I think the point he's trying to make is that the Liberal Democrats were more than most parties an internal coalition. There were the free-market liberals, there were the radical lefties, there were the 'none of the above' protest vote, there were the people who had come into it through local politics and didn't really have a clear ideology, etc etc.
So some people joined the Lib Dems because they were a radical leftie party, yes.
But there were other people who had also joined the Lib Dems who would have been appalled at the notion that they had joined a radical leftie party.
This was just about sustainable in opposition for several reasons:
(a) the different groups tended to be geographically spread: so pretty much all the Lib Dems in Cambridge (or London) were of the radical leftie tendency, for example. But if a Cambridge Lib Dem had gone to Cornwall and joined a local party, then they might have found that they didn't actually have that much, politically, in common even though they were nominally in the same party. But not many people do do that.
(b) The Lib Dems policy-making framework actively encourages the ideas of getting widely different viewpoints together in order to negotiate a compromise, so everybody could come away from a Conference thinking that they had got some of what they wanted (in a way this is quite admirable, as it means that they mirror internally the way they want the country to be run under PR).
(c) when you get right down to it, in Opposition, you don't actually have to put your money were your mouth is and make decisions. Once you do have to make decisions then you are going to annoy those who didn't like the decision you took.
So while being in coalition is difficult for any small party, I think the Liberal Democrats were especially vulnerable because their internal contradictions and fault lines provided ready-made ways to shed groups: when you have one group of people who vote for you because they think you're radical lefties, and another who vote for you because they think you're extreme free-market types, then whenever push comes to shove you are always going to alienate one group or the other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-09-04 14:15 (UTC)So some people joined the Lib Dems because they were a radical leftie party, yes.
But there were other people who had also joined the Lib Dems who would have been appalled at the notion that they had joined a radical leftie party.
This was just about sustainable in opposition for several reasons:
(a) the different groups tended to be geographically spread: so pretty much all the Lib Dems in Cambridge (or London) were of the radical leftie tendency, for example. But if a Cambridge Lib Dem had gone to Cornwall and joined a local party, then they might have found that they didn't actually have that much, politically, in common even though they were nominally in the same party. But not many people do do that.
(b) The Lib Dems policy-making framework actively encourages the ideas of getting widely different viewpoints together in order to negotiate a compromise, so everybody could come away from a Conference thinking that they had got some of what they wanted (in a way this is quite admirable, as it means that they mirror internally the way they want the country to be run under PR).
(c) when you get right down to it, in Opposition, you don't actually have to put your money were your mouth is and make decisions. Once you do have to make decisions then you are going to annoy those who didn't like the decision you took.
So while being in coalition is difficult for any small party, I think the Liberal Democrats were especially vulnerable because their internal contradictions and fault lines provided ready-made ways to shed groups: when you have one group of people who vote for you because they think you're radical lefties, and another who vote for you because they think you're extreme free-market types, then whenever push comes to shove you are always going to alienate one group or the other.