Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

I think your view of other people being unrealistic is patronising.

It's not meant to be. - 'People' - now becomes 'other' people. - oh dear, he we go.

I've tried to explain it reasonably, if you don't accept or believe what I've said then let me attempt to clarify it before it grows inside your head (now that is patronising):

People seem to me to be levelling their argument against a Lib Dem party who got into power and failed to deliver what they said they would deliver, I think people need to be realistic, the Lib Dems didn't even get one fifth of the seats that 2nd place labour got.

That's what I am trying to say.

The LibDems did a lot worse than they expected to do at the election. They could have entered a coalition with Labour but that would have meant keeping a very unpopular PM in office from a party that, by any reckoning, had no mandate. They could have chosen not to enter a coalition with the Conservatives and forced them to form a minority government which would probably have led to another election in six months or so. They would have been portrayed as being selfish at a time when the country needed a stable government. They probably also thought that in that second election they would do even less well.

Yep, agreed, very difficult decisions - all what you have said - along with possibly hundreds of other issues, forces, promises, constraints, hopes and risks that I am sure we could identify - and many we might not be aware of.

So they chose to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in exchange for various concessions; a referendum on changing the electoral system being the main one. It was probably seen as a once in a generation chance to achieve one of their main political goals.

Not really, they didn't even get that, there is the A.V. thing, but that's never been one of their main political goals, not even a political goal, the Conservatives simply wouldn't have given them a referendum of PR, there was little chance they could hope to swing that one past the Conservatives.

As has already been established Clegg had decided before the election that he would not stick to the party's pledge to vote against tuition fees . . . . .

. . . . . if the Lib Dems didn't get elected and found themselves in a coalition where they knew they would not get their own education policy past either Labour of the Conservatives.

Presumably he made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying for the other rewards he saw coming from sharing power.

Well I'd leave the personal politics stuff out ('rewards he saw coming from sharing power') (?) - but generally, yes, I think you're right.

I'd say - the Lib Dems made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying to get other Lib Dem policies onto the statute books.

That's pretty much a straight-up description of compromise / coalition.

Many people, many LibDems, though, are wondering just what they are getting out of this coalition, other than 'power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few.

I think they took the decision to enter into a coalition as they could get a few of their policies enacted. I am not sure about the more cynical stuff ("power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few".) - I can't see that myself.

If they win the referendum on AV maybe they will think it has been worth it. At the moment though it seems more likely that even if they do win it they will face the great irony of being destroyed under a voting system they thought would make them more powerful.

I think they will do ok at the next election (well, no worse than the last time), I don't think the tuition fees issue will be a major factor half a decade down the line, but who knows what will happen between then and now.