We all thought we were now firmly in the era of hung parliaments. Gone would be the days of one party majorities ruling over us in a way that had become the norm since 1945. Then the Tories proved us all wrong.
Into this idea of the “new” politics was that parties were going to have to work together now and in the future. This was very much an idea from the left of centre, and it was built on the hope from many that Labour could be in the centre of a coalition perhaps, with maybe the Greens or something that would take the place of the Lib Dems when those pesky yellow Tories were trounced. It was plural and wonderful, supposedly.
But I think, in a way, this is why people voted for the Tories in numbers higher than anyone, the pollster and the Conservative Party itself, expected. The British people didn’t want the “new” politics; they quite like the old stuff, thank you very much. This was why, when I reflect on it, the country rejected the Alternative Vote so roundly. The whole Clegg thing was a sideshow, really: people just didn’t want to do anything that would make multi-party government more likely.
The biggest problem with the whole concept of the “new” politics as espoused by the Left, apart from the British people not wanting it which is kind of important in a democracy, is that all of the non-Tory parties aren’t simply factions of the same underlying ideology. They are in fact made of groups with very, very different ideas about the country, often times opposing views. Nationalism, socialism and liberalism aren’t different ingredients in a left of centre stew; they are opposing forces that cannot exist together in a buddy buddy sort of fashion.
So faced with a group of people who all hate each other and proclaim inclusiveness while ripping chunks off of one another, the electorate, of England anyhow, chose what they saw as a safe pair of hands. The Lib Dems, trying to bridge the gap between the two streams by being pro-pluralist while not wedded the Left’s version of it, got crushed. What’s amazing is that the Tories managed to achieve all of this while not being particularly conservative. They are proposing measures that could take Britain out of the EU, severely shrink the role of the state and indeed, end the country itself as we know it if Scotland leaves it. But they were the most conservative item on the menu and so people picked them, probably reluctantly in a large number of cases as the mystery of the faulty polls suggest.
What does all this mean? Almost certainly, a long spell of Tory rule, much as we saw throughout the 20th century, until some other non-Tory party can get the timing just right, having the right leader in place that can capture the country exactly when they are eager and ready for a change. What that change is, I hope I’m still alive to see.
Hi Nick,
maths of FPTP, eh? What a pain. But wait, page one of how to negotiate a coalition. Real multi party politics would have been to reach a new policy compromise issue by issue, not to enable the Tories to get most of their toxic crap through undiluted in return for a few of your own. If it happens again establish a mechanism not a wish list. Plus, working with the Tories killed Labour in Scotland and the LibDems everywhere, so maybe choose the left next time to restore balance?
Leadership doesn’t matter just yet it’s about deciding what you believe in, and judging by the lurch from studied (lame) equidistance to Tory apologists, not a lot. I’ve been watching politics for twenty years and I honestly can’t say what the Liberal ideal is.
Please can you and the party discuss, agree and sum it up for yourselves so that you can tell the rest of us?
Thanks
David
Hi Nick
My apologies for the rant. I know its hard to push something subtle when the press present everything in black and white.
Dave
Hi Nick, I think you are trying too hard to analyse the election results and coming up with very doubtful reasons.
I don’t believe for one moment the undecided electorate was against a center right coalition and hence voted Tory to get a strong Government. I believe the Tories played a good card,by concentrating in the economy and risk to the recovery as well as the dangers of having a very leftist SMP propping up a left to centre Labour party lucking support from businesses and not capable of inspiring middle of the road aspirational voters.
Unfortunately the Lib Dem campaign was a bit fluffy and clearly did not inspire or attract the large numbers of floating voters that decide most elections.
At any time since 1979 (as far back as I have any clear recollection, politically), the Tories have been the most hated party – says my unscientific observation. Few people hate labour. Even fewer hate the Lib Dems (caveat: that might have changed since 2010). UKIP etc don’t count.
Assuming I am correct, it is very easy to explain the Lib Deb’s present problems.
The only electorally efficient and effective response to a FPTP system is to establish a strong two party system – one broad tent right of centre conservative (economically liberal in the Milton Freedman sense) and one broad tent left of centre socially democratic (so economically Keynesian – but not socialist, since that would never appeal to the middle classes).
Until the left wake up and embrace this state of affairs (as they did in 1997) they will continue to lose out to a more united conservative party (which only loses when it falls out with itself as it did before 1997).
But a two party system, whilst more stable for the course of a parliament (but that’s arguable when the majority is slim), is more prone to violent swings. So it is less stable in the longer term, than a system of PR which is sufficiently mature that parties have become accustomed to working together.
The only answer for the long term is to change the system.