The Lib Dems aren’t sell-outs. The clue is in the name; Democrats

This will look like a review going over old ground, but it is a myth that needs tackling. Countless times since 2010, the party have been called sell-outs, Tory collaborators, spineless cowards. These labels are utter nonsense. I of course will bring bias to the table, but these populist mantras miss the point, whether you hate the Liberal Democrats or not.


First of all, let’s not shy away from recent gloomy events. The recent polling days saw the loss of over 300 councillors in the local elections and fifth place in the European elections, returning just one MEP on 6.87% of the vote. What is especially galling is that UKIP topped the European poll, but this blog entry won’t focus on their performance and policies, as we could be here all day. On a personal level, my region of the East Midlands now doesn’t have a Lib Dem MEP after losing the hard work and services of Bill Newton Dunn, whilst in my student home Manchester Council is now 100% in Labour control; my good friend Dominic Hardwick was unable to gain a seat for the Lib Dems despite giving up pretty much all of his spare time, whilst James Hennigan, the “only one who does anything around here” as one voter told me, lost his council seat in Levenshulme. These results have added fuel to the fire of discontent against the Lib Dems, not to mention glee from opponents.


Harriet Harman, in response to Clegg’s recent speech on being “the bravest and toughest party in British politics”, had this to say; “Nick Clegg should be in no doubt, people will not forget what the Lib Dems have done in government - his party has been an accomplice rather than a brake on this Tory-led government...it is not brave to make promises and break them, it is reckless with people's confidence in our democracy”. There’s that word; democracy. In the comfort of opposition, Harman has (probably intentionally) conveniently forgotten her own party’s record in Government. All parties should be held to account, but if breaking promises is the thrust of your argument, you are inevitably susceptible to counter-charges. This links in somewhat with those who choose not to vote, those who say things such as “politicians lie...they’re all the same”. I will bring up a mantra I often use of making “the best out of a bad situation”. Whilst it is a sad truth that politicians inevitably break promises and aren’t always trustworthy, it is surely better to be in the tent trying to get a net gain from it all than simply perpetuating the problem in the comfort of opposition, whether that opposition is the Labour Party or an abstention from voting.

The Lib Dems didn’t get all of their policies into Government, and they’ve had to agree to some unpopular Tory policies. That’s democracy. It may seem blunt, but there are natural constraints on power. It is inconceivable for a party who gets 23% of the vote and less than 10% of the seats to dictate everything to the party with the most seats. Someone who puts forward the smallest amount to shared ownership of a house cannot expect to demand the whole house to themselves, however much their financial input was needed. The items on a child’s Christmas list will not always (or indeed may never) be attained 100%, but unless you’re really stubborn you’d be a foolish child to choose no presents over some presents. Yes I feel sympathy with voters and members who saw their party join forces with a party opposed to much of what they stand for, but I’m baffled when people have written in papers such as The Guardian stating how long they’ve been a member for, only to boldly declare “never again” upon the formation of the Coalition. They supported cherished policies over the years that never came close to fruition, yet finally a chance came to realise some of them, and they turn their back on the party?

When I’ve explained the democratic processes and the uneasy nature of having to compromise, many people have said to me “well, why didn’t they prioritise things like tuition fees?” It’s a fair point, but it can set a dangerous precedent. Let’s say we did prioritise tuition fees; “well, why didn’t you prioritise abolishing trident?” “Why didn’t you prioritise abolishing council tax?” Soon you end up with a ‘Go-Compare’ of Lib Dem policies. What if voting against tuition fees (which we should have done) had meant no raising of the income tax threshold? What if bringing in a mansion tax (which I still of course want) had meant the top rate of tax going further down to 40p (this was George Osborne’s plan in 2012)? A snowball effect occurs; once the accusation is made that one policy wasn’t prioritised, soon both ends of the political spectrum can pick other policies that also weren’t given due protection. Eventually we’re back to the point I’ve been trying to make; you cannot have your manifesto fully delivered as a minority party. A coalition with Labour didn't have the numbers (or indeed the willpower from Labour bigwigs; check out Adam Boulton's "Hung Together: The 2010 Election and the Coalition Government" for a detailed account of events), whilst choosing to remain in Opposition may have attracted short-term praise, but ultimately it would have meant no policies in Government and the likelihood of an overall Tory majority in the event of a second election.

Other parties may soon have to realise this truth if we are to enter an age of pluralistic politics. Let’s say the Greens gain 3-5 MPs in 2015. This would rightly be considered a very good result for them. There’s every chance that there could be another hung parliament, so let’s say the Labour Party are just short of a majority, but choose not to go with the Lib Dems. The Greens may enter a Coalition with Labour in this scenario; can anyone seriously tell me that the Green Party would not have to make uncomfortable choices and compromises in this context? We could echo that scenario with UKIP and the Tories. They may have a strong say in proceedings, but they’d have little mandate to demand their manifesto in full.

An aspect that is in danger of getting lost in translation is what we have achieved. It’s my sincere hope that the electorate don’t turn a deaf ear to the Lib Dems on, essentially, a single-issue basis (tuition fees). When I’ve mentioned the income tax threshold going up, quite a few people have said to me “ooh, that’s quite good actually”. The problem is that many people don’t want to listen once the Lib Dems start talking; they’ve made their minds up. It’s far easier to attack a plan than to defend a plan. However, let me bring up another mantra of mine; giving credit where credit is due. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,500 (above the original aim in 2010), a multi-billion pound pupil premium aimed at the most disadvantaged primary school students, the biggest ever increase in the state pension, scrapped ID cards, ended child detention for immigration purposes and cutting detention without trial to 14 days. These were all in the 2010 manifesto, with the tax reforms and pupil premium in particular on the front page.

Furthermore, we’ve stopped the following Tory proposals; raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, giving employers the power to fire workers at will, the illiberal ‘Snooper’s Charter’, running state schools for a profit, revival of O-levels, ditching the Human Rights Act, regional pay and boundary changes. Bunched together, a pretty grim outlook would have been prominent had these policies not been stopped. However, the prevention of these policies don’t appear to be bearing fruit for the Lib Dems because they are just that; blocked. The country hasn’t had to endure these ridiculous ideas, and so therefore certain sections of the electorate are relatively oblivious to what might have been. Marty McFly won’t be thanked by his Mum in 1985 for stopping Biff marry her, as he’s already prevented it from ever happening.

In summary, the Lib Dems haven’t sold out. They’ve made some bad and foolish decisions, but I firmly believe that the net result is a positive one. They’ve had to fight day and night to get policies into power, a position they haven’t been in for generations. I started University with as much of a dislike for the Tories as anyone. That’s why, rather than lampooning the party for joining them, I’m pleased that they’re in the tent fighting them.