As I write, the United Kingdom is preparing for a general election in early June. It is not looking good for UKIP, which is contesting only 377 out of 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom. It is also not looking good for the Labour Party, which is currently receiving very poor press coverage.
Things do appear to be looking up for the Liberal Democrats,
however. Among other things they have
recently announced that their membership has for the first time ever surpassed
100,000.
What I find curious about this is that this was supposed to
be their original membership figure.
The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 through the merger
of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The SDP had in excess of 50,000 members at
the time of the merger. The Liberal
Party membership is not known as the party never had a central membership
register. It had the appearance of a
larger party, however. It had more MPs
than the SDP, and a lot more councillors.
There was a widespread belief among supporters of the merger
that the new party would start with a membership in excess of 100,000. For example I remember that the leading
figure in the pro-merger movement in the SDP predicted that ninety percent of
SDP members would join the new party.
So far as I am aware, the Liberal Democrats have for most of
their existence numbered around 70,000, and their membership has been as low as
around 40,000. In other words, this
party was born in hubris. The people who
predicted a starting membership of 100,000 were making a truly arrogant
assumption.
In a sense I can see why they did this. Confidence can be an impressive quality.
What actually happened was that the newly formed Social and
Liberal Democrats – to give them their full name – found itself struggling to
achieve the electoral support they had expected, and it was not until October
1990 that they achieved their first gain in a parliamentary by-election.
During its first year of existence, the party spent
profligately, and ended up in severe financial difficulties. I wonder that anyone saw fit to vote for them
at this time. After all, a party which
cannot be trusted with its own finances can hardly be trusted with national
government.
I find efficiency to be far more attractive than arrogance,
and that is one of many reasons why I do not support the Liberal Democrats.
Related previous posts include:
Theresa May's election gamble
The aftermath of the general election
Related previous posts include:
Theresa May's election gamble
The aftermath of the general election
No comments:
Post a Comment