I thought it might be interesting/instructive/soothing to document the ongoing and continual disintegration of the UK's Liberal Democrat party who in 2010 achieved their high water mark as a political party by finally getting a liberal party into government (albeit as the junior party in a coalition) for the first time since the 1920s. The Liberal Democrats were once thought to be a largely leftist political party concerned with issues like reducing wealth inequality, free education, advancing social rights and improving the constitutional mess that centuries of gradual accumulation has left us with. Unfortunately almost all of those political goals have turned to ashes since the formation of the Coalition government and instead the party has been alternately outmanoeuvred, craven or in some cases seemingly not even that interested in their own formerly professed principles. First there was the almost too perfect to be believed tuition fees reversal where after campaigning on wanting to abolish fees (and running a now infamous advert about how there would be 'no more broken promises' which even referenced Labour's broken promise on fees) the Lib Dems voted to raise them. Since a large part of the Lib Dem vote came from idealistic students drawn to their policies you can imagine how well this went down. Tuition fees was soon followed by the debacle of the Alternative Vote referendum. The Lib Dems have long campaigned for voting system reform both for self interested reasons and, if we can credit them that much, because it aligned with their general policy stances on good governance and fairness. The UK currently has a system of First Past the Post voting for parliament which distorts the national vote so that the make up of parliament is very unlikely to look anything like the actual distribution of votes. The current system favours the largest parties and those with a moderately geographically concentrated vote like Labour (Northern cities) and the Tories (The shires). So of course most of labour and the Tories wholeheartedly led a combined effort to defeat the referendum while the tuition fees weakened Clegg mostly hid from view. The real failure here was in agreeing to have the technical AV issue decided by referendum during the coalition negotiations. The tories also wanted to push through some voting system changes but got the lib dems to agree that their changes should be voted through by parliament. An embarrassing failure of negotiation and persuasive power. Clegg then tried to pin his hopes on the far less important Hose of Lords reform which he could at least see voted through parliament, only by this time the backbench Tories were openly laughing at them and decided to scupper his bill by not voting for it despite it having Cameron's backing. Cleg belatedly threw a tantrum and scuppered some of the remaining tory constitutional changes in revenge but it's all a bit late. The sum total of the promises achieved from the 2010 Lib Dem election manifesto is going to be only the worst one, and the one that the tories wanted anyway - a tax cut for everyone. The series of policy failures and broken promises has plunged the Lib Dem ratings from their election performance of 23% vote share to their current average of around 10%. Not a particularly healthy showing for a party that has historically tended to under perform it's polling in general elections as nervous voters switch to the two bigger parties. The Lib Dem party leader and current Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg has been particularly badly hit and now has dire approval ratings (somewhere around -40% net). And now, to pile further miserable corpses onto this already groaning pile, it turns out that the Lib Dems also have something of a scandal problem. There were some slight stirrings of this early in the coalition when one of the Lib Dem cabinet appointments had to to resign from government (but not parliament) after he was found to have fiddled his expenses to conceal the fact that he was gay. Most MPs were pretty understanding about it at the time but perhaps it was just an early sign of the rot within. One of the biggest figures on the left of the party, Chris Huhne, had to stand down from parliament and the cabinet when he finally confessed that he had lied to the police about who was driving his car when it was caught speeding. There is now an ongoing trial over whether he bullied his wife into taking the points or not but whatever the finer details his career is toast. And now in the last week we have a fresh scandal over Lord Rennard. While he might appear to be a somewhat background figure in the party ( he rarely gives interviews) he is well known in political circles as the party's campaign mastermind. Rennard is a Karl Rove-esque figure who has led the lib dems to hard won by-election victory after victory and is feared for his skills across the political spectrum. Well until last week when it was revealed that he's been molesting female party workers for years and worse seemingly half of the senior lib-dem leadership, including Clegg, knew about it and did what amounted to absolutely nothing. So yeah. Ineffective, duplicitous and largely a bunch of shits. That's how you can end up really regretting your vote in only three years.
Oh, and the byelection to replace that disgraced cabinet minister? It's this week. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/25/nick-clegg-liberal-democrats-problems
Hah hah. A libdem vote was always a protest vote, rather than actually wanting them to run the country.
Really we should have all been clued in by the fact that they let an alcoholic lead the party for seven years, and yet he was still their best leader.
I thought Paddy Pantsdown was fairly well-received too? Was Kennedy rated above him? I dunno, I wasn't really following the Liberal party and its various transformations, I only started to look after Labour turned into such a terrible disappointment for the far left. I still think proportionate representation is the ideal, we should have loads of "primary" parties and the selection of a Prime Minister and a cabinet should be a really tricky piece of politics among the parties - to remind those in power that they might have got there by representing a specific interest, but now they need to deal with compromise among interests to represent the country as a whole. I should be selecting from a blizzard of opportunities to find the candidate who actually is a close match to my position, rather than picking one of three near-identical suits to send to Westminster. I'm still slightly amazed at how that AV referendum panned out. It was a total rejection at the ballot, far more than I thought the nasty campaign was going to push it. I thought we'd get an "arguable No" where there was plenty of Aye but the Nays have it, so there would be a basis to argue for, say, full PR instead. As it is, voting mechanism change has been pretty much ruled out for at least a generation.
It's not that surprising: Electoral reform is not a big emotive, gut-instinct, type of issue of the sort that referendums are usually reserved for. Instead it is a dry, technical one that just happens to have a big impact. Just like with juries versus judges it is exactly the sort of problem we usually pass on to specialists rather than the general public because they are better equipped to understand it. I suspect the current FPTP system is not properly understood by the majority of the electorate as it is, let alone the pros and cons of various different election systems. People tend to reject things they don't understand. So taken with point 1) you get a likely No already. The No campaign had a whole pile more money and political machine behind it thanks to the wealthy Tories campaigning against it full throatedly (and with full wallets) and Labour being largely divided (but it's loudest voices backing No). The face of the Yes campaign was Nick Clegg. Combine 3) and 4) and it became child's play to turn the issue into a referendum on 'Do you want more Nick Clegg? Vote yes to AV' when he was possibly the most unpopular politician in the country (may still be). Letting AV reform become a referendum issue was a big blunder from the Lib Dems, as was apparently thinking that Cameron would honour any sort of handshake deal not to campaign against it with the full might of the Tory party when they had so much to lose in terms of their current over representation.
Pretty sure after the next general election we'll be back to the days where Nick Clegg can drive his entire Parliamentary party around London in a single cab. And he'll be earning his salary as the driver!
On uniform swing at their current 10% they'd get exactly 10 MPs. Of course with such a small number of seats to defend (57) the swing is likely to be very far from uniform with the few current LIb Dem MPs able to leverage personal popularity, the advantages of incumbency and undiluted party funds to hang on to power. Even so they are likely to lose at least 20 seats and that's if their vote doesn't collapse further, which always seems possible at the minute. I've seen more than one poll put them as low as 7% recently.
I voted Liberal Democrat last time round, but in my area it's pretty solid Labour. I guess this time round they might not get their deposit back.
A faustian bargain for actual electoral reform isn't all that bad an idea, particularly if there were clear understandings about what an honourable exit from the coalition would look like ahead of time. This was amateur hour all the way. An intern googling the history of electoral reform in FPTP countries could have told them that a referendum was an apocalyptically bad idea. As for regretting one's vote, well. Appalling as Labour's been, it's always been my FPTP policy to try to fix the supposedly progressive party that could form a government as opposed to make-believe voting.
I concur; work with the system you have, not the system you want - unless revolution is on the table, of course. I voted LibDem because I thought there was a chance at electoral reform. There was, but it was a nightmarish caricature of my dreams. So, back to lobbying. I might well retire before it comes into consideration again!
NZ had a referendum and switched to MMP. You are all making me wonder (non-rhetorically) how it happened now, what with electoral inertia.
Effective advocates? A well funded yes campaign? Fewer wealthy & entrenched interests in the former system?
I voted lib dem, not as a protest and because for the first time ever I was in a marginal seat so my vote actually mattered. I doubt I'll ever vote again to be honest, I feel betrayed by the lib dems and object enough to both labour and conservative policies to ever consider actively voting for them, but we've decided we want a two party electoral system and I doubt meaningful electoral reform will be back on e able in my lifetime.
The LibDems were a lost cause the moment they threw their lot in with the Tories. I mean the most left wing major party pairing up with the most right wing? That was never going to work out. It was also dumb "principled" thinking. Clegg thought he was doing the right thing by joining up with the party that had the most votes, but the truth is that the majority of the British public voted for left wing policies (Labour and LibDem). He should have sided with Labour, who are not far from LibDem policy and were offering him much more for a partnership - everything he wanted pretty much. Joining forces with the Tories sold out his voters and the country as well. I mean doesn't he remember the Thatcher years when she kept getting elected despite the majority of the country absolutely hating her?
Siding with Labour was never a serious option - the numbers just never added up. Even the implausible "rainbow coalition" wouldn't have given them a workable majority. There would have been rebellions all over the place and a fresh election within six months and a Tory government with an absolute majority. Anybody who votes for a minority party and doesn't expect it to form any coalition it reasonably can to try to get at least some of its goals through is a fool. And any minority party that won't consider a coalition with both major parties is not worth voting for, since it's truly a protest vote and equivalent to just voting labour. There have been a lot of screw ups in execution since (and before, like making the tuition fee pledge in the first place); but going into coalition with the Tories in the first place was clearly Clegg's best option out of the less than fantastic set available to him after the election.
I think some kind of coalition with the Tories was probably the only workable idea with the parliamentary math but from day 0 they screwed it up. The sort of happy marriage approach of lots of agreement that they signalled at the beginning was never going to be workable. They should have nailed down some specific policies that each grouping wanted to get done and had a more antagonistic arrangement form day 1. Since a parliamentary party only really needs to get it's budgets through and pass confidence motions to stay in power a 'confidence and supply' style pact that was talked about at the time would have probably suited both parties, and I suspect the country a lot better.
They should have left the Tories as a minority government. Give the people of Britain a chance to see how a government of compromise actually works out, and then maybe they would have more of an appetite for Proportional Representation.
Not sure how you can say that now. With hindsight his best option would have been absolutely not to have joined an alliance with the Tories. The reputation of the LibDems has been destroyed by that choice. Joining with Labour and trying to form some kind of government, or just not teaming up with the Tories at all would both have been better choices. I facepalmed when Nick Clegg announced his decision. It was like the Rebels joining up the the Empire to rule the galaxy. It was never going to end well.
They were too hungry for power. Conservatives plus Liberal Democrats was the only alliance that could form a majority government, so realistically it was that or Tory minority. Coalition with Labour would have been pointless because it would have been a minority. The chance to actually get into government overrode what should have been the principled stance, to say that there is no reasonable realignment of the policies of the two parties that could produce a harmonious alliance. Agreeing to form a government should have been impossible, given their differing manifestos!
If they hadn't then the Tories would have maybe stumbled on for a bit before going back to the country with a "give us a real mandate, hung parliaments don't work" message and we'd be about where we are today only with a tory government that only has to consider its right wing, even fewer liberal ideas carried out, and the lib dems with much fewer seats and no reason for anybody to vote for them. Reputation destroyed anyway. Dan's position that a confidence and supply arrangement would have been better is certainly a strong one, but to suggest that they should have just thrown away probably the only chance in half a century or more of actual influence? Not the sort of move I voted for them for.
I don't know what would have happened; adroit politicians could have turned that situation into a winning hand, either with or without a coalition arrangement. As a minority, the Tories would still need either Labour or Liberal Democrat support to get anything done. It would have freed them to seek agreement with Labour for things like, e.g., binning AV, that they couldn't rely on Lib-Dem for, but frankly, that kind of ad-hoc compromise is, I think, a better form of government. What actually happened showed me only that the Liberal Democrats were wholly unprepared for Full-Contact Politics.
You were going fine until that last sentence. There's no way they would have their reputation destroyed by not joining up with the Tories. They've become a laughing stock because of that. Clegg has come to be seen as a cuckold or a pathetic, toothless lapdog. Their support has plummeted from 23% to 10%. Clegg has gone from the LibDem's best hope to an embarrassment and a liability. Joining up with the Tories, however attractive it might have seemed at the time to Clegg, was absolutely the worst choice he could have made. I mean seriously: the LibDems are the most left wing party in the UK. A Labour-Conservative alliance would have had more common ground. How could he ever think it would work?
A lot of people thought of them as the most left wing party, and given the shabby state of Labour it wasn't exactly clear that they weren't, but... it was never exactly a safe assumption. A lot of liberal parties - particularly when small - have bobbed around between left-libertarianism and FDP-style centre/right liberalism depending on personalities and the vagaries of politics.
We can argue all day whether the LibDems are or are not the most left wing party in the UK, that's subjective, but the truth is that their support swelled with left-wing voters who were annoyed with Labour but would never vote Conservative. Those votes that the LibDems have lost since the election, more than half their support, those are left wing voters who have abandoned them. Those that remain are still pretty much left wing, because they have in recent years become the new left as Labour raced past them to the right to steal the middle ground. So with LibDem support swelled by disillusioned left-wing voters he chose to throw in his lot with the Conservatives. Not a smart move. Their pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-welfare state policies are not popular with right wing voters, and they've just chased away all their recent gains on the left wing. It's going to be a long hike back to respectability, and the first step will be to cut Clegg loose.
I think we're probably all not far from one another on the subject and I'm only asterisking the "most left wing party" thing slightly. Their best step, in my view, isn't a leadership reshuffle, it's the dissolution of the party. The options of third parties in FPTP (who care more about the election results than they do about the fate of their faction) are pretty limited. Try to get electoral reform is notionally the most pragmatic and the most consistent with people who want to adhere to a small-tent party line instead of partaking of big tent politics. That's been thoroughly fucked up. You can try to kill and eat the first or second party, which is only really realistic in a few circumstances - the NDP in Canada just managed this. Just hanging around and trying your best inflicts Tory majorities on a country that didn't vote for them. I sympathize with the whole "I couldn't vote Labour/Democratic/whatever" perspective and the revulsion against the idea that the big party is somehow "owed" the votes of people voting for "splitter" parties, democracy doesn't work that way and shouldn't. But in practice, in the world where elections happen, it'd be the best result for the most people if dead-end-third-partiers just opted out of the actual voting and continued organizing for electoral reform or whatever without actively influencing votes of mushy undecideds. I'm sure even that sounds like cynical strategic-vote bullying tactics to some people, but I consider caring about the election outcome to be a species of idealism, not cynicism.
Wonder if the Green party could perhaps pick up some of the left-side Liberal Democrat party members?
But the green party are, basically, pretty hard left politics dressed up behind "wont someone think of the trees!"
The problem with green politics generally is that you get that weird hippy anti-science strain infecting everything. I'm always looking at them sidelong expecting some anti-vaxxer, anti-nuclear power, pro-homeopathy nonsense to slip out.
I'm sure the Greens have picked up some LD voters. But they're an awfully long way further back down the electoral hill. The Libdems have something like 4000 local councillors, where the Greens have only a few hundred. Even with a national election meltdown, the LD local organization is still going to be a stronger base to rebuild on for another try than that. And people don't have very long memories in politics - it wasn't that long after the last Tory government that we voted this lot back in again. Similarly people will forget the detail of this parliament, there will be new faces leading the lib dems and there will be another unpopular incumbent party people want to vote against. The UK has fairly consistently supported a third party and I think this is on balance healthier than a US style two party arrangement.
Yeah one of the 'advantages' the Lib Dems have is they've got so few 'big names' and about half of them have already been kicked out of the party anyway because of various scandals. If they replace Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander from the remainder they can probably start almost entirely afresh. I think the general Lib Dem stink is going to stick to them for a while though, they might have to re-brand again (New Liberals) if they want to build support.
Well, National had won two elections despite not winning the popular vote under Muldoon, which had made Labour beating the drum of electoral reform and promise a referendum on the issue. However, when they gained the government, they reneged on that promise, making National promise that they would hold a referendum were they to win a majority. They then won a majority and (foolishly, perhaps) fulfilled that promise in 1992. In other words, the reform referendum was not a bone to a junior coalition partner and wasn't associated with a specific party. The academic case for changing the electoral system had already been made after a Labour-commissioned report in the mid-80s. I don't know the details beyond that, but I imagine that Labour was split, National was disliked due to having been in government already for a couple of years, and strong independent voices were in favour of the reform.
David Icke's spectacular meltdown prompted my dad to consider some kind of CIA operation, it was so narratively apt.
Ta. That sounds about right. New Zealand has its ideological strains, but often debate is shaped, sensibly, by the kind of report you mentioned.
It might seem an over-generalization but I think smallish parties - even distant-third-place-but-taken-seriously parties like the Lib-Dems - are susceptible to this sort of personality-based zaniness. All political parties, even big dull ones, attract some eccentrics if my experience is any judge. The small party That Knew It Was Right gets the mixed nuts of a quixotic and maverick-y constituency.
I think that's a justifiable concerm, I couldn't get past the first page of their 2010 manifesto before wanting to face palm.
