There have been many grumbles and gripes on the Lib Dem back benches recently over the coalition government. There is a feeling, perhaps not unjustifiably, that the Liberal Democrats are simply propping up a Conservative government, providing cover for the Tories when things are tough and being forgotten in the achievements of the government. Indeed, Lib Dem MP Tim Farron recently called the Conservative Party ‘a toxic brand’, saying ‘it’s not our [the Liberal Democrats’] job to detoxify it’. Mr Farron also spoke of another key concern within the party – that the party’s own brand could be damaged, saying ‘our identity is going to be potentially compromised if we are not careful’.
So, if this view really is held by many within the party, and these concerns are shared by voters, then why did Nick Clegg judge it a good idea to enter into the agreement we now see played out in Westminster? My view is that he, and his party, were caught on the horns of a dilemma, and that the coalition agreement was the option which would be most useful in the long-term to the party – but it is clear, even now, that the short-term damage will be tremendous.
Since the election, Liberal Democrat Party memberships have been declining, with Labour’s membership increasing at an almost identical rate, as many left-wing Lib Dems, disenfranchised by the party’s decision to back the Conservatives rather than Labour once this hung parliament was created, defect to Labour. At the next election, the Liberal Democrats will have to play their cards very carefully – they cannot criticise the Conservatives for mistakes made over the last government, as they were an integral part of it; nor can they criticise Labour, who will have been out of government for some time – 5 years, if the coalition holds and the fixed-term Parliament is allowed to come to fruition. They will have to simply point out the differences in where they see the country going in the future, and take the hit from voters who either decide that a vote for the Tories is much the same as a vote for the Liberal Democrats (rightly or wrongly) or that Labour would bring about left-wing legislation much more effectively. Was this situation avoidable?
For me, the answer to that question is no. Once a hung parliament was declared, the Liberal Democrats, as the third party, had three options: they could form a coalition with the Conservatives; they could form a coalition with Labour; or they could sit back, and allow the Conservatives to govern as a minority government, supporting or rejecting each bill as they saw fit. Let me deal with each option in turn.
A coalition with the Conservatives would alienate many left-wing Liberal Democrats, who would defect to Labour. This agreement would also have put off many right-leaning Liberals, who may have decided that a vote for the Lib Dems would in the end mean a coalition government, and as such simply ended up voting Conservative, in view of the fact that the Conservatives were more likely to win a majority and therefore be able to put right-wing policies into government more effectively. This situation could be repeated at every closely-contested election hereafter, meaning that many previously-Lib Dem voters would only vote that way in elections where nationally the result was essentially already determined (e.g. 1997).
A coalition with Labour would, however, have been even more disastrous, in view of the fact that the government was perceived publicly to be inadequate and in need of a change. To support a party which was categorically defeated at the polls would have caused irreparable PR damage for the Lib Dems, and in a political landscape dominated by those two letters, this was simply not a feasible option, no matter how much closer these two parties were ideologically.
But to allow a minority government would be to undermine one of the Liberal Democrats’ key demands – voting reform. For a party which pushes for Proportional Representation (a voting scheme which would increase the possibility of a hung parliament at every election to nigh on 100%) to miss the opportunity to show that parties could work together would send the message that they were either not serious about voting reform or downright hypocritical.
So, whilst none of these options seemed particularly attractive, the party’s leadership had to bite the bullet and make a decision. And in the end, I believe that the decision they made was the right one: this way, the Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to implement some of their policies (e.g. the ‘Pupil Premium’) whilst also dealing with the argument that a vote for the Lib Dems was a wasted vote as they would never get the opportunity to have a say in government. Where Clegg and co. will need to be careful is that the party is able to keep its separate identity at the end of this Parliament, and that the left-wing party members do not bring the whole government crashing around their ears before the opportunity of voting reform is seen through.
By Duncan Sim
8 comments
Fleming says:
August 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm (UTC 1)
Yeah, I agree.
Duncan Sim says:
August 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm (UTC 1)
Er … Thanks Josh!
Joshua Fleming Yeh says:
August 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm (UTC 1)
Your welcome Duncan,
One queston though, what is Nick Clegg’s role as Deputy PM?? Apart from obviously covering for Dave in PMQ’s. All I see it as is more of a ceremonial role, does he have any exectutive powers that exceed members of the cabinet and other ministers?
Thanks.
Duncan Sim says:
August 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm (UTC 1)
Well, he does have some areas of responsibility, e.g. electoral reform, that are his and his alone, just like in any other ministerial post. But he is also Dave’s shadow, whose main job is to keep the coalition together – that’s the sort of job Deputy PM is, for example Prescott was made DPM to appease the Trade Unions, who were never particularly keen on Blair.
Liam says:
August 3, 2010 at 10:07 pm (UTC 1)
I also agree. Was definitely the right choice and really the only choice available to the Lib Dems as I’ve said on my blog. Given the chance of power they could not seriously claim to be a political party of worth had they not taken the opportunity to implement some of the policies they believed were vital for society. Despite the apparent size of the spending cuts many within the party are also hopeful they can restrain the worst of a Conservative government. But you’re quite right too about the next election; the Lib Dems have a difficult tightrope to tread. They’ll have to simply valiantly defend their contribution to government and point out they key things the Tories wouldn’t allow them to do; most likely electoral reform, transport investment, windpower, greater tax reform. A lot will depend on the stance of the victorius Labour leader and whether or not they choose to back off the Lib Dems and properly examine what is mainly a Tory government, again a point made on my blog. Well done on an excellent piece Duncan
Duncan Sim says:
August 4, 2010 at 3:51 pm (UTC 1)
Thanks Liam – I think the point you make about the Labour leader’s decision to attack us or not is a key one, and it makes us realise that we have in fact unwittingly put our party’s very survival in the hands of the other two parties, given that the Conservatives could destroy us equally well – The Independent recently ran a story about Lib Dem ministers telling George Osborne that his cuts could destroy our party, and of course Danny Alexander is in a position where he, and the Lib Dems more widely, could take a lot of public flak over budget restraints. I hope Cameron will not attack us over that, he at least sees the coalition as a positive thing, unlike many other Conservatives, but Labour could do us serious damage, with all their candidates (apart from Balls) putting a large amount of baggage at our feet. It will be interesting to see how things turn out, although my feeling is that it will take several election cycles until the Lib Dems enjoy anywhere near the support they commanded at the election (yougov poll today puts us at 12%, compared with 24% on May.
Suzanna says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:13 am (UTC 1)
I was a Lib Dem voter for years. I feel betrayed. This sums it up:
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/08/06/james-ruddick-bids-farewell-to-nick-clegg
Duncan Sim says:
August 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm (UTC 1)
Suzanna – if you were a Lib Dem voter for years, you must have agreed with at least some of their policies. Now we have an opportunity to finally put some of our policies into government, I cannot understand how you see this opportunity as a betrayal. Yes, perhaps it would have suited us better ideologically to make a pact with Labour, but a) the numbers didn’t add up, and a ‘rainbow coalition’ would have disintegrated within minutes, and b) the Labour party clearly lost the election, and had we propped them up in government a greater proportion of the country would be feeling betrayed right now. So it was in the party’s interest to do this.
Perhaps you might like to take a look at my next article, discussing the future for the Liberal Democrats, which should be coming up shortly on this website, which deals with a few of the issues raised in the article you have linked above, which I happen to find, by the way, excellent as a piece of dark comedy, but really very insubstantial in reality.