RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought the coalition government reasonably grown up but the voters hated it, so I can understand their reluctance. And as it happens right now there doesn't seem to be anyone they could form a coalition with, and too ruling out coalitions isn't for all time, it's just a next general election thing and/or current leadership

The liberals suffered because they were the protest party and made promises they could not reasonably keep in government. Much of their base isn’t too far removed from labour voters so a coalition with labour would not have caused them as much damage as one with the conservatives. After years of being different and Nick Clegg sounding like someone fresh and different in the TV debates, they ended up looking very mainstream.

I think they suffered because they were naive and got taken for a ride in the negotiations. It's bad enough to break one of your major campaign promises and sell out a good proportion of the people who voted for you, but to sell it just for a referendum on electoral reform. A referendum where the Conservatives were allowed to campaign for the No side and bring their media and press woth them, and timed shortly after you've just broken your word and pissed off all your supporters? Lunacy.

At the very minimum, it should've been referendum first, then vote.

Puja

Have you read about the negotiations? They were far from taken for a ride. The Conservatives gave way on quite a bit too. The Lib Dems, as king makers, were in the driving seat. That’s the nature of forming a coalition. The final deal had to clear quite sizeable hurdles - MPs and membership - before it could be signed off on.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The liberals suffered because they were the protest party and made promises they could not reasonably keep in government. Much of their base isn’t too far removed from labour voters so a coalition with labour would not have caused them as much damage as one with the conservatives. After years of being different and Nick Clegg sounding like someone fresh and different in the TV debates, they ended up looking very mainstream.

I think they suffered because they were naive and got taken for a ride in the negotiations. It's bad enough to break one of your major campaign promises and sell out a good proportion of the people who voted for you, but to sell it just for a referendum on electoral reform. A referendum where the Conservatives were allowed to campaign for the No side and bring their media and press woth them, and timed shortly after you've just broken your word and pissed off all your supporters? Lunacy.

At the very minimum, it should've been referendum first, then vote.

Puja

Have you read about the negotiations? They were far from taken for a ride. The Conservatives gave way on quite a bit too. The Lib Dems, as king makers, were in the driving seat. That’s the nature of forming a coalition. The final deal had to clear quite sizeable hurdles - MPs and membership - before it could be signed off on.

But what did they actually accomplish of their main goals? No Lords reform, no electoral reform. All they got of their major manifesto promises was the raising of the zero tax band, which the Conservatives promptly took the credit for.

Puja

The risk of being a minor partner in a coalition is that the bigger party will accept credit for good things happening, but also a lot of the blame. No one talks about Liberal austerity.

Much of the influence is behind the scenes but that doesn’t interest the media or public who want something more definitive to shout at.

Having the liberals in coalition was a good reason for Cameron to park the EU referendum for 5 years. Arguably that was a very positive outcome.

Sandydragon wrote:The risk of being a minor partner in a coalition is that the bigger party will accept credit for good things happening, but also a lot of the blame. No one talks about Liberal austerity.

Much of the influence is behind the scenes but that doesn’t interest the media or public who want something more definitive to shout at.

Having the liberals in coalition was a good reason for Cameron to park the EU referendum for 5 years. Arguably that was a very positive outcome.

Although if we'd had the EU referendum in 2011, it likely would've been a resounding Remain. Less anger at government from years of austerity, UKIP had a much lower presence, Boris Johnson still more comedian than politician.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think they suffered because they were naive and got taken for a ride in the negotiations. It's bad enough to break one of your major campaign promises and sell out a good proportion of the people who voted for you, but to sell it just for a referendum on electoral reform. A referendum where the Conservatives were allowed to campaign for the No side and bring their media and press woth them, and timed shortly after you've just broken your word and pissed off all your supporters? Lunacy.

At the very minimum, it should've been referendum first, then vote.

Puja

Have you read about the negotiations? They were far from taken for a ride. The Conservatives gave way on quite a bit too. The Lib Dems, as king makers, were in the driving seat. That’s the nature of forming a coalition. The final deal had to clear quite sizeable hurdles - MPs and membership - before it could be signed off on.

But what did they actually accomplish of their main goals? No Lords reform, no electoral reform. All they got of their major manifesto promises was the raising of the zero tax band, which the Conservatives promptly took the credit for.

Puja

Plus, free school meals for all key stage 1 pupils (even for those who could afford it) and a lessening of the austerity measures. That’s pretty good going for the number of seats they had and was better than what Lab were offering - which, according to Laws, was not much more than some vague promises from Brown that they’d work together going forward.
As for the Conservatives taking credit for raising the personal allowance, if people are stupid enough to believe it and Lib Dem are naive enough to allow it to happen then, well, boo hoo. Not that I think it’s the case. Maybe some succour can be taken by the fact that the allowance is still rising long after the Lib Dems lost power.
The referendum on electoral reform is all you’re ever going to get from a party who benefits from the current FPTP, ie both major parties. If it were a red line then you’ll never hold power and not even get a referendum. It’s a coalition, both/all sides have to drop major planks of their manifesto. It was also in the middle of a major economic crisis. Most of the Lib Dem negotiating team realised that the country needed economic stability as a priority, rather than having Belgium-esque coalition discussions for months on end based on needed but not urgent, given the circumstances, policies. FWIW, I agree with Lords reform and would make it an elected chamber via PR.
Lib Dems also had quite a bit more power within the executive/govt than their vote share and seats warranted. All major decisions went through the quad, that was split 50/50 between the two, and all major departments, iirc, had a Lib Dem as no2 - a Conservative concession, and a big one.
Both sides gave up quite a lot of ideological ground during the negotiations, including some stuff the Lib Dems chucked in expecting the Conservatives never to concede on, because it was to central to their beliefs and manifesto, but yet they did.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The risk of being a minor partner in a coalition is that the bigger party will accept credit for good things happening, but also a lot of the blame. No one talks about Liberal austerity.

Much of the influence is behind the scenes but that doesn’t interest the media or public who want something more definitive to shout at.

Having the liberals in coalition was a good reason for Cameron to park the EU referendum for 5 years. Arguably that was a very positive outcome.

Although if we'd had the EU referendum in 2011, it likely would've been a resounding Remain. Less anger at government from years of austerity, UKIP had a much lower presence, Boris Johnson still more comedian than politician.

Puja

Cripes. Could imagine the uproar if they had conceded on the referendum!! Would make tuition fees seem like a lovers tiff.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Have you read about the negotiations? They were far from taken for a ride. The Conservatives gave way on quite a bit too. The Lib Dems, as king makers, were in the driving seat. That’s the nature of forming a coalition. The final deal had to clear quite sizeable hurdles - MPs and membership - before it could be signed off on.

But what did they actually accomplish of their main goals? No Lords reform, no electoral reform. All they got of their major manifesto promises was the raising of the zero tax band, which the Conservatives promptly took the credit for.

Puja

Plus, free school meals for all key stage 1 pupils (even for those who could afford it) and a lessening of the austerity measures. That’s pretty good going for the number of seats they had and was better than what Lab were offering - which, according to Laws, was not much more than some vague promises from Brown that they’d work together going forward.
As for the Conservatives taking credit for raising the personal allowance, if people are stupid enough to believe it and Lib Dem are naive enough to allow it to happen then, well, boo hoo. Not that I think it’s the case. Maybe some succour can be taken by the fact that the allowance is still rising long after the Lib Dems lost power.
The referendum on electoral reform is all you’re ever going to get from a party who benefits from the current FPTP, ie both major parties. If it were a red line then you’ll never hold power and not even get a referendum. It’s a coalition, both/all sides have to drop major planks of their manifesto. It was also in the middle of a major economic crisis. Most of the Lib Dem negotiating team realised that the country needed economic stability as a priority, rather than having Belgium-esque coalition discussions for months on end based on needed but not urgent, given the circumstances, policies. FWIW, I agree with Lords reform and would make it an elected chamber via PR.
Lib Dems also had quite a bit more power within the executive/govt than their vote share and seats warranted. All major decisions went through the quad, that was split 50/50 between the two, and all major departments, iirc, had a Lib Dem as no2 - a Conservative concession, and a big one.
Both sides gave up quite a lot of ideological ground during the negotiations, including some stuff the Lib Dems chucked in expecting the Conservatives never to concede on, because it was to central to their beliefs and manifesto, but yet they did.

I get that there has to be compromise in coalition, but the Lib Dems chose to compromise on something that a) permanently annoyed one of their strongest blocs of voters, and b) wrecked Nick Clegg's reputation as a politician that you could trust (a 'Different Kind of Politics' if you will), which had been a major reason they got so many votes.

If that was a Conservative red line for coalition, then they needed to get more for it. I agree you'd never get more than a referendum on electoral reform, but they could've arranged the timing so that it suited them, established rules of conduct, put key votes after it (like the tuition fees one) so that the Conservatives had to play fair. As it was, they ended up trashing Nick Clegg's reputation and then immediately having a referendum where the Conservatives used the fact that his reputation was shot in leaflets saying not to vote for AV because this proven liar is in favour of it.

As it was, they made themselves an electoral irrelevance for at least the next decade, for very little long-term benefit.

Puja

Worth noting again most of the Lib Dem leadership never wanted the policy on reducing student debt as they had no plans to pay for it, it was a policy thrust on the leadership by conference and I don't think they were heartbroken to get some cover to break that electoral pledge. As it turns out they were more than a little wrong about having cover, so at the very least it was bad political judgement. Myself I remain perplexed the Libs took such a hit for that and Cameron got away with breaking the no top down reform of the NHS which was a much bigger pledge to break, I get voters can choose what they care about but there remains little logical consistency, and I know a good number of people who voted for Clegg but will now only vote Tory based on braking promises

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
But what did they actually accomplish of their main goals? No Lords reform, no electoral reform. All they got of their major manifesto promises was the raising of the zero tax band, which the Conservatives promptly took the credit for.

Puja

Plus, free school meals for all key stage 1 pupils (even for those who could afford it) and a lessening of the austerity measures. That’s pretty good going for the number of seats they had and was better than what Lab were offering - which, according to Laws, was not much more than some vague promises from Brown that they’d work together going forward.
As for the Conservatives taking credit for raising the personal allowance, if people are stupid enough to believe it and Lib Dem are naive enough to allow it to happen then, well, boo hoo. Not that I think it’s the case. Maybe some succour can be taken by the fact that the allowance is still rising long after the Lib Dems lost power.
The referendum on electoral reform is all you’re ever going to get from a party who benefits from the current FPTP, ie both major parties. If it were a red line then you’ll never hold power and not even get a referendum. It’s a coalition, both/all sides have to drop major planks of their manifesto. It was also in the middle of a major economic crisis. Most of the Lib Dem negotiating team realised that the country needed economic stability as a priority, rather than having Belgium-esque coalition discussions for months on end based on needed but not urgent, given the circumstances, policies. FWIW, I agree with Lords reform and would make it an elected chamber via PR.
Lib Dems also had quite a bit more power within the executive/govt than their vote share and seats warranted. All major decisions went through the quad, that was split 50/50 between the two, and all major departments, iirc, had a Lib Dem as no2 - a Conservative concession, and a big one.
Both sides gave up quite a lot of ideological ground during the negotiations, including some stuff the Lib Dems chucked in expecting the Conservatives never to concede on, because it was to central to their beliefs and manifesto, but yet they did.

I get that there has to be compromise in coalition, but the Lib Dems chose to compromise on something that a) permanently annoyed one of their strongest blocs of voters, and b) wrecked Nick Clegg's reputation as a politician that you could trust (a 'Different Kind of Politics' if you will), which had been a major reason they got so many votes.

If that was a Conservative red line for coalition, then they needed to get more for it. I agree you'd never get more than a referendum on electoral reform, but they could've arranged the timing so that it suited them, established rules of conduct, put key votes after it (like the tuition fees one) so that the Conservatives had to play fair. As it was, they ended up trashing Nick Clegg's reputation and then immediately having a referendum where the Conservatives used the fact that his reputation was shot in leaflets saying not to vote for AV because this proven liar is in favour of it.

As it was, they made themselves an electoral irrelevance for at least the next decade, for very little long-term benefit.

Puja

All true, they dropped a bollock on that one, but it doesn’t mean they were taken for a ride. They got plenty of concessions from the Conservatives but, as it is with politics, the headlines were based on a couple of attention grabbing acts/policies rather than the actual nitty gritty.
That they’ve, allegedly, made themselves an irrelevance for little long term benefit because of being in govt is debatable. Due to their policies millions have been taken out of paying tax completely, millions of children (the vast majority of whose parents could afford to pay) now get school lunches for free and austerity was pretty severely blunted. That they’ve failed to put this narrative across and that their base couldn’t look beyond their own four walls isn’t really the fault of the Lib Dems in coalition - I’d have that govt back in a heartbeat - it’s that a lot Lib Dem voters don’t like the compromises that come with power and the low quality of the top team since the 2015 election. Mostly, though, it’s down to a country not used to coalition govts and what it entails.

Digby wrote: now only vote Tory based on braking promises

I missed this one. I’m guessing a more onerous MOT or a promise to bring in mandatory KERS on all cars by 2030?

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote: now only vote Tory based on braking promises

I missed this one. I’m guessing a more onerous MOT or a promise to bring in mandatory KERS on all cars by 2030?

Some sort of exotic spasm, or maybe spresm, seems likely

Digby wrote:Worth noting again most of the Lib Dem leadership never wanted the policy on reducing student debt as they had no plans to pay for it, it was a policy thrust on the leadership by conference and I don't think they were heartbroken to get some cover to break that electoral pledge. As it turns out they were more than a little wrong about having cover, so at the very least it was bad political judgement. Myself I remain perplexed the Libs took such a hit for that and Cameron got away with breaking the no top down reform of the NHS which was a much bigger pledge to break, I get voters can choose what they care about but there remains little logical consistency, and I know a good number of people who voted for Clegg but will now only vote Tory based on braking promises

Because the left wing loves a circular firing party and the press wasn't that interested in hounding Cameron over it.


Anyhoo, while I agree with the point that the Lib Dems received one hell of a bruising from the last coalition and that one can understand where they're coming from as a result, it still raises the question of what the hell is the point of them if they're not interested in coalition. And yes, I know its not a binding promise for now and ever more, but in the here and now, that's what they're doing.

How are they going to restrain the other parties if they're not willing to exercise their power? How are they going to get PR through? Are they a political party or a glorified think tank and debating society?

What do they currently offer to British politics?

The Lib Dems are back where they were under Ashdown early doors, building a local council presence, building local support, and hoping in two or three general elections they'll be up over 50 MPs

Uuuh!! I thought Vince’s plan was to just give up and start a new party.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:I get that there has to be compromise in coalition, but the Lib Dems chose to compromise on something that a) permanently annoyed one of their strongest blocs of voters, and b) wrecked Nick Clegg's reputation as a politician that you could trust (a 'Different Kind of Politics' if you will), which had been a major reason they got so many votes.

If that was a Conservative red line for coalition, then they needed to get more for it. I agree you'd never get more than a referendum on electoral reform, but they could've arranged the timing so that it suited them, established rules of conduct, put key votes after it (like the tuition fees one) so that the Conservatives had to play fair. As it was, they ended up trashing Nick Clegg's reputation and then immediately having a referendum where the Conservatives used the fact that his reputation was shot in leaflets saying not to vote for AV because this proven liar is in favour of it.

As it was, they made themselves an electoral irrelevance for at least the next decade, for very little long-term benefit.

Puja

All true, they dropped a bollock on that one, but it doesn’t mean they were taken for a ride. They got plenty of concessions from the Conservatives but, as it is with politics, the headlines were based on a couple of attention grabbing acts/policies rather than the actual nitty gritty.
That they’ve, allegedly, made themselves an irrelevance for little long term benefit because of being in govt is debatable. Due to their policies millions have been taken out of paying tax completely, millions of children (the vast majority of whose parents could afford to pay) now get school lunches for free and austerity was pretty severely blunted. That they’ve failed to put this narrative across and that their base couldn’t look beyond their own four walls isn’t really the fault of the Lib Dems in coalition - I’d have that govt back in a heartbeat - it’s that a lot Lib Dem voters don’t like the compromises that come with power and the low quality of the top team since the 2015 election. Mostly, though, it’s down to a country not used to coalition govts and what it entails.

I'll concede that they did get a fair amount from the Tories, but not enough to make it worthwhile. Their vote share in 2011 came mostly from three areas: 1) students, 2) the "I agree with Nick" personality politics, and 3) "I don't want a Tory government and it makes sense to tactically vote Lib Dem here".

Now, 3) is clearly not reasonable, 2) shouldn't be a thing with our government type and, as you said 1) came from unrealistic promises that they weren't expecting to need to deliver on. However, that was the slice of the electoral landscape that they were occupying and making the decision to take that coalition agreement meant electoral suicide unless they spun things really really well.

The reason I think the Conservatives took them for a ride is that, while I can't tell if the Lib Dems recognised the repurcussions, the Conservatives clearly did. There was no need to make the tuition fee hike the first thing that happened, but they knew that they could damage their credibility early on and then control the narrative themselves from there. They took every opportunity to twist the knife, knowing that the blacker they painted their partners, the better the chance they'd have of taking their seats in the next election.

Puja

Though in fairness that's hardly worked out well for the Tories with the DUP asking for an awful lot on the back of far fewer votes

Having just mentioned the DUP it occurs that Cable & Co. might have ruled out coalitions but left open confidence and supply agreements. Though even then they'd be much more cautious

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:I get that there has to be compromise in coalition, but the Lib Dems chose to compromise on something that a) permanently annoyed one of their strongest blocs of voters, and b) wrecked Nick Clegg's reputation as a politician that you could trust (a 'Different Kind of Politics' if you will), which had been a major reason they got so many votes.

If that was a Conservative red line for coalition, then they needed to get more for it. I agree you'd never get more than a referendum on electoral reform, but they could've arranged the timing so that it suited them, established rules of conduct, put key votes after it (like the tuition fees one) so that the Conservatives had to play fair. As it was, they ended up trashing Nick Clegg's reputation and then immediately having a referendum where the Conservatives used the fact that his reputation was shot in leaflets saying not to vote for AV because this proven liar is in favour of it.

As it was, they made themselves an electoral irrelevance for at least the next decade, for very little long-term benefit.

Puja

All true, they dropped a bollock on that one, but it doesn’t mean they were taken for a ride. They got plenty of concessions from the Conservatives but, as it is with politics, the headlines were based on a couple of attention grabbing acts/policies rather than the actual nitty gritty.
That they’ve, allegedly, made themselves an irrelevance for little long term benefit because of being in govt is debatable. Due to their policies millions have been taken out of paying tax completely, millions of children (the vast majority of whose parents could afford to pay) now get school lunches for free and austerity was pretty severely blunted. That they’ve failed to put this narrative across and that their base couldn’t look beyond their own four walls isn’t really the fault of the Lib Dems in coalition - I’d have that govt back in a heartbeat - it’s that a lot Lib Dem voters don’t like the compromises that come with power and the low quality of the top team since the 2015 election. Mostly, though, it’s down to a country not used to coalition govts and what it entails.

I'll concede that they did get a fair amount from the Tories, but not enough to make it worthwhile. Their vote share in 2011 came mostly from three areas: 1) students, 2) the "I agree with Nick" personality politics, and 3) "I don't want a Tory government and it makes sense to tactically vote Lib Dem here".

Now, 3) is clearly not reasonable, 2) shouldn't be a thing with our government type and, as you said 1) came from unrealistic promises that they weren't expecting to need to deliver on. However, that was the slice of the electoral landscape that they were occupying and making the decision to take that coalition agreement meant electoral suicide unless they spun things really really well.

The reason I think the Conservatives took them for a ride is that, while I can't tell if the Lib Dems recognised the repurcussions, the Conservatives clearly did. There was no need to make the tuition fee hike the first thing that happened, but they knew that they could damage their credibility early on and then control the narrative themselves from there. They took every opportunity to twist the knife, knowing that the blacker they painted their partners, the better the chance they'd have of taking their seats in the next election.

Puja

I just don’t buy the poor old Liberal Democrats were bullied line. Mainly as it’s not true and, if it was, that’s politics. All of the top team had top level experience in various areas, certainly as much as Cameron and Osbourneof not more. They weren’t a bunch of wet behind the ears local councillors.
As for the Conservatives painting them black, come on. It’s the kitten loving, sandal wearing Lib Dems versus milk snatching, profit driven Tories, nobody is going to fooled that the kitten lovers were the bad guys. They were tainted by association but every time Cable or the like opened his mouth it was to complain how horrible the Conservatives were and how they didn’t agree with a decision - decision almost certainly taken by the 50/50 quad - which is fair enough but don’t then go complaining you were made to look like the bad guys.
In fact, the Lib Dems managed to water down austerity to the levels set out in the Labour manifesto and possibly a little bit weaker. If you can’t mount a left of centre defence of your term in govt on the back of that then you deserve what you get.
The Lib Dems biggest problem is that their base is made up of protest voters who won’t make compromises that are required to form a govt. Which, as Peat has said, is where Cable has just taken them back to. If that continues, then even if they succeed with bringing in PR it won’t make a blind bit of difference to their chances of having some power.

I'd like to emphasise that I'm not calling them poor old Lib Dems who were bullied - I'm calling them either idiots or naifs who played a good hand very badly. The Tories helped shove them over the edge, but they were certainly more than complicit in their own destruction.

Puja

Puja wrote:
I'll concede that they did get a fair amount from the Tories, but not enough to make it worthwhile. Their vote share in 2011 came mostly from three areas: 1) students, 2) the "I agree with Nick" personality politics, and 3) "I don't want a Tory government and it makes sense to tactically vote Lib Dem here".

Now, 3) is clearly not reasonable, 2) shouldn't be a thing with our government type and, as you said 1) came from unrealistic promises that they weren't expecting to need to deliver on. However, that was the slice of the electoral landscape that they were occupying and making the decision to take that coalition agreement meant electoral suicide unless they spun things really really well.

I'm not sure that #3 is quite right there, I think it was more "None of the above" as in, Brown has absolutely cocked up as PM, and I don't trust the Tories as far as Cameron can throw KenClarke, which makes LibDem the closest thing to a not-wasted protest vote.
Each of which, I would actually consider to be fair.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'll concede that they did get a fair amount from the Tories, but not enough to make it worthwhile. Their vote share in 2011 came mostly from three areas: 1) students, 2) the "I agree with Nick" personality politics, and 3) "I don't want a Tory government and it makes sense to tactically vote Lib Dem here".

Now, 3) is clearly not reasonable, 2) shouldn't be a thing with our government type and, as you said 1) came from unrealistic promises that they weren't expecting to need to deliver on. However, that was the slice of the electoral landscape that they were occupying and making the decision to take that coalition agreement meant electoral suicide unless they spun things really really well.

I'm not sure that #3 is quite right there, I think it was more "None of the above" as in, Brown has absolutely cocked up as PM, and I don't trust the Tories as far as Cameron can throw KenClarke, which makes LibDem the closest thing to a not-wasted protest vote.
Each of which, I would actually consider to be fair.

I remember a lot of Lib Dem voter outrage that they were treating with the Tories. They were seen as the non-Tory option in a lot of areas and I remember in Bath, they actually campaigned on that basis with leaflets that said, "Labour and Greens cannot win here - vote Lib Dem as the only way to avoid a Conservative MP."

Have I mentioned how much I love FPtP?

Puja

The lib dem vote will recover once Labour is in power as people seek alternatives that aren't tory. They just need to bide their time and come up with some good policies.

In part, though it ignores a lot of Lib Dems are closer to the blue side than red, and assumes Labour can win office with the jury still out on whether Labour have gone partially or full retard

It also depends who succeeds May. If it is a liberal, rather than one of the paleosceptics, then they may mop up the right hand side of the Lib Dem voters.
I was about to say it also means Corbyn winning the next GE which is far from certain. However, given what’s happened in the last 12 months, I think anyone who is blue Labour or Blairite will have jumped ship long before Corbyn enters no 10.

Mellsblue wrote:It also depends who succeeds May. If it is a liberal, rather than one of the paleosceptics, then they may mop up the right hand side of the Lib Dem voters.
I was about to say it also means Corbyn winning the next GE which is far from certain. However, given what’s happened in the last 12 months, I think anyone who is blue Labour or Blairite will have jumped ship long before Corbyn enters no 10.

This. If the conservatives can mop up central votes that will really hurt the Lib Dem’s. The jury is out on which way the Tory membership would vote in a leadership election. The best hope is that MPs provide two sensible choices.