rfmcdonald | [LINK] "From Coalition to Catastrophe: The Electoral Meltdown of the Liberal Democrats" (Reply)

Nicholas Whyte linked to this Parliamentary Affairs paper noting how, exactly, the United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats collapsed so catastrophically in 2015. The whole thing is spellbinding.

The 2010 campaign mantra, ‘I agree with Nick’, and the ensuing Cleggmania was a fading memory. The party leader's road from hero to villain was almost instantaneous. Just entering coalition government alienated most left of centre voters, but as Deputy Prime Minister, Clegg himself seemed increasingly toxic. The tuition fees issue rather than being the source of the problem became a symbol of his personal failure. It was well known that as leader he had doubted the policy in the run-up to 2010 but in that campaign the party had orchestrated public pledges signed by candidates against any increase in fees. In the coalition negotiation the party dropped the pledge, but did manage to get agreement allowing Liberal Democrats to abstain on the vote. However, with concessions for poorer students and higher education policy falling under the remit of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills—and under a Liberal Democrat Cabinet Minister Vince Cable—many Liberal Democrat MPs voted for the bill which instigated a tripling of tuition fees in England and Wales. Crucially, it was not David Cameron and the Conservatives that were blamed by those who did not like the policy but Nick Clegg and his party who were castigated and held responsible. Cast as the pantomime villain, the man who had personally highlighted the ‘broken promises’ of others became just like the rest—even his apology in September 2012 was lampooned rather than accepted. It seemed the public had stopped listening.

However, tuition fees were only a partial explanation for the leader's and party's lack of popularity. In May 2011, the public, by more than two to one, voted in a referendum against replacing first-past-the-post with the Alternative Vote electoral system. Even amongst stalwarts within his own party, Clegg came under attack for his ‘complete failure to devise and lead an effective campaign … and allowing it to be positioned so that the public perception was that this was all about furthering Liberal Democrat interests.’4 In the face of poor leadership ratings and electoral setbacks, Clegg came under mounting pressure. Prior to the 2014 European Elections, Clegg's attempts to be the man to stand up for Europe in two televised debates with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, backfired badly. The party suffered near wipe-out in the European Elections prompting activists to call for Clegg's resignation. Lord Oakeshott, a former Treasury spokesman for the party, resigned after commissioning and publicising four constituency polls, including one in Clegg's Sheffield Hallam seat, in order to suggest that the party would do better without Clegg as leader. If this was a coup designed to replace Clegg with Vince Cable it failed spectacularly but Oakeshott did not go quietly. Under Clegg, the party had become a ‘split-the-difference centre party, with no roots, no principles and no values’5 rather than a ‘radical, progressive party’, he argued, and reiterated his central claim that ‘we must change the leader to give Liberal Democrat MPs their best chance to win in 2015’. Oakeshott was ostracised within the party and Clegg continued to lead the party into the election.

Once in government, Nick Clegg's approval ratings as party leader regularly trailed his competitors. Throughout the Parliament, Clegg's standing was for the most part adrift from the other leaders (see Figure 5.1). For the Liberal Democrats this was unfamiliar territory7 and posed difficult questions. Given the party's low social and partisan base, placing itself as the party of protest and stressing the virtues of its leader when in opposition proved to be relatively effective in enhancing the party's credibility as an electoral force worth voting for. With both options largely redundant in 2015, the party turned once again to its safety net of the local, in order: to focus on the local popularity of incumbents; to work hard in constituencies with a strong local platform; and to intensify local party activism. Many in the party hoped that these local factors that would save the Liberal Democrats from disaster in 2015. In truth it was the party's only hope.