Stick Legs":gd96zw8m said:
Many of the things the LibDems said out of power were the sort of 'easy answer' points that for many reasons would not work if you were in power. Of course we want free education, best healthcare in the world- for free, good roads, airports that cope with snow, wars not to be fought and police to be able to do theire jobs. I actually think most politicians want this, but once in power they see the budget and get pestered by interest groups etc and suddenly it is not so clear anymore. I think Nick Clegg is a bit quiet because he genuine has nothing to say. I think the experience of being in coalition has taken away the desire for power and the responsiblity that lies there.
I have kept the Times newspaper from the day after the election, the headline is the stupidly glib note left by a Labour MP to his incoming Con-Dem replacment. It says "I'm sorry, there's no money left"
I think Labour have forgotten just how bad things are, and the LibDems never really got the gravity of the situation until they got into power.
I think he desreves a more open minded opinion. Personally, I think the coalition is the least worst choice and am broadly for it.
Have to say - well written, agree with practically all of that.
When I look at Nick Clegg, now, I see somebody who realises that the ambition to get power, to get in government, is fine and aspirational when you haven't got it - and perhaps unlikely to get it - and it's easy to be idealistic.
But once in "power" (see the quotes? ;-)) the reality is a world apart, especially if perhaps you get little more (if that) than lip service.
And in part, I wonder if it seems (well it does to me) something of a poison chalice - I mean given where he is, now - is this as good as it gets (which is probably leagues apart from what was the ideal in their mind's eye), and it's all downhill from here, probably with a sting in the tail.
If I'm honest, a big part of me feels sorry for Nick Clegg - out of them all, he's probably had to bite his tongue the most, and is damned one way, or the other.
Labour seem in disarray, and ever since the departure of Blair, have seemingly lost sight of what it was that actually got them in to power, and to be able to stay there so long.
As to Cameron, well I think the coalition was probably a good fit for where the country is - although coalition maybe ascribing too much in terms of partnership. That said, I just feel underwhelmed by Cameron - he's just seems to be not quite there for his role, to me. As a PM and party leader, he just seems to be not as polished, or as competent as Blair was at that role.
edit: and as for Hague as foreign secretary, I'm just not getting it - he just seems out of his depth - at least what we see as the public side of it. Yet when not in power (apart from the odd gaff) he seemed quite credible and competent.
what? 
