Why Nick Got the Blues

Many have wondered why Nick Clegg has thrown the fate of his party and his own political fortunes, once riding so high, in with a program of financial austerity which was always going to be politically unpopular. Why has he placed the survival of the coalition ahead of treasured Lib Dem policies like the scrapping of tuition fees? There are two answers, one the background of Clegg himself and two the fear of being blamed for undermining a government which has a severe economic crises to deal with.

Much has been made of Clegg's social background and the parallels with Cameron which have enabled a harmonious relationship between both leaders. However while the personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg is probably important it's hardly enough to keep the coalition together during periods of strife. Clegg's background as an MEP has been largely ignored by the UK press, who have always maintained that European politics is a form of exile. The flippant dismissal of his background in European politics ignores that EU politics consists heavily of coalitions and compromise between parties. To what extent then has his background in European politics informed his decision making over the domestic?

Clegg's priority has been to maintain the stability of the coalition as he needs to show that they are a viable form of government for the UK which has been traditionally used to a single party being in charge. The UK public is used to governments which have the discipline and power to enact change on their own terms. Clegg has calculated that they would not tolerate a coalition in a time of financial crises if their contribution was seen to be excessively obstructionist. To 'break the public' in to the idea of coalitions, for want of a better metaphor, Clegg has viewed decisions through the lens of coalition integrity. For better or for worse the coalition must stand if the Liberal Democrats are to be seen as a responsible governing party.

They key word there is 'excessively'. To what extent will the public and the Lib Dem voters accept acquiescence towards the Conservatives in the name of government stability. Clegg was hammered and rightly so for his capitulation on tuition fees, with the public rightly reckoning that he and the senior party leadership rolled far too easily on the issue of the fee increase. Thus is the unpleasant role of the junior coalition member. Can you exert influence without being considered a hostage taker? Will your compliance be viewed as collaboration?

I would argue that Clegg was correct in recognising that the public would not have tolerated the Liberal Democrats, as the party who came in third, taking the policy initiative in the aftermath of the election. While Cameron did not win outright, he still pulled in the largest number of seats and thus possessed the legitimacy to govern. What has dammed Clegg is his party's derogation from the 'Mr Nice' role in front line politics. No longer will the Liberal Democrats be able to offer what amounts to a money laundering service in politics. Vote for us and you've participated in democracy and because we'll never get into power your vote will never connected with the dirty business of actual government.