Nick Clegg (image – Liberal Democrats website)
David Cameron and Nick Clegg (image - Wikipedia)
David Cameron and Nick Clegg (image – Wikipedia)

By Tan Wah Piow

The greatest loser of the 2015 General Election in the United Kingdom is the Liberal Democratic Party. They went into coalition with the Conservative Party after the 2010 election, and its leader Nick Clegg, was made the deputy Prime Minister, while several of their senior leaders were given ministerial positions.

The Liberal Democrats basked in the limelight of the last 5 years. During the 2015 election campaign, they claimed credit for putting the ‘heart’ into the Conservatives. The Conservaties, seen as a party of the privileged and the rich, was once said by its own Chairman as being perceived publicly as “the nasty party”.

As the co-driver, the Liberal Democrat could rightly claim to have curbed some of the excesses of the spending cuts, and helped keep the Human Rights Act in the statute book.

In the course of the election campaign, all opinion polls were claiming that neither of the two main political parties, the Conservatives nor the opposition Labour Party, could win more than 325 seats of the overall 650 seats to form a government.

That “certainty” of a hung parliament buoyed the spirit of Nick Clegg, encouraging him to repeat the mantra that by voting the Liberal Democrat, voters would put the “heart” into a Conservative, or the “brains” into a Labour Government. In other words, Clegg was happy to sleep with either of the two main contenders. With their existing 57 seats in parliament, the Liberal Democrats felt that whatever the outcome, they would still remain a partner of choice in a hung parliament, and continue to enjoy the perks of office.

Nick Clegg (image - Liberal Democrats website)
Nick Clegg (image – Liberal Democrats website)

The Liberal Democrats entered into the coalition as a “centre-left” party in 2010, but after 5 years in bed with the Conservative, they lost their identity, and became “toxified” by the Conservative brand. The mantra of “heart” and “brains” sounded opportunistic. Many young voters who had previously supported the Liberal Democrats in 2010 could not forgive the party for breaking their election pledge of not increasing university tuition fees. They were, as coalition partners, blamed for the three-fold tuition fees increase in 2012. But with the false hope of a hung parliament, those criticisms did not appear to trouble Clegg too much.

It therefore came as a rude shock when 15% of their supporters deserted them at the ballot box. From 57 MPs in parliament in 2010, they are now left with just enough MPs “to fit into two taxis”, as commented by a BBC journalist on election night. Left with just eight MPs, the result was described by Nick Clegg, with tears in his eyes, as “the most crushing defeat” in his party’s history.

One of the problems as a junior co-driver is that the Liberal Democrats’ claim to credit for any successful policy of the Government would be taken with a pinch of salt; while as a coalition partner, the party was blamed, especially by their own supporters, for voting in unpopular policies. Attempts to extricate the party from responsibility for unpopular policies, as they did during the election, was met with cynicism.

Licking the electoral wounds, the best Nick Clegg could do within hours of the defeat, was to offer his resignation as party leader. He insisted that the original decision to enter into the coalition with the nasty party was a sacrifice in the “public interests”. Having dutifully served the Conservatives in the coalition, in defeat, this line of justification was cruelly dismissed even by a pro-Conservative commentator who said “the Liberal Democrats could have insisted on an … arrangement, supporting the Conservatives on a vote-by-vote basis . Instead, they opted for the allurements of office in partnership with a party with which they disagreed about virtually everything.”

There are important lessons to draw for those contemplating entering into coalition with a “nasty” party whose ethos are anathema to their own supporters. They should take heed of this little trivial detail in the Financial Times. “William Hague tells a story of how, after a day negotiating the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010, his wife asked how he had got on. “I think I’ve killed the Liberal party”, he replied.”

Ideologically, the core supporters of the Liberal Democrats are closer to Labour than the Conservatives. Had the leaders Labour and the Liberal Democrat anticipated the outcome of the elections and the dire consequences, and if they had the courage to forge a progressive alliance and set aside their tribal bias before the start of the 2015 election campaigns, a Conservative-majority government could be avoided.

The Conservative Party had enjoyed a net gain of 24 parliamentary seats at this 2015 election, thereby giving them a majority of 6 seats. But an analysis of the actual votes cast for the Labour and Liberal Democrats in those 24 constituencies, the Conservative gain could be slashed to just one seat if there were a progressive alliance and electoral pack between the two parties.

Unfortunately, this is just hindsight. As one Liberal Democrat grandee said, it would now take another 50 years before the party could find a place in Government.

So, aspiring co-drivers, beware before you jump into a cab, especially when the navigator is set to a destination different from yours.

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

裘佐柏:新加坡选民害怕非行动党政府执政?

维权律师Khush Chopra: 我由衷认为,我们不会过分忧虑“不是人民行动党政府执政的新加坡”,而且我们已经准备好做出改变。 前《海峡时报》主编日前于《南华早报》(SCMP)刊登一篇有关《新加坡大选:不同政党存在为何影响些微》,警示反对党: “当扳倒人民行动党的声浪过高,新加坡的选民反而会重投执政党的怀抱。” 文章中点出新加坡反对党目前混乱、毫无头绪和颠三倒四的动向,造成反对党在来临的大选中难以有任何具影响力的结果。其中“难以团结的反对党”与“无补选策略”是推动选民再次将投票投向人民行动党的关键因素。 文章以措辞强烈的声明批评反对党的现状,作者直言新加坡反对党虽多,但因各党派的混乱和毫无头绪,导致反对党並无胜算。 文章的核心论点围绕在反对党四分五裂的现状,稀释了反对党的票数。如同英语中谚语:厨子多了烧坏汤(too many cooks spoil the…

Woman acquitted of sexual penetration charges as law does not cover women as offenders

Biologically female Zunika Ahmad, 39, who pleaded guilty to six charges under…

K Shanmugam: AGC considering to appeal judgement of CHC church leaders

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is considering whether it is possible to take…

香港教育局续延长停课 不早于3月16日开课

基于疫情蔓延,香港教育局宣布全港学校继续延长停课,不早于3月16日开课。 日前由于香港出现新型冠状病毒确诊病例后,中小学、幼儿园、特殊学校将延长农历新年假期至2月17日。然而疫情并未出现延缓现象,因此香港教育局再度宣布延长停课。 根据《香港电台网站》,香港教育局局长杨润雄表示,目前新型冠状病毒未有减退的迹象,近日香港内更出现集体感染的,为预防校内传播,决定继续延长停课,待具备所有条件后才会复课,同时也会尽早通知学校,让学校有所准备。 杨润雄也表示,若正身处中国或其他国家学生,应遵守当地的应对措施,而他也呼吁当地港生尽量留在家中,避免去高人群地区。 我国教育部令从中返新师生   需申请缺席假 至于我国教育部采取的措施,是指示从中国返回新加坡的师生,需申请14天缺席假。 教育部于今年1月时向媒体透露,综合教育部幼儿园、中小学、初级学院、理工学院及工艺教育学院所提供的申请,目前共有115名教职员及852名学生因从中国返回新加坡,必须申请14天的缺席假。 教育部提及,缺席假并非是隔离令(Quarantine Order ),但尽管申请缺席假无需一直待在家中,但也减少外出,避免与其他人接触,待确定过了潜伏期再出门。同时申请缺席假的人必须随时测量体温并保持联络。 其中一名教职员与一名学生从湖北返新,而其他人则前往中国其他地区。…