coalition could liberal democrats have handled it better?

The Liberal Democrat History Group is hosting a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat Conference with the rather odd title: coalition could liberal democrats have handled it better?

It is difficult to thin of a way in which they could have handed it worse !  Perhaps the one thing is that the Conservatives were very stupid to block reform of the House of Lords. Had the Clegg proposals gone through the Liberal Democrats would have lost most of their Lords. And the Parliamentary boundary changes would have gone through costing the Lib Dems 4 of the 8 seats the managed to cling on to.

http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/events/coalition-could-liberal-democrats-have-handled-it-better/

How might the Lib Dem 8% poll rating break down ?

How might the Lib Dem 8% break down ?

Assuming the Lib Dems don't contest in Northern Ireland or the speakers seat:

Reasonably the base Lib Dem vote is 2% - even in there worst 126 seats they should average 2% of the vote.   At the other end the Lib Dems have 57 seats they hold, rounded to 63  for the maths and to reflect a few wild cards. In line with the Ashcroft polls I've gone for a 31% average in these seats - for some that might mean 20 -25%, almost certainly not enough to win to up to about 40% in other place pretty much a sure win.

To stand any chance of winning their held or target seats the Lib Dems will need to be polling abysmally in half the seats where they won't even keep their deposit.
But what of the seats the Lib Dems did well in last time but didn't win - thee seats where they polled above their 23% average? Things don't look good - in most of these seats the Lib Dems will do well to poll 5% and save their deposit. In the old days the Liberal party was famous for losing deposits but that was when you needed 12.5% to save it.

1% across 631 seats =1% national vote
126 seats where they get 2% adds 0.2%
126 seats where Lib Dems get 3% adds 0.4%
126 seats where Lib Dems get 4% - adds 0.6%
63 seats where Lib Dems get 5% - adds 0.4%
63  seats where Lib Dems get 7% adds 0.6%
63 seats where Lib Dems get 21% adds 2%
63 seats where Lib Dems get 31% adds 3%

Total Lib Dem vote nationwide 8.2%

Opinion polls in Lib Dem held seats

Lord Oakeshott commissioned opinion polls in the constituencies of 5 Liberal Democrat MPs - it is alleged by Nick Clegg and other that he did this to deliberately damage the party.

That is utter nonsense.   Lord Oakeshott was first asked by someone else to commission a poll in Vince Cable's constituency.  This he did and it showed the Lib Dems in second place - worrying you would think as Mr Cable had a majority of 12,140 or 20% of the vote.

Most people - me included would have it in our list of dead cert Lib Dem holds at the next general election.

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/02/05/why-the-libdem-seats-will-win-30-35-seats-in-2015

It can't be stressed strongly enough the opinion polls are opinions polls - if they had shown that the Lib Dems were set to romp home in Twickenham - then how on earth would that damage the party.
If on the other hand the polls showed the Lib Dems doing badly, they ought to act as a warning to the Lib Dems not to be complacent.

The weird reaction to the polls is unfortunate - because one only has to look at the local election results in Twickenham (part of the London Borough of Richmond) to know the Lib Dems are in trouble, and the polls confirm they apply to the parliamentary seat.  Vince Cable was elected in 1997, if any Lib Dem is going to have an incumbency factor where years of hard work and high name recognition are going to help them keep a seat, it is surely someone like Vince Cable. As the Lib Dem general election strategy is based on such an approach, it is just as well to know now it is not likely to work.

Will anyone win the next General Election ?

Many commentators are expressing the view that many in both Labour and Conservative parties expect to lose the General Election.

It seems that key strategists in both parties are working to win on what is called a 35% strategy - that is that they should aim to win 35% of the votes cast at the General Election and that this may see them elected.

Whoever wins is likely to break some records.  Rarely have Governments been more popular at a second general election than they were at a first. Rarely has an opposition been as unpopular as Labour are now and gone on to defeat a Government.

The logic for the Conservatives is painful, if they couldn't win a majority facing an unpopular Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour Government, what chance of them doing better are 5 years of cuts ? For Labour the reverse is true, here is a Government making cuts and yet, Labour are barely ahead in the opinion polls and their Leader has failed to impress the public.

Support for the Lib Dems could revive, specially if they choose a new leader, or it might collapse further as it did in the Scottish Parliament Elections.

Despite the current collapse of support for the Lib Dems, the rise of UKIP means that it entirely possible both Conservatives and Labour could get a smaller share of the vote in 2015 than they did in 2010.

That is deeply worrying for a democracy. 

Some commentators are predicting another hung Parliament - it may be that the Lib Dems could do better in areas where they have MPs and that a  surge for UKIP could mean the Lib Dems holding on to or even winning seats they might otherwise lose.   To be honest, I think both of these scenarios are overplayed. Both might help the Lib Dems slightly, but unless the base level of support for the Party rises, they face a return to 20 or so MPs.  Frankly that isn't enough to be part of a coalition nor to hold the balance of power even in a hung Parliament.  A minority Government by Labour or Conservatives, probably with the tacit consent of the other would be a near certainty. For the Lib Dems having gone from 53 MPs 25 or less would be traumatic. To risk another coalition and another halving of their MPs would be madness.

So who will win the General Election - not the public, who may wake up to a "democratic dictatorship" elected by around 1/3 of those who voted and perhaps 1/5 of those entitled to vote.

Eastleigh By-election result

The first thing to say is despite the stupidity of his actions over speeding points and letting down all his colleagues and supporters in the Liberal Democrats, and leaving them with a by-election in the worse circumstances, Chris Huhne played a huge part in the Lib Dems winning the by-election in Eastleigh. He was an assiduous MP who  worked very hard for all his constituents.  His record of action meant local people were more forgiving of his failings and

Secondly, the local Lib Dem Councillors are obviously both  popular and hard working.  It would be true to say a lot of people voted Lib Dem becausee of their local record than because of their national policies. Nothing wrong with that, people vote for all sorts of reasons. But it would be wrong to overstate the degree of Lib Dem success - it was a great result for them and the new MP might expect a bigger majority come the General Election.

UKIP did very well, given a longer campaign, they could have won, but oddly, the Conservatives have been campaigning non-stop in Eastleigh for a long while in

Labour are getting away with downplaying their result - their excuse, they were third and couldn't win - well, tell that to UKIP who started 4th with just 4% of the vote and almost won.   Labour did hold their share of the vote, which is all they need to do nationally at the general election to win if the Conservatives and Lib Dems are losing votes to UKIP.  Truly Labour don't have to win seats like Eastleigh, but it is quiet similar to seats like Southampton where Labour have MPs  or Portsmouth, where they used to have an MP.

UKIP did well getting the protest, none of the above vote - whether that will last, only time will tell.  A win would have been a political earthquake, a second place as Liberal know, is not.  Still UKIP have a lot of momentum on their side, so will will see where they go.   I expect them to do well in the County Council elections this year and top the poll in the Euro Elections in 2014,  but may still not elect a single MP at the General Election.  I expect a lot of the anti-politics, non of the above protest vote may reluctantly vote Lib Dems or Labour come 2015.  UKIP are not in control of events and it is the reaction of the other parties to UKIP success which will shape future politics.

The Conservatives did worst of all.  They are now split as a party. There is little scope for compromise - either you wnat to be in the EU or you want out, either you support same sex marriage or you oppose it, either you buy in to compassionate conservatism, green issues and or your tend to undeserving poor, anti-windfarm, nothing can be done about global warming, cut overseas aid, etc

By-elections rarely predict general election results, but occasionally they can shape them.  The Lib Dems will be happy if they can reduce the talk of them being wiped out at the General Election,  UKIP will hope for a place in the Leaders debate and 'i agree with Nigel Farage mania'  and no one calls a referendum on Europe.  Labour will be happy to watch UKIP take more votes from the Tories than from Labour and the Conservatives, well, they will split some more.  That is the trouble with insoluble problems, they are insoluble. Is it really 20 years since the Conservatives won a  majority at a General Election ?    If only that had supported reform of the voting system! Imagine the result in Eastleigh if voters had a second and third preference.

What if the Lib Dems hadn't gone into coalition

The Liberal Democrats it is rather obvious to say have not achieved great opinion poll or electoral success since agreeing to take part in the coalition Government with the Conservatives.

So with hindsight, were there better alternatives?

The most commonly heard suggestion is that had the Liberal Democrats not gone into coalition then the Conservatives would have formed a minority Government and soon called a general election on the basis that the Country needed strong government and a clear mandate to sort out the economic crisis.

Co-incidently, Labour and Lib Dems would have lacked the cash for a second general election and the Conservatives would have had enough money to win a workable majority.

The idea of a rainbow coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and all the minor parties working together was far fetched.  It would have been very unstable and short lasting.  The people most aginst it were found in the Labour Party, and they would have wrecked it. Ironically though it might have served the Lib Dems better.

The history of coalitions has not been kind to the smaller coalition parties.  They tend to get the blame for anything bad (you could have stopped it) and little cerdit for anything good (it would ahve happend anyway).  To prosper, smaller parties have to point to a number of clear and popular sucesses with electoral appeal and have clear future aims that command electoral support.

I think it is important to understand the feelings of the Lib Dems who genuinely felt they were putting the interests of the country above the interest of their party. How often voters ask for that and how little they have rewarded the Lib Dems.

The problem facing the Lib Dems in 2010 was that clearly despite sometimes high poll ratings, they polled only a slightly higher percentage of the vote than in 2005 and the actually returned fewer MPs, many in very marginal seats.
The prospect of another general election  anytime soon was not appealing.

The alternative to a coalition - apart from another general election or a minority government of some sort was a so called "confidence and supply arrangement" whereby the Liberal Democrats woudl agree to support another party - in all probability the Conservatives, in votes of no confidence and on issues of government finance. Other issues would be voted on depending on Lib Dem policy or negotiations with the Government.

The Liberal Party had failed to form a coalition with either Conservative or Labour between the two general elections in 1974. Their support declined as people concluded that firstly the Liberal could only elect a handful of MPs (13 out of 635) and secondly, given a choice between supporting Labour or Conservatives, the Liberal chose neither. In reality, neither Conseravtives or Labour were interested in a deal with the Liberals, the Liberals called for a Government of national unity, but that was never likely, and therfore compounded the view that the Liberals weren't coming up with realistic proposals.   The situation in Feb 1974 was much like 2010 - Liberal and Conservatives combined still fell short of a majority (the same as Lib Dem and Labour in 2010)

I expect most MPs expected David Cameron to do what Harold Wilson dis in 1974, form a  minority Government, introduce a few popular measures and call a new general election as soon as decently possible  arguing that the Government needed a proper majority to get the job done. Tellingly, the Conservatives co-operated with the Labour Government, allowing them to govern.

Most Liberal Democrats seemed very surprised that the Conservatives offered a coalition in 2010, I wasn't, but more of that in another post.  Basically, I think Cameron was copying the approach of Tony Blair - who saw coaltion with the Lib Dems as a way to co-op them into a 'big tent'. For Blair the balance of MPs was never right, for Cameron it was.

In 1976-78 the Lib/Lab Pact kept the unpopular Labour Government in power,  but didn't reap huge benefits for the Liberal Party at the time.

Although the idea of voting for or against the Government on an issue by issue basis seems attractive - but it is highly likley that the public would have got peeved with the Lib Dems 'will they won't they'

Of course anyone who disagrees with the Government would want the Lib dems to stop the Government doing X, even if they Lib Dems suppported x, or the Govt. didn't need Lib Dem approval as other parties supported the Government.