AH Challenge: LibDem UK

Currently, the Liberal Democrats are the third largest political party in the UK. A short overview of their political aims would be a sense of environmentalism, a multilateral foreign policy, and the minimizing of state intervention in personal activities. How could the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) become the leading party in the UK, with the earliest POD possible.

IMHO, the 2005 election would be the easiest POD, as the LibDems and some political columnists at the time were anticipating a political breakthrough and hoping to win over 100 seats. That did not materialize, however.

What would the world look like, both in terms of UK domestic politics and international issues? I think it would be fair to say that if the LibDems had been in power during the lead-up to the Iraq War Britain would not have committed troops. Furthermore, it is a possibility that the UK would have been much more pro-European under LibDem leadership.
 
Currently, the Liberal Democrats are the third largest political party in the UK. A short overview of their political aims would be a sense of environmentalism, a multilateral foreign policy, and the minimizing of state intervention in personal activities. How could the Liberal Democrats (LibDems) become the leading party in the UK, with the earliest POD possible.

IMHO, the 2005 election would be the easiest POD, as the LibDems and some political columnists at the time were anticipating a political breakthrough and hoping to win over 100 seats. That did not materialize, however.

What would the world look like, both in terms of UK domestic politics and international issues? I think it would be fair to say that if the LibDems had been in power during the lead-up to the Iraq War Britain would not have committed troops. Furthermore, it is a possibility that the UK would have been much more pro-European under LibDem leadership.

I'm assuming you mean post lib dem formation here obviously and not including their predecessors the liberals.
So we're limited to the 80s where perhaps we could speed up the Liberal/SDP union a bit but otherwise nah.

The key here is really to run one of the other parties into the ground.
Maybe Thatcher in her last years gets even worse and a labour government is soon to follow with Major winning no elections.
The old school Tories remain in power, they have a few nasty scandals and just keep declining. Lib dems are the second place party by the late 90s.
Then have labour mess up a bit with something and having the tories come out of it even worse but the lib dems being fine and bob's your uncle, next election its the lib dems winning.
 
I'm assuming you mean post lib dem formation here obviously and not including their predecessors the liberals.
So we're limited to the 80s where perhaps we could speed up the Liberal/SDP union a bit but otherwise nah.

The key here is really to run one of the other parties into the ground.
Maybe Thatcher in her last years gets even worse and a labour government is soon to follow with Major winning no elections.
The old school Tories remain in power, they have a few nasty scandals and just keep declining. Lib dems are the second place party by the late 90s.
Then have labour mess up a bit with something and having the tories come out of it even worse but the lib dems being fine and bob's your uncle, next election its the lib dems winning.

Depends on whether the alliance period is excluded or not but 83 without the Falklands war could be very interesting.

The other option would be a more balanced stance on Europe. Its the one section of the party policy where rationality goes out the window and loses us a hell of a lot of votes.

Steve
 
Depends on whether the alliance period is excluded or not but 83 without the Falklands war could be very interesting.

The other option would be a more balanced stance on Europe. Its the one section of the party policy where rationality goes out the window and loses us a hell of a lot of votes.

Steve

Why? What actually is the Lib Dem policy on Europe ATM?
 

Krall

Banned
The Lib Dems are generally pro-Europe, but they want to make the EU work for Britain, instead of just doing what the EU wants.

They also want a referendum on staying in the EU, I think.
 
The Lib Dems are generally pro-Europe, but they want to make the EU work for Britain, instead of just doing what the EU wants.

They also want a referendum on staying in the EU, I think.

That sounds fine to me! I was really asking stevep specifically, since he said that the policy "loses us a hell of a lot of votes", by which I assume he is a member.
 
Depends on whether the alliance period is excluded or not but 83 without the Falklands war could be very interesting.

The other option would be a more balanced stance on Europe. Its the one section of the party policy where rationality goes out the window and loses us a hell of a lot of votes.

Steve

Nothing is exactly excluded from this POD ... a 1983 without a Falklands War can easily be in the cards.
 
definately in with the falklands crowd on this one, on the election that (i think) was happening just as war broke out the then leader of the libdems was quoted saying something about winning the election, then he didn't and good old maggie got in

i think it might be more interesting if the falklands was delayed until after a successful libdem election... there is a possibility that the PM might just say to hell with the falklands

then again he may get boo'd out of the house of commons
 
I suspect that having Shirley Williams hold her Labour seat in 1979 and then hold the seat in 2003 rather than trying to hold an unlikely by election seat would help.

If she were already in Parliament I think she would be the mor logical SDP and later Lib Dem leader, and she was MUCH better liked than Jenkins or Owen.
 
That sounds fine to me! I was really asking stevep specifically, since he said that the policy "loses us a hell of a lot of votes", by which I assume he is a member.

alt_historian

Yes I am although the situation on Europe is the biggest single bugbear. Not so much the fact that the bulk of the party supports the EU. I could live with that and am not blindly opposed to the EU myself. Its more that in any other issue the party is fairly open minded and tolerant. On the EU the bigots have a field-day and no one seems to bother. I used to take the weekly paper from the party but just got fed up of the abuse and insults.

I don't know if its the same in other countries in Europe but in Britain the core of the 'pro-Europe' argument isn't. It more an anti-British one and seemed to be based more on the 'we're right and will scream abuse at you until you agree with us'. Note that frequently the argument is not that Britain is better off in Europe and more often that its the only valid option. That a country of 60M people is not capable of governing itself.

The disgrace for the party is that on any other issue such bigotry would be roundly condemned and alternative views would be allowed to be heard. However on the sacred cow of Europe no criticism of perfection is allowed. [I will admit that, having been less active in recent years I am not in touch with policy as much as I used to be so it might have changed]. However very much reminds me of the famous exchange between Holmes and Watson in 'The mystery of Silver Blaze'.

Krall is wrong on the question of a referendum on staying in Europe. There was a commitment to a referendum on the constitution a few years back but how serious they were I don't know. Noticeably, like Labour, they claimed there was no such commitment when this mutated into the current changes being proposed.

As you can see I have strong views on this issue.

Steve
 
Nothing is exactly excluded from this POD ... a 1983 without a Falklands War can easily be in the cards.

HC

OK. Thanks for clarifying. Wasn't sure as at that time it was still strictly speaking the alliance of the two parties before the formal merger that formed the LibDems.

Steve
 
definately in with the falklands crowd on this one, on the election that (i think) was happening just as war broke out the then leader of the libdems was quoted saying something about winning the election, then he didn't and good old maggie got in

i think it might be more interesting if the falklands was delayed until after a successful libdem election... there is a possibility that the PM might just say to hell with the falklands

then again he may get boo'd out of the house of commons

You're thinking of David Steel. Very (in)famous quote, while addressing his MPs: "Return to your constituencies and prepare for government!"

Well, as far as I can tell, the Liberals did poorly in '83 for two main reasons.

1. the Alliance between the Liberals and SDP. This was a good idea at the time, but short of what was required to present a truly united front. Although the Liberals and the SDP stood for many of the same things, there were differences - and because the two parties were still led independently, this led to confusion among voters, and contradictions between the two parts of the Alliance.

2. First Past The Post voting system. This caused terrible problems for the Alliance, as although they had fairly widespread support across the country (mainly due to the two main parties being more widely seperated than before, thus creating open ground in the middle), in few places was this support translated into actual seats in Parliament. A long rant about the iniquities of FPTP belongs elsewhere - let's just say that it heavily penalises smaller parties who do not have support concentrated within any particular constituency. i.e., the Liberals and SDP, and the Alliance of the two. c.f. the OTL 19183 election, when the Alliance got ~25% of the vote, but only 23 seats (of around 650).

So, fix the above two problems, and you can probably get a Lib Dem government in the 80s. Do this by:
a) Getting the Liberals and SDP to reconcile their remaining differences, and officially merge into one party right off the bat in 1981/2, rather than dithering until 1988 as per OTL. Then along with the popular excitement about a new, mainstream party (SDP), you will also get the benefit of a united, generally moderate centrist front in a time of increasing political polarisation. This will increase their popularity further.
b) Do something about the FPTP system to make it fairer to smaller parties. Maybe we can have the POD during the 1977/8 Lib/Lab Pact? For instance, perhaps Callaghan feels less confident while meeting with David Steel (for whatever reason), and agrees to the Liberal condition that Proportional Representation be enacted - or, at least, agrees to a serious review of the idea, and some sort of trial run of it, rather than the half-hearted committee of OTL. I'm not sure how we plausibly get from there to 'PR is in place in the 1983 election', but it's a start.

I assume there are various problems with the above ideas, and people should feel free to poke holes.
 
Last edited:
I believe they're eurofederalist and have been for as long as I can remember...

Not really a vote-winning strategy in the UK, even among Lib Dem voter demographics.

Yep.
Back at college we had a fake election. The 'Blair is teh hitlar' morons were the lib dems and were plastering posters of "A vote for Labour is a vote for Bush" all over the place.
I countered this with "A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Chirac" posters.


But meh, that was more just to stir up shit as I hate ignorant morons. I actually do like the lib dem europe stance.
 
Yep.
Back at college we had a fake election. The 'Blair is teh hitlar' morons were the lib dems and were plastering posters of "A vote for Labour is a vote for Bush" all over the place.
I countered this with "A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Chirac" posters.


But meh, that was more just to stir up shit as I hate ignorant morons. I actually do like the lib dem europe stance.

Interesting, can I subscribe to your newletter. I usually vote LibDem cause I dont like Labour or the Tories. Still waiting for a Mildy Conservative Liberal Democrat Party (MCLDP) to win my vote.

But the LibDems major stumbling block has been unsuitable leaders during "breakthrough periods" recently we had a good politicain in the form of Charles Kenedy, who REALLY liked to drink, then "Ming The Merciless" from the orignal Flash Gordan Comics and the which candidate is which leadership contest were the two choices were VERY VERY similar.

For the LibDems to do well we need Paddy Ashdown back in charge (Ex-SBS + His work to rebuild Bosnia) or the ASBs to give the current leader/past one hell of a charisma injection.
 
Note: FPTP doesn't discriminate against the LDs per se...it only discriminates against them at a lower level of support. Once they start hitting 30% nationally then FPTP swings more in their favour, and due to their fairly even spread of votes once you get to 40% or so of the vote then FPTP would benefit the LDs massively (primarily at the expense of the Tories, I might add). If the Alliance in the 80s had made a better job of it, and Labour a worse one, then there is no reason why the Alliance couldn't have come out second placed in terms of votes (if not in seats) - that would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the Labour Party, and may well be the catalyst for its ultimate destruction.
 
Top