But what on earth were we expecting from them? I don't think anybody was looking out for Nick Clegg to be walking in to Number 10 on May 7th - I'd be surprised to hear a view that they should have increased their seats to over 100. What was realistically being expected was some increase of MPs to something in the mid-70s, making the third party a more robust 'kingmaker' block of votes in the event of a hung parliament.
Some have reflected that the drop in the number of Liberal MPs is a reflection of the public judgement on the party's policies - that there is little substance to the party as a whole beyond the charming face of Mr. Clegg and the wizened wisdom of Mr. Cable. The more right-leaning back bench Tories seem to use this as evidence of a public rejection of the Lib Dems, in a hope to persuade their leadership to get out of any sticky coalition with those nasty yellow devils.
But did the Lib Dems do so badly in the end? Most of their gains in the last 13 years could be best characterised as coming from the fortuitous combination of an unpopular government and an even more unpopular opposition - with the third party playing piggy in the middle and taking the ground from both equally. Indeed, after the last election the Lib Dems were roundly pilloried for not having made greater progress, given the prevailing winds of the Iraq war and Michael Howard.
The high turnout of the 2010 election, combined with the massive assault of the right wing press on Nick Clegg after the first debate, created a partisan environment the likes of which a British election hasn't been conducted in since the 80s. With Labour supporters being born again in response to the spectre of Thatcher, and almost everyone else being motivated by a desire to get rid of Gordon Brown by whatever means necessary, this election presented a very hostile background for the third party. In this light the drop in MPs isn't what's surprising; it's the relatively small nature of that drop.
With the other two parties drumming up their core support for the last big push by spouting messages of fear ('Fear Tories!' ' Fear Brown!'), the way that the Lib Dem vote wasn't entirely drowned out is great news for the party, and a perfect basis for building on. Whatever happens over the next weeks with regard to a coalition, and despite the headline drop in support, it will eventually have to be admitted that the 2010 election represents the Liberal Democrat's greatest victory this century.
Interesting thesis, Dave. Don’t forget that the LibDems recorded a modern high share of the vote. The fall in their seats is due to the distribution of that vote (boundary changes, Lib/Con marginals etc) not a vote collapse. They’ve certainly got the opportunity to ensure that doesn’t happen again now! I’m not sure that some of the trends you point out can be substantiated when you look at the statistical trends.
ReplyDeleteRe. LibDem gains over 13 years, unpopular Lab/Con and piggy in the middle;
ReplyDeleteComing into 1997, the LibDems marginally increased their number of votes but saw their proportion of the vote fall by a point. Over the subsequent three elections (all of which had a smaller volume of votes cast than in ’97) the LibDems showed an increase in the share of the vote (although their volume of votes fluctuated up and down alongside the overall turnout). Over the same three elections, the Tories also consistently increased their share, suggesting that the only place that the LibDems were gaining from was Labour. I don’t think this is surprising given the very high share recorded by Labour in ’97 but, equally, I don’t think you can say that the LibDem’s particularly took ground from the Tories. It’s possible to argue that the LibDems took some of the swing that might have once gone to the Tories, which could be the reverse of the situation that let them record an equally high proportion of the vote in 1987 but within 5 years the Tories and Labour (Major and Kinnock!) had won back that gain from the Libs.
Re. The high turnout of the 2010 election.
ReplyDeleteWhilst the vote showed something of an increase over the historic lows of 2001 and 2005 (2.5m over 2005), it is still relatively low at 65% of the electorate. Compare it to 1997 when 1.7m more voted (71.5%) or 1987 when 2.5m less voted but, nevertheless, saw returns from 75% of the smaller electorate!
Re. The suggestion that an increase in the vote was related to a polarisation in the electorate which, consequently, ‘squeezed’ the LibDem vote.
ReplyDeleteI’d make the following observations;
-The LibDems increased their vote by 14% versus a turnout increase of only 10%, suggesting that they at least picked up their ‘fair share’ of the increase.
-The single biggest increase over their 2005 vote was registered by ‘Others’ (25%) suggesting that if their was an impact of polarisation it only affected the LibDems, not the nationalists, UKIP etc, who all increased their share.
-Adding together the ‘new’ votes and the 950k lost by Labour and assuming a neutral flow of floaters between parties (which is actually realistic given how entrenched the vast majority of UK voters are), there were 3.5m votes up for grabs split between blue, yellow and others. This split in the following proportions; 55%, 24%, 21%. Compared to the overall split of the ‘non-Lab’ vote, which was 51%, 32%, 17%, the LibDems did see a fall off but a greater proportion of it went to ‘Others’ rather than Tory.
Re. Great basis to build on.
ReplyDeleteAs alluded to earlier, the last time the Liberals managed to register both volume and share of the vote at this level was in one of the more polarised election of our time in 1987 (when Others recorded a paltry 4%!). It’s worth remembering that their share of the vote then declined across two elections, which featured very different dynamics, in 1992 and 1997. And I’m not mentioning Steele.
On a more subjective note, I’d say that the LibDems blew it just as much as the Cons did. Despite some pretty unseemly press aimed at GB, NC and DC, I think the general public are smart enough to see through the extremes of ‘journalism’. I was struck by the absence of anyone other than Nick Clegg from the LibDem campaign (where was Vince Cable?) and there are, simply, a couple of LibDem policies that play badly with middle England.
PS. Don't forget that the LibDem surge was over-hyped by the meedja; all the polls saw a bump but some were more sensitive to it than others. Interestingly, the final vote was almost identical to the average of the polls at the end of the first week of April before campaigning began!
/troll
ReplyDelete/troll :-)
ReplyDelete