High Peak Liberal Democrats

To quote Nick Clegg, I'm sorry. I don't think a political party should be establishing its appeal to the electorate on an apology, but it seems to be essential when talking about why the Liberal Democrats should get your vote. Consequently, the party finds itself on the backfoot; seeking to defend against critique, rather than forward our own policies. But we can defend ourselves.

The 2010 general election did not give a single party majority. Obviously. What is less so is why polls didn't reopen. It's fair to say that after 6 weeks of intense campaigning, and many months of establishing hype beforehand, the momentum towards the election was spent. The public would not have appreciated it, sick of empty promises and grandstanding, and anyway, the money was spent too. While the two parties bankrolled by private bankers or trade unions wouldn't have as big a problem replacing it, for smaller parties - including the Liberal Democrats - the money invested in those constituencies to defend and win seats was gone, and reopening the campaign would have simply collapsed due to a lack of staff, a lack of literature, and a lack of enthusiasm by activists who'd already given everything for the first round.

Entering a coalition was therefore the only realistic move the Liberal Democrats had open, and entering a coalition with the Conservatives the only one with potential for long-term stability. A two-party coalition with a sizeable majority is undeniably easier to keep afloat than entering coalition with Labour and, lacking at least 11 MPs to make it reach the threshold of 326 for a majority, requiring the myriad support of a range of smaller parties from the DUP to the Greens. Such an arrangement would surely generate more disagreement from political minnows who'd demand far greater concessions to their one agenda in order to support bills to which they were diametrically opposed.

If we think for just a moment, the Conservatives were the only option. With the Tories initially having 307 MPs and the Liberals just 57, the Liberals find themselves outnumbered roughly 5 to 1. We don't live in a country which is democratic in a meaningful sense; these results don't represent the fact that the Conservatives have 36% of the vote and the Liberals 23%, for example, which is why we tried (and failed) to reform the voting system, which would it a little more reflective of the actual spread of opinion and results in the UK. In coalition, it often means that we simply can't torpedo the vast majority of bills, and when we do, it's criticised as "deeply dishonourable" anyway.

And then there's the elephant in the room. That old chestnut. Tuition fees. As the chair of the Guild's Liberal Youth branch, and the vice chair for two years before, it's fair to say that I've heard of these before. What's less well-known is that in the run up to the 2010 election, there was a report commissioned into higher education funding (which our own overpaid Vice Chancellor at Birmingham was instrumental in) called the Brown Report. Both Labour and the Tories wanted to implement it to the full. When it was published, naturally after the election so neither of them were tied to the unpopular results before the polls opened, it recommended £16,000 fees. In coalition, the Liberal Democrats reduced this high threshold down to a slightly less high one; the £9000 figure we all know and hate. There was also substantive reform of the repayment system, increasing the threshold from £15,000 to £21,000, and several other concessions the Conservatives almost certainly wouldn't have brought in alone. Arguably, we were punching above our weight in this fight. The political realities of the situation meant this was the least bad of a range of undesirable moves, which probably would have prematurely collapsed the coalition to widespread condemnation. Calling it a total betrayal is also unfair, as 21 of our 57 MPs voted against it. It also demands a wilful ignorance of Labour's own dismal record; promising to keep education free in 1997, and creating fees in 1999, then promising to keep them capped in 2001, and then tripling them in 2003. To present them as a "voice for students" is disingenuous; not that anyone would tell you that.

And then there's the simple fact that everyone was predicting the collapse of the coalition. The scaremongering was profound and widespread; it'll not last for more than six months, we'll have a Parliament marked by rebellions and disloyalty, we'll have a legislative agenda that ranges from incoherent to non-existent. And here I am, five years later, defending its record. That says quite a lot for the stability that the Liberal Democrats can give any future coalitions, doesn't it? I think so.

Sarah Dougherty is an LGBTQ Guild Councillor and a third year Politics and Philosophy student. She contributes primarily about the Guild.