Support NeoGAF

[Mr Nash]

So, as someone unknowledgeable to UK politics, what's the reason as to why the liberal parties are so powerless? And I don't want empty zingers, like I need actual information.

Also, someone in here suggested that the UK doesn't want a two party system like the US... but I actually think it could help to have a smaller number of parties, since the UK isn't nearly as big or dense as the US, and it could help the issue of the liberal vote being split between multiple parties.

Labour has been hemorrhaging blue collar voters for the last while, which has been hurting it a lot. The current leader is considered way to far left by many in order to bring those people back to the party. People were thinking it would be a couple more years until an election, giving the party time to re-align itself, making it a more enticing block to vote for among the working class, but this snap election threw a big ol' spanner in the works for that.

 

[Principate]

So, as someone unknowledgeable to UK politics, what's the reason as to why the liberal parties are so powerless? And I don't want empty zingers, like I need actual information.

Also, someone in here suggested that the UK doesn't want a two party system like the US... but I actually think it could help to have a smaller number of parties, since the UK isn't nearly as big or dense as the US, and it could help the issue of the liberal vote being split between multiple parties.

The liberal democrats are already largely irrelevant and the only reason they're being mentioned here is because they have dramatically different policy regarding Brexit (soft or no vs Labours hard leave). Having only one party would not help this as the opposition can only really hold as a directive one of these positions. In fact we'd probably be completely fucked if that were the case.

 

[Syder]

Less than a month after she said she wouldn't lol

 

[TimmmV]

If Labour's centre-left don't act decisively in the next few days, they're basically complicit in handing May power until 2022.

And yet the Lib Dems didn't do the same by making the coalition in 2010?

So, as someone unknowledgeable to UK politics, what's the reason as to why the liberal parties are so powerless? And I don't want empty zingers, like I need actual information.

Also, someone in here suggested that the UK doesn't want a two party system like the US... but I actually think it could help to have a smaller number of parties, since the UK isn't nearly as big or dense as the US, and it could help the issue of the liberal vote being split between multiple parties.

The UK voted to keep a First Past The Post voting system just a few years ago; by that measure, there is no appetite on a national level for a new voting system. There is also very little appetite within the two main parties, as it overwhelmingly favours them.

And the problem isnt really the liberal vote being split between multiple parties - its more that the electoral system we have here doesn't really promote compromise. Usually the party in Government will have a large enough majority to basically do whatever they want. The problem is that the voting system basically wastes votes that aren't for the winning candidate in each seat - which means you get parties with decent % of the popular vote getting none or next to no seats.

Unfortunately because most people support either the Tories or Labour, there isn't really much appetite to change things, most people will admit the system isn't fair but then justify it by saying that it prevents the mental parties (like UKIP or the BNP) from getting representation, or that it at least prevents stagnation by (usually) resulting in a strong government.

 

[timewyrm]

So this is how liberty dies...

 

[toythatkills]

Best tweet: https://twitter.com/philosl0thical/status/854300858716217345

 

[Maledict]

To be honest, getting the people who voted in 2015 to vote in 2017 would be a massive win. This is about damage control, after all. As for austerity, I still think opposing austerity is the right thing to do even if it is one of many avenues they should use to attack. The fact is that Conservative rule has been epitomised by things getting better for the rich and worse for the poor, by services and benefits being cut, by wages for the average joe flatlining (at best). They lost the argument on austerity, I think, largely because their alternative was Austerity Lite. Far too often Labour's policy since 2010 has been "What the Tories are doing, but nicer", which doesn't excite anyone. Labour lost the austerity argument, broadly, because they accepted that austerity was necessary rather than arguing for stimulus and growth.

I agree that Labour would be making a grave error if they were to base their campaign purely around austerity and the NHS, but given austerity has been disastrous, and the NHS is in dire straits, it's hard for the opposition to ignore them.

Sigh. The sad thing is that, while I think there is a path forward for Labour, there is no way they're going to take it. Their recent pledge to continue the Triple Lock until 2025 ended any change they had of winning my vote. The one demographic which Labour should be able to guarantee capturing is the young, but with policies like that? They deserve to fail, frankly.

Your talking about campaigning on an issue that is dead to the majority of the public. Hell, even the tories have delayed austerity. It's a dead issue - you don't win campaigns complaining about the past, you win by selling a vision of the future.

Re. The NHS, the fact is May is trusted more than Corbyn on this. And whilst you and I know it's in trouble, it doesn't seem that way. And labour endlessly campaigns on 'last chance to save the nhs' - they just aren't trusted anymore on it.

I agree completely on the triple lock. Problem is young people don't vote like old people.

 

[phisheep]

So this is how liberty dies...

No, this how liberty sustains itself, by having elections and suchlike.

 

[kirblar]

Because no-one cares about these issues. He's preaching to his base. You're right that an angry, indignant campaign full of passion could work - but not on these things. The notion that austerity is going to motivate someone who didn't vote labour in 2015 to now vote labour is ludicrous.

Corbyn should be out giving amazing speeches of fire and passion about how fucked the common man is under Brexit, how May is selling the country down the river for headlines to the same businessmen who don't pay a penny in taxes.

Hard to passionately oppose Brexit when every indication is that you're happy it's happening.

Anti-free trade populism isn't limited to the right wing, as we've seen in both the UK and US.

 

[Maledict]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

Sorry Huw, I really want to support the lib Dems because of Brexit, and he's a Preston guy like myself, but I cannot and will not vote for a cowardly religious fuckwit who can't even have the grace to say that gay people aren't innately evil on tv.

 

[timewyrm]

No, this how liberty sustains itself, by having elections and suchlike.

I was waiting until 9th June to add the words "with thunderous applause".

 

[Hazzuh]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

Video here

Shambles.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Liberalism and traditional working class values are almost entirely separate. It's only a mutual loathing for the tories that has kept them together all this time. Go wait at the pie stand at half time of a League 2 game or sit in the corner of a working man's club in Bradford and tell me how often they talk about LGBT rights or stop and search.

 

[Charles Brandon]

So, as someone unknowledgeable to UK politics, what's the reason as to why the liberal parties are so powerless? And I don't want empty zingers, like I need actual information.

Also, someone in here suggested that the UK doesn't want a two party system like the US... but I actually think it could help to have a smaller number of parties, since the UK isn't nearly as big or dense as the US, and it could help the issue of the liberal vote being split between multiple parties.

Labour lost because they took the blame for crash, made some bad choices for leader after Blair and various other things. However, successive election defeats were interpreted, wrongly in my view, as a rejection by the electorate of the moderate, centrist politics that saw them sweep to power in 1997 with Tony Blair. This opened the door for ultra-left-wing, long-standing irrelevance Jeremy Corbyn to get in the leadership shuffle and ride a wave of naive optimism and entryist trotskyism to the top job, which he has held in a vice like grip ever since, due to an influx of said naive optomists and entryist trotskyites into the party, marginalising the previous party membership.

The problem with Jeremy Corbyn, which everyone knows and which no-one says for some reason, is that he is a communist and communists go down about as well here as they do in the US.

 

[kmag]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

Sorry Huw, I really want to support the lib Dems because of Brexit, and he's a Preston guy like myself, but I cannot and will not vote for a cowardly religious fuckwit who can't even have the grace to say that gay people aren't innately evil on tv.

We're all sinners aren't we?

 

[toythatkills]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

Sorry Huw, I really want to support the lib Dems because of Brexit, and he's a Preston guy like myself, but I cannot and will not vote for a cowardly religious fuckwit who can't even have the grace to say that gay people aren't innately evil on tv.

I'm surprised this is suddenly news. His views on homosexuality weren't a secret, I remember reading about them when he was being named as the Lib Dem's leader.

I guess Team Yellow really was just that irrelevant that nobody gave a shit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"We're all sinners, but especially the benders and the queers..."

 

[Ravensmash]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

I just read an article on this - I think it was on Pink News. I'll try and find the link but it was actually fairly well balanced.

Seems that Farron has a recent record of pushing for LGBT rights in this country.

But I can completely see why this could muddy the waters.

Edit: By actually fairly balanced I don't mean to question the source at all, just that it was fairly in depth on his past record.

 

[TimmmV]

Labour lost because they took the blame for crash, made some bad choices for leader after Blair and various other things. However, successive election defeats were interpreted, wrongly in my view, as a rejection by the electorate of the moderate, centrist politics that saw them sweep to power in 1997 with Tony Blair. This opened the door for ultra-left-wing, long-standing irrelevance Jeremy Corbyn to get in the leadership shuffle and ride a wave of naive optimism and entryist trotskyism to the top job, which he has held in a vice like grip ever since, due to an influx of said naive optomists and entryist trotskyites into the party, marginalising the previous party membership.

The problem with Jeremy Corbyn, which everyone knows and which no-one says for some reason, is that he is a communist and communists go down about as well here as they do in the US.

All of these are true, but I would also add that the UK generally does lean more towards the Conservatives anyway, and also have the majority of the press being pretty favourable to Conservative agendas

 

[Maledict]

His voting record is quite decent. But that's not enough to be frank. Young people aren't going to stop killing themselves because Tim Faron votes well even if he does think their innately evil.

Like I said, a pity vote isn't enough. This was a complete own goal - he should simply have said he misspoke, and of course gay people aren't sinners. That's if he wants to actually not be a complete God bothering idiot.

 

[phisheep]

So Tim Faron didn't give a clear and easy answer on homosexuality being a sin. When asked *tonight* in an interview. Said he wasn't there to answer theological questions.

Sorry, but he can fuck right off to the moon. Voting is not enough, I don't want your "pity" vote, and young Lgbt people need to see elected leaders be clear that being gay is fine. When David Cameron and Theresa May are more pro-Lgbt than you and can answer an easy question about gay people being human you have utterly fucked up.

Sorry Huw, I really want to support the lib Dems because of Brexit, and he's a Preston guy like myself, but I cannot and will not vote for a cowardly religious fuckwit who can't even have the grace to say that gay people aren't innately evil on tv.

I'm not entirely sure that there is a clear and easy answer to that question.

 

[Chittagong]

Masterfully, cynically played.

Labour is a mess, so Tories can win seats from them.

SNP couldn't be any higher, so Tories can win seats from them.

Libdems will be libdems, with a minor risk of hoovering some remain / soft brexit votes overall.

Tories just bought an extra two years in power with an added bonus of messing up their competitors.

One can only hope they are this clever in the negotiating tables.

 

[TimmmV]

Video here

Shambles.

"we are all born sinners" manages to be a reply to that question which is no good for anyone.

I don't think even Corbyn would give that bad an answer there

 

[kmag]

"we are all born sinners" manages to be a reply to that question which is no good for anyone.

I don't think even Corbyn would give that bad an answer there

Corbyn did managed to have the whole gay is a choice scandal but that was essentially a misquote.

 

[Maledict]

I'm not entirely sure that there is a clear and easy answer to that question.

Yes there is an easy answer.

Gay people are not sinners, anymore than anyone else. We're all exactly the same.

That's the easy answer that even Theresa May would give. You don't say 'we're all sinners', that sends a co platelets different message. And when pressed on it two years later you don't sidestep the issue by saying you aren't going to be talking theology! This is not a theoretical question Tim, it *matters*. I, and my friend,s want to vote lib dem because of Brexit. We're in a rare labour seat that they could flip even though it has a big labour majority - because Kate Hoey is the MP, and she's rabidly anti-eu but this is the most pro-eu part of the country. But the lib Dems won't do it with this hanging around their neck.

 

[Charles Brandon]

His voting record is quite decent. But that's not enough to be frank. Young people aren't going to stop killing themselves because Tim Faron votes well even if he does think their innately evil.

Like I said, a pity vote isn't enough. This was a complete own goal - he should simply have said he misspoke, and of course gay people aren't sinners. That's if he wants to actually not be a complete God bothering shit.

He is a god bothering shit though so he can't say they aren't sinners, because that's what he believes and he won't deny his religious beliefs. But he will act in a socially liberal way toward them, gladly.

He reminds me of my cousins who are both devoutly Christian (one of them is a missionary in Africa). They are kind, gentle, decent people who I suspect have never acted prejudicially towards gay people. Yet if I told them I was gay (I'm not for the record) they would probably pray for me. They wouldn't scold me or shun me or anything like that but they would pray to god for my salvation.

I don't really know how I feel about that in all honesty. Homosexuality is incompatible with most religions. Does that mean that all religious people are either are too homophobic to take office or else insincere and hypocritical?

 

[JonnyDBrit]

I just read an article on this - I think it was on Pink News. I'll try and find the link but it was actually fairly well balanced.

Seems that Farron has a recent record of pushing for LGBT rights in this country.

But I can completely see why this could muddy the waters.

Edit: By actually fairly balanced I don't mean to question the source at all, just that it was fairly in depth on his past record.

Here's the link in question:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/1...ce-after-refusing-to-answer-gay-sex-question/

Definitely a misfire by Farron, especially when younger voters are more likely to keep an LGBTQ+ perspective in mind. The best way I can understand is that maybe he thinks in terms of it as personal beliefs vs what he feels a government should do in terms of secular and fair politics - which his voting record does back up.

Good grief, we can't have a straightforward, quality candidate in this country, can we?

 

[pigeon]

I'm not entirely sure that there is a clear and easy answer to that question.

I might consider "No."

 

[Maledict]

He is a god bothering shit though so he can't say they aren't sinners, because that's what he believes and he won#t deny his religious beliefs. But he will act in a socially liberal way toward them, gladly.

He reminds me of my cousins who are both devoutly Christian (one of them is a missionary in Africa). They are kind, gentle, decent people who I suspect have never acted prejudicially towards gay people. Yet if I told them I was gay (I'm not for the record) they would probably pray for me. They wouldn't scold me or shun me or anything like that but they would pray to god for my salvation.

I don't really know how I feel about that in all honesty. Homosexuality is incompatible with most religions. Does that mean that all religious people are either are too homophobic to take office of else insincere and hypocritical?

I don't know what the answer is to that.

I don't think religious people are insincere. Unless they are also not mixing fabrics, believe their daughters can be sold into slavery and think that divorce should be illegal and is pure evil. Because religion has evolved and changed since the Bible was written, and it's appallingly hypocritical and homophobic to be fine with THIS bit still being true today, but not any of the other bits which are inconvenient on a daily basis.

 

[King_Moc]

I'm not entirely sure that there is a clear and easy answer to that question.

He was asked if he thought that homosexual sex is a sin. Please explain what you think is difficult about answering that?

 

[Dougald]

Here's the link in question:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/1...ce-after-refusing-to-answer-gay-sex-question/

Definitely a misfire by Farron, especially when younger voters are more likely to keep an LGBTQ+ perspective in mind. The best way I can understand is that maybe he thinks in terms of it as personal beliefs vs what he feels a government should do in terms of secular and fair politics - which his voting record does back up.

Good grief, we can't have a straightforward, quality candidate in this country, can we?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is what I'd assume it is, and at least it would signify that he doesn't think politics should be defined by religion. But I don't really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least on this issue. He needs to clarify this himself.

In 2017, that should have been an easy question to answer

 

[Maledict]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is what I'd assume it is, and at least it would signify that he doesn't think politics should be defined by religion. But I don't really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least on this issue. He needs to clarify this himself.

In 2017, that should have been an easy question to answer

He was asked the original question in 2015. This was a follow up two years later. He knew it was coming.

It's not easy to answer because he does think gay people are innately sinners. He won't vote against them, but he still thinks your shit.

(Note that his record on Lgbt votes was not great before he became leader either).

 

[Ravensmash]

Here's the link in question:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/1...ce-after-refusing-to-answer-gay-sex-question/

Definitely a misfire by Farron, especially when younger voters are more likely to keep an LGBTQ+ perspective in mind. The best way I can understand is that maybe he thinks in terms of it as personal beliefs vs what he feels a government should do in terms of secular and fair politics - which his voting record does back up.

Good grief, we can't have a straightforward, quality candidate in this country, can we?

Thanks for the link - lost it somehow!

The bolded was my thinking tbh, where he has his own beliefs but he's not one to allow that to infringe on the rights of others. I can't see any evidence to suggest that politically, he's not a social liberal.

That being said, I'm not LGBT so I probably speak from a bit of a sheltered position.

Definitely an awkward moment though, and no doubt we've entered the election media cycle full swing!

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Here's the link in question:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/1...ce-after-refusing-to-answer-gay-sex-question/

Definitely a misfire by Farron, especially when younger voters are more likely to keep an LGBTQ+ perspective in mind. The best way I can understand is that maybe he thinks in terms of it as personal beliefs vs what he feels a government should do in terms of secular and fair politics - which his voting record does back up.

Good grief, we can't have a straightforward, quality candidate in this country, can we?

Ah goddamnit, now I can't in good conscience vote for Lib Dems either. Who is left? Have the greens put foot directly in mouth over anything else recently?

 

[Maledict]

Thanks for the link - lost it somehow!

The bolded was my thinking tbh, where he has his own beliefs but he's not one to allow that to infringe on the rights of others. I can't see any evidence to suggest that politically, he's not a social liberal.

That being said, I'm not LGBT so I probably speak from a bit of a sheltered position.

Definitely an awkward moment though, and no doubt we've entered the election media cycle full swing!

This wasn't a surprise though. It's a follow up from 2015 when it was a big issue.

It's also worth noting his voting record on Lgbt stuff only improved when he became leader. He voted against the 2010 equal rights act.

 

[Dougald]

Ah goddamnit, now I can't in good conscience vote for Lib Dems either. Who is left? Have the greens put foot directly in mouth over anything else recently?

The Monster Raving Loony party will never stray from their convictions

He was asked the original question in 2015. This was a follow up two years later. He knew it was coming.

It's not easy to answer because he does think gay people are innately sinners. He won't vote against them, but he still thinks your shit.

(Note that his record on Lgbt votes was not great before he became leader either).

So after two years "we're all sinners" was the best he could come up with?

 

[Charles Brandon]

I don't think religious people are insincere. Unless they are also not mixing fabrics, believe their daughters can be sold into slavery and think that divorce should be illegal and is pure evil. Because religion has evolved and changed since the Bible was written, and it's appallingly hypocritical and homophobic to be fine with THIS bit still be true today, but not any of the other bits which are inconvenient on a daily basis.

That's the crux of it though. You say (and many people say) that religion, Christianity in particular, has evolved but the Bible hasn't evolved, people just ignore larger parts of it. And the process of choosing which bits to ignore and which bits to follow is not the same forming a normal opinion because it is about faith and the law of God. Tim Farron doesn't choose to believe that gay people are sinners, he believes it as an article of his faith, and the word of god, he doesn't think that his personal feelings on the matter have any relevance. I'm not excusing him by the way. I absolutely appreciate your position and if I thought he had a chance of taking power I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. However, he is a means to an end and I'm prepared to overlook his failings for lack of alternatives. I understand why you don't want to do that.

 

[Maledict]

The Monster Raving Loony party will never stray from their convictions





So after two years "we're all sinners" was the best he could come up with?

Nope, we're all sinners was the original quote. He was asked tonight if he stood by that or had changed his viewpoint, and he replied by saying he wasn't there to discuss theology and won't be talking theology on the campaign trail. The reporter was giving him an easy out to be frank.

My life isn't a theological question Faron.

 

[kmag]

Remember that time Timmy was 'hacked'

I mean isn't lying a sin as well?

 

[FlammableD]

well this is terrifying

 

[Maledict]

That is legitimately terrifying. Are we living in V for Vendetta?

 

[tomtom94]

well this is terrifying

Now you see, putting two different dates on it is just confusing.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

That's the crux of it though. You say (and many people say) that religion, Christianity in particular, has evolved but the Bible hasn't evolved, people just ignore larger parts of it. And the process of choosing which bits to ignore and which bits to follow is not the same forming a normal opinion because it is about faith and the law of God. Tim Farron doesn't choose to believe that gay people are sinners, he believes it as an article of his faith, and the word of god, he doesn't think that his personal feelings on the matter have any relevance. I'm not excusing him by the way. I absolutely appreciate your position and if I thought he had a chance of taking power I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. However, he is a means to an end and I'm prepared to overlook his failings for lack of alternatives. I understand why you don't want to do that.

Nope, we're all sinners was the original quote. He was asked tonight if he stood by that or had changed his viewpoint, and he replied by saying he wasn't there to discuss theology and won't be talking theology on the campaign trail. The reporter was giving him an easy out to be frank.

My life isn't a theological question Faron.

I think the specific phrasing of the question as whether or not it's a 'sin' didn't help matters, since he may have seen that as challenging specifically for a answer in a religious context, and that gets into the particulars of whatever denomination and particular interpretation of the faith he has. If the question were say, 'do you feel gay people should have equal rights under the law?', his response would probably be more outright positive. On the other hand, you do rather wish the leader of the 'liberal' party (I know, I know, liberal democrats not necessarily progressivism and so forth) to have a more developed view of the matter than Lord Wolfenden.

Though, one curious point in the article is the suggestion that the Lib Dems would field two female, transgender candidates in the election. Anyone know who that might refer to?

Edit:

well this is terrifying

Well, I think we can all guess who the Mail are supporting in the GE.

(Good Lord, can they just admit they're authoritarians?)

 

[StayDead]

And yet the Lib Dems didn't do the same by making the coalition in 2010?

That was the only acceptable outcome though without involving UKIP and the BNP.

Not only that, but look at Torys then and now. It's night and day. The Lib Dems stopped them going full Tory.

 

[Ravensmash]

Remember that time Timmy was 'hacked'

I mean isn't lying a sin as well?

I genuinely don't think this was him, to be fair.

He also classed conversion therapists as quacks that same year.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Jesus christ, that Mail front page

 

[naweednrahman]

If only David Milliband and came back into the scene. That would truly cause an upset for the conservatives.

 

[Hazzuh]

well this is terrifying

Christ.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

That was the only acceptable outcome though without involving UKIP and the BNP.

Not only that, but look at Torys then and now. It's night and day. The Lib Dems stopped them going full Tory.

Well, IIRC a more left wing coalition was technically possible, but it would have necessitated a bunch of independents and one or two MP parties. The Tory-Lib Dem alliance was the simplest option on the table.

 

[tomtom94]

That was the only acceptable outcome though without involving UKIP and the BNP.

Not only that, but look at Torys then and now. It's night and day. The Lib Dems stopped them going full Tory.

Eh, if the Lib Dems had refused to go into coalition it would have basically forced the country back to the polls, wouldn't it? Minority government would have worked in the short term but the only other possibility mathematically was some kind of tenuous Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Alliance-Green-Lady Sylvia Harmon "coalition" that barely squeaked over 300 seats.

I think Clegg really underestimated what portion of his vote was anti-Conservative and/or "protest votes". It's telling how many Kippers in 2015 were Lib Dems in 2010.