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?

What Tanith said.

Personally, I think I would have stomached a LibLab coalition in 2010, preferably if they had ditched Brown. I could possibly have put up with one this time.

Maybe Clegg was OK in 2010 but he became toxic.

I'm just hoping now for a few bye-elections.

Dearie me, just as an aside from LibDem woes, it hasn't taken UKIP long to start falling out Douglas Carswell clashes with UKIP

I would have much preferred a LibLab coalition in 2010 but I think constitutionally (whatever that word means in our context) it would have been very uncomfortable.

I agree about LibDem/Lab in 2010. Far preferable.

Interesting thoughts, Tanith.

They wanted to protest against the existing Labour Government, yet didn't want to vote Conservative.

Clearly a protest vote is a transitory/fickle one, that can't be counted upon from one election to the next.

They felt betrayed by their own party and felt they'd lost touch.

By working in coalition with the Conservatives, the LibDem leadership in effect gave their approval for them.

Are you talking about two different groups of former Lib Dem voters in the above two comments, or one contradictory group?

It would be interesting to know how many ex Lib Dem votes went to each of the other parties, and the reasons for choosing a particular party (did people who cared passionately about the abolition of tuition fees in 2010 feel the same in 2015?). If the issue of tuition fees was the big reason for voting Lib Dem in 2010, had the fees been abolished, and the issue dealt with, would people actually have voted again for the Lib Dems, and judged their role in coalition very differently? Or would their vote still have gone elsewhere?

I'm beginning to wonder how loyal people are to a particular party, and whether an increasing number of people are becoming pragmatic with their vote and the issues they vote on.

Maybe Clegg was OK in 2010 but he became toxic.

Or maybe it was people's views, and not Clegg, who changed.

OK my perception of Clegg was that he became toxic.

How did people change - I can only give a sample of 5.
2010 - one thought voting a waste of time, 4 LibDems - 1 out of conviction, 3 to keep the Tories out.
2015 4 Green - 2 out of conviction including the one who previously thought voting a waste of time and 2 it seemed the nearest match to their views, I LibDem (i.e. me) who has always been Liberal.

I'm beginning to wonder how loyal people are to a particular party, and whether an increasing number of people are becoming pragmatic with their vote and the issues they vote on.

TBH in most elections I've voted in, I've never voted "for" anyone. I've voted to keep one of the candidates out.

Fascicle: why would you expect loyalty from voters? Party members, perhaps, but the general public?!

Votes have to be won. Voters must be persuaded and convinced. Parties change and adapt - you can't expect voters to blindly stick to one party.

Don't imagine that people felt betrayed over just university fees and the Coalition. It seems to have been much more than that. If I may give one example from my own sector: the Early Years.

The voters I mentioned are primarily working or advising in the Early Years of education.
The LibDems were an absolute thorn in the side of the Labour government right through the setting up of the Early Years sector. They challenged again and again, especially when the EYFS was introduced - children shouldn't be learning to read and write so early etc. etc.
They were right to do so. It forced policy makers to really think about what they were doing.

So - where were the LibDems when Ofsted and the Conservative education team were advocating 2 year olds in schools? Where were they when Liz Truss published More Great Childcare? Where were they when "play" was removed from the EYFS in favour of more structure? Where were they when structured education was pushed onto increasingly younger children, whether or not they were developmentally ready for it?

They were hamstrung on the sidelines, preferring to cling to power rather than protest.

My LibDem colleagues kept saying "Surely the LibDems will never let this through?!" And they did. Again and again.

So gradually people began to assume that the LibDems were actually in favour of all this - and they felt betrayed and angry. The only protest came over the ratios, and only when it was clear there was overwhelming opinion against them. It looked as though Nick Clegg had been allowed to protest by his Conservative masters.

If the Party isn't loyal to their voters and their ideals, how can they expect loyalty from voters in return?

Really good post Tanith which sums up my views exactly.

They let the electorate down completely on education.

Fascicle: why would you expect loyalty from voters? Party members, perhaps, but the general public?!

Not my expectation, but I'd say parties do expect that and they do hope to keep voters. Otherwise, why so much hand-wringing about lost votes and lost seats? Historically, my impression is that more people had a strong allegiance to a particular party and were less likely to swap allegiances.

The disaffected Lib Dem voters you keep talking about - who did they vote for this time, and what reason(s) attracted them to the party they chose in 2015? It's all very well stating how unhappy Lib Dem voters have been with the Lib Dem party, but knowing who they voted for instead, and why (i.e. positive reasons for new party rather than negative for old) is pretty crucial. This could be just as much about changing values and priorities of the electorate, as it is about perceived crimes and betrayal of a party.

Fascile - in 2010 I made a positive choice to vote LibDem as I really thought they had something to offer (I also joined the LibDems that year but did not subsequently renew as I felt let down). In 2015 I also voted LibDem but it was a negative choice in that I couldn't bring myself to vote for the other options. I am now considering re-joining as I feel there's a chance of re- building a credible party that reflects my moral outlook and beliefs.

The disaffected Lib Dem voters you keep talking about - who did they vote for this time, and what reason(s) attracted them to the party they chose in 2015?

I think they were a large part of the 33% (or whatever it was) who did not vote and a large part of the increase in Tory and UKIP support came for the non-voters of 2010 who decided to turn out for once.

Saying the LibDem vote just defected to another party is an over simplification imo.

I'm a long-time Lib Dem voter and sometime activist (no longer, only because I emigrated).

I first started to worry during Cleggmania in 2010, when it turned out after the first debate that he'd got a lot of his facts wrong. He seemed like another Blair. Significant, because Blair was all about posturing, and to my mind, that's been a significant failing of the Labour Party since long before Blair's time.

Bear in mind that Cleggmania didn't actually do the party any good, even during that campaign. Its share of the vote in 2010 was 23%, precisely 1% up from 2005 and it actually lost a net total of 5 seats. The only significance of Cleggmania is that, for once, the traditional media briefly took proper notice of the Lib Dems. Gee whiz, a daily newspaper actually supported the party.

Then there was that frightful bromantic Rose Garden vignette where Clegg and Cameron launched their great supposed love affair. I think the Lib Dems were right to go into coalition with the Tories. Given the state of the country's economy at the time, the alternative (ie, Tory minority or second general election) would have been irresponsible. As others have pointed out, Labour didn't have enough seats to form an overall majority and thus any alternative coalition or other agreement would have needed to involve at least another 2 parties, including the DUP. An agreement with Labour would have been by far the preferred option amongst most party members, but it simply wouldn't have worked.

Where they went wrong was pretending that they agreed with the Tories on everything. I'm guessing it a misplaced reliance on cabinet collective responsibility. is Oh, and the press quickly took a few scalps. I still don't understand why David Laws got off so lightly, I'm dismayed at the broken pledge on tuition fees, and dismayed at how naive they were.

The thing that dismays me most of all though is that the LDs in government ended up presiding over a country that relies on food banks and being a party that constantly rattled the sabre of austerity as if it were some kind of masochistic virtue. It's just awful. Just the opposite of what we were working for. Just about all LDs I knew saw themselves as liberal rather than left or right, but they did see that society had a responsiblity to support the individual, rather than leave them to rot.

It's encouraging to know that the membership numbers are going back up; hopefully the constituency parties can rebuild and at least get back some of the losses in local government.

some liberal supporters could not stomach a Tory led Coalition. They think Clegg should have said No way, Dave,