What if the Lib-Dems had stayed out of Government?

[Nytram01]

In 2010 the Liberal Democrats emerged from the UK General Election as Kingmakers. With the Conservatives on 308 seats and Labour on 258 neither could form an outright majority and this meant that both turned to the Lib-Dems, as the third largest party in parliament with 57 seats, with offers of an alliance.

At this point the Lib-Dems made the difficult and, subsequently, electorally disasterous choice to join with the Conservatives to form a Coalition Government. While it might have been the right thing to so at the time - as the Lib-Dems argued - when the next General Election occured in 2015 they were all but wiped out at the ballet box, returning only 8 MPs.

So my question is this, what if the Lib-Dems had not supported either Labour or the Tories? What if they'd stay out of Government as the third largest party? Would there have been another election to decide an outright winner or would the Tories or Labour have been forced to govern as a minority? And how would the Lib-Dems have faired in the next UK General Election - be it 2015 or some other time - if they hadn't been in Government with the Conservative? And how would this have effected the country during the recession?

 

[Caiaphas]

I think someone would try a minority government probably the conservatives as they are larger, but after 8 months they would either fall because of a vote of no confidence or call an election to try get a majority, in the first situation labour might scrape enough to form a slight majority in the second the Tories would outright win because they called an election knowing they were in a good position.

Either way the Lib dems are probably vilified in the media because they stopped Britain having a strong government during these dark economic times etc etc

And this would completely mess up the rise of ukip, the greens and Corbyn

 

[V-J]

So my question is this, what if the Lib-Dems had not supported either Labour or the Tories?

This is not mutually inclusive with not going into coalition.

There would have inevitably have been some kind of Lib-Con pact without coalition, which would have left the government in a weaker position but would have left the Lib Dems in an enhanced one over the long-term; more freedom for political manoeuvre instead of them becoming a faction of a Conservative government. I'm not sure where we would have ended up by 2015 but the Lib Dems would still be a thing.

 

[Meadow]

This is not mutually inclusive with not going into coalition.

There would have inevitably have been some kind of Lib-Con pact without coalition, which would have left the government in a weaker position but would have left the Lib Dems in an enhanced one over the long-term; more freedom for political manoeuvre instead of them becoming a faction of a Conservative government. I'm not sure where we would have ended up by 2015 but the Lib Dems would still be a thing.

Pretty much this. We had five years of Lib Dems saying 'a pact would be a disaster and we'd get nothing done and we'd be punished at the polls', but now we've seen the punishment they got anyway, it surely would've been better for them. Tuition fees (less the issue itself, I've come to realise, and more the lasting permanent image that their pledges were empty and they could never be trusted again) would be avoided - the Lib Dems would proudly vote against raising them. This and myriad other things would mean they would go straight-faced into the 201* election (I don't think we'd go the full five years) saying 'we have restrained The Ev0l Toriez' and have some actual examples to point to - examples people believed.

As a further correction to the OP, the Lib Dems did not become Kingmakers in 2010 - the arithmetic for a Labour deal to work was basically impossible, and everyone knew this. Clegg negotiated with Labour as leverage against the Tories, and to appear as if all options were on the table. But the numbers were not there - they were not Kingmakers, they were in a position of 'get on board with this particular Prince, or no prince at all'.

As for if they'd 100% washed their hands of any support or deal or government, like Veej I'm not sure that's even possible. But if they had, I think the Tories would quickly call a snap election and - as we now know quite how many Lib Dem voters in allegedly safe Lib Dem areas will stay at home or go Tory if it comes down to it - win a small majority at the expense of both the Lib Dems and Labour (who had little money and would potentially have only had a new leader for a few weeks - that leader, incidentally, would be David Miliband in this scenario). That said, we don't know how much the Lib Dem annihilation was down to 'they are going to be pummelled, and we need to stop the SNP, vote Tory this time lads'.

 

[Alexander the Average]

I would probably still be a left-leaning Lib Dem rather than a communist.

 

[Meadow]

I would probably still be a left-leaning Lib Dem rather than a communist.

'Britain' is spelled wrong in your location, FYI.

 

[V-J]

Pretty much this. We had five years of Lib Dems saying 'a pact would be a disaster and we'd get nothing done and we'd be punished at the polls', but now we've seen the punishment they got anyway, it surely would've been better for them. Tuition fees (less the issue itself, I've come to realise, and more the lasting permanent image that their pledges were empty and they could never be trusted again) would be avoided - the Lib Dems would proudly vote against raising them. This and myriad other things would mean they would go straight-faced into the 201* election (I don't think we'd go the full five years) saying 'we have restrained The Ev0l Toriez' and have some actual examples to point to - examples people believed.

I think they would have shed a fair bit of their post-1992 voting coalition simply by the act of propping up a Tory minority, but, as you note, they could have made it up by having the concrete evidence that they opposed said Tory minority on non-budget matters. In any respect their voting coalition would not have collapsed. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit here though, as we saw from OTL their taste for kamikaze politics was almost insatiable. I don't think we've ever seen any party before in this country so completely culturally alienate itself from the people who actually voted for it. There is every chance they support NHS reorganisation, tuition fee rises etc even outside the coalition.

Considering how rocky the first two years of the government were up to Omnishambles, the oft-raised notion of a second election due to a conscious dissolution is not terribly plausible. I think that would be the ATL equivalent of the conventional wisdom that 'the coalition is only going to last eighteen months'.

 

[Meadow]

I think they would have shed a fair bit of their post-1992 voting coalition simply by the act of propping up a Tory minority, but, as you note, they could have made it up by having the concrete evidence that they opposed said Tory minority on non-budget matters. In any respect their voting coalition would not have collapsed. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit here though, as we saw from OTL their taste for kamikaze politics was almost insatiable. I don't think we've ever seen any party before in this country so completely culturally alienate itself from the people who actually voted for it. There is every chance they support NHS reorganisation, tuition fee rises etc even outside the coalition.

I want to disagree with you but I agree I may just be falling into the 'everyone is a rational actor' fallacy. The Lib Dems made so many appallingly dim decisions in the last five years and while it seems ASB for them to vote for Lansley, there's no cast-iron reason they wouldn't. They certainly wouldn't be able to say 'we will support budgets and queen's speeches if x and y are included/kept out, but we won't vote for any other government legislation at all'. Deal or no deal (ha), that's almost as petulant as sitting out.

Considering how rocky the first two years of the government were up to Omnishambles, the oft-raised notion of a second election due to a conscious dissolution is not terribly plausible. I think that would be the ATL equivalent of the conventional wisdom that 'the coalition is only going to last eighteen months'.

I didn't particularly mean 'snap election after a couple of years', I just meant I could see it being a late 2014 election or even 2013 if the Tories get a bump off something. The full five was a result of legislation and therefore there being no other choice.

That said, if politics goes as OTL, the Tories did only start to see a restoration of their polling position in late 2014 through to May 2015 anyway, though how much of that is 'the election is coming, how will you really vote' remains to be seen.

 

[V-J]

I wasn't necessarily critiquing your points there, I was just extrapolating and thinking out loud.

 

[Alexander the Average]

'Britain' is spelled wrong in your location, FYI.

Thanks for pointing that out. My dyslexia must be acting up again.

 

[thevaliant]

As noted, the options for the Lib Dems included:

Coalition with Conservatives
Confidence and Supply with the Conservatives
Support no one

Assuming (1) is out, another problem they face are accusations of being 'A party of opposition, not a party of credible government' (bit like Corbyn at the moment). If the Lib Dems don't step up now, they never will and they will lose support at the next election no matter what they do.

I, personally, suspect some seats lost were due to the SNP. You only need to look at the increase in Conservative seats in England AND Wales (and Unionist seats in Northern Ireland) to see that.

The best way for the Lib Dems therefore might've been C&S, with a toppled government in (say) 2012 well before the Scottish referendum. Once that got close, support for the SNP started to rise dramatically and never went away (the polls got this right at least) and therefore the message in the rest of the Union is that only the (evil baby-eating) Tories can stop them.

 

[Maeglin]

Flexible confidence and supply (i.e. we'll allow you to govern if you do X) would probably have been their best bet. They can keep their distance while still arguing that they are being constructive. And if they get punished for it, it can't be worse than what actually happened. And if the Tories refuse to do X? Force an election on it.

Doing nothing gets interesting though. I wonder if Brown would try to continue as a minority government before almost inevitably losing a confidence vote.

 

[Charles RB]

Either way the Lib dems are probably vilified in the media because they stopped Britain having a strong government during these dark economic times etc etc

This for sure, unless they formed a voting pact - and then, depending on who it was with and how people thought of the pact's policies, probably still get the same hate they do in OTL. The Lib Dems are buggered whatever they do, it's all down to just how buggered.

 

[Jonathan]

I sadly think Nick Clegg was in between a rock and a hard place.

Agreeing with Caiaphas

Either way the Lib dems are probably vilified in the media because they stopped Britain having a strong government during these dark economic times etc etc

If the Lib-Dems had not joined the conservatives he would have been seen as throwing away his opportunity to hold the conservatives to account.

If they had gone in coalition with Labour, they would be called un-democratic.

What would have been better for the Lib-Dems would have been if they could have had away of DEMANDING Alternative Voting and Scrap Tuition Fees, as a given, they may have been able to survive, however, just jumping into bed and given up on everything has tainted the party.

 

[Charles RB]

There's another POD: the Lib Dems demand tuition fees are scrapped and the Tories "alright, we don't care that much really". Students would turn on the Lib Dems anyway but later, not so soon after they got in.

Can't see either Labour or Tory agreeing to AV without a referendum though. They weren't mugs, they'd know it'd be bad for them.

 

[Meadow]

There's another POD: the Lib Dems demand tuition fees are scrapped and the Tories "alright, we don't care that much really". Students would turn on the Lib Dems anyway but later, not so soon after they got in.

The sums didn't work to keep fees at £3k, scrapping them altogether is genuinely ASB. It's 'civil servants take minister aside and have a quiet word' level.

What would have been better for the Lib-Dems would have been if they could have had away of DEMANDING Alternative Voting and Scrap Tuition Fees, as a given, they may have been able to survive, however, just jumping into bed and given up on everything has tainted the party.

As above, scrapping tuition fees was off the table, even if the Tories wanted to do it, they couldn't. The Lib Dems also didn't want AV, remember? They wanted a form of PR. They went into the negotiations demanding it, and the first thing Osborne said was 'just so you know, PR is off the table'.

Making AV, of all things, a red line issue in the 2010 negotiations would make it even easier for the Tories to say 'well... no'. They get the gift of being able to say 'we went to Nick Clegg and offered him the chance to help prevent this country turning into Greece, and he has said no because he wants a voting system nobody has heard of, and one that would give him more power! It's time for change.'

Cue Armacleggon, 5 years early.

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

The big factor to recall is that the LibDems thought they got off really well with the deal they had. Clegg chose to vote for tuition fees to signal that the LibDems were a party of government and wouldn't have their cake and eat it, when he had the choice to abstain instead, and the Tories were much more conciliatory than Labour were. Brown offered them the chance for voting reform, Lords reform, and the chance to keep Labour in power. That's it. Ashdown even told Adonis that Cameron was being a lot more giving, when he had a lot more cards in his hand than Labour did, and admitted in an interview that the Tories could have said 'fuck off' on a lot of matters and the LibDems would have still had to say yes to a coalition.

 

[Charles RB]

On scrapping fees - we can say it's unbelievable to do it but it's also the policy that the Lib Dems not only had, it's still a thing they lament other parties wouldn't back on their site. (Even though they tried to downplay this and go with "no rises" in 2010, without explicitly saying "yeah sorry guys") If this was genuinely a crippler, then bloody hell LDs