Clegg's grip on the LibDem leadership: how secure is it?

[Ken Burch]

The party has been below 10% support in the polls for months now(I think it's close to a year). It's hard to see them recovering more than a few percentage points between now and the next election. And with their support this disastrously low, they really can't get away with taking the risk of defying the Tories on anything and forcing a snap election.

Has there been any talk that anybody here knows of of other LibDems trying to remove Clegg from the leadership, on the argument that doing that may be the only way to avoid being reduced to pre-1974 Liberal results in 2015?

[LeftishBrit]

1. Not seriously as yet, but it's quite possible in the future...

especially if, as expected, the LibDems do disastrously in the local elections.

It would not even surprise me if the LibDems had split up into two or more parties by 2015. They were never as unified as other parties, and this indeed was in a sense one of their attractions in the past; having about 60 semi-independent MPs around, at a time when most Labourites were following Blair around like cloned sheep, was sometimes rather refreshing. But the fact that they're not really a properly united party makes it even harder for them to get their act together in the face of Clegg's uselessness; and their lying down with dogs has certainly caused them to get up with fleas.

[Ken Burch]

2. The REALLY strange thing is, from the polls I've seen

on the BBC website's "Poll Tracker" feature, the LibDems seem to have suffered much, much more than the Tories have, which is strange since the most unpopular policies of this government seem to have have been the most specifically neo-Thatcherite.

[oldironside]

4. The sort of person...

... who would vote Tory (Am I allowed to use the word "bastard" in this forum?) in the first place isn't going to be phased by a neo-Thatcherite assett grab.

[Ken Burch]

9. When it comes to Thatcherites

You can ALWAYS use the word "bastard".

[LeftishBrit]

6. To give some electoral background here

Only 36% of the population actually voted Tory. And a high proportion of these are people who'd vote Tory no matter what. Even in 1997 and 2001, about 31% of people voted Tory. The neo-Thatcherite policies are unpopular with the population as a whole, but not with the core Tory base.

On the other hand, most people who voted LibDem were tactical voters hoping to keep the Tories OUT, and/or anti-Blairites to the left of New Labour, and/or fed up with 'politics as usual' and attracted to the relative independence of the LDs, and/or true centrists suspicious of radical changes to the left or the right. None of these groups, even the last, are happy with neo-Thatcherite policies. There are some people who are free-marketeers but socially liberal, who MIGHT be happy with this government, but many of these would be moderate Tories rather than LDs in any case.

To put it more succinctly: people who voted Tory and got a Tory government are likely to be relatively happy with the result. People who voted LD against the Tories, and got a Tory government, are likely to be disappointed with the result.

[T_i_B]

7. Not just the "left" tactical voters

The Lib Dems are also quite keen on encouraging Conservative voters to vote Lib Dem "tactically" in order to keep Labour out in a few places where the Tories do badly. It certainly happens on Nick Clegg's Sheffield Hallam patch where the Tories are very weak and can't even get 1 councillor elected.

Those voters might well carry on with the Lib Dems, but there isn't that much future in being a poor opposition to Labour in the North of England when the party at Westminster has lost so much credibility and everyone else is moving their vote away from the Lib Dems (which greatly weakens their "tactical" voting arguments).

It's worth remembering at times like this that the greatest complaint about the Lib Dems, even at their peak was that they said different things to different people.

[Ken Burch]

8. That helps clarify the situation considerably.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

3. So Clegg, whatever he intended to do, could end up

effectively reviving the "National Liberals" of the 1930-1955 era?

[T_i_B]

5. I think one question...

Is how any alternative Lib Dem leader could dissassociate themselves and their party from the current coalition. I'm not optimistic that any other potential party leader could do that.

All three main parties ran dishonest campaigns at the last election but with the Lib Dems it's more blatantly obvious then with anyone else. They have lost all credibility and don't appear to be representing anything other then the personal ambitions of their own ministers.

It's difficult to see anything other then decline for the Liberal Democrats. This is not good as we do need a strong credible 3rd party. Sadly Nick Clegg is not willing to give this much to the voting public.

[mwooldri]

10. Clegg is toast.

Simple case of when, not if.

The LD dance with the devil has alienated the grassroots, especially when long term councillors got the boot because of the coalition @ the Westminster area. Lord Ashdown was the most effective leader - hech Ming Campbell was more effective than Clegg.

Time to split the party back to SDP/Liberal coalition IMO.