The 2010 general election result presented an unprecedented situation in British political history. With no outright majority in the House of Commons, a coalition agreement between two parties had to be reached.
Nick Clegg was dubbed the “kingmaker”, with his 57 MPs holding the keys to 10 Downing Street, in which Cameron eventually prevailed. There always seemed to be a love-hate relationship between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, mainly because the Lib Dems felt they had a lot more to offer than what the Conservatives allowed them to go ahead with. This feeling was amplified when Nick Clegg not only failed to deliver on his manifesto pledge of abolishing university tuition fees, but instead had to raise them to fit the Conservatives’ economic consensus.
You start to wonder how the coalition agreement even made it through the entire length of the Parliament, when time and again the agreement seemed to be on rocky footing. It was clear Cameron tried to make concessions to the Liberal Democrats, such as increasing funding for the most disadvantaged pupils by £2.5bn and raising the personal tax-free allowance threshold to £10,000, both of which were in the Lib Dems’ manifesto.
Looking at the bigger picture and seeing how the Lib Dems have joined the “14 years of Tory failure” bandwagon, a strong case can be made that the Conservatives could have got an awful lot more done if the Liberal Democrats let the Tories get on with the job in a lot of policy areas. In government, a lot of issues from the outside will start to affect your political image, so the last thing you want is to be in a position where you have more issues deriving from your own team.
There are, however, some areas of collaborative success within the 2010 coalition; as set out in the coalition agreement, including education and banking reform. The overarching element which allowed the coalition to function was on the agreements to differ on topics such as the renewal of trident and the referendum on the Alternative Vote. This system could arguably have led to a more robust policy discussion as everyone was not sat around the cabinet table agreeing with each other and instead challenging the policy. This sense of collaboration always seemed to be a shadow of what it could have been, and the similarities between the parties should have been used to a much greater extent.
The drastic change from Liberal Democrat support for the Conservatives to the attacking lines seen in the preceding general election campaigns, especially prominent under the leadership of Ed Davey in the 2024 campaign, shows once again what the Lib Dems are: opportunists. It comes as no surprise that the centre party of British politics goes wherever the wind is blowing to suit their own fortunes. Some may say they play the political game the way it’s meant to be played, but it may be time for the electorate to actually assess their function in the national political landscape.
The Liberal Democrats are a popular choice across the country in local elections, with 68 councils currently under outright or alliance Lib Dem control. In the House of Commons they have a respectable 72 MPs, the third largest in the chamber. Part of the reason they are a prominent force in the Commons is partly owed to their local track record reflecting into the national polls. That flexibility allowed them to suggest that the Conservatives, and not them, lead the country into turmoil. Other than pulling stunts at theme parks and aqua activities; what is the actual point of the Liberal Democrats?
The party has found itself stuck with a leader whose role in the Post Office scandal is seemingly prominent, and the antics seen in the general election campaign can be deemed to be a way of distracting the electorate from that fact. The truth is the stunts were definitely overdone, with their novelty wearing off within the first weeks of the election campaign. It got so excessive that you could hear the cry from the electorate as Ed Davey posed for the cameras at Thorpe Park as to when the serious policy announcements were coming. It got later and later in the campaign – and still no serious policy announcements. It was the complete opposite of the professional operation that was seen under Nick Clegg.
The Liberal Democrats of the present day have found their way in finding the flaws of the two larger parties in the Commons and making what they can from it. And yet, they do not stand for anything. When it comes to election campaigns it is not uncommon to hear a lot of noise coming from the Lib Dems, yet they stay virtually silent while Parliament is actually sitting. This could be a result of their sheer lack of seats after 2019, so there may be more said by the party in this Parliament. Despite this, it would not be surprising if their presence is not felt.
Looking back to the 2010 coalition, the party was still relatively moderate on the policy front, especially in the powerful position they were in. It would seem even in the greatest position the party would ever be in for the foreseeable future, they still did not seize the opportunity, and instead opted to hold up many of the Conservatives’ plans, to no benefit of the country.
It is hard to pinpoint the direction in which the Liberal Democrats actually plan to go in. It is clear what the Conservatives and Labour offer, with the Tories always focusing on economic stability and Labour on worker’s rights, however the Liberal Democrats do not have such a policy area automatically associated with them by the electorate. This lack of direction could work to the Conservatives’ advantage especially in the next general election, and trigger a repeat of the 2019 general election, with many Tory votes lost in 2024 not only going to Reform UK, but to the Liberal Democrats.
Undecided voters in 2029 should decide between parties who have a track record of delivering, not a party that only has media days at amusement parks to offer.
This article was an opinion piece by Charles Martin.
A pointless party wouldn’t have so many activists willing to bury vast swarths of the country in focus leaflets.
Maybe the author should take the time to learn about Lib Dem policy, blame the party for trying to break through a media cares nothing for policy or non-Farage third-party politics.
*rather than