11 ms·

Can anyone share why exactly the Liberal Democrats, who seem to have been against this sort of stuff, got crushed at the recent elections? Was it because of som

Can anyone share why exactly the Liberal Democrats, who seem to have been against this sort of stuff, got crushed at the recent elections? Was it because of some unpopular positions or were there many "scandals" that appeared regarding their candidates (perhaps about personal issues?).

ghostberry 11y ago
As the smaller party in a coalition, they got blamed for every unpopular decision and got no credit for anything popular.
binocarlos 11y ago
I think one of the reasons was tuition fees which the Lib Dems were very much against. The moment they got into power (2010) - fees were hiked to £9k per year and many people treated that like a broken Lim Dem promise
Ygg2 11y ago
One theory I've heard is the way votes are counted. I've heard that UKIP had around 3.881.129 votes and got only one seat, Green party with 1.157.613 won a single seat and Scottish national party had 1.454.436 votes and got 56 seats. I'm not sure it's plausible, but it could be a valid explanation.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  There was no change to the way votes were counted that I'm aware of. This is a FPTP political system in action. There was a referendum to move to a more grown-up voting system, but the majority voted against it. Depressingly, many of those who voted against were too stupid and too uninformed to actually know what they were voting against. I could only weep as someone left the polling station proud to have taken a stand against proportional representation. I suppose they could have been balanced by people who voted in favour who were too stupid and too uninformed to actually know what they were voting for, but I suspect that is less likely.
  - Ygg2 11y ago
    Ah, ok, updated post to reflect that. Ouch. That is quite depressing.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR, any kind of PR got veto'd by the conservatives, and the Lib-Dems were perhaps foolish to try to continue with such a meagre reform, as it now gets used as an excuse to not implement PR in future as "the country voted against it" (except of course they didn't, as it wasn't one of the two options they were allowed to vote for).
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      I find it very sad this referendum was basically what the Lib Dems traded tuition fees for.
      - EliRivers 11y ago
        More sad, surely, that the UK population (and I speak as one) are stupid and easily led. We are. We really are. I despise us.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I'm not sure that we are that stupid. I think that many people agreed with me that AV was a needlessly confusing system that the LibDems wanted only because it would boost their electoral chances in a country where there were at the time two left of centre parties and one right of centre one. (I am a supporter of single transferable vote and I didn't see it on my referedum voting sheet only FPTP [rubbish] and AV [?more/less? rubbish but still rubbish].)
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        rmc 11y ago
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The SNP only stood candidates in a small fraction of the country: UKIP: 3881129 / 624 = 6,220 per area, winning 1/624 SNP: 1454436 / 59 = 24,651 per area, winning 56/59 Non-proportional voting systems are barbaric and anti-democratic, but when they're in place you might consider that voting for parties that can't realistically win to be a measure of how little your voters understand the political system or at best a protest vote. On the other hand, without large numbers of people publicly wasting their votes, then there's no push for change. The Green party explicitly told their voters to "vote with their heart" i.e. waste their vote, and have now suggested that the progressive candidates work together to avoid splitting their vote.
learnstats2 11y ago
My personal opinion: The Liberal Democrats did extremely well at implementing some of their policies (notably increased personal allowance), obsoleting that part of their manifesto. I think they are right to be proud of that record, but it means that some of their strongest policies are now irrelevant. The Liberal Democrats did extremely poorly at implementing some of their promises (notably tuition fees), going back on their word and making themselves non-credible in these respects, obsoleting the other part of their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats were not observed to take any position that would contradict the two major parties during the election campaign. They were criticised for being "blank tiles", easily able to meld with either of the major parties in coalition. A vote for the Liberal Democrats could easily be a vote for the worse of two evils, whichever side you think that is. And many (former?) Liberal Democrats would think that the worse evil would be their coalition partner. The major parties and UKIP have been very effective in pushing an anti-immigrant and anti-human rights agenda with the help of the press. The Liberal Democrats did not appear willing to stand openly against this in the election campaign. During the election debates, the Green Party, Scottish Nationalist Party, and Plaid Cymru made a convincing claim to stand for human rights. The Liberal Democrats did not.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  I'll add that anybody who actually believed in what the Lib Dems were offering in 2015 (a centrist party) knew that after the election the Lib Dems would probably revert to being a left-wing party anyway. So they managed to alienate both their prior left-wing vote and their new centrist vote. Quite an achievement!
dghf 11y ago
In the run-up to the 2010 election, they promised to oppose any rise in tuition fees, then reneged on this in government. On its own, that's probably not that significant, but it appears to have helped cement their reputation as untrustworthy, not least among those who thought they were voting for a party more left-wing than Labour have become in recent years.
- djpowell 11y ago
  But... they came last out of the three main parties, so it is hardly surprising that they weren't able to implement the entire of their manifesto. The conservatives reneged on many of their manifesto pledges too. I suspect it is more that the conservatives have much stronger support by the media.
  - po8crg 11y ago
    It wasn't that we (I was a Lib Dem candidate in the election) promised it in the manifesto; it was that individual MPs made a personal promise to vote against an increase in tuition fees, and then voted for it.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Thank you for standing.
evgen 11y ago
In addition to the "got blame but no credit" answer that others have offered I would also suggest that they have previously been the preferred "none of the above" response for people who wanted to express dissatisfaction with either Tories or Labour depending on who happened to be the more popular party in their riding; by being somewhat between they two major parties they picked up a lot of votes from dissatisfied by somewhat engaged voters. Once they were a part of government they were a part of 'the establishment' and so the protest votes went ukip or green depending on the voter's base political preference.
- anomie 11y ago
  Speaking personally, I voted lib dem in 2010 on the basis that they were a party broadly of the left, but distinct from the Labour party of the time in a number of positive ways. To then form a coalition with the party of the right and support a number of measures that I think were quite regressive did not match with the party I thought I voted for. Of course after seeing 10 days of government without the lib dems to moderate I'm starting to re-evaluate how positive an influence they likely were...
lmm 11y ago
In the run-up to the previous election, many Lib Dem candidates made personal pledges - above and beyond their manifesto - that they, personally, would never vote to raise tuition fees. And then did so (and not because they were required by the coalition agreement - the party made it a free vote). That was how they lost my vote and those of others I know.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  A shame. They did a lot of good during their time in government as well as the bad.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  And yet it seems that MPs who kept this pledge were burned just as badly, if not worse, than those who didn't. How they voted in 2010: 28 For, 21 Against tuition fee increases (as promised), 8 absent Remaining MPs in 2015: 4 For, 4 Against.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Most people don't vist http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and check how their MPs vote on a given issue.
    - learnstats2 11y ago
      I used http://publicwhip.org.uk http://publicwhip.org.uk here because it was easier to get rebellion data.
Ntrails 11y ago
Allow me to take a shot. - In the election 5 years ago there was no clear winner, the Lib Dems chose to go into a coalition government with the party who received the largest proportion of the vote. - This coalition meant compromising on several key issues, for example tuition fees for university, in exchange for getting through other policies (raising the free tax allowance for the lower paid). - The lib dems failed to properly communicate their achievements as a liberal/progressive force within government, and spent their time apologising for every compromise. - Scotland moved strongly to a nationalist party, hurting a traditional source of seats. - The polls looked as though there would be another coalition, and the people who previously voted lib dem were damned if they were going to vote effectively for another coalition in which they felt the party betrayed its values tl;dr they got burned for doing the "right thing". As I've said before on HN, people here seem to think that security is a huge issue. Surveillance, police state etc. In all of the election content I saw, it was mentioned maybe once or twice and barely scrutinised. The people of the UK did not care about it, and the politicians left it in the manifestos. As for the GP comment suggesting something about dictatorship, it's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in some time.
rmc 11y ago
Because they were a small party in a coalition with a larger party that did some horrible things. Their core voters deserted them, since they were in government when things were brought in that their core didn't like. Always the way with small parties in coalition.

ghostberry 11y ago

As the smaller party in a coalition, they got blamed for every unpopular decision and got no credit for anything popular.

binocarlos 11y ago

I think one of the reasons was tuition fees which the Lib Dems were very much against. The moment they got into power (2010) - fees were hiked to £9k per year and many people treated that like a broken Lim Dem promise

Ygg2 11y ago

One theory I've heard is the way votes are counted. I've heard that UKIP had around 3.881.129 votes and got only one seat, Green party with 1.157.613 won a single seat and Scottish national party had 1.454.436 votes and got 56 seats. I'm not sure it's plausible, but it could be a valid explanation.

EliRivers 11y ago
There was no change to the way votes were counted that I'm aware of. This is a FPTP political system in action. There was a referendum to move to a more grown-up voting system, but the majority voted against it. Depressingly, many of those who voted against were too stupid and too uninformed to actually know what they were voting against. I could only weep as someone left the polling station proud to have taken a stand against proportional representation. I suppose they could have been balanced by people who voted in favour who were too stupid and too uninformed to actually know what they were voting for, but I suspect that is less likely.
- Ygg2 11y ago
  Ah, ok, updated post to reflect that. Ouch. That is quite depressing.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR, any kind of PR got veto'd by the conservatives, and the Lib-Dems were perhaps foolish to try to continue with such a meagre reform, as it now gets used as an excuse to not implement PR in future as "the country voted against it" (except of course they didn't, as it wasn't one of the two options they were allowed to vote for).
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    I find it very sad this referendum was basically what the Lib Dems traded tuition fees for.
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      More sad, surely, that the UK population (and I speak as one) are stupid and easily led. We are. We really are. I despise us.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I'm not sure that we are that stupid. I think that many people agreed with me that AV was a needlessly confusing system that the LibDems wanted only because it would boost their electoral chances in a country where there were at the time two left of centre parties and one right of centre one. (I am a supporter of single transferable vote and I didn't see it on my referedum voting sheet only FPTP [rubbish] and AV [?more/less? rubbish but still rubbish].)
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        rmc 11y ago
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
The SNP only stood candidates in a small fraction of the country: UKIP: 3881129 / 624 = 6,220 per area, winning 1/624 SNP: 1454436 / 59 = 24,651 per area, winning 56/59 Non-proportional voting systems are barbaric and anti-democratic, but when they're in place you might consider that voting for parties that can't realistically win to be a measure of how little your voters understand the political system or at best a protest vote. On the other hand, without large numbers of people publicly wasting their votes, then there's no push for change. The Green party explicitly told their voters to "vote with their heart" i.e. waste their vote, and have now suggested that the progressive candidates work together to avoid splitting their vote.

learnstats2 11y ago

My personal opinion: The Liberal Democrats did extremely well at implementing some of their policies (notably increased personal allowance), obsoleting that part of their manifesto. I think they are right to be proud of that record, but it means that some of their strongest policies are now irrelevant. The Liberal Democrats did extremely poorly at implementing some of their promises (notably tuition fees), going back on their word and making themselves non-credible in these respects, obsoleting the other part of their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats were not observed to take any position that would contradict the two major parties during the election campaign. They were criticised for being "blank tiles", easily able to meld with either of the major parties in coalition. A vote for the Liberal Democrats could easily be a vote for the worse of two evils, whichever side you think that is. And many (former?) Liberal Democrats would think that the worse evil would be their coalition partner. The major parties and UKIP have been very effective in pushing an anti-immigrant and anti-human rights agenda with the help of the press. The Liberal Democrats did not appear willing to stand openly against this in the election campaign. During the election debates, the Green Party, Scottish Nationalist Party, and Plaid Cymru made a convincing claim to stand for human rights. The Liberal Democrats did not.

alextgordon 11y ago
I'll add that anybody who actually believed in what the Lib Dems were offering in 2015 (a centrist party) knew that after the election the Lib Dems would probably revert to being a left-wing party anyway. So they managed to alienate both their prior left-wing vote and their new centrist vote. Quite an achievement!

dghf 11y ago

In the run-up to the 2010 election, they promised to oppose any rise in tuition fees, then reneged on this in government. On its own, that's probably not that significant, but it appears to have helped cement their reputation as untrustworthy, not least among those who thought they were voting for a party more left-wing than Labour have become in recent years.

djpowell 11y ago
But... they came last out of the three main parties, so it is hardly surprising that they weren't able to implement the entire of their manifesto. The conservatives reneged on many of their manifesto pledges too. I suspect it is more that the conservatives have much stronger support by the media.
- po8crg 11y ago
  It wasn't that we (I was a Lib Dem candidate in the election) promised it in the manifesto; it was that individual MPs made a personal promise to vote against an increase in tuition fees, and then voted for it.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Thank you for standing.

evgen 11y ago

In addition to the "got blame but no credit" answer that others have offered I would also suggest that they have previously been the preferred "none of the above" response for people who wanted to express dissatisfaction with either Tories or Labour depending on who happened to be the more popular party in their riding; by being somewhat between they two major parties they picked up a lot of votes from dissatisfied by somewhat engaged voters. Once they were a part of government they were a part of 'the establishment' and so the protest votes went ukip or green depending on the voter's base political preference.

anomie 11y ago
Speaking personally, I voted lib dem in 2010 on the basis that they were a party broadly of the left, but distinct from the Labour party of the time in a number of positive ways. To then form a coalition with the party of the right and support a number of measures that I think were quite regressive did not match with the party I thought I voted for. Of course after seeing 10 days of government without the lib dems to moderate I'm starting to re-evaluate how positive an influence they likely were...

lmm 11y ago

In the run-up to the previous election, many Lib Dem candidates made personal pledges - above and beyond their manifesto - that they, personally, would never vote to raise tuition fees. And then did so (and not because they were required by the coalition agreement - the party made it a free vote). That was how they lost my vote and those of others I know.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
A shame. They did a lot of good during their time in government as well as the bad.
learnstats2 11y ago
And yet it seems that MPs who kept this pledge were burned just as badly, if not worse, than those who didn't. How they voted in 2010: 28 For, 21 Against tuition fee increases (as promised), 8 absent Remaining MPs in 2015: 4 For, 4 Against.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Most people don't vist http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and check how their MPs vote on a given issue.
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    I used http://publicwhip.org.uk http://publicwhip.org.uk here because it was easier to get rebellion data.

Ntrails 11y ago

Allow me to take a shot. - In the election 5 years ago there was no clear winner, the Lib Dems chose to go into a coalition government with the party who received the largest proportion of the vote. - This coalition meant compromising on several key issues, for example tuition fees for university, in exchange for getting through other policies (raising the free tax allowance for the lower paid). - The lib dems failed to properly communicate their achievements as a liberal/progressive force within government, and spent their time apologising for every compromise. - Scotland moved strongly to a nationalist party, hurting a traditional source of seats. - The polls looked as though there would be another coalition, and the people who previously voted lib dem were damned if they were going to vote effectively for another coalition in which they felt the party betrayed its values tl;dr they got burned for doing the "right thing". As I've said before on HN, people here seem to think that security is a huge issue. Surveillance, police state etc. In all of the election content I saw, it was mentioned maybe once or twice and barely scrutinised. The people of the UK did not care about it, and the politicians left it in the manifestos. As for the GP comment suggesting something about dictatorship, it's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in some time.

rmc 11y ago

Because they were a small party in a coalition with a larger party that did some horrible things. Their core voters deserted them, since they were in government when things were brought in that their core didn't like. Always the way with small parties in coalition.