How do we assess the role of the Lib-Dems in the coalition? The Liberal Democrats are now making a sustained effort to tell us that the actions of this ideologically driven Conservative government are being moderated by their influence. Their argument seems to be - if it were not for us, it would be even worse. I think even this modest claim is dubious.
Would this government have gone much further with their austerity programmes, that are sucking the oxygen of life from the economy, without completely scuppering their chances of re-election? I think not. There is a better way of judging the Lib-Dem influence:
Let us look at the situation had the Lib-Dems not formed a coalition government with the Tories, opting instead into supporting or opposing a minority Conservative government according to their manifesto and their genuine beliefs.
We know that they would have opposed the trebling of university fees; after all many of their MPs including Nick Clegg signed a pledge promising not to support an increase. A minority Conservative government would not have dared introduce it.
What about the Health and Social Care Bill? I do not believe they would have supported that either; it was not in their manifesto and it is opposed by their membership. It was not even in the Conservative's manifesto. The government would not have dared introduce it, knowing that they would face certain defeat if forced to call an election on the issue.
On the economy and taxation, would they have supported a tax cut for the 1%ers paid for by pensioners? Again I think not. Putting the dogma of the "market knows best" above reason is manifested in the Conservatives' rejection of a number of sensible suggestions made by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
In his leaked letter he states the obvious, namely that: "market forces are insufficient for creating the long term industrial capacities we need." He chastises the government for lacking "a compelling vision of where the country is heading beyond sorting out the fiscal mess". He goes on to suggest that RBS, a bank largely owned by the taxpayer, be converted to a "British Business Bank", and be used to support industrial objectives of "strategic importance". All these ideas have fallen on deaf ears.
Wouldn't his ideas have had more traction if the government had felt they risked defeat in the House if they completely ignored his suggestions?
An objective assessor of the Lib-Dems in the coalition can only conclude that their leading lights have sold their membership, and their voters who believed their words, down the river for ministerial posts in government.
The principled stand by the party against the Iraq war under Charles Kennedy earned it the respect of the majority of the electorate; I was one of them. All that has now been squandered under the leadership of Nick Clegg.
Lib-Dems, you have missed a great opportunity to genuinely rein in corrupted capitalism and with it improve the future economic prospects of Britain. You could also have spared the country the virtual privatisation of the NHS. The electorate will not forgive you for that.
Entering a coalition agreement with the Conservative party was a strategic blunder that is going to take you a long time to recover from. It may even be terminal.
Follow Adnan Al-Daini on Twitter: www.twitter.com/respect65
http://www.whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com/
Imagine is we only focused our lives what have not done or failed at !
If both parties are bound together in govt under a well defined coalition agreement they have no choice but to see it through and deliver their programme as a whole or 65% of it in the Lib Dems case .Thats got to be better than a few crumbs for the table in key parliamentary votes.They are bound by at least some degree of collective responsibility.
You also miss the key narrative of this Coalition a full blown Coalition was necessary than the less stable Confidence and Supply deal as the bond markets would have taken fright at an arrangement less stable than full blown Coalition/Majority Govt
They should have been shorched but what was the alternative the Torry's balir neo-con lite or fuzzy warm coca politics of the lib dems.So the country made the best choice it could and gave no out right majority to any party and the LD's blew it up.
We need a clear choice not Cammeron's austerity politics that only ensure the 1% are better off at the cost of the country stupid supply side economics(inflation inflation inflation) Not Millebands neo con blairite i will suck up to who pays me the most(Ed Balls has to go too) who believes that austerity is the way to go UK still losing jobs at breakneck speed US 225,000 a month.
Lib dems this time flush the toilet as many times as it takes.Increase capital gains tax,close all loopholes people who earn over £300,000 a year can access,NI is the way to help poor and low earners(look at what blair and brown did to the rate while in power) Cut VAT to 15% but have a 30% rate on items over 50,000
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adnan-aldaini/what-is-britains-labour-p_b_1134470.html
As regards to university fee's i only have limited experience but from the little i have seen some universities should be giving refunds as lecturers dont turn up classrooms are not fit for purpose yet massive investment in IT infrastructure.
Do i think University education is important yes i do and i dont think that it should be the preserve of the rich either why not use some of the cash that is spent on things like nuclear weapons to do something positive like Pell grants in the states?.people should pay something for thier education but not be straddled with massive debt so the best and brightest dont just go into law or the city(that really does not work..
First and most important thing is raise the cap on National insurance to £100.00 not £38.000 and use that money to invest in the NHS or education?