Liberal Democratic Party - Why do they continue

[PHILIPE]

It makes me wonder how the Liberal Party and later the Liberal Democratic Party has survived over the years. Not since the end of David Lloyd George's tenure in 1922 have they been any force and, in most General Elections, have only held a small handful of seats. The party, which had previously been the main opposition party to the Conservatives was in rapid decline in the 20s and Labour had replaced them as the Main opposition to the Conservative party. It would seem that the party was on the way to a terminal decline but they still seem to soldier on rather than throw the towel in with statistics showing how the odds are stacked against them with no sign of any revival. As we know, they formed a Coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 but that was only at the behest of the Conservatives so they could form the Government. They perhaps have tamed the other parties controversial policies at times as they did when in Coalition.

 

[takno]

As you note, the Lib Dems were part of the 2010-2015 government, and as a result were able to push for a number of policies which otherwise would never have seen the light of day. Far from doing this at the behest of the tories, they essentially decided which of the major parties would form a government with them. Slightly longer ago they were a key part of the coalition running the Scottish Parliament to 2007. They are also in the ruling groups of a fair number of councils across the country. They have a historically low number of MPs right now, but there's every chance of that changing this year or at the next election. Even with that restricted number they have managed to get press and government attention on a number of important issues, which can lead to change in other parties' manifestos. They also have a higher degree of influence in the lords than the commons.

I guess they could quit it all tomorrow and take up roles as influential commenters on railway forums instead, but presumably they feel they are achieving more where they are.

 

[47802]

The point is they have a significant number of votes but it doesn't translate very well into seats under the first past the post system

If we moved to some form of proportional representation they would likely get more seats, there would also be a distinct possibility more people would vote them and other smaller parties.

Personally politically the Lib Dems are generally closest to my views but I don't vote for them because my constituency is a straight fight between Labour and Conservative, so I tend to vote for what I think is the least worst option of those 2, so in the past I have voted Labour but in this election I will be voting Conservative.

The problem with the current voting system is that yes it tends to deliver less coalition governments which most people seem to prefer, but it also means that both Labour and Conservative get a disproportunate level of power compared to the number of people who really support them and really believe in their policies.

 

[Senex]

The point is they have a significant number of votes but it doesn't translate very well into seats under the first past the post system

If we moved to some form of proportional representation they would likely get more seats, there would also be a distinct possibility more people would vote them and other smaller parties.

Personally politically the Lib Dems are generally closest to my views but I don't vote for them because my constituency is a straight fight between Labour and Conservative, so I tend to vote for what I think is the least worst option of those 2, so in the past I have voted Labour but in this election I will be voting Conservative.

The problem with the current voting system is that yes it tends to deliver less coalition governments which most people seem to prefer, but it also means that both Labour and Conservative get a disproportunate level of power compared to the number of people who really support them and really believe in their policies.

And as long as Tories and Labour know that one or other of them is certain to get the most seats (by quite a long way) and the PM's job they have not the slightest incentive to move away from FPTP -- it keeps the smaller parties nicely in their place, doesn't it?

Why should it worry the two large parties that the system doesn't reflect what voters may well be wanting?

 

[edwin_m]

Far from doing this at the behest of the tories, they essentially decided which of the major parties would form a government with them.

As a matter of historical fact they could not have formed a viable coalition with Labour - to get a majority they would have had to bring in most of the other small parties, which would probably never have worked. With the need for a firm government after the financial crisis, there was probably no real alternative to what we got in 2010 - but the LibDems would have done better to look less as if they were enjoying it.

 

[takno]

As a matter of historical fact they could not have formed a viable coalition with Labour - to get a majority they would have had to bring in most of the other small parties, which would probably never have worked. With the need for a firm government after the financial crisis, there was probably no real alternative to what we got in 2010 - but the LibDems would have done better to look less as if they were enjoying it.

I don't think it would have been a particularly viable government, but the point is that the grouping would have been the largest in parliament and would have had first refusal. The most likely outcome after that would have been another election fairly quickly, which I suspect the Tories would have done better in.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it would have been a particularly viable government, but the point is that the grouping would have been the largest in parliament and would have had first refusal. The most likely outcome after that would have been another election fairly quickly, which I suspect the Tories would have done better in.

Probably so. The Tories would have been able to say that they were the largest party with the largest share of the vote and all the others had banded together to keep them out. In the rather febrile economic situation of 2010 I think most people would have agreed that a period of chaos followed by another election was not in the interests of the country.

So, as I suggested, the LibDems had no alternative except perhaps an informal agreement to support the Tories except on specific issues - which might have allowed them to stop some Tory policies but wouldn't have allowed any specific LibDem initiatives to see the light of day.

 

[me123]

It makes me wonder how the Liberal Party and later the Liberal Democratic Party has survived over the years. Not since the end of David Lloyd George's tenure in 1922 have they been any force and, in most General Elections, have only held a small handful of seats. The party, which had previously been the main opposition party to the Conservatives was in rapid decline in the 20s and Labour had replaced them as the Main opposition to the Conservative party. It would seem that the party was on the way to a terminal decline but they still seem to soldier on rather than throw the towel in with statistics showing how the odds are stacked against them with no sign of any revival. As we know, they formed a Coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 but that was only at the behest of the Conservatives so they could form the Government. They perhaps have tamed the other parties controversial policies at times as they did when in Coalition.

You could say the same of any party that isn't Labour or Conservative (and perhaps the SNP). Just because they aren't likely to form a government doesn't make their existence less worthwhile - on the contrary, they can hopefully serve a role as a strong opposition in the 2017 parliament.

The reason the Lib Dems continue is because they have members who subscribe to the party's ideals. The party actually has a unique standpoint which appeals to a not insignificant number of voters, and they have generally had a decent (if not revolutionary) performance in the polls - 2015 excepted. They're not going to give up just because of a small setback. They are no doubt as passionate any other group of MPs.

They're also a pretty big party - the third largest UK-wide party. There are hundreds of political parties that we never hear of. I don't see why any of them should give up, providing they are entering into the spirit of democracy.

 

[SS4]

Lib Dem support has suffered since their coalition with the Tories. Personally I believe that they sacrificed their long term viability in order for a short shot at power. In my opinion they did not do enough to curb the excesses of the Tories: voting in favour of student loan increases did not help and I believe they should have forced voting reform to take place instead of a referendum.

Which brings us onto the historical reasons for the time spent out of power and that is the fact that their support is too dispersed to count in FPTP (a problem UKIP had in 2015) - remember kids: all votes are equal but some votes are more equal than others and to change it would be too expensive

2015 could be a temporary blip though and with a pro-EU stance they may get a chance this time especially with the campaign to assassinate Corbyn's character

 

[me123]

Lib Dem support has suffered since their coalition with the Tories. Personally I believe that they sacrificed their long term viability in order for a short shot at power.

I think Nick Clegg was very much in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If he hadn't formed a coalition, he'd have probably been fired on the spot for relinquishing his party's chances of getting into government.

In my opinion they did not do enough to curb the excesses of the Tories: voting in favour of student loan increases did not help and I believe they should have forced voting reform to take place instead of a referendum.

But I completely agree with you here. I think the Lib Dems should have struck a better deal. At the very least, they should have been allowed to abstain on the student loans vote (better yet, give the members a free vote); and they should have demanded a referendum on true voting reform (not AV). If a coalition was not possible, then they could have made a bespoke arrangement to support the Tories on a deal-by-deal basis in return for some of their own manifesto commitments. They wouldn't have been in government, but they'd have a huge amount of influence in parliament and I think they'd have got at the very least what they have at the moment.

 

[FordFocus]

In 2010 Nick Clegg was a leader who seemed fresh, sort of likeable and did well in these TV debates (probably Mrs May is avoiding them) that lead to a mini Lib Dem serge. The fact they he got into bed with the Tories and didn't put up a defence against the tuition fees was a suicide note for them as seen with their massive 8 MPs in parliament. Also Nick Clegg's party broadcast in 2015 took the approach of trying to defend why they went into a collation rather than talking about their new policies.

Scroll forward to 2017 and they've put all their eggs into the basket of Brexit hoping to stop it by a second referendum and absorbing the remainers vote. Labours shadow Brexit man Kier Starmer said recently he was quite shocked at how not many people on the streets have been talking about Brexit. Probably now that Article 50 has been triggered people just want to get on with it. I guess because of that and the lack of any real domestic policies is why the Lib Dems are so far behind. Same applies with UKIP.

 

[takno]

In 2010 Nick Clegg was a leader who seemed fresh, sort of likeable and did well in these TV debates (probably Mrs May is avoiding them) that lead to a mini Lib Dem serge. The fact they he got into bed with the Tories and didn't put up a defence against the tuition fees was a suicide note for them as seen with their massive 8 MPs in parliament. Also Nick Clegg's party broadcast in 2015 took the approach of trying to defend why they went into a collation rather than talking about their new policies.

Scroll forward to 2017 and they've put all their eggs into the basket of Brexit hoping to stop it by a second referendum and absorbing the remainers vote. Labours shadow Brexit man Kier Starmer said recently he was quite shocked at how not many people on the streets have been talking about Brexit. Probably now that Article 50 has been triggered people just want to get on with it. I guess because of that and the lack of any real domestic policies is why the Lib Dems are so far behind. Same applies with UKIP.

Lib Dems have got plenty of real domestic policies. Probably rather more than they need given that their only conceivable route to power is a coalition and they don't want to get torn apart for making commitments they can't keep again.

Their position on Brexit is also not about simply stopping Brexit - the point of the second referendum is to go through the negotiations and then decide based on the outcome whether what is achievable is better than staying put. They also want to focus the negotiations on ongoing single market membership. Keir Starmer is mocking them because that's what he actually wants, but he isn't allowed it by the leadership.

None of it is being put well in the media, but then the media aren't really interested in doing anything other than saying the Tories are fantastic and coaxing Dianne Abbot into saying numbers and then laughing at her for getting them wrong.

 

[317 forever]

Even all current LibDem seats except Orkney & Shetland were held by other parties as recently as 1992. Allowing for subsequent developments in some cases, we could just have a Doomsday scenario in which their seats are redistributed as follows:-

SNP - Orkney & Shetland
Plaid Cymru - Ceredigion
Labour - Leeds North West, Sheffield Hallam
Conservative:- Richmond Park, Carshalton & Wallington, Norfolk North West, Southport, Westmoreland & Lonsdale

 

[northwichcat]

Even all current LibDem seats except Orkney & Shetland were held by other parties as recently as 1992.

Labour - Leeds North West, Sheffield Hallam

Labour couldn't win Sheffield Hallam when they were at their prime in 1997. The Lib Dems winning that seat was down to Conservative voters switching to Lib Dem in the 90s, not Labour losing voters like in Leeds North West.

 

[northwichcat]

Far from doing this at the behest of the tories, they essentially decided which of the major parties would form a government with them.

The choice they had was:
1. Come to an agreement with the Conservatives, where Cameron was willing to listen and compromise, which would then form a majority coalition government.
2. Agree to back Gordon Brown's policies in full and even then they wouldn't have 50% of seats between the two parties, so would have needed the support of the majority of the minor parties, which could have been difficult to obtain.
3. Do nothing. Let a minority government take office who have likely called another election less than 12 months after the previous one.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I think Nick Clegg was very much in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If he hadn't formed a coalition, he'd have probably been fired on the spot for relinquishing his party's chances of getting into government.



But I completely agree with you here. I think the Lib Dems should have struck a better deal. At the very least, they should have been allowed to abstain on the student loans vote (better yet, give the members a free vote); and they should have demanded a referendum on true voting reform (not AV). If a coalition was not possible, then they could have made a bespoke arrangement to support the Tories on a deal-by-deal basis in return for some of their own manifesto commitments. They wouldn't have been in government, but they'd have a huge amount of influence in parliament and I think they'd have got at the very least what they have at the moment.

They were not whipped on the Tuition fees vote. Tim Farron and Charles Kennedy voted against as did a few others. None were punished. I knew which way Charles Kennedy was going to vote before he did as I was involved in an open letter sent by grass root Lib Dems and he replied to us.

Not being in government was not an option. The party had a vote about that, and overwhelmingly voted in favour of the coalition. To not go into government would have also meant they would've suffered just as much or more in the polls as they would've been seen as a protest party only even if they had done a confidence and supply pact with the tories. Something that grated with voters (and grass roots Lib Dems) even more than tuition fees were the NHS reforms which was in neither party's manifestos. That was the reason I resigned from the Lib Dems and continued as an independent councillor until 2015.

I'm still of the belief that the Lib Dems did a lot to curb the tories during the coalition. Something that is obvious in the tory government from 2015, where a lot of policies that were Lib Dem or Lib Dem influenced were promptly reversed.

 

[northwichcat]

They were not whipped on the Tuition fees vote. Tim Farron and Charles Kennedy voted against as did a few others. None were punished. I knew which way Charles Kennedy was going to vote before he did as I was involved in an open letter sent by grass root Lib Dems and he replied to us.

...

I'm still of the belief that the Lib Dems did a lot to curb the tories during the coalition. Something that is obvious in the tory government from 2015, where a lot of policies that were Lib Dem or Lib Dem influenced were promptly reversed.

Like you said in 2015 the Conservatives started putting through policies which the Lib Dem's prevented prior to that. What gets forgotten about the tuition fee policy changed is the Lib Dems got the Conservatives to change the repayment terms to benefit those who didn't get a well paid job on graduation. Had the Lib Dems blocked the tuition fee policy altogether it's likely the Tories would voted it through in 2015 without that Lib Dem amendment.

 

[317 forever]

Labour couldn't win Sheffield Hallam when they were at their prime in 1997. The Lib Dems winning that seat was down to Conservative voters switching to Lib Dem in the 90s, not Labour losing voters like in Leeds North West.

Labour couldn't win Bermondsey in 1997 either but did in 2015. They also missed out at Caithness & Sutherland in 1997 even after holding the seat in 1979. They also missed out on Dorset South in 1997 but were victorious there in 2001 & 2005. So, while gaining seats missed in 1997 is comparatively rare, it is not quite impossible.

 

[Busaholic]

If displaying of election posters is an indication of voting intention then the LibDems could well win back the St Ives constituency. Non-scientific, I know, but I counted posters while driving and walking yesterday and today in Penzance, Marazion, Goldsithney and Rosudgeon. I gave up counting the Lib Dems after 100, by which time I'd come across 2 for the Tories. At the same stage of the campaign two years ago, I found a roughly equal no. of posters (plus some for UKIP and the Greens, neither standing this time). I also spied two Labour posters. I've not included car stickers, but the few I saw were also for LibDem.

 

[PHILIPE]

My father always used to say "A vote for the Liberals (now Lib Dems) is a waste of a vote"

 

[me123]

If displaying of election posters is an indication of voting intention then the LibDems could well win back the St Ives constituency. Non-scientific, I know, but I counted posters while driving and walking yesterday and today in Penzance, Marazion, Goldsithney and Rosudgeon. I gave up counting the Lib Dems after 100, by which time I'd come across 2 for the Tories. At the same stage of the campaign two years ago, I found a roughly equal no. of posters (plus some for UKIP and the Greens, neither standing this time). I also spied two Labour posters. I've not included car stickers, but the few I saw were also for LibDem.

If your theory is true, then Vale of Clwyd (which should be Labour's number 2 target seat, with a margin of only about 200 votes) should be safely Conservative. When I go to work or into town I feel like I'm driving through a tunnel of blue. It's all a bit much really. I agree with the local cows, last seen eating the campaign posters on the farm down the road.

Meanwhile in Labour's number 2 target seat, I have yet to see a single poster, placard or leaflet from them. Are they even trying? For completeness, I did get a leaflet from the Lib Dems and nothing yet from Plaid, although there was a brief article in the local rag about their candidate.

 

[northwichcat]

My father always used to say "A vote for the Liberals (now Lib Dems) is a waste of a vote"

Bit of a short sighted view. There are some seats (both on local councils and in parliament) that Labour will never win and some that the Conservatives will never win. However, that doesn't mean if you are unhappy with your existing Councillor/MP that a Lib Dem/Green/Independent etc. can't beat them.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

How much of the party hierarchy that protected the paedophiles Cyril Smith and Clement Freud is still around today ?

 

[northwichcat]

How much of the party hierarchy that protected the paedophiles Cyril Smith and Clement Freud is still around today ?

Is that relevant when there have been so many Labour and Conservative politicians involved in various types of illegal activity who have been protected by those in their party?

I also wonder if the SNP would have suspended their two MPs who were found guilty of fraud had it not been for a General Election being called while those charges were still fresh in the mind of Scottish voters.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Is that relevant when there have been so many Labour and Conservative politicians involved in various types of illegal activity who have been protected by those in their party?

I also wonder if the SNP would have suspended their two MPs who were found guilty of fraud had it not been for a General Election being called while those charges were still fresh in the mind of Scottish voters.

I would think it is absolutely relevant to know what type of people are involved in any political party.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I would think it is absolutely relevant to know what type of people are involved in any political party.

So why pick on just the Lib Dems? ALL parties have been involved in scandals that have been protected.

As far as the hierarchy that protected those two, not that much remains. Certainly nothing at the national level.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

So why pick on just the Lib Dems? ALL parties have been involved in scandals that have been protected.

.

Probably because their heinous activities (albeit too late for them to face justice) were actually exposed. As you say, the other parties being more powerful, may have covered up equally vile crimes.
At the time I think not only Smith and Freud got off scot free but also many more of those involved in the cover up. For me it is a legacy that has tainted the Lib Dems - even today they just don't seem to be that sorry about it.

 

[DerekC]

I think the Lib Dem's policy on a second EU referendum is entirely logical but completely unsaleable in the current election. There isn't much point in pushing as your key policy something which just isn't going to happen (much as I wish it could). They would be better aiming at softening the Brexit which is going to happen and making a fuss about things like the European Court of Human Rights, which Teresa M is going to take us out of despite the fact that it isn't an EU body and therefore wasn't covered by the referendum mandate.

My "if only" is that Vince Cable had been LD leader in 2010 rather than Nick Clegg. I think he would have been much more hard nosed and not trusted David Cameron as Nick C obviously did. If they had insisted that Tuition Fees were brought in as a Graduate Tax (which is more or less what it is) the Tories would have gone along with it.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the Lib Dem's policy on a second EU referendum is entirely logical but completely unsaleable in the current election. There isn't much point in pushing as your key policy something which just isn't going to happen (much as I wish it could).

Like I posted in the General Election thread it was frustrating that the audience member who questioned May on Brexit let May get away with her bog standard Brexit response. May doesn't have a mandate to carry out Brexit simply because 52% of people voted for Leave after hearing misleading claims and 48% voted for Remain after hearing misleading claims. Some history books will mention lies from Conservative and UKIP politicians led to that 2016 referendum result. However, if there's a second referendum on the actual Brexit deal is carried out and 60% vote in favour then the lies from politicians in 2016 become irrelevant.

It was interesting May said last night she called a General Election because of MPs calling for a second referendum, which in her view is disruptive. There's 9 Lib Dem MPs and the Greens are also backing a second referendum so she claims she called a General Election because she's scared of just 10 MPs on the opposition benches, when she's got over 300!

 

[Y961 XBU]

I think the Lib Dems will grow in size in the upcoming election as theres a number of seats where the Lib Dems are a close 2nd to the Tory party so Labour voters might decide to vote tactically to try and force them out, my money is the Lib Dems having 15 MPs after this election.