The LibDems and a Suspect Leader

Is Davey dishonest? or just dishonourable, weak and ineffective, you judge?

I’ll begin by sharing my perspective, backed up with real data, as to where the LibDems lie in the electability stakes.

The vote share of the Liberal Democrats since 1983 has been steadily declining with only half the vote share in 2024 than they got in 1983. It has also become more and more out of kilter with seats won.

In 1983 and 1987 they got over 7 million votes and only 23 and 22 seats respectively. In 2024, they got fewer votes than Reform but the highest number of seats since 1983. In fact, 2024 was their 4^th lowest vote total in the last 11 general elections, losing their deposit in 229 seats and getting less than 10% of the vote in 441 seats.

Two things are apparent from this pattern. Firstly, when the Tories do badly the LibDems do better in terms of the likely LibDem share of disillusioned Conservative voters. Secondly, their spread of support is narrowing. The 25.4% vote share and over 7 million votes the LibDems got in 1983 gave them only 23 seats. This shows broader support overall throughout the country than the 3.9 million votes in 2024 and 72 seats which clearly shows a narrowing of their geographical support almost mirroring the shape of the vote of the SNP. They are fast becoming a sectarian party only.

The miserable vote share they got in the overwhelming majority of seats, which is worsening rather than improving, is a clear indication that they can never come even close to forming a government. Reform UK is now likely to be the beneficiary of, not only those disillusioned Conservative voters in general, but also those former Conservative voters who now know that the Tories cannot possibly win. They may even do even worse than in 2024. In 2024 Reform was not seen as strong enough to win and the sea change in that dynamic will motivate many Conservatives to vote for Reform instead of staying at home and some may switch from voting LibDem.

The actual performance of the LibDems, as painted during their conference, is a pure fantasy. It’s likely that the Tory voter shift will drop their vote share yet again and with that their seat share also. However, there is another dimension that has not yet played out. The current LibDem leader Ed Davey has rarely acted with honour and integrity, in line with past behaviour. It seems that things that benefit him personally supersede all other considerations.

Let’s begin with the General Election of 2010. The Liberal Democrats, who are an amalgamation of the failed first incarnation of the SDP and the Liberal Party who, in 1922, were themselves destined to become the political irrelevance they still are.

Prior to the 2010 election, the LibDems, campaigned on many things that they were to abandon in a matter of days when many of them were promised posh sounding job titles for themselves. Let’s remind ourselves of the actual slogans they promoted during the campaign:

“Change that works for you” Turned out to be no change at all.

“Labservative – for more of the same” Became Libservative and more of the same.

The coup de grâce, however, was the following solid promise “No more broken promises” (referring to tuition fees) – They promised to scrap tuition fees, appealing directly to students, very successfully as it happened. That categorical last promise resonated so well, particularly with the student population and was so significant that they boosted their vote count by just under 900,000 votes from the 2005 election and 2,000,000 votes up from the 2001 general election. Their 57 seats were in no small amount due to the wave of students who, of course, were hugely supportive of free stuff, for themselves.

So, what happened?

In the coalition government that followed the Liberal Democrats voted to increase tuition fees, Not just the opposite of scrapping them, they rubbed salt into the wound and actually increased them. So much for “no more broken promises”. The 2015 general election saw a collapse from 57 seats to 8, a just result. However, as electors seem to have short memories this story really needs to be told again.

Why did they do this? The answer is because they were promised ministerial positions, something they could never have achieved by themselves. The then Leader Nick Clegg got the very posh and important sounding non-job of Deputy Prime Minister and collectively they disregarded the obviously negative effect such a betrayal would mean for the future of the party. The betrayal was not just their voters to whom they had made the “no more broken promises” pledge, but also to their party and its supporters by ensuring that they would never be in a position to hold office ever again. That is selfishness on steroids. Personally, I see no benefit at all in voting for the LibDems, but those that do support them were abandoned in the most dictatorial way imaginable. No member had any say in this reverse ferret, no vote, just a few people who would benefit from betrayal, for what else could you call it?

The principal task coming out of the coalition negotiations was how to spin this betrayal as an act of selfless integrity Despite the obvious difficulty of presenting black as white, when all can see both. Did they expect to get away with it electorally? No I’m sure they had a pretty good idea what the fall out would be, and as it transpired, in the 2015 general election, their seat tally collapsed from 57 to 8. They knew the party would suffer but disregarded that obviously expected outcome purely for personal gain.

The reality was, of course that the act of selfless integrity would have been better served, influence better wielded and honour maintained by entering into a supply and confidence arrangement, much as the honourable Democratic Unionist Party did in 2017. That DUP agreement gave them so much clout that they secured £1bn for Northern Ireland and only supported the government on manifesto commitments they materially agreed with.

It’s clear that a party can wield enormous power in an S&C arrangement, maintain integrity, and honour ‘cast iron’ manifesto commitments, why did the LibDems opt for betrayal? The answer is as clear as day. An S&C deal would not have bestowed upon them five cabinet ministerial positions and 12 junior ministerial roles, but it would have enabled them to keep to their tuition fees promise and, more importantly, display to the entire country that the LibDems can be relied upon. They didn’t and they can’t be.

If you want to know how an honourable party operates within a hugely dysfunctional PR elections system then Sweden’s example is here:

Let’s turn to Sir Ed Davey (presumably knighted for services to himself).

Davey was appointed as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs from May 2010 to February 2012. He was then moved and appointed as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change from February 2012 to May 2015. These appointments, as is so often the case with our Parliamentary system, were not made on the basis of merit, but politically convenient reasons.

The Post Office Horizon scandal first entered the public arena in 2009, when computer weekly published an investigative article on May 13^th 2009. From my own memory, Private Eye regularly raised the issue, mostly condemning the actions of the Post Office and highlighting the inconsistencies and lies they told. All Government ministers read Private Eye, whatever they tell you, because they want to read about themselves. As Davey was in charge of the Post Office in 2010, and Private Eye persistently covered this from September 2011 it is inconceivable that he was, not only aware of the injustice of these prosecutions, but also knew that the Post Office was repeatedly lying and acting illegally. He already knew of it when he met Alan Bates on October 5^th 2010, but he just sat on his hands. Davey also met regularly with the discredited former Post office boss Paula Vennels yet still failed to pursue justice for the hundreds of victims.

His pathetic excuse for his inaction was that the Post Office lied to him, but he would have known that, Private Eye kept telling him, and even if he didn’t pick that up, the pure illogicality of hundreds of Sub-Postmasters, with impeccable records over many years, all of a sudden turning crooked is a stretch too far. Even the stupidest person would raise an eyebrow at that, but Davey did nothing, nothing at all.

So why didn’t he act, what was he scared of, or what did he have to lose? It is now that a most disturbing part of the story unfolds.

On September 15^th, 2015, after he lost his seat, until 2017, when he won the seat back, he took on a consultancy role with Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) the very same firm of solicitors who were prosecuting these innocent people. Davey was paid £275,000. It is incomprehensible that a part of his consultancy brief was to advise HSF in defending against claims made by the very same Sub Postmasters he abandoned when he was the minister. By any measure this was a despicable act.

The obvious suspicion is that he cut a deal with HSF in order that they might meet no opposition from the government in their clearly crooked prosecutions of innocent people. Sitting on his hands being a speciality, he found no problem in unequivocally believing the evil Paula Vennels (who should also be in prison), despite the unfairness being wholly evident. He decided instead to throw hundreds of innocent people to the wolves. Not to worry though, because he was to profit handsomely later.

Any decent person would baulk at even the suggestion they should be so obviously hand in glove with such an abuse of corporate and judicial power, but not the greedy Ed Davey. Would it not trigger some sense of disquiet in any normal person, to profit from fighting against the very people he was supposed to protect?

Ironically, the going nowhere party is now led by Davey, someone who we know will betray anyone if it serves his purpose. He is a bit of a joke, ineffective and weak at best, and a criminal conspirator at worst. I’m not, for one moment suggesting that such a connection existed or that he has done anything illegal, but if I had any say in the matter, I would seriously investigate it. Who, in their right minds would trust him with running a BBQ, let alone a party?

That a party with fewer votes that Reform UK can get 72 seats to Reform’s 5 is further testament to the dysfunctional electoral and HOC structure we struggle along with. If you wanted to know how to fix this, begin by reading the short review below. You see, the irony in this world is not the absence of solutions, because they are plentiful, it is disinterest, weakness and an absence of political will.