Not hugely positive, but I had some sympathy for him once upon a time: I suspect he was a well-meaning but not especially strong leader of his party, who went into the coalition with mostly good intent. Once there, mind, I'm not sure why he didn't fight harder, and he lost all of the goodwill he'd built up during the election campaign through some of the policies that the coalition enacted.
I appreciate he'll have made an absolute boatload of money, but going to Facebook seemed a very odd choice. Or maybe he judged that his public profile couldn't be saved, and cashing in in the US was his best option?
Agree with this. The Lib Dems had an existential crisis at that time (2010) as Labour and the Conservatives were both fighting for the centre ground and it seemed that would become the norm (deeply ironic given Corbyn, Brexit and Truss later).
So Clegg rolled the dice on getting proportional representation rather than first past the post to solve this and lost. He also had a go at being less of an opposition party (where you oppose) and more of a coalition party like in Europe to get things done (post the financial crisis). This failed.
Everyone hates him for tuition fees, but apparently George Osborne told him to vote against the huge raise. Had this happened I doubt people would remember him with the malice they do.
Finally, he always seemed an ethical person (Lib Dems usually are excepting local election shenanigans), so the charges seem odd and out of character, but so did the move to facebook.
> apparently George Osborne told him to vote against
Ha, the Conservative coaching the Lib Dem how to be a Lib Dem. That's a good friend.
As others have commented, opposition parties have to oppose.
Further, #1 job of party leader is to build the party. Especially for an upstart. That playbook includes symbolic defeats. To show everyone what you stand for.
> So Clegg rolled the dice on getting proportional representation rather than first past the post to solve this and lost.
Clegg compromised on a referendum on the "Alternative Vote" (i.e. what Americans call "Instant Run-off Voting" and Australians call "Majority Preferential Voting"). Alternative Vote isn't proportional or even semi-proportional. I think he considered it a worthwhile compromise:
1) on the grounds that it's a form of Single Transferable Vote (which also has proportional forms), and
2) on the assumption it would increase votes for smaller parties and hinder the major parties from forming governments in the face of opposition by a majority of voters (the received wisdom being that there was a block of like-minded centrist and left-of-centre voters that was inefficiently divided between Labour, the Lib Dems and others, to the advantage of the Conservatives - but Clegg's deal took place after more than a decade of Labour's votes having unusually been the most efficient, and Clegg was considered part of the Lib Dems' "Orange Book" faction which was less friendly to Labour and the left than Lib Dems typically are).
Why odd? He falls as Deputy PM of 67m in the disUnited Kingdom, takes a payrise and more importantly rises to be Deputy Emperor of ~3bn in the World Wide Wall.
Odd because I would have thought he'd be able to see how badly working for Facebook would ultimately reflect on him, and I would have thought he'd have more pride in his image. I'd have expected to see him pop up in some well-meaning public role that could lead to some image rehabilitation, rather than doubling down.
But as said, maybe he judged that his image was already beyond repair, so at least he could get rich instead.
I appreciate he'll have made an absolute boatload of money, but going to Facebook seemed a very odd choice. Or maybe he judged that his public profile couldn't be saved, and cashing in in the US was his best option?