The Independent View: Endgames – International lessons for the Liberal Democrats in the final phase of coalition

institute for governmentIn Nick Clegg’s party conference speech last week the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that he wants the Liberal Democrats to remain a ‘party of government’ beyond 2015. This requires the party both to make a success of the next 18 months, and to plan effectively for the period beyond the next election.

Based on research into coalitions in other countries – and the specific question of how smaller parties have fared – the Institute for Government recently published a paper setting out five lessons for the Liberal Democrats as they move towards the final phase of the coalition:

  1. Smaller parties can only distance themselves from larger coalition partners to a limited extent. Coalitions are often rewarded or punished as a whole for their performance in office. Ensuring that the government is seen as effective and competent is crucial, and particularly so for the smaller party, which will often have less credibility at the outset as a party of administration. This will often require smaller parties to show discipline in supporting major policy initiatives of their larger partners, as when the German Greens backed Chancellor Schroeder’s Agenda 2010 welfare reforms in Germany.
  2. However, smaller parties also need to be able to demonstrate their distinct contribution to government, and therefore need to have some distinct flagship policy successes to point to at the next election (as the Scottish Liberal Democrats with free care for the elderly, and the German Greens with the abolition of nuclear power were able to do). But parties should pick their battles wisely – securing a concession that is seen as self-serving or irrelevant by voters can undermine the wider strategy. For instance, early in the current German coalition, the liberal FDP prioritised a VAT tax cut for hoteliers, helping a small FDP-supporting sector but alienating other voters.
  3. Small parties’ success rests greatly upon the performance and profile of the party leader. Successful junior coalition partners have leaders with a strong public profile and a clear personal record of achievement in government (as did the German Greens, for instance, in Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who took bold action to support German intervention in Kosovo, and in opposing the US war in Iraq). Parties with weak or unstable leadership have fared poorly (like the FDP and the Dutch Democrats 66, who both changed leaders in mid-term). What Nick Clegg has personally achieved or delivered is a key question for the Liberal Democrats in 2015. This week’s free school meals for all announcement may form a central part of the party’s answer to that question.
  4. Parties associated with the premature coalition breakdowns are rarely rewarded by voters. Smaller parties in coalition elsewhere such as New Zealand First (in 1998) and the Irish Greens (in 2011) have pulled out of coalition early facing unpopularity and tensions with the coalition partner, and were hammered at the following election. On the other hand, the German experience from 2005 – when SPD Chancellor Schoeder forced an early dissolution of the Bundestag – is a reminder that coalitions can be brought to an end due to splits within the larger (and apparently dominant) party too, even when there is a strong fixed term parliament law.
  5. Smaller parties in any case have a limited influence over whether they remain in government or not. A party may remain in coalition even after a poor election result (as did Democrats 66 in 2003) or may end up in opposition even after performing relatively well (as for the German Greens in 2005 or the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 2007). The lesson here for the Liberal Democrats is to therefore make the most of the rest of this Parliament, and seek to achieve as much as possible before 2015.

A final point is that the party should prepare for the days and months after the election more thoroughly than last time. In 2010, too little planning had been made for government itself – in part because Cameron’s openness to coalition was so unexpected. This contributed to mistakes being made. Foolish pledges were, of course, made in opposition and then dropped. Little thought went into the party’s position on major issues like NHS Reform – until it was too late. And while the party negotiated hard on key policy priorities, other crucial issues – like the ministerial portfolios it would take, and the support and resources Nick Clegg would need as Deputy PM – were almost an afterthought. This has undermined the party’s effectiveness in government.

The decline of two-party dominance (the Conservatives and Labour took 97% of the vote in 1951, but just 65% in 2010) means the Liberal Democrats are indeed likely to have further bites at the coalition cherry. The question is what the party will make of the opportunity when it next arises. International experience and events at Westminster since 2010 should help inform the party’s answer to that question.

For more information on the Institute’s work on coalition government contact [email protected].

* Akash Paun is a Fellow of the Institute for Government in London, which is an independent and non-partisan thinktank that works to improve the effectiveness of government in the UK. He has led the Institute’s work on coalition and minority government since 2009, publishing a number of reports and articles in this area. He is currently conducting research into challenges faced by the civil service in supporting the two coalition parties in the final period of coalition.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in The Independent View.


  • The Liberal Democrats have socially liberal attitudes, wish to make electoral systems ând other areas of public life processes more democratic and are pro Europe and internationalist.

    These are the party’s distinctive features. Each aspect needs to be emphasised and robustly defended between now and the next election. Each aspect needs to be well to the fore in Lib Dem policy pronouncements and manifestoes.

    The AV referendum and the Lord’s reform bill have been bitter set backs, yet we must continue to put forward the argument for democracy and explore other avenues such as local government where these principles can be put into action.

    The author is doubtlessly correct to warn of the dangers for smaller parties and the need to retain a clear identity.

  • Fighting the 2015 elections from inside the government is totally unworkable. I don’t really know what Nick Clegg thinks he’s going to say if he stands up at a Leaders’ debate (next to Nigel Farage, no doubt) as Deputy Prime Minister. “I agree with Dave”? You cannot run against government while in government, and you cannot run as part of government without throwing votes to the dominant voice in the coalition.

    Clem Attlee took Labour out of government in 1945 so that he could run against Churchill with no strings attached, and that worked very well for him. But every time the Liberals ran as part of a coalition, the result was a disaster — not necessarily for the coalition, as in 1918, but always for the Liberals. Of course Cameron was “open to coalition” — he knows Tory history well enough to know that the Conservatives have always benefited from such arrangements, and their partners have always lost by them.

  • Al McIntosh 24th Sep '13 - 4:01pm

    “Smaller parties in any case have a limited influence over whether they remain in government or not. A party may remain in coalition even after a poor election result (as did Democrats 66 in 2003) or may end up in opposition even after performing relatively well (as for the German Greens in 2005 or the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 2007). ”

    This is factually wrong. The Scottish Liberal Democrats were invited to coalition talks in 2007 by Alex Salmond and refused the invitation to even open negotiations. The decision to follow a defeated Labour party into opposition was entirely in the hands of the then Lib Dem leadership. The lesson to draw is here is that the Scottish Lib Dem leadership had become too closely attached (and arguably still are!) to their old coalition partners and lacked the pluralism needed to even attempt to negotiate a coalition with another party that had won the most seats in the 2007-2011 parliament. Had they been part of such a progressive coalition government in Scotland in 2011, being seen to protect Scotland from the worst policies of the UK government, they might have avoided the meltdown they suffered in that year’s Scottish elections.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Jeff
    Michael BG 20th Feb '24 - 1:23am: The Brexiteers thought the EU would not stick to its rules regarding trading with the UK. No rule breaking w...
  • Martin Bennett
    Entering a coalition is inherently perilous for us. In 2010 our vote was divided between convinced Lib Dems, anti-Labour voters, anti-Tory voters and protest vo...
  • Alex Macfie
    Ian Patterson: We were never even in contention in most of the Blue Wall seats we are now targeting. Previously safe Tory seats are now ultra-marginal, and that...
  • Nonconformistradical
    @Mohammed Amin Believe it or not some local objections might actually be valid. Such as a proposal to build in an area which might increase flood risk. Do yo...
  • Mohammed Amin
    I think the journalist John Rentoul deserves a trademark on QTWTAIN (questions to which the answer is no.) I have no objection to self-build for those with t...