Why the blind spot for the Lib Dems?

[Cosmic Roy]

Hi All,

If you have an opinion on British politics, maybe you can tell me why the upcoming election is being represented, as always, as a race between only two parties, with the Lib Dems serving only as a confounding complication. It seems to me always to be the case that when the Labour party suffers in the polls, the Conservatives are necessarily seen to benefit, and vice versa. Only in rare cases such as the expenses scandal, when all MPs are in the spotlight together, do both parties suffer. Why aren't the Lib Dems a viable option for many of the previously staunch Labour supporters that have now been turned off that party for whatever reason?

See this comment by Peter Hain in the Guardian, which perpetuates the idea that voters realistically have a choice of two parties.

Also see this graph of voting intention, which shows the fortunes of Labour and Conservative generally mirroring each other.

What do you all think? If you like, tell me who you'll be voting for, and why. (I think I'm going to vote Lib Dem.) Maybe we could do a JREF poll?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] maybe you can tell me why the upcoming election is being represented, as always, as a race between only two parties [ . . . ]

The usual explanation for this (not just for the UK but anywhere that single-winner-by-district elections are the rule) is known as Duverger's Law. My preferred way to understand it is that an individual voting in an election is not giving her opinion so much as trying to influence the outcome. Therefore to vote out the incumbent it is more logical to vote for the party most likely to beat them, not the one you like the most (if it is different). This is why third parties tend to do better in by-elections and municipal/local elections as well, I think (and transnational ones such as the European Parliament)

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Thanks for your response, Francesca. (Actually I had hoped for and expected much more interest!) So, in the case of the Lib Dems, do you think that they're seen merely as a politically similar but less popular brother to Labour? Is it that voters tend to divide the political spectrum simply into Left and Right, and then go with whichever party on that side that is most likely to win?

I am under the impression that the Liberal Democrat party is a credible alternative to both main parties, yet I hear and read disillusioned voters lament that they are unable to choose between one and the other.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Why aren't the Lib Dems a viable option for many of the previously staunch Labour supporters that have now been turned off that party for whatever reason?

Because their leader is utterly incompetent.

Sheer madness they didn't pick Vince Cable. There is a man of integrity.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Ah.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Clegg comes off as angry most of the time. It doesn't work, only makes him seem as the neglected school boy in the classroom waving his hands around and calling for attention.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

I agree fully that the party's credibility would be improved with Cable as leader. I think it was because of age concerns that he didn't go for it. Pity.

ETA: I wouldn't have thought it, but apparently he's only two years younger than Menzies Campbell (see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7118733.stm)

 

[Uzzy]

Tory supporter here, but given that I'm currently living in Hull, I'll be voting Lib Dem. To my mind, the differences aren't too pronounced, especially as all parties have decided to keep University Top Up Fees, and probably going to increase them in the next few years, along with cutting government University investment.

 

[richardm]

Because their leader is utterly incompetent

Yes, but it can't be entirely down to that, because people haven't been voting for the Lib Dems for years. And they've had some fairly reasonable leaders in the past. Or at least leaders that people can recognise.

 

[Francesca R]

I am under the impression that the Liberal Democrat party is a credible alternative to both main parties, yet I hear and read disillusioned voters lament that they are unable to choose between one and the other.

Contrary to popular sentiment I suspect a no-overall-control government involving the LibDems has good potential (better than anything else anyway) to catapult the party back into being one of the largest two. This is more likely if it is a red-yellow coalition.

Most commentators (and financial markets) think it would be bad for the UK economy and temporary stalemate for much else. Exceptions are of course LibDem supporters.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, but it can't be entirely down to that, because people haven't been voting for the Lib Dems for years. And they've had some fairly reasonable leaders in the past. Or at least leaders that people can recognise.

Paddy Pantsdown and Kennedy achieved some success though as leaders. An unfair voting system is probably supressing bigger gains too. For example, if AV had been used in 97, the Lib Dems would have gained an extra 69 seats (With the Tories losing an extra 95 seats), making them the second party.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Paddy Pantsdown and Kennedy achieved some success though as leaders. An unfair voting system is probably supressing bigger gains too. For example, if AV had been used in 97, the Lib Dems would have gained an extra 69 seats (With the Tories losing an extra 95 seats), making them the second party.

Do you mean approval voting? If so, it sounds good to me. I wonder why the system isn't used. I suppose it has its problems, but if it's good enough for the Mathematical Association of America and The American Statistical Association, it's good enough for me.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Alternative vote.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Latest polls suggest that around 50% of people would vote for the Liberal Democrats if they thought they could win but they don't think they will so they vote for someone else.*

That's why they won't win you dumb *****! If you want them to win, blooming well vote for them.

*This is what I encounter with friends and colleagues all the time. It'll be interesting if Clegg's success in the debates alters peoples view of their chances - you can tell the Tory media are terrified of that as they are on a major anti-Clegg and don't vote for the LDs 'cos you'll just let Labour in campaign with a bit of hung parliaments being a recipe for disaster scare story to boot.

Personally, whilst not being normally inclined to the Liberal Democrats, they have got Vince Cable who's the only guy I'd trust with our economy and it would be the most effective way of telling the two 'major' parties that we're sick to death of their shenanigans. As well as sticking two fingers up to the media who always dismiss the 'third' party.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Latest polls suggest that around 50% of people would vote for the Liberal Democrats if they thought they could win but they don't think they will so they vote for someone else.*

That's why they won't win you dumb *****! If you want them to win, blooming well vote for them.

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. The Labour and Conservative parties tend to be very separated geographically, with Labour holding the inner cities, Conservative holding the countryside, and the battles mainly raging over a minority of seats where there isn't a single dominant party. The Liberal Democrats aren't concentrated in either area, so in order to win an election they have to beat both other parties on their home turf. This is why some recent polls suggest the LibDems are close behind, or possibly even very slightly ahead of, the Conservatives, and well ahead of Labour, yet would still come a poor third in the number of seats gained. There's a point at which the LibDems could win the majority of seats, of course, but it's probably greatly in excess of 50% of the popular vote. Contrast this with Tony Blair's first election, where IIRC a 51% popular vote to Labour resulted in the biggest election victory in living memory.

It's a weird system. Don't expect it to make sense.

Dave

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. The Labour and Conservative parties tend to be very separated geographically, with Labour holding the inner cities, Conservative holding the countryside, and the battles mainly raging over a minority of seats where there isn't a single dominant party. The Liberal Democrats aren't concentrated in either area, so in order to win an election they have to beat both other parties on their home turf. This is why some recent polls suggest the LibDems are close behind, or possibly even very slightly ahead of, the Conservatives, and well ahead of Labour, yet would still come a poor third in the number of seats gained. There's a point at which the LibDems could win the majority of seats, of course, but it's probably greatly in excess of 50% of the popular vote. Contrast this with Tony Blair's first election, where IIRC a 51% popular vote to Labour resulted in the biggest election victory in living memory.

It's a weird system. Don't expect it to make sense.

Dave

Yes, I understand that (but was probably a bit too lazy to go into it so thanks for the post which will enlighten others). I would still say people should vote for the party they want - if it then leads to such bizarre results there may be a greater push to reform the system. If people see for example the Lib Dems get 50%, Tories 30% and Labour 20% and Tories 'winning' the election, people may finally be moved to do something.

It's a constant source of annoyance to me that where I live, a party I may not wish to vote for will always get in, as a donkey would be elected if it was wearing the right colour rosette. I believe strongly in the principles of democracy and always vote (even if it's to record a 'nil return') but am well aware that my vote is a complete waste of time. I wish it could add to some sort of national total. At least in the Euro elections there are elements of proportional representation.

Failing that, I may as well go back to voting for the Vampire Hunters....

 

[dudalb]

Clegg comes off as angry most of the time. It doesn't work, only makes him seem as the neglected school boy in the classroom waving his hands around and calling for attention.

Clegg is sort of a UK Ross Perot; he gets a lot of media attention and has a fervent following, but also turns off a lot of people. His "angry man" routine will wear thin after a while; it gets a lot of attention ,but after a while people have second thoughts.