"A very very bad result" for the U.K. Lib Dems

Originally posted by finnegan
The No campaign relied on plain lies such as the false claim AV would cost £250m. This was a stark demonstration of the cynical standards of British politics today.

The Yes campaign relied on questionable claims about the possible benefits of AV - such as its improbable ability to reduce false expenses claims from MPs. It is hard to see why that showed ards. Shame that nationalism is such a strong vote catcher still.

British politics stinks.

Name country where politics doesn't 'stink' or indeed never has. The British political system is pretty good I think. Commentators underestimate the collective insight of the electorate; AV was booted emphatically because it represents a vote for the LibDems and they are seen as a weak party. People want clear leadership and decisiveness especially in the current climate and whilst the Tories cuts are painful most people accept that belt-tightening is required.

Originally posted by divegeester
Name country where politics doesn't 'stink' or indeed never has. The British political system is pretty good I think. Commentators underestimate the collective insight of the electorate; AV was booted emphatically because it represents a vote for the LibDems and they are seen as a weak party. People want clear leadership and decisiveness especially in ...[text shortened]... e and whilst the Tories cuts are painful most people accept that belt-tightening is required.

Yes, it looks like people interpreted it more as a referendum on the LibDems than as a referendum on the change of an electoral system. A shame, really, because AV would have been a decent way to improve the accountability of politicians.

Originally posted by divegeester
... People want clear leadership and decisiveness especially in the current climate and whilst the Tories cuts are painful most people accept that belt-tightening is required.

What most people want is not belt tightening but competent economic management and some protection against risk. That will not be found in this Government's policies. Where belts are tightened a lot hangs on whose belt and how tight.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, it looks like people interpreted it more as a referendum on the LibDems than as a referendum on the change of an electoral system. A shame, really, because AV would have been a decent way to improve the accountability of politicians.

It would be an interesting thing to see what will happen to the Labour party under FPTP if Scotland manages to win independence and thereby ceases from sending representatives to westminster, I suspect it will be nothing short of their complete demise.

Originally posted by generalissimo
It would be an interesting thing to see what will happen to the Labour party under FPTP if Scotland manages to win independence and thereby cease from sending representatives to westminster, I suspect it will be nothing short of their complete demise.

A two-party system will always have two parties, so it won't change much. At most you'll get a party with a different name and a similar manifesto.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A two-party system will always have two parties, so it won't change much. At most you'll get a party with a different name and a similar manifesto.

Surely it will be a great disadvantage for Labour though, given how Scotland has always been a loyal provider of seats in westminster, if that were to be suddenly gone I think they'd find themselves in some serious difficulties.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Surely it will be a great disadvantage for Labour though, given how Scotland has always been a loyal provider of seats in westminster, if that were to be suddenly gone I think they'd find themselves in some serious difficulties.

Labour and the Tories are already very similar, there's not much potential for things to change much.

Originally posted by FMF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

The UK has voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the way MPs are elected - dealing a bitter blow to Nick Clegg on top of heavy Lib Dem poll losses.

Officials say 19.1m people voted in the second UK-wide referendum in history - a higher than expected turnout of 41%.

The final result put the Yes vote at 32. ...[text shortened]... =================

What could be the possible Lib Dem narrative arcs over the next 1-2 years?

The humiliation in the AV referendum (widely perceived as humiliation at the hands of their coalition partners) effectively takes away one of the legs of the narrative tripod the Lib Dems hope will evolve before the 2015 General Election (it's difficult to see what major policy 'win' could eclipse this loss). Cameron may be inclined to throw them a bone or two as consolation prizes, but I doubt the 1922 Committee will be in a mood to agree to giving more influence to a party that lost the referendum and took an absolute drubbing at the polls.

We've recently seen an attempt to get another of the legs underway, with the Lib Dem's beginning to speak of themselves as a moderating influence on the Tories. The coming debate on the stalled ('legislative pause', ahem) NHS reforms is probably the next interesting time ahead.

Not only have the Tories (who are, after all, historically pretty brilliant at the game of politics) have hung the LDs out to dry. In particular, Clegg has become, in the public imagination, utterly toxic; even if he isn't a power-hungry charlatan, that sort of reputation is probably impossible to shift.

The long game gamble is for an economic upturn for which they can claim partial credit.

For my money, it won't work. The LDs will be reduced to a genuinely pathetic rump at the next election. Nick Clegg will likely lose his seat. Membership will collapse. It will take several elections (so, around a decade and a half) for them to recover.

Even more interesting is Scotland. It is almost certainly the case for Scotland that this is a more important result than 1997; whether it will be for the whole of the UK remains to be seen. The SNP won under a system explicitly designed to avoid majority governments (d'Hont), and implicitly designed to prevent an SNP majority in particular, and now get to have their referendum. (My money is on a three-option referendum ballot paper.) Labour ran one of the worst political campaigns I have ever witnessed, and the SNP one of the best.

Interesting again is that the overall narrative in UK politics at the moment pretty much ignores Labour. In Scotland, where there is a Labour story, it's a catastrophic defeat (actually at least on a par with the LD situation at Westminster), and that's as much news as they've mustered in months.

Originally posted by DrKF
The humiliation in the AV referendum (widely perceived as humiliation at the hands of their coalition partners) effectively takes away one of the legs of the narrative tripod the Lib Dems hope will evolve before the 2015 General Election (it's difficult to see what major policy 'win' could eclipse this loss). Cameron may be inclined to throw them a bone tion at Westminster), and that's as much news as they've mustered in months.

Well put.

I'd just add that the best strategy in terms of pure self-interest for the LD would require plunging the UK in a serious crisis. I'm probably one of the few who gives them credit for not doing that so far, although this newer approach could be the beginning of the end for that statesmanship.

They are between a rock and a hard place. To be popular they need to be vocal about how much they are a moderating influence but if the unity of the coalition starts to be perceived as fragile then the UK could be the next target on bond markets.

These are defining times for England's near and possible medium term future. The Bank of England is also between a rock and a hard place, with inflation surging and the fear of an interest rate hike starting a run on bonds again.