UK Lib Dems Choose differently in 2010

[(no subject)]

Let’s give Nick Clegg an attack of sense and he realises that a small-l liberal party supporting a Thatcherite party is suicidal.
So the Liberal Dems either prop up the Melancholy Scot or force a fresh election.

What happens next?

[Alcibiades]

I’m not sure how realistic of an option going into coalition with Labour ever was, considering they would have been short of a majority.

As for forcing a new election, I think the Lib Dems would have been punished by the electorate for “playing politics”, although nowhere near as badly as in 2015. So, with hindsight, probably the best option.

[brucejoel99]

The coalition would've been extremely unstable in needing the support of basically every non-Tory/non-DUP MP to win any vote. Like BoJo from July to December 2019, this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

In any event, at least Cameron not needing to wait 5 years to try & win a majority would presumably butterfly Brexit away.

[Geoffrey Howe]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

[YL]

I think they had choices, but a coalition with Labour probably wasn't one of them.  They could have gone for confidence and supply for a bit, or they could have tried coalition but with a greater readiness to say "no" to Cameron within government.

They had built up trouble for themselves by developing a very healthy vote for a third party in FPTP with a rather incoherent electoral coalition, so they were probably always going to lose some parts of it, especially the "plague on both your houses" element, once they had to make decisions.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

And he was broadly correct.

[brucejoel99]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

And he was broadly correct.

Eh, any scenario that ultimately doesn't end in Brexit seems better than how real-life turned out. Granted, the coalition obviously provided for a greater sense of short-term stability than anything else would've been able to, but it just seems undeniable that the unintended long-term consequences thereof weren't ultimately beneficial to "the greater good."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

And he was broadly correct.

Eh, any scenario that ultimately doesn't end in Brexit seems better than how real-life turned out. Granted, the coalition obviously provided for a greater sense of short-term stability than anything else would've been able to, but it just seems undeniable that the unintended long-term consequences thereof weren't ultimately beneficial to "the greater good."

We don't necassarily know that a "Cons win a landslide win in 2011 GE" scenario doesn't result in Brexit. The public was not necessarily convinced on EU membership being good in an absolute sense, in part because of long-running misreporting on EU issues (including none other than Boris Johnson himself). iirc, even the Lib Dems promised some kind of referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU back in 2009-2010 (could be wrong, but the mere fact I suspect they promised this speaks to the fact that the Lib Dems needed to chase a certain kind of floating voter, one that more often than not probably ended up voting for Brexit). I could see an EU ref being delayed till later, but it's fairly likely one happens eventually, and whenever it happens, there is at least a reasonable chance people vote to Leave.

[Geoffrey Howe]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

And he was broadly correct.

Eh, any scenario that ultimately doesn't end in Brexit seems better than how real-life turned out. Granted, the coalition obviously provided for a greater sense of short-term stability than anything else would've been able to, but it just seems undeniable that the unintended long-term consequences thereof weren't ultimately beneficial to "the greater good."

We don't necassarily know that a "Cons win a landslide win in 2011 GE" scenario doesn't result in Brexit. The public was not necessarily convinced on EU membership being good in an absolute sense, in part because of long-running misreporting on EU issues (including none other than Boris Johnson himself). iirc, even the Lib Dems promised some kind of referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU back in 2009-2010 (could be wrong, but the mere fact I suspect they promised this speaks to the fact that the Lib Dems needed to chase a certain kind of floating voter, one that more often than not probably ended up voting for Brexit). I could see an EU ref being delayed till later, but it's fairly likely one happens eventually, and whenever it happens, there is at least a reasonable chance people vote to Leave.

You’re quite right. The Lib Dems were the first to suggest a referendum. As I have said before, this line that Cameron called a referendum simply to heal divisions in the Party is very tiresome.

[vileplume]

this coalition would've basically just been a government that was in office but not in power. Considering that all of this would've been occurring in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, such instability would not only be untenable, but frankly a blessing-in-disguise for the Tories as well, given that it'd probably enable them to win a landslide in the next election, which would probably end up being held just a few months after the first one.

That's precisely Nick Clegg's argument - that he did it for the greater good.

And he was broadly correct.

Eh, any scenario that ultimately doesn't end in Brexit seems better than how real-life turned out. Granted, the coalition obviously provided for a greater sense of short-term stability than anything else would've been able to, but it just seems undeniable that the unintended long-term consequences thereof weren't ultimately beneficial to "the greater good."

Any scenario that sees the Tories getting a majority in the 2010s would have very likely lead to a referendum. If the Lib Dems had forced another election the Tories would have very probably have won a majority. If they'd supported the deeply unpopular Labour in a highly unstable coalition on the other hand, the Tories would have likely won a landslide when this chaotic government inevitably fell. Ironically, the only way the Lib Dems could've prevented a referendum was doing what they actually did, going into coalition with the Tories. They just somehow needed to prevent their support collapsing as much as it did. A slightly better Lib Dem performance in 2015 would've killed a referendum stone dead.

[(no subject)]

With the fading away of the ex-Labour element after 1992, I make an argument that the Liberal Dems are the Liberal Party under a new name.

[Geoffrey Howe]

With the fading away of the ex-Labour element after 1992, I make an argument that the Liberal Dems are the Liberal Party under a new name.

Charles Kennedy?

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

It’s funny, I’ve toyed with the idea of “what if the Lib Dems do a bit better in 2010 and force a new election  after the university tuition issue comes to a head?” even before I ran across this thread.

[The Mikado]

I know it's alien to British experience up to now, but could a Canada-style Cameron minority government, with no coalition, have even been attempted? It definitely seems like a feature of Canadian government that could easily be adapted to Britain.

[brucejoel99]

I know it's alien to British experience up to now, but could a Canada-style Cameron minority government, with no coalition, have even been attempted? It definitely seems like a feature of Canadian government that could easily be adapted to Britain.

Britain has had minority governments: May/BoJo 2017-19, Callaghan 1977-79, etc., but there's a definite aversion, given the extensive usage of confidence-&-supply, if not formal coalitions. Come to think of it, it's basically the parallel opposite of Canada's own evident aversion to formal coalitions.

[Alcibiades]

I know it's alien to British experience up to now, but could a Canada-style Cameron minority government, with no coalition, have even been attempted? It definitely seems like a feature of Canadian government that could easily be adapted to Britain.

The Tories were too far off a majority for a minority government to have realistically worked.