid outbreak and the effects of the war in Ukraine.
So I think you could equally say that the coalition is a root cause of many of the issues of today. That and the lack of any credible opposition for years.
Although austerity did indeed start under the coalition (so it has the Lib Dems' fingerprints on it), didn't much of what many dislike about Cameron's premiership stem from after the end of the coalition?
> He led a weak remain campaign and then stepped aside as soon as Brexit became difficult, and the following governments have had to deal with his mess
He was rumoured to have campaigned in the 2015 general election on the assumption he'd renew the coalition with the Lib Dems, who would block the EU referendum he'd promised his voters, and who he could continue using as a human shield. But the backlash against the Lib Dems after just one term of coalition with him was so severe that he had to lead a single-party majority government and uphold his negotiating position as if it were a plan for government.
He was Cambridge.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-nick-cleggs-7mi...