Could the Lib Dems become the UK's Second Party?

[CatInASuit]

The next election in the UK is likely to be a Conservative win with a majority in the House of Commons. However, given the public's current disfavour towards Labour, either Old or New, is there a chance that the Lib Dems could become the UK's 2nd Party instead?

In the past few elections, there was a certain amount of tactical voting against the Conservatives between the two parties. However, the feeling from some commentators is that if the Lib Dems were to go after Labour in its own strongholds it could force them into 3rd Place. If they concentrated on Labour strongholds in the North of England where the Conservatives are still disliked, would they have a chance?

[Garius]

Think back a few years and people were saying the same thing about the Lib Dems replacing the Tories as the second party in British politics. Like it didn't happen then, it won't happen now.

The Labour party needs some serious rebuilding and reshaping though - and I say that as a Labour Party member.

[Julie]

Can someone give me a link to a primer on UK politics? I'd like to get educated.

[CatInASuit]

The Wikipedia Page on UK Politics gives some background on the parties as well as links to their main resource pages.

Thinking back a few years, the Lib Dems were saying they could replace the Tories, mainly due to gains in the South East at their expense, eg. Chris Patten in 92 with more to follow in 97, but not many others were saying it.

Given that party collapses have occured before, why is it not possible that it could occur now.

[PrecambrianMollusc]

I would say the lib-dems would be aiming for a hung parliament where they stand a chance of getting in with a coalition gov. To that end it would make sense for them to target marginal conservative seats.
If some way out it is looking like a clean conservative sweep, then yeah they would do well to focus on Labour marginals with the aim of becoming the major opposition. There certainly may be some knee jerk voting for LibDems from traditional (not sure if that is the right word but hey ho) Labour voters in an attempt to send a message to party HQ, but are they pissed off enough to risk the party loosing the majority opposition status? I don't think so and I think those in Labour strongholds would rather loose and be 2nd than loose and be 3rd by voting lib dem. If the Lib dems want in - soft Labour areas are the way to go where they can sweep up the votes from people who don't like Conservative and probably don't have that strong affiliations with Labour and would be less fussed about Labour vanishing.

[tirial]

The LibDems aimed for a hung parliament in recent memory, and have allegedly* done deals with the Labour party before. Now seems a very different position since several polls show they are actually ahead of the Labour party. With Labour as unpopular as it currently is, making such deals now simply risks tarring them with the same brush.

If they have a shot at being the official opposition, rather than a third party, then now would seem to be a good time to go for it. Their strength in a hung parliment can also be eroded very quickly by rebel MPs on either side or if someone crosses the floor, while taking the official opposition position provides a lot of benefits (media, financial, etc.) that a hung parliament doesn't.

If they can escape the links with the current Labour government (and they are doing a good job) then yes I'd say they were in with a good chance of securing the "Anyone but the current lot" vote from disillusioned Labour supporters.

* (because I don't have time to look up the cite)

[Walker in Eternity]

I'm not great fan of any of our political parties, but if they force New Labour into third place then that would be good.

The Blair/Brown government has been a catalogue of mismanagement and incompetence. After 17 years of Tory government we needed a change and within a few short years labour was more corrupt thatn the tories ever were. Look how man bites of the cherry Mandelson got.

The Lib Dems are a bit wishy washy for me, but if they actually got some policies that weren't just pandering to the pc brigade then they might stand a chance. It seems a shame this didn't happen years ago when David Owen or Paddy Ashdown were leaders, Clegg seems another grey nondescript leader, they have really not done well recently, the last three leaders have been useless.

[Crusoe]

Two reason I can think of that the Lib Dems won't become the second party:

(1) Entrenched voting patterns. Anecdotally (yep, that's all) I know people who will only ever vote for the lesser evil of the two leading parties, terrified of wasting a vote on a third party that they believe might result in the party they hate most getting in. This may be less of a factor than in previous elections, particularly given Labour's constant slide away from past policies and principles (and current range of idiotic policies and actions) and "Call me Dave's" media-friendliness, but I still know people of all ages locked into their past voting records.

(2) The Lib Dems' leadership record is appalling at present. Since Ashdown went they've not managed to land a confident, media-friendly leader (or even a reasonable range of candidates) with the gravitas to get noticed and to be taken seriously. Kennedy was often seen as a joke, Campbell as past it (although with greater presence than the other candidates), Huhne and Clegg as no-marks prone to gaffes and in-fighting. I can't see voters switching to a party with a "who?" leader.

[CatInASuit]

There is possibly only one other reason for the Lib Dems to become the second party, Vince Cable.

Frankly, I would prefer him as Chancellor to any of the other party contenders. It won't happen, but it would be good if it did. He is also not averse to coalition governments, he suggested forming one with the Conservatives in 2005.

Not to mention describing Gordon Brown as Mr Bean.

[ivan astikov]

Does anybody seriously think that Cameron would have handled this economic crisis any better than the current govt. has?

[CatInASuit]

Does anybody seriously think that Cameron would have handled this economic crisis any better than the current govt. has?

Yes, if only because I don't think the current government could not have handled it any worse.

[tirial]

Does anybody seriously think that Cameron would have handled this economic crisis any better than the current govt. has?

Well since the current government had a large role in creating it through profligate spending when times were good, leaving us with no safety reserve, I think I'd rather have anyone in charge who wasn't responsible for the mess in the first place.

I'm on record as predicting this with an accurate timescale a couple of years back - I only have A-level economics and I don't work in the field. Professional economists were saying much the same - apparently as far back as 1997 when Labour laid out its manifesto for the banks. If the then-chancellor could not see it coming and take steps to ensure we had reserves to spend when we need them then that frankly looks close to incompetence. But then he did claim to have abolished and is now frantically trying to retract.

[Stanislaus]

Does anybody seriously think that Cameron would have handled this economic crisis any better than the current govt. has?

Well since the current government had a large role in creating it through profligate spending when times were good, leaving us with no safety reserve, I think I'd rather have anyone in charge who wasn't responsible for the mess in the first place.

I'm on record as predicting this with an accurate timescale a couple of years back - I only have A-level economics and I don't work in the field. Professional economists were saying much the same - apparently as far back as 1997 when Labour laid out its manifesto for the banks. If the then-chancellor could not see it coming and take steps to ensure we had reserves to spend when we need them then that frankly looks close to incompetence. But then he did claim to have abolished and is now frantically trying to retract.

The crisis wasn't created because of profligate government spending; a combination of greed and idiocy on the international financial markets is more to blame. As to whether Brown should have "fixed the roof while the sun was shining", it's worth pointing out that:

a) he did, as Chancellor, reduce the deficit and thus the national debt in the first (IIRC) four years in the role.
b) the spending on public services which increased significantly in 2001, far from being profligate, was vital given just how run down they'd become - anyone feel like going back to a 1997 NHS?
c) for all their bemoaning of the lack of rainy day funds, Cameron and Osborne's plan for dealing with this crisis so far seems to be to do nothing. (Oh, OK, to offer a 6 month NI holiday to small businesses, then make them pay it back.) Why then, are they so concerned about the availability of emergency funds?

As to the failure of the regulatory system and the predictably thereof, let's remember that Cameron and Osborne were, until very recently, strongly advocating even less regulation in the financial system. If you're criterion is "ability to predict major financial disasters", they are found as wanting as Brown/Darling.

Don't misunderstand me - Brown did let a massive asset bubble develop on his watch (odd image) and didn't put in place strong enough regulation. But the Conservative story that the whole crisis is mainly his fault, or that they ever had concerns over rising house prices and weak regulation is a self-serving fiction.

[Stanislaus]

As far as the actual OP goes, the Lib Dem's success in elections is predicated on the unpopularity of the current government. So in 2010, they'll win almost all the seats where they are second to Labour, but lose those seats they won in the same circumstances from the Conservatives in 1997 and have held onto since. The Lib Dem's problem is that they are not, in fact, a party of government. They are in fact a party of local activists who get occasional access to the national stage. As a result, their policies are impractical. Not necessarily in the sense that they won't work, but in the sense that they won't win votes. It seems boorish to criticise a party for not being willing to compromise its ideals for popularity, but the plain fact is that politics is about getting things done; most Lib Dem party members vastly prefer to play fantasy politics.

[tirial]

Well since the current government had a large role in creating it through profligate spending when times were good, leaving us with no safety reserve, I think I'd rather have anyone in charge who wasn't responsible for the mess in the first place.

I'm on record as predicting this with an accurate timescale a couple of years back - I only have A-level economics and I don't work in the field. Professional economists were saying much the same - apparently as far back as 1997 when Labour laid out its manifesto for the banks. If the then-chancellor could not see it coming and take steps to ensure we had reserves to spend when we need them then that frankly looks close to incompetence. But then he did claim to have abolished and is now frantically trying to retract.

The crisis wasn't created because of profligate government spending; a combination of greed and idiocy on the international financial markets is more to blame. As to whether Brown should have "fixed the roof while the sun was shining", it's worth pointing out that:

a) he did, as Chancellor, reduce the deficit and thus the national debt in the first (IIRC) four years in the role.
b) the spending on public services which increased significantly in 2001, far from being profligate, was vital given just how run down they'd become - anyone feel like going back to a 1997 NHS?
c) for all their bemoaning of the lack of rainy day funds, Cameron and Osborne's plan for dealing with this crisis so far seems to be to do nothing. (Oh, OK, to offer a 6 month NI holiday to small businesses, then make them pay it back.) Why then, are they so concerned about the availability of emergency funds?

As to the failure of the regulatory system and the predictably thereof, let's remember that Cameron and Osborne were, until very recently, strongly advocating even less regulation in the financial system. If you're criterion is "ability to predict major financial disasters", they are found as wanting as Brown/Darling.

Don't misunderstand me - Brown did let a massive asset bubble develop on his watch (odd image) and didn't put in place strong enough regulation. But the Conservative story that the whole crisis is mainly his fault, or that they ever had concerns over rising house prices and weak regulation is a self-serving fiction.

Sorry, but its not just the Tories who think that. So does the Guardian and their comentary on his financial management are quite blunt.

Nice post, but inaccurate. Brown wasn't even in government before he was being warned that his policies would create this problem by Eddie George. If you are going to fix the roof while the sun is shining, it helps if you're not the person knocking holes in it to begin with. The problem is that most of his created growth has been in the public sector. Unfortunately this is unsustainable when the private sector that supports it shrinks. Note that Brown stopped talking about Keynes when he exceeded Keynes' threshold for the public sector as a sustainable proportion of GDP.

a) Even by 2003 he was admitting he had got his sums wrong, and in the first four years, notably, we were also in a boom cycle coming out of recession. This makes it difficult to overspend since the economy is growing. Several sources point out that it is not Gordon Brown who can take the credit, especially as from 2002 onwards he was already increasing tax payer liabilities above the rate of growth of GDP.
b) Yes - I could actually see my doctor in 1997. It's now impossible to make an appointment in my local area due to these stupid waiting list rules: you are actually not allowed to make appointments, you have to go and sit in the waiting room. If they don't see you that day you go back the next and wait, and so on. This is even true for a regular prescription refill or recurring medication. The truth is around here either you manage to scrap together enough to go to a private walk-in or you don't get treated. The queue outside the only NHS walk-in centre is hours long. To get NHS treatment in 1997 I went down the street to the doctor. To get it in 2007 I had to travel one hundred miles. Sorry, but you hit a sore spot there. I'd love to have the Tories back if it meant I could actually get on a waiting list or make an appointment to see my doctor.
By the way, this problem was raised in 2005 and they have done nothing to resolve it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 496737.stm
c) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008 ... ervatives2 - Strange, even the Guardian concede they are planning to do something about it. Only central Labour seems to be trying to claim that they aren't.

Usually I won't vote for either, since neither is my party of choice. This time round, the catelogue of disaster from Brown might actually make me vote Tory just to get him out.

[Stanislaus]

Balls! Long post lost because I clicked on a link, like a complete arse.

Short version: Brown's regulatory framework failed; arguably he should have seen the problem coming. While true, that doesn't mean he created the crisis - nor do either of your linked articles say he did. On the NHS, the fact that waiting lists have fallen from 18 months to 18 weeks is a major achievement, notwithstanding your local troubles with GP services. (Incidentally, I love the new rule, because in the past I needed to plan my illnesses at least 5 days in advance and now I can see a doctor when I'm actually sick.) That achievement only happened due to major public investment, which was the central platform of the 2001 election. As for the Tories' plans for dealing with recession: yes, they have some. None of them involve stimulus spending. If you feel that Brown has failed because his policies won't permit the necessary investment, the Tories do not offer an alternative.

I agree that it's time for Labour to go; even if you don't believe power has corrupted, it has certainly rendered them complacent and put them in the position of confusing their interests with the interests of the country. But there's no need to buy into the Tory narrative that a global recession only hit Britain because of Gordon Brown. It's not true, and it let's them off the hook for errors of judgement which mirrored Labour's only where they did not exceed them.

[tirial]

Brown did not create the crisis entirely on his own, although his policies largely contributed to why it is so severe in Britain. What he failed to do, and this is where the charge of negligence comes in, is to make any preparation for a crisis that he was warned about ten years before it happened. That is ten years to save, build reserves and ensure we have the money to ride out the storm, which the then-Chancellor wasted. He also failed to change policies he was warned, again ten years in advance, that would cause a crisis.

I can't get on a waiting list - I am on the waiting list to be on the waiting list for surgery to be counted as part of the government's figures. When I'm sick, I can't see a doctor unless I know I am sick by eight thirty that morning, phone ahead, and am in the surgery to wait from nine. Have an accident at mid day, feel ill at nine am? Tough luck, wait until the following day. All created by the target rules for waiting lists, which mean that the time it takes to diagnose your illness, which used to be part of the waiting list period recorded, is no longer counted. These same targets allowed a £90,000 fraud. Also, the average waiting time in hospitals is now 49 days not 41 as it was before Labour took power. Tony Benn would appear to agree that the NHS is under threat from New Labour.

Oh and by the way, have you tried to see your NHS dentist recently? Under the Tories, people weren't resorting to pliers.

[tirial]

By the way, Brown just accepted responsibility: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... regulation

So back to the point - yes I think the Lib Dems have a chance of becoming the formal Opposition, and that they need to take it if they are going to shake the label of the "party of local politics".

[Stanislaus]

Brown did not create the crisis entirely on his own, although his policies largely contributed to why it is so severe in Britain. What he failed to do, and this is where the charge of negligence comes in, is to make any preparation for a crisis that he was warned about ten years before it happened. That is ten years to save, build reserves and ensure we have the money to ride out the storm, which the then-Chancellor wasted. He also failed to change policies he was warned, again ten years in advance, that would cause a crisis.

I can't get on a waiting list - I am on the waiting list to be on the waiting list for surgery to be counted as part of the government's figures. When I'm sick, I can't see a doctor unless I know I am sick by eight thirty that morning, phone ahead, and am in the surgery to wait from nine. Have an accident at mid day, feel ill at nine am? Tough luck, wait until the following day. All created by the target rules for waiting lists, which mean that the time it takes to diagnose your illness, which used to be part of the waiting list period recorded, is no longer counted. These same targets allowed a £90,000 fraud. Also, the average waiting time in hospitals is now 49 days not 41 as it was before Labour took power. Tony Benn would appear to agree that the NHS is under threat from New Labour.

Oh and by the way, have you tried to see your NHS dentist recently? Under the Tories, people weren't resorting to pliers.

Well, I think we agree on far more than we seem to - sorry if I've come across more adversarial than I intended. As far as the hijack on the NHS goes, I think it's best if we either leave it or move it to a separate thread (although yes, I have been to an NHS dentist recently - found one 5 minutes from home and got on their books with no waiting.)

As for the Lib Dems, they have to make a decision about who they're opposing. I started reading political blogs recently and I was amazed at the vitriol that both Tory and Labour political activists reserve for the the LDs. Most people don't have a strong opinion about them (one of their weaknesses in fact) but anyone who's ever helped out in a local election seems to hate them. That's 90% partisan politics, of course, but it stems from the fact that they are very opportunistic in the policies they put forward in local elections; right wing in Labour seats, left wing in Tory seats. That's fine for winning by-elections and council seats; to win on a national level they need to be much, much more clear on their policies. Otherwise (I'll see if I can find the link where I saw this done) it's far too easy to "Gotcha" them with election pamphlets from different seats that directly contradict each other.

The New Labour project, for all it's ultimate flaws, did at least demonstrate the importance of having a clear and consistent "message". IT descended into obsessive media control-freakery, but the basic idea that if all of your candidates are asked about, say, education they should respond with the same policies is not at root a bad one.

The Lib Dems will win seats from Labour where they're second easily enough, thanks to tactical voting. What they have to do to become a national Opposition is a) win seats from a resurgent Tory party and b) win seats where they're third. It's not impossible, but they'll have to work hard to prove they deserve the opportunity.

Finally, they've got their perennial paradox: people won't vote for them because they won't win.

[tirial]

With regard to the NHS, that does it! Where do you live? I want to move! The London one is currently an overloaded mess.

When Labour's own sites start showing content like this, you know the current bunch have a real popularity problem. (NSFW or Ed Zotti - And probably not what Labourlist had in mind when they created the tool to make your own tory logo.)

The Lib Dems need defined policies and a decent leader if they are going to exploit this. On the other hand it's also a test of whether they can actually pull together to take advantage of it. The thing I have often wondered about the Lib Dems is how many of their candidates don't agree with either of the main parties, so they just slap a Lib Dem label on themselves to campaign for their personal issues. It gives them a better chance to get in than standing as an independant.

[Stanislaus]

I don't know quite how to say this - I live in West London. Sorry.

In 2005, you could make a version of the truly appaling, "Are you thinking what we're thinking" poster, which got some good entries (My favourite just read, "Unclean! Unclean!"). But you're right - there's nothing obvious to say about the Tories now that they've been de-toxified, and lots of, how shall I put it, negative feedback to offer Labour. The tide has turned.

I have a friend who, in a past role as political lobbyist for a mental health charity, had to go all the party conferences. Which is a pretty rough gig. But for his money, the Lib Dems were exactly as shambolic, but lovely, as you would expect - very much the "personal issues" stuff. Which, along with the oh-so-democratic principle that any delegate can propose national policy, is why they get lumbered with vote winners like legalising hard-core pornography as core manifesto planks.

(At the time of the Ming leadership crisis, he described watching delegates be approached by TV news crews asking "if Ming were to go, who would you like to see replace him?" To his horror/amusement, none of them - none of them - spotted this as the blatant quote mining it clearly was, or had the wit to reply, "Ming is a great leader for the party, and he'll be the leader for years to come." They all gladly announced "I'd like to see Clegg/Huhne/Hughes as leader". No doubt they were just horrified to see themselves giving that quote on the news preceded by the phrase "...but among the delegates, there is clearly an appetite for change.")

[tirial]

We're in South London - lets just say there isn't an NHS organisation within several miles of us on this chart that rates above "fair" for quality of services. I wish I hadn't looked that up now, it's depressing.

I've had my brushes with MPs, Central Government and the civil service, and let's just say they've left me very cynical.