Can we talk about the collapse of Lib Dems?

[heylilbunny]

I was reading that the Lib Dems had strong support in areas that had many university students and professional educators as well as with well educated voters. It seems so unintelligent and short-sightened of them to support the increase in university fees. That is the one issue everyone remembers that overshadowed any other policies they were advancing. Do you think they would have recovered if they had ejected Clegg earlier or was their choice to go into coalition fatal?

I am very interested because they received such a significant amount of votes in 2010 and were truly the third party at that time. I did think like everyone I know that Clegg was a dead man walking but wondered if the Lib Dems would retain support at the local level. Instead so much of their support - say in the West of the country - went to the Conservatives, taking them over the top.

What's your opinion?

saintlyjimjams i know MN don't like arse-kissers and all, but I know your name from round these parts and I'm really impressed you think us LDs are worth your time. You'll be a member in time for the leadership election so can I recommend you quiz Tim Farron as hard as you are able on the question of disabled/carer benefits?

His voting record looks not great at the minute: www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11923/tim_farron/westmorland_and_lonsdale/votes
but it's possible a lot of this was whipped in the Coalition so he can have a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt.

(DS is likely to need some support to live independently when older so this is a worry for me too)

Thanks! Norman Lamb seemed to be very respected for the things he achieved and the understanding he showed as minister. I see he's thrown his hat into the ring as well. I really want to get behind the #LBBill (have quized my 3 (tory) city mp's on it tonight - one has replied and said he's looking at it). I'm pretty sure iirc Norman Lamb was supportive of it and the work being done by the Justice for LB team. I feel I have to play catch up over the next couple of weeks. 2015 had been a tough year for ds1 so we've been doing a lot of surviving & I feel
out of touch on key issues!

Has anybody read David Steel's piece in the Guardian? ('Six ways Nick Clegg steered the Liberal Democrats to disaster')?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/nick-clegg-liberal-democrats-disaster-coalition

I find it deeply irritating that Steel should publish this now. It's unprincipled, untimely and not terribly useful. If he had concerns and useful insights, the time to share them has passed. I also find it extraordinary that he - an elder statesman of the party with a seat in the House of Lords - has only met Nick Clegg once. In his position, wouldn't he encourage and support future leaders? (Unless of course he really didn't like them.)

Well he says that "former leaders should be seen and not heard". Shame he didnt take that advice before writing the article . And as for Clegg promoting those he could dominate- half the problem was that he couldnt get Vince to STFU and stop frightening the horses.

It sounds like he simply didn't like clegg and comes across as rather bitter rather than having any real gems of wisdom. Its easy to be critical in hindsight isn't it?

I think it is a good article by LibDem who is seeing things from a LibDem perspective as opposed to the country's, the Coalition's or the Tory Party's position.

He heaps praise on Clegg for his communication skills (some would cvall them spin), but he also analyses Clegg's decisions and thinks many of them fell short, particularly for the interests f the LibDems.

People call Blair, Tory Blair and you wonder whether Clegg is as LibDem as some of the others.

"As party leader, Clegg puzzled us all by ignoring the more senior members of his Commons team including Campbell, Alan Beith, Malcolm Bruce, Simon Hughes and Kennedy. Instead he created a negotiating team entirely of newer and younger colleagues whom he could dominate. He himself had become leader after only two years in parliament and had been leader for less than three. He compounded this omission by not appointing any of the senior members subsequently to his ministerial team."

What were the senior LibDems doing about this while "the leader after only two years in parliament and had been leader for less than three" Clegg was running the show?

Clegg did a good job for the Conservative Party.

He apologised "musically no less" for the tuition fee debacle and there aren't many senior LibDems left in Parliament.

"Clegg worked as one of Brittan's aides when he was EU commissioner for trade. One of Brittan's many roles, in his new job, will be to make progress with the Doha round of international trade talks – a similar task on which he worked with the younger Clegg.

Mischief makers have long said that Brittan told Clegg he would make an excellent Tory prime minister and this part of Clegg's career is often referenced by detractors who believe he is more Conservative than Liberal.

Clegg insists that Brittan's key role in his career was to introduce him to the then Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown when he visited Brittan in Brussels. After that meeting, Clegg became more active as a Lib Dem."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/aug/19/leon-brittan-conservatives-nick-clegg

"Nick Clegg should do 'donkey work' for five years to 'repay' party for failure, says former Lib Dem MP

Former Deputy PM told it would be an 'insult' if he quit parliament for Europe or the Lords as his legacy becomes central topic in leadership race"

Nick Clegg must "repay" his party for taking them into government by doing "the donkey work of being a good constituency MP" for the next five years, furious Liberal Democrats have said.

Amid rumours that Mr Clegg is considering stepping down as an MP after leading the party to electoral wipeout, Lib Dems have told The Telegraph he must serve as a backbencher to atone for his disastrous decision to form a coalition.

It comes as the strategist credited with turning the Lib Dems into a party of government criticised Mr Clegg for repeating the “mistakes” of previous campaigns.

Lord Rennard, the Lib Dem peer, said there was “real anger” the party had lost so many MPs after talking about forming coalitions rather than its vision for the country before the vote.

A fierce battle over Mr Clegg’s legacy as party leader is due to take place over the coming weeks as the remaining Lib Dems decide who should be his succcessor."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/11596182/Nick-Clegg-should-do-donkey-work-for-five-years-to-repay-party-for-failure-says-former-Lib-Dem-MP.html

Clegg won't be doing any "donkey work". He done a grand job and fulfilled his duties "musically no less".

I voted LibDem (I always have - I'm old) but I knew it would be lost in my constituency as it's a Tory stronghold. I believe in their policies though but going into a coalition with the Tories was never going to end well for them. They were seen as 'cosying-up' to the Tories and compromising their principles for a share of power. I think this is where it went wrong:

1. They weren't effective enough in explaining to the voters WHY and WHAT they had done while in the coalition.
2. They failed to realise that Nick Clegg wouldn't win an election because of 1. He was seen as a traitor. They need to find a new leader.
3. They failed to show the electorate that they are truly a third option to voting Tory or Labour and not simply wavering between the two.

p.s. I love Nick Clegg and I'm sorry he's gone. He always struck me as a decent, honest man in an unwinnable situation.

They didn't explain satisfactorily their decision to form a coalition with the Conservatives and that's why so many who voted for them in 2010 saw this as a betrayal.

Why did they need to go into a coalition when they could have been just as effective in curbing Tory excesses by voting against them? They never explained that decision adequately and it left them wide open to accusations of power-chasing.

Some of the people who voted for them in 2010, would have been disaffected Labour voters, so their votes were lost immediately.

I think Clegg totally underestimated the level of hatred the grass roots have for the Tories. He was damned from the moment he entered the coalition. He might have got away with it if he could have delivered a reformed House of Lords and proportional representation - but he couldn't. Tuition fees were just the last nail in the coffin. I voted LibDem (the LD vote dropped 20% i our constituency in a straight fight with the Tories) but I held my nose while I did so.

Tanith
Why did they need to go into a coalition when they could have been just as effective in curbing Tory excesses by voting against them?

Presumably there's a better opportunity to effect positive change, and get some of your manifesto enacted, if you are part of the system, with some of your members in cabinet positions.

They never explained that decision adequately and it left them wide open to accusations of power-chasing.

But politics and government is all about getting into a position of power to make change - that accusation could be thrown at most politicians and parties. I think it strange that people find the idea of a coalition so abhorrent. Working together with people who have different skills and views is encouraged in most other workplaces.

RagstheInvincible Fully agree. I voted LibDem too, whilst holding my nose. I had hoped that UKIP would take a good slice of the Tory vote, just to spoil it for them, but no such luck.

I now feel quite angry that Clegg has helped to throw away a generation of work spent nursing seats, working for the Community, building up a majority.

I don't find Coalitions abhorrent, but I just that that going into Coalition with the current breed of duplicitous Tories was disastrous. The war time coalition worked pretty well, and laid the foundations for some good reforms.

Fascicle: the difference is that the LibDems came third in the 2010 election. For them to then go into Government with the Conservatives smacked of power-chasing at any cost.

The House of Commons and the House of Lords do work together.
The Election is to decide which direction to take with their policies. People voted for the Conservatives because they wanted to bring in their policies. LibDem voters did not agree with the Conservatives and wanted the LibDem agenda.

What people did not vote for was a watered down version of Conservative policies with the odd bone of appeasement thrown to keep the LibDem leadership happy. It was seen as a betrayal by LibDem voters (and a fair few Conservative voters who promptly tripped off to UKIP).

Imagine if libdems had refused to join a coalition with the tories, and instead either formed a weak minority coalition government with labour, or left the tories to try and run a minority government themselves. The outcome of this could have been a failure of the government to pass laws and to get to grips with public spending, followed by a vote of no confidence in the government, followed rapidly by another general election. I speculate the the libdems could well have been decimated under this scenario too. Blamed by the electorate for not having the courage to do the right thing and make a more stable government with the tories. So arguably in either scenario they couldn't win and would take the flak.

I agree, I think a coalition was the right thing for the country in 2010 - a minority government would have been a bloodbath and a government of two minority parties would have been wrong. They underestimated, however, people's deep suspicion about coalition and really needed to have driven the message home or allowed for a free vote on the most contentious issues.

Volcan
I now feel quite angry that Clegg has helped to throw away a generation of work spent nursing seats

He was elected leader by members of his party and he needed the backing of his party to enter the coalition. Why single him out for blame?

Tanith
What people did not vote for was a watered down version of Conservative policies with the odd bone of appeasement thrown to keep the LibDem leadership happy.

I'm not sure what people expected, given their minority position. Would people really rather they hadn't joined the coalition? It's safe to presume the party didn't feel that way - Clegg couldn't have done it without sufficient and continued backing from his fellow LD mps.

It was seen as a betrayal by LibDem voters (and a fair few Conservative voters who promptly tripped off to UKIP).

The disaffected Lib Dem voters felt so betrayed by the Lib Dems entering a coalition with the Tories that they voted Tory this time? (I think we can assume that many of them did, given that more than half of the Lib Dem seats were lost to the Tories.)

Why blame Clegg? Well, maybe that should have been the leadership generally. I became more and more detached because I didn't think that they were listening to the grass roots. Our local councillor resigned from the party and stood as an independent because she felt the same.

What could Clegg/leadership have done? Withdrawn from the coalition when it became clear that the Tories were letting them take the rap, maybe.

Fascicle: it would seem that, yes, ordinary voters would have preferred them not to join a coalition with the Conservatives.

Once there, we seemed to hear very little from the LibDems. The Conservatives have been credited with any positives. The LibDems were identified with the AV referendum and the U-turn on university fees.

When Nick Clegg popped his head up to veto the change in Early Years ratios, the general reaction was one of "oh, there you are!!"
We went long periods of hearing nothing from them.

No doubt that's not an accurate précis of their time in coalition. I believe it is the impression that the public got, though. It doesn't matter that Clegg had the backing of his party and it doesn't matter that they all agreed to go into the coalition.

What mattered is that they completely misunderstood the reasons of the people who voted for them.

Whether, in years to come, they will be recognised and credited for the work they put in remains to be seen. I think it's up to the party themselves to ensure that they do, and that everyone comes to believe that the coalition was the right decision.

It's the electorate they need to persuade, not the party members.

What mattered is that they completely misunderstood the reasons of the people who voted for them.

Can you explain what those reasons were, given that over half their lost seats went to the Tories (increasers of tuition fees), and given that overall in the election, the biggest vote share increase went to UKIP?

References to party backing were made in relation to the unreasonableness of laying the blame at one person's door (same goes for Miliband copping the wrath for his party's performance).

I can't stand Nick Clegg (awful man) but feel very sorry for some of the long serving LibDems that lost their seats. My area lost their previously safe seat and the reason given by the people I have spoken to is always one of these; that they used to vote LibDem to keep the Tories out but now it doesn't matter as they will get in bed with the Tories anyway and usually follows some sort of comment about tuition fees. They either voted Libdem to keep the Tories out or as they liked Libdem. Either way they got Tory in the end (coalition but many see it as that). I think we are seeing a surge in small parties and so we need PR before too long.

Me too Volcan UKIP splits the Tory vote and we come through the middle. Didn't happen though. Every party went up and we went down. Labour even saved its deposit - which doesn't always happen here.

The disaffected Lib Dem voters felt so betrayed by the Lib Dems entering a coalition with the Tories that they voted Tory this time?

Yes. I know some who did just that on the basis of "cutting out the middleman" and a desire to vent their rage on the LD leadership.

Fascicle: those that I know voted for LibDem in 2010 because they liked the Clegg/Cable team and their policies. They wanted to protest against the existing Labour Government, yet didn't want to vote Conservative.
They had more in common with the Labour party at the time than the Conservatives. I don't know if they'd have tolerated a LabLib coalition. I don't think so, personally.

Things changed for last week's Election. It was a new team for the Labour party that the LibDems felt they couldn't support. They felt betrayed by their own party and felt they'd lost touch. They'd been sending pretty strong messages to that effect that were, in their eyes, dismissed. The LibDems continued with their unpopular decision to work in Coalition with the Conservatives and, as a result, seemed to disappear into a new Conservative Government.

By working in coalition with the Conservatives, the LibDem leadership in effect gave their approval for them. A lot of their voters would seem to have taken that approval rather further than they intended.