AV Defeated - Where Now For The Lib Dems?

British politics will be a better and nicer place without them :smashin:

How?

We already effectively have a 2 party state, why would you want to make it even worse?

At least they offer something different to the big 2. It seems to me your hatred of the Lib Dems is blinding you to the fact that despite their performance, they do benefit British politics overall. I must say you're being very short sighted.
 
How?

We already effectively have a 2 party state, why would you want to make it even worse?

At least they offer something different to the big 2. It seems to me your hatred of the Lib Dems is blinding you to the fact that despite their performance, they do benefit British politics overall. I must say you're being very short sighted.
Dave, I disagree. The Lib Dems don't offer "something different to the big 2". They are the same as the other parties with the exception that they have, until now, got away with shallow, opportunist comments that they knew they would never have to implement. Thursday's election result was the realisation of this fact manifesting itself within the minds of the British public. About time I say!
 
Despite 'retiring' from the Politics forum I have been asked by PM to offer my perspective.

I don't disagree with much of what has been said, and I don't wish to contradict or gain-say others' contributions.

Nonetheless, I will offer this.

In last year's general election the LDs gained 23% of the vote.

In recent opinion polls they have been getting roughly 10% - give or take a couple of %.

On Thursday they scored 15%. This is roughly 5% better than had been expected – something we’ve not yet seen discussed.

As recently as the 2001 General Election they scored 16.8% - not much more than they managed last Thursday.

There is no doubt that they are at a very low ebb at the moment. But if you look at the above figures I think you'd have to say that there's no guarantee that they're about to disappear from the political landscape.

Every government - even very popular ones - tend to take mid-term dips in popularity, and the LDs appear to have taken the brunt of the electorate's 'good kicking' for the current state of this unpopular government.

It has been said in this thread that NC will go after the LDs take a good hiding at the next election. NC may be many things, but he's not thick. If it looks like a pasting is on the cards because of his party's involvement in an unpopular government, then logically you would expect them to take less of a drop in popularity if they are no longer in the coalition going into the next election. It's always possible that the government may start to become more popular and the LDs bob back up a little in the polls. If this doesn't happen I suspect they will leave the coalition, and NC will go 12-18 months before the next election. Could be wrong.

Anyway, I’ve not come for an argument, or even a discussion. I’ve just posted a different perspective, as asked. If you think I’m looking through rose-tinted glasses, I’m not for a second suggesting that all of the above will definitely happen. It’s just that some people here appear to think that it’s definitely all over for the LDs forever, or for a long time to come, and I hope I’ve demonstrated that this isn’t necessarily the case.

The LDs may continue to decline, and eventually disappear. I’m just pointing out, using historic examples, that this isn’t an inevitability.

Steve W
 
How?

At least they offer something different to the big 2. I

Yes going back on election promises just like the other two
 
Every government - even very popular ones - tend to take mid-term dips in popularity, and the LDs appear to have taken the brunt of the electorate's 'good kicking' for the current state of this unpopular government.

I see what you're getting at, but it's not really mid term is it?
It's only 12 months in and things are only now starting to kick in.

Cameron the PR man has worked this really well.
The tories implement the policies and the LDs are the one's getting the blame because they must be OKing it all (in the public's perception).

I think it's hilarious and suspect Vince Cable will be the only one to come out of this with some credit, for having the guts to say what he thinks (or at least hint at it) and not just swallow it.
Clegg (and I can see why he does it) makes next to no argument about anything and it just seems to me like he'll pretty well put up with anything as long as he retains his position of deputy PM.
That's a joke in itself as he's more of a puppet than any of the Spitting image characters, imo.
I was watching an interview he did yesterday and he was talking about the NHS proposals, saying he'd veto anything he didn't like :smashin:
But what got brought out was the fact that the biggest part of it (doctors taking over from the PCTs) has already pretty much gone through with 90% of doctors signing up!
Some veto that's going to be.

Nah, I seriously can't see him going on for long.

The trouble is the longer this coalition lasts, the more the LDs will be classed as tories and it'll take a long time to get rid of that association.
 
Badger, there are many good points there.

I think the important thing to remember is that we are guessing even more than usual here. We haven't had a coalition government in the modern political era, whether we want to think of that as post-war or post-Thatcher.

If the LDs bailed out of the coalition tomorrow, would they gain any public support back before the next election, or would this be seen as opportunism? We can guess one way or the other, but honestly we don't know. What if they jumped ship next year, or 6 months before the next election? Don't know.

What if they stuck the course, then said (in the 2015 election campaign) "We did what we did because it was best for Britain, given the state the economy was in after the election in May 2010, but we'll never get in bed with the tories again". What then? Don't know.

What if they didn't jump ship, but said that after a drubbing in 2015. Would public support return? Don't know.

What if they make some popular noises against the Conservatives and Ed Milliband does something unpopular this time next year? Don't know.

The LDs may indeed implode, disappear, become a footnote, whatever. I'm just arguing that it's far too early to judge their future post-2015.

I remember the tories getting a real kicking at a by-election just before the Falklands. They took the swing on Newsnight and applied it nationally, and they were due to end up with just 1 seat.

I remember Labour being almost wiped out and the Alliance peaking at 50% in the opinion polls in late '81.

I remember the Conservatives being on around 23-24% just after the '97 election and people saying they were in freefall.

Anyone who thinks they can predict the death of a political party after one year in a coalition needs to think again. If you're in power and unpopular your nuclear option is to change leader, as the Conservatives did with Thatcher. If you're junior partner in a coalition you have easier options.

I may be wrong, but I just don't see the LDs just sitting there in their unpopularity, and sailing blithely into electoral disaster in 2015 without trying...something. And yet most of the posts in this thread suggest that's exactly what they are going to do.

Steve W
 
Last edited:
The Green Party in Ireland were the junior party in coalition with Fianna Fáil until January this year. The Greens decided to reject the government's budget and pull out, forcing a general election. This kinda backfired on them as they lost all six of their seats. :suicide:
 
You're right Steve, it is all guesswork and none of us know what's going to happen.

It may well be that the economy takes a big upswing, unemployment falls and everything's looking rosey :smashin:
If that happens, who will get all of the credit?
It won't be the LD's, because Cameron will see to that.
The LDs have hardly got any credit for raising the income tax threshold have they? (if it was indeed their policy, it's never been made clear to me by the LDs).

But what if it all goes pear-shaped?
Both parties will get the blame, imo.

So I really don't see how the LD's come out of this well, either way.

I look at the situation and wonder if the LD high ups actually thought "this is as good as we're ever going to get" when they were considering who to side with?
I suspect they probably did.

Whatever happens, when this coalition is over, I think it's going to be a long road back.

But as I said earlier, they'll be ok imo.
I really don't see anyone else taking over their position of number 3.
 
I really don't see anyone else taking over their position of number 3.
They are number 3 in England - not in Scotland or Wales. I think it quite possible we could see them overtaken by the Greens or UKIP in the not too distant future. We'll have to see.

Pecker said:
On Thursday they scored 15%. This is roughly 5% better than had been expected – something we’ve not yet seen discussed.

....

Anyone who thinks they can predict the death of a political party after one year in a coalition needs to think again. If you're in power and unpopular your nuclear option is to change leader, as the Conservatives did with Thatcher. If you're junior partner in a coalition you have easier options.
Always good to hear a dissenting opinion so thank you for posting Pecker. Just to commenting on the two points above.

With regards the high Lib Dem turnour, I think we can put this down to the AV referendum. That was, of course, the holy grail for Lib Dems voters - something that they deemed absolutely essential. So I think every Lib Dem everywhere came out to vote. In real world scenerios less will do so in future especially as things get more difficult with the cuts. Furthermore once the 'comfort Clegg' period is over, the Tories will start to become more robust with the them. I suspect the Lib Dems will hit the lowest ebb around 2013 - and that is when we will have a General Election. Will the Lib Dems come back? Possibly in 20-30 years IMHO - but I suspect they are done in Scotland forever. That country doesn't really like the Tories or their poodles.

With regards the second point about recovery times, I think it important to look at teh Conservatives. They lost a third of their core support by 1997 - thirteen years later they have only got about 70% of that back - and have never recovered in Scotland or the North of England. By this token the Lib Dems are looking at half a Century at least before they are relevant again.
 
Another thing has just occurred to me.
Let's say this government does well.
Given that I've already said that the tories will make sure they take all the credit, where would the incentive be to vote LD?

And surely even if you did vote LD, it'd only be because you're happy with the status quo? hence wouldn't want them to get into power on their own?

I can only see that swaying the non-core voters to vote tory.

The more I think about it, the more I think joining a coalition was a bad move.

Probably better if they went for a minority government with the LDs holding real power for a short while.
Disastrous of course (but bloody good fun :laugh:), but resulting in a new election, where they'd at least retain their own identity.
 
The more I think about it, the more I think joining a coalition was a bad move.
Well it was for the Lib Dems :)

I think the Lib Dems thought they had everything sewn up - they "knew" electoral reform would be supported by the British public allowing them to create an electoral system whereby they could hold the balance of power forever. They "knew" AV would also act as a shield against the small number of people that would abandon the Lib Dems as a result of a Tory coalition. Where could it possibly go wrong?
 
Well it was for the Lib Dems :)

Well yes, that's what I meant.
The LDs are a nothing party to me.
I'm just trying to see it from their perspective.

I think the Lib Dems thought they had everything sewn up - they "knew" electoral reform would be supported by the British public allowing them to create an electoral system whereby they could hold the balance of power forever. They "knew" AV would also act as a shield against the small number of people that would abandon the Lib Dems as a result of a Tory coalition. Where could it possibly go wrong?

That suggests massive misjudgement.
Although tbf, the polls were suggesting a "Yes" win originally, weren't they?
This goes back to their lack of getting the argument across.

Two things cross my mind there.
Either Clegg agreed to not argue the yes case too strongly in order to gain other things.
Or Cameron totally stitched Clegg up (I believe he wasn't supposed to get involved?).
Which could mean interesting times ahead.
 
One of the Lib/Dems demands (referendum on AV voting) for forming the coalition has been successfully executed. The demand has been met.

So what's the problem? The Lib/Dem's should be happy one of their demands has now been rolled out and finalised - but they are not.

Maybe the reason the Lib/Dems are not happy is that the British public voted in the referendum against the AV system. That means the Lib/Dems are not angry with their Conservative partners, they are angry with the British public.

On top of that, they are angry and upset with the British public for loosing a huge number of Lib/Dem seats in the local elections.

The British public are in big trouble for failing the Lib/Dems and are really going to get it for this. How stupid can they get?
 
One of the Lib/Dems demands (referendum on AV voting) for forming the coalition has been successfully executed. The demand has been met.

So what's the problem? The Lib/Dem's should be happy one of their demands has now been rolled out and finalised - but they are not.

Maybe the reason the Lib/Dems are not happy is that the British public voted in the referendum against the AV system. That means the Lib/Dems are not angry with their Conservative partners, they are angry with the British public.

On top of that, they are angry and upset with the British public for loosing a huge number of Lib/Dem seats in the local elections.

The British public are in big trouble for failing the Lib/Dems and are really going to get it for this. How stupid can they get?
Good points Alan. The attitude of many Lib Dems is quite amusing - I am almost expecting one to say that the British Public has "betrayed" the Lib Dems. :suicide: On top of this the Lib Dems seems to think that their rejection by the electorate on Thursday was a 'strong case' for Lib Dem policies to be pushed forward. I really don't see how they get to that conclusion - surely their position is weakened by a good electoral kicking.
 
With regards the high Lib Dem turnour, I think we can put this down to the AV referendum. That was, of course, the holy grail for Lib Dems voters - something that they deemed absolutely essential.

That's funny. I could have sworn that opponents of AV pointed out regularly that the LDs considered it to be a "...miserable little compromise...", rather than a "...holy grail...', or "...absolutely essential...".

With regards the second point about recovery times, I think it important to look at teh Conservatives. They lost a third of their core support by 1997 - thirteen years later they have only got about 70% of that back - and have never recovered in Scotland or the North of England. By this token the Lib Dems are looking at half a Century at least before they are relevant again.

I'm not sure how you get that figure.

The point is, we need to be honest about what's happened to the LD vote and why, because I think we all know.

Most LD voters consider the party (rightly or wrongly) to be one of the progressive left. They either simply couldn't stomach the coalition, or could only put up with it if the LDs managed to negotiate a very good deal. Either way, they don't perceive this government to be anything other than a Conservative one, with nothing but the very roughest of edges removed.

Remove the deal with the tories and you remove the problem.

Now that may not be right. But I suspect it has a lot of truth to it.

Steve W
 
That's funny. I could have sworn that opponents of AV pointed out regularly that the LDs considered it to be a "...miserable little compromise...", rather than a "...holy grail...', or "...absolutely essential...".
:rotfl: I was wondering how you would try and justify the AV defeat! Electoral Reform - no, Lib Dems have never been interested in that! :rotfl:

Remove the deal with the tories and you remove the problem.

Now that may not be right. But I suspect it has a lot of truth to it.
I suspect it has got no truth to it - the Lib Dems have shown themselves for what they are - untrustworthy opportunists. I doubt they will be a relevant factor in British politics for another 40 years. I hope it is much longer.
 
Another thing has just occurred to me.
Let's say this government does well.
Given that I've already said that the tories will make sure they take all the credit, where would the incentive be to vote LD?

And surely even if you did vote LD, it'd only be because you're happy with the status quo? hence wouldn't want them to get into power on their own?

I can only see that swaying the non-core voters to vote tory.

The more I think about it, the more I think joining a coalition was a bad move.
The Tories have retained their voter base and in fact even managed to take some Lib Dem council seats in some places. And why not? They did say they would tackle the deficit through painful decisions. Like them in practice or not, that is what they are doing. Similarly they made no promises about tuition fees. Fee increases was always possible.

The "NO" referendum campaign may have been rudimentary but it did not mess about in taking advantage of the prevailing anti-Clegg sentiment

People are talking about removing the coalition agreement to save the party but far as I am concerned they are dead in the water and might even fall behind the nationalist parties of N.I., Scotland and Wales come May 2015. Is it really about retaining the core Lib Dem support? I mean they can still be salvaged. Are the ambitions now so low? Of course the bridges have been burned to woo non-core voters post-tuition fees increase

It was going so well in the live television debates when Nick Clegg was slick, confident and offering a different angle to the miserableness of Brown and the self-love of Cameron. But ultimately voters did not trust them push come to shove. Given May 2010 was a high point for the party and they felt disappointed to actually lose MP's, May 2015 will be their Titanic moment. Will we still be talking about them in the present tense in June 2015? ;) :devil:
 
That's only stating what is obvious to anyone with common sense. Maybe I could be a journalist

Nauseating press conference from Nick Clegg about a more "muscular" coalition influence. He should be careful what he wishes for. The pattern of the past year is that all the bad things are attributed to his party. Any failures to bring in policies are also attributed to his party. Some also say he is the reason the ice caps are melting
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom