Oh, I'd agree ... to a point.
We
needed .... sorry about this ... "strong and stable government" (
) at that time as never before, in the turbulent post-crash era, and I wholeheartedly admire Clegg and Co for putting Country ahead of Party and doing the deal. Especially given that some (private) comments they made that I'm aware of makes it clear they
knew there was a strong likelihood of a serious electoral cost come the next election. Whether they realised quite how bad is another matter.
My point was a bit different.
Getting a coalition in the UK under FPTP is the exception that proves the rule. All predictions suggest it'll be the rule under PR. And, as soon as we had a coalition, people voting Tory didn't get the government they voted for, and people voting LD sure as hell didn't.
So, whether voting Tory or LD, after thecekection party mandarins disappear into a back room, do all sorts of horse-trading of this policy or position for that, agree a cosy little stitch-up between them, then present it to the country and pretend they have a mandate.
So, assume a good proportion of LD voters voted LD because of a cast-iron, written pledge on tuition fees, only to find that THAT us one of the things horse-traded away? Those voters may have voted Labour had they known. And EU-sceptical Tories may have voted UKIP rather than have a referendum traded away under LD pressure.
The danger wit coalitions is that the coalition can end up agreeing a position that a large number of voters
on both sides do not support, and would have voted elsewhere had they known.
FPTP and PR both have major weaknesses, in the sense of how "democratic" they are. Not that our system is truly democratic at all, when what we have is a conjuring trick pretending to be democratic, but in fact relying on FPTP to keep it at a 2.x party system, with "parties" and the whip system, and as if that's not bad enough, MPs as "representatives" that consider themselves elected to exercise
their judgement on an issue, not to representvthe will of their constituents. The whole thing is a monumental con-job bearing, either in FPTP or PR implementations, only a passing resemblance to actual democracy.
And when we do get a truly democratic decision, such as "Leave the EU" we get LibDems, and others, trying to frustrate that, reframe the question, pretend it didn't mean Leave if leave means 'that' type of leave, and even threatening to use their wholly disproportionate representation in the
UNELECTED Lords to slow down, frustrate, weaken and if possible, prevent, Brexit. What was it they promised for post-art50? Grind it to a halt" in the Lords?
All that respect I had for LDs going into coalition evaporated when they decided to frustrate and try to reinterpret the one major national referendum we've had in 40-odd years.
It's like this. We had 18 months of debate, most of it admittedly of an incredibly low standard, at least among both -professional' sides.
Then we were asked a BINARY question - Leave or Remain.
And though a proportion of those on the losing side don't seem to want to accept it, the decision as "Leave". Not "leave if we can stay in tne single market", not "leave if we get £350m a week for the NHS". Not "Leave if our peers in the Lords agree".
Not even "Leave if those voting Remain can stomach it" (though, as a matter of fact, a large part of the Remain vote DO accept, despite not liking it, that the result was Leave). Certainly not "Leave if our peers don't dislike any exit deal".
The referendum result was Leave. Period. The ONLY democratic thing to do is to assume that ALL voters evaluated all the various implications (both financial and otherwise) of leave to the best of their individual abilities and understanding, and decided,
on balance that their choice from that unqualifued binary option was "Leave".
Failure to accept THAT amounts to either negating the democratic expression of the people, however qualified that opinion is, or saying "damn democracy, do what
WE think is best."