AHC: Clegg's clever leadership move

[Ashtagon]

As we know, shortly after the 2010 general election, Clegg and Cameron entered into a coalition government. The amount of policies passed by each party and manifesto red lines each had to cross are the subject of debate. What is clear though is that this agreement caused LibDem support to nosedive.

There is some debate as to what Clegg could have done differently.

With a PoD no earlier than election night, is it possible for Clegg to have manoeuvred things so that a) LibDems come out as a credible party by 2015, and b) the government either excludes the Conservatives, or teh Conservatives are unable to enact any policy that was noted as a "not gonna happen" thing in the Libdem manifesto or pre-election speeches?

This may mean manoeuvring things so that it is plainly not in Cameron's interests (or ability) to call for a snap election.

 

[Dan]

Easy. Don't go into coalition and offer support on a confidence/supply basis.
Still gwt Tories in power but even more control over them, and because they're not in government with theTories they can't get smeared as puppets as they have been. They then retain their position as a credible third party in Parliament.

 

[Thande]

This is what I would try for, though I realise it's likely not realistic because the Tories aren't just going to agree to anything.

Demand PR for local government in England and Wales (STV on the Scottish model) without a referendum, with the AV referendum delayed until 2013. That gives people a chance to get used to it and not see it as such an unknown. (I think AV would still lose, but PR for local government helps the Lib Dems in some places--though hurting them in others--normalises the idea of coalition, confuses the Labour narrative of Heroic Labour Councils Resisting Cuts, etc.)

Most importantly, DO NOT emphasise that voting reform is what you're getting from the coalition, because the majority of people will view this as an ivory tower obsession with an issue nobody cares about when people are starving. Just have it there in the background except when giving red meat (yellow meat?) to your party conference and faithful.

Instead of having an incoherent response to tuition fees that lets you be painted (not without some justice) as betraying your promises, agree a plan where the current £3000 tuition fees are actually reduced slightly (say to £2500) but quietly adding that universities have the option to charge top-up fees, emphasising that this is not a government requirement, even though they'll totally need to do it to survive with the government slashing the funding. This is a free market so that makes it alright because you can totally go to a university that doesn't charge as much even though it's not as good. Won't fool everyone but will keep some students on side because it makes someone else the bad guy.

Ultimately the Lib Dems are still going to lose a lot of votes because a lot of their voters were basically enraged at the very idea of them being in government at all, never mind with the Tories, but these things might help. The problem with any suggestion is that the Tories' path to a majority lies through wrecking the Lib Dems, as was clear in 2010 and is all too clear right now, so they have no incentive to agree to anything that makes it harder for the Lib Dems to collapse.

 

[GarethC]

As we know, shortly after the 2010 general election, Clegg and Cameron entered into a coalition government. The amount of policies passed by each party and manifesto red lines each had to cross are the subject of debate. What is clear though is that this agreement caused LibDem support to nosedive.

There is some debate as to what Clegg could have done differently.

With a PoD no earlier than election night, is it possible for Clegg to have manoeuvred things so that a) LibDems come out as a credible party by 2015, and b) the government either excludes the Conservatives, or teh Conservatives are unable to enact any policy that was noted as a "not gonna happen" thing in the Libdem manifesto or pre-election speeches?

This may mean manoeuvring things so that it is plainly not in Cameron's interests (or ability) to call for a snap election.

Clegg's premise was that achieving some manifesto committments in coalition was better than not being in government and having to horsetrade for every little thing - where Labour could also horsetrade on occasion just to keep the Conservatives honest.

As it happened, the manifesto committments he delivered were less important to LibDem voters than the ones he did not deliver.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I don't think that there was a coalition agreement Clegg could get in 2010 that wouldn't eviscerate his party's support in 2015, so it's got to be "confidence and supply". And blaming Tory intransigence over taxation. And PR. And tuition fees. And the Scottish Question. And the Schleswig-Holstein Question, hell, why not?

 

[chrislondon]

Clegg 'clever'?

I think the main problem for the Lib Dems is that they were perceived as supporting the Conservatives too much for too little. That is certainly why I switched away from them.

It is possible they had been restraining the Tories more than is popularly believed, we will have to see. Some of the changes above might have been enough to alter this perception.

I do think they undermined their bargaining position badly with anti Labour comments immediately after the 2010 election that strengthened Cameron's negotiating hand, and they may also have overvalued the chance for their senior figures to gain some cabinet experience.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If the LibDems just did confidence and supply, could they let the government fall after, say, 2 years, on some point of 'principle' for their base? Causing a second election where they'd fight on their own.

Would that have done them more damage (causing an 'unnecessary' election) or less?

 

[Sideways]

The Lib Dems were in a bad position. They needed to form a coalition if they could, because it was something the Lib Dems had been aiming at for a long time and not trying for a coalition would have harmed their support. However, being the junior partner in a coalition is always difficult.

The best thing for the Lib Dems would have been if the Conservatives refused a coalition, then had bad luck in government and had to rely on Labour to pass their least popular policies, like the snooper's charter and tuition fees for example.

By 2015, Labour is seen as close to the Tories, the Tories are unpopular, with the Lib Dems still in the picture UKIP and the Greens are less of an issue. The result could be a very good election for the Lib Dems. If Labour and the Tories pushed for a war against Assad in Syria and ended up leaving a power vacuum for ISIL, then the Lib Dems may find that they're in an extremely strong position by 2015.