What next for the Lib Dems?

The 2010 UK General Election proved to be a landmark year in politics. Despite widespread apathy with New Labour, the public did not vote overwhelmingly for any candidate; the result was a first hung parliament for thirty six years, and a “complete and comprehensive” coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. To describe the period since then as ‘turbulent’ only scratches the surface, but the question remains; what next for the Lib Dems?

Coalition inevitably brings compromise, and as a 57 seat third party, the Liberal Democrats were no different. Key manifesto pledges were delivered; raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, a multi-billion pound pupil premium for disadvantaged primary school children and a referendum on changing the voting system for General Elections. However, the popular student pledge of abolishing University tuition fees was not enacted, and the referendum was on the Alternative Vote (AV) system, not Proportional Representation (PR); long cherished by Liberal Democrats. With senior Liberal Democrats voting for an increase in tuition fees as advised by the ‘Browne Review’ (despite a pre-Election promise not to do so), the vast bulk of the student electorate (estimated at 1.5 million people) was immediately alienated and lost. Furthermore, a crushing defeat in the AV referendum has arguably set back voting reform by as much as two decades. The loss of a near century old goal of changing the voting system led many Liberal Democrats to consider what their purpose in the Coalition is now.

The task looks unenviable and gargantuan. With poll ratings in single digits, and bearing the brunt of public anger over deep spending cuts (the Liberal Democrats were arguably the only losers in the 2011 local elections), the Liberal Democrats’ future looks bleak. On statistics alone, they conversely appear to be a success; 75% of the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto has been enacted in to the Coalition against 60% of the 2010 Conservative manifesto. This, however, appears not to have struck a chord with the public. So the next step? After a bruising local election result, Nick Clegg has called for “muscular Liberalism”, and the championing of Lib Dem ‘victories’ within the Coalition. The amendments to Andrew Lansley’s NHS reforms, including placing the emphasis on patient care as opposed to private competition, could be a step in this direction. However, it is unlikely that the public would take this as an opportunity for unconditional and unilateral forgiveness for the Lib Dems; they may ask why they did not prevent the reforms earlier. On Constitutional matters, electing the House of Lords (promised by all three major parties in their manifestos) may be a consolation prize, yet even this appears to have stumbling blocks; the appetite for reform does not appear strong amongst Conservative Party members, whilst the Labour Party question an 80% elected House of Lords as opposed to a fully elected second chamber. Nick Clegg’s speech on the subject, urging not to “make the best the enemy of the good”, was met with derision from Conservatives and Labourites together. In addition, would the general public find enthusiasm for such reforms?

Another idea mooted has been replacing Clegg as Leader. It has been Clegg, not David Cameron, who students have burnt in effigy on huge protest marches. ‘Cleggmania’, a distant memory from the televised General Election debates, has turned to ‘Cleggzilla’, a hate figure in his very own Sheffield Hallam constituency. The removal of a Coalition instigator may bring a short term reprieve to the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg has been viewed as so “toxic” that Ed Miliband refused to share a platform with him during the AV campaign, with ‘Yes to AV’ campaigners urging him to “lie low”. Nevertheless, with the Coalition viewed so negatively in most quarters, would simply changing the Leader change the public’s perception? Unless the Coalition was immediately dismantled, any incoming Leader would be tarred with the same brush as Clegg, whilst leaving the Coalition could emphasise that entering it was a historic mistake, therefore further diminishing respect for the Lib Dems. The apparent Leader in waiting, Party President Tim Farron, has made no secret of his distaste of the Conservative Party (no doubt a popular mantra with activists), and his unambiguous commitment to the Centre-Left could play well with wavering voters. In this sense, maintaining an unpopular Coalition with the Conservatives would severely reduce his standing as a ‘change’ candidate. The other potential candidate, Chris Huhne, has contributed to the Orange Book, like Clegg. Also like Clegg, he is a Cabinet member; these factors raise the question of whether he would be much different from Clegg (the difference between them in the 2007 Lib Dem Leadership was less than 500 votes). Therefore, the replacement of an unpopular figurehead nevertheless raises new issues and problems.

Leave the Coalition? Apart from instability in the Economy that this would exacerbate, a snap Election would leave the Lib Dems with single digit MPs if current poll trends are to be believed. After decades of waiting for a role in Government, jettisoning after a single year may beg the question: are the Liberal Democrats ever viable for Government? Attracting voters would be a considerable task. The student and progressive/Centre-Left vote has flocked to Labour in considerable numbers; the near 7 million people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 are unlikely to do so again in the near future. Reaffirming their commitment to abolishing tuition fees will sound hollow after recent events in Government, and possibly a little desperate. Confusion over their place on the political spectrum further emphasises the difficulty of attracting or maintaining support. The “neither left nor right” mantra of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy switched to a “Centre-Left” commitment from Ming Campbell, with Nick Clegg now saying that they are “of the Centre, for the Centre”. But what rings true with the electorate? Do they move left and attempt to win back student support amidst apathy? Or do they shift rightwards and attempt to claim moderate Tory votes, and appease the ‘Orange Book’ wing of the Party?

I believe one of the few solutions to a significantly difficult period in the Liberal Democrats’ history is to plan long term. It would make little sense to displace Clegg now; the Coalition has to be seen as a success, or at least the right decision, in order to trumpet Three-Party politics and Coalitions in the future. “Muscular Liberalism” is indeed needed; the public need to know what the Lib Dems have done to alter and water down the Conservative Party, and how the Lib Dems’ Coalition gains will be of benefit (such as raising the income tax threshold). More hypothetically perhaps, the Economy needs to improve over the course of the five year parliament; growth and jobs are needed amidst an “age of austerity”. Unquestionably though, they need to rediscover their Centre-Left mantra and radical policies which made them so popular in the past. Tim Farron could be the man for this, but only after Nick Clegg leads the Lib Dems to one more General Election; if they are to be crushed, it is better to have one Leader bear the brunt of this than another who has taken over during the Coalition. A partnership with Labour in the future cannot be ruled out by Party bosses; an anti-Conservative alliance once realised by Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair may prove to be popular. My Grandma recently said “I remember the days of Jeremy Thorpe when the Liberals only had 9 seats!” It is the vital task of the 21^st Century Liberal Democrats to avoid that happening again. 


-Ben