WI: Lib Dems not in coalition in 2010.

Instead, what if they offered a supply and confidence arrangement and they remain in opposition.

Would there have been an earlier election than 2015? And would the Lib Dems have lost as badly in the OTL if they weren't seen as part of the Conservative government?
 
I'm a Yank . . .

but aren't the Lib Dems somewhat libertarian and pro-market, but in other ways more radical than Labour?
 
Correct me if I am mistaken on this, but I had the impression that it was the Tories who insisted on including Lib Dem pols in the Cabinet.

The thinking was that the government would have to do spending cutbacks regardless and would be going through a period of unpopularity. A confidence and supply arrangement would allow the junior partner to cut and run when things got bad. Outside of the cabinet, Lib Dem pols would still have been free to criticize the government. To make it work, the coalition partners had to be shackled together, this was also the reason behind the Fixed Term Parliaments legislation.

There has been something of a myth that the Lib Dems could have somehow done something clever in 2010 and avoid the 2015 electoral debacle. Actually their leaders were well aware that they would take a big hit at the next election. They historically have soaked up alot of protest votes that would not be there for a government party. They took a bad hit just giving confidence and supply to a Labour government for a couple years in the 1970s. However the parliamentary math, and Brown's slowness in negotiating, ruled out a coalition with Labour, and the economic situation meant it had to be a coalition, not confidence and supply. The Tories knew this and it strengthened their negotiating position.
 
There has been something of a myth that the Lib Dems could have somehow done something clever in 2010 and avoid the 2015 electoral debacle. Actually their leaders were well aware that they would take a big hit at the next election. They historically have soaked up alot of protest votes that would not be there for a government party. They took a bad hit just giving confidence and supply to a Labour government for a couple years in the 1970s. However the parliamentary math, and Brown's slowness in negotiating, ruled out a coalition with Labour, and the economic situation meant it had to be a coalition, not confidence and supply. The Tories knew this and it strengthened their negotiating position.
The hit they took in 1979 was nowhere near as bad in terms of seats, and there leader had been put on trial for murder, so I think they had good reason to suppose that they could have kept much of there parliamentary representation in tact. They were almost certainly going to lose seats, and the leadership were likely well aware of that, but I don't think any of them expected to be reduced to just eight seats, and they probably could have stopped that had they somehow managed to prevent the tuition fees debacle. Perhaps if they had managed to get a deal where they would be allowed to vote against that as part of confidence and supply, then they would come out of the whole thing looking far better. But then again, I'm unsure if Cameron would really be comfortable creating a situation where he was likely going to lose that vote, even with the support of the DUP. He might have just thought a second election would be worth it to bring him into the majority.
I'm a Yank . . .

but aren't the Lib Dems somewhat libertarian and pro-market, but in other ways more radical than Labour?
Depends what wing of the party you are talking about. Some on the right of the party, the 'Orange Bookers' (like Clegg) are pro free market and socially liberal too, and are probably to the right of Labour but to the left of the Tories. Libertarian is a bit too strong a word to use, 'classical liberal' is more fitting. The left of the party is more inclined toward social democracy, and during the Blair years when Labour was very much in the centre, they positioned themselves to their left under Charles Kennedy. Whether they are to the left or right of Labour very much varies depending on who the leader is. Of course, both wings are more socially liberal than Labour or the Tories.
 
Last edited:
"The hit they took in 1979 was nowhere near as bad in terms of seats"

I don't really disagree, but there is an interesting point here. I looked up the 1979 and 2015 general elections on Wikipedia:

1979 Liberals 11 seats 13.8% of the vote (- 4.5%)

2015 Lib Dems 8 seats 7.9% of the vote (- 15.8%)

The drop in votes and seats of course was much greater in 2015, but they were starting from a higher position and had further to fall.

The actual number of seats they wound up with is comparable, and even the popular vote percentages are not that far off.

Interestingly, some of the difference between the two results in terms of seats is explained by the Scottish result, where all three UK wide parties were reduced to one seat each in 2015. The Liberals took three seats in Scotland in 1979, as opposed to one in 2015. In England, they won seven seats in 1979 and six seats in 2015. Regionally in England, they swapped a seat in the West Country for a seat in London and didn't take the Isle of Wight in 2015. They took the same seat in Wales in both elections.

So the 2015 general election knocked the Liberals back to where they were in 1979, and even the larger gap in popular vote share is explained by the higher vote totals for the SNP and the Greens.
 
Depends what wing of the party you are talking about. Some on the right of the party, the 'Orange Bookers' (like Clegg) are pro free market and socially liberal too, and are probably to the right of Labour but to the left of the Tories. Libertarian is a bit too strong a word to use, 'classical liberal' is more fitting. The left of the party is more inclined toward social democracy, and during the Blair years when Labour was very much in the centre, they positioned themselves to their left under Charles Kennedy. Whether they are to the left or right of Labour very much varies depending on who the leader is. Of course, both wings are more socially liberal than Labour or the Tories.
As I understand Social Democracy, this means a resource on system everyone shares, such as the National Health Service?

Here in the States, I think it was Senator Russell Long of Louisiana who said, A program for the poor is a poor program. Which means if the thing is means tested, which sounds so logical and rational, you end up with a crappy program. If it's something like Social Security, which is shared by everyone, people are much more energized to fix it when there are problems.

One area where I disagree with many of my fellow citizens on the left, and the right for that matter, is that with so blithely accept that a modern economy doesn't produce enough jobs. So, we might discuss workers' rights. But if there are more total jobs, then for persons on the Autism Spectrum for example, companies can't be so narrow and picky in hiring. And not just for autistic persons, but for any one who has a difficult time getting a job for any reason, whether it's minority youth, whether it's young people in general, whether it's older persons facing age discrimination, more jobs total sure goes a long way towards at least improving the situation.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Instead, what if they offered a supply and confidence arrangement and they remain in opposition.

Would there have been an earlier election than 2015? And would the Lib Dems have lost as badly in the OTL if they weren't seen as part of the Conservative government?
They still suffer because from 2006 onward, the LibDem's were a party struggling (I'll bring up figure in a moment to illustrate this*). They remain the Party of Protest to some extent, but suffer still suffer, if to a lesser degree. I'd say the lower they can get is somewhere around 20-odd in such a scenario.

Cameron and his minority last 2 years, tops, before going to the country to get a proper mandate, which they have a bloody good chance of getting. Minority Government's are utter hell, as Harold Wilson found out, and one that is so below the line like this is not going to survive a whole 5 years. This will have a terrible effect on the Economy, as this was the height of the Recession and there was need for a stable Goverment, which a minority with supply and confidence didn't and couldn't give.
I'm a Yank . . .

but aren't the Lib Dems somewhat libertarian and pro-market, but in other ways more radical than Labour?
We're the non-Socialist alternative to Labour, often straying between the Centre and the Centre-left.

---

*Okay, so the numbers;

2005 General Election. 5,985,454 votes, 22% of the electorate, 62 seats.
2005 Local Elections. 25% of votes, 3 Councils and 493 (+40) Councillors.
2006 Local Elections. 25% of votes, 13 councils, 909 Councillors.
2007 Local Elections. 23% of votes, 23 councils, 2171 Councillors.
2007 Scottish Parliament. 16 seats, loss of 1. 16.2% Constituency (+0.9%), 11.3% Regional (-0.5%).
2007 Welsh Assembly. 6 seats, no change. 14.8% Constituency (+0.6%), 11.7 Regional (-1%)
2008 Local Elections. 35% of votes, 12 councils, 1805 Councillors.
2008 London Assembly. 3 Seats, loss of 2. 13.7% of votes (-4.7). 11.2% of Party List votes (-5.3).
2008 London Mayoral. 9.8% of votes. Eliminated first round.
2009 Local Elections. 28% of votes, 1 council, 484 Councillors.
2010 Local Elections. 26% of votes, 14 councils, 1730 Councillors.
2010 General Election. 6,836,248 votes, 23% of the electorate, 57 seats.

Polls;

2005, lowest 18, highest 26, hovered around 20 for most the year.
2006, lowest 14, highest 25, hovered bellow 20 for most the year.
2007, lowest 11, highest 21, hovered frequently around 15.
2008, lowest 11, highest 21, hovered at 15.
2009, lowest 14, highest 22, hovered between and rarely broke 20.
2010, lowest 15, highest 22. After the election was called, polls hovered around 19, pre-debate had a 24 average, post-debates pushed into the 30's and at points overtook both main Parties.
 
Last edited:
Top