Sean Fear’s Friday Slot
January 25th, 2008
Could the Lib Dems Replace Labour?
An electoral system based on First Past the Post forces voters to choose between two alternatives. Constituencies that are three (or even four) way marginals rarely remain in that position for very long. Sooner or later, they revert to a two way contest. Sometimes, the party that originally held the seat will be relegated to a distant third place.
What is true at constituency level has historically been true at national level. There is a centre-right party, and there is a centre-left party, and the voters have to make a choice between them. However, that may no longer be the case. There are now 92 MPs who are aligned to neither the Conservative or Labour parties, the highest number since the 1920s. Does this suggest an end to the historic choice between two sides, or will this system reassert itself.
The experience of the 1920s suggests the latter. From 1918 to 1931, there was never any doubt that the Conservatives would remain a contender for national political power. On the centre left, things were much more confused. In 1918, 1922, and 1923, the Liberals and Labour were level-pegging, in terms of vote share, and in the latter two elections, not far apart in terms of seats. In 1924, a Conservative landslide saw the Liberals virtually wiped out, but the party’s vote recovered somewhat in 1929. The Liberals’ decision to support the National Government in 1931 saw it win additional seats, at Labour’s expense, before subsequent divisions, and the absorption of the National Liberals into the Conservative Party, saw the Liberals disappear as a party of government. By 1933 at the latest, it was clear that if you wanted to vote out the Conservatives, you had to vote Labour, and vice versa.
Personality clashes between the Liberal leaders, and poor organisation on the ground certainly contributed to the party’s decline. Quite often, rival Liberal factions fielded candidates against each other, and seats that returned a Liberal MP in one election, were left unfought in the next. Strikingly, the Liberals won around 300 seats at least once between 1918-31, but only 24 in all six elections. Worse for the Liberals was the ongoing loss of support among urban working class voters, particularly in mining areas, and the East End. There was a significant body of working class rural voters, and middle class nonconformists, who switched back and forth between the Conservatives and Liberals, but once urban working class voters switched to Labour, they tended to stay Labour. In 1929, for example, an impressive gain of 38 seats from the Conservatives was offset by loss of 19 seats to Labour. When the Liberals did regain urban working class seats, as in 1931, it was almost always because of electoral pacts with the Conservatives, which alienated left-leaning voters in the long term. Labour was utterly ruthless towards the Liberals. The Liberals’ willingness to form anti-Conservative pacts in the 1900s was not reciprocated by Labour in the 1920s, who preferred to see Conservative MPs elected, so long as their rival on the Left was destroyed. The Conservatives preferred to kill the Liberal party with kindness, entering into anti-Labour pacts that ended up by drawing Liberal MPs and members into Conservative ranks.
So, could the experience of the 1920s be repeated, only in reverse? Could the Liberal Democrats eclipse the Labour party, and restore the traditional two-party system in a new form? Labour’s membership has fallen by more than half since 1997, and the Liberal Democrats have almost as many councillors as Labour do, so they’re unlikely to get a better chance.
Unusually, the Liberal Democrats did make a substantial net gain from Labour, in 2005, eleven seats. Importantly, an important section of former Labour voters, left-leaning urban intellectuals, switched from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, because of their anger over the Iraq War, tuition fees, and civil liberties issues. Where such voters are numerous, there are still seats that the Liberal Democrats can gain, such as Oxford East, Islington South, and Glasgow North. And I think there is a good chance that such voters are permanently lost to Labour. However, the Liberal Democrats cannot expect to eclipse Labour with the backing of just these voters. There aren’t enough of them.
To cause real damage to Labour, the Liberal Democrats would have to win back a chunk of the working class voters they lost in the 1920s, in places like the North East, and Yorkshire. To date, there is little sign that they can appeal to such voters, who form the real bedrock of Labour’s support. What’s more, the Liberal Democrats will have to become a good deal more ruthless towards Labour than they have been in the past. The Labour party has consistently used, and then discarded, the Liberal Democrats (and the Liberals), some of whom appear far keener on forming a “progressive alliance” with Labour, than on eclipsing Labour. For example, it’s hard to see what the Liberals gained from propping up Jim Callaghan’s government, or what they will gain from sparing Labour from defeat over the EU Treaty. Labour would never act in this way, if the positions were reversed, as their appetite for power is much keener.
Last night saw just two by-elections. One produced an excellent result for the Liberal Democrats. The other was disappointing for them.
Basingstoke & Deane Borough: Braughurst. Lib Dem 428, Conservative 368. Liberal Democrat gain from Conservative, with a 20% swing. This means the Conservatives have lost overall control of the council, but will retain the Mayor’s casting vote.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough: Newton. Labour 844, Lib Dem 809, Conservative 587, Green 45. Labour gain from Liberal Democrat. I have been advised that this seat has been held by the Liberal Democrats for 25 years, so they must be disappointed. In all likelihood, the intervention of the Green, and a modest rise in the Conservative vote share was just enough to cost them this seat.
Sean Fear is a London Tory activist
A note from Mike Smithson: I’m off to London shortly for the PBC party. I’ve put automated comment control on which means that new posters and old posters using new names, won’t see their contribution published instantly. It might be several hours.
MessageSpace Advertising
A note from Mike Smithson: I’m off to London shortly for the PBC party. I’ve put automated comment control on which means that new posters and old posters using new names, won’t see their contribution published instantly.
Very good article Sean
For the LDs to overtake Labour they have to make battles with Labour their main strategy.
The reality is they still have their resources largely focused on battles with the Conservatives.
The answer to the question is “Not yet….but our time will come!”
The more the lib dems side with labour the fewer dissafected voters will go for them, at least that’s what I think.
2. Indeed their tactics are weird especially as every man, his dog and its fleas can see what they should be doing.
I don’t think they will.
As the article stated, the Lib Dems have no real cutting edge of ruthlessness. Cable’s excellent and Huhne seems to have ultra-pointy elbows, but they’ve made Clegg leader instead, which seems an error of judgement to me.
The Lib Dems are more concerned opposing the Tories (because they have more closer contests against them than Labour) and so long as they do they can never become the dominant party on the left. The only way the Lib Dems can properly gain a significant number of seats is by providing a leftwing alternative to Labour rather than focusing on attacking another opposition party.
The Conservatives are their opponents. Labour are their rivals. From quite an early stage, Labour took the view that they had to eliminate their rival, before taking on their opponent.
What I can’t understand is why the Liberals didn’t try and strangle Labour at birth. Most of the seats where Labour won because the Liberals gave them a clear run in 1906 and 1910 (and subsequent by-elections) would probably have been won by Liberals had they stood, and even if the centre left had split, and let some Conservatives in, it wouldn’t have made much difference to the overall balance of the parties in Parliament.
Attacking the tories in the main is a strange tactic, especially considering how popular Cameron and his lot are becoming. They don’t have an election winning lead yet but have begun the slow grind towards it, the lib dems seem to be trying to hinder that rather than get labour out. Therefore the tory slogan of ‘vote lib dem, get labour’ is given even more vindication.
Remember that Lib Demmery is much more locally based than the activities of the other two parties; so they have to compete where their activists live. There is no point in ordering the activists in rural, Tory, Borsetshire to decamp to urban, Labour, Slagthorpe - they won’t go.
It was not that long ago that people were speculating about the split of the Tory party.
The Liberals will never over take labour while they activists like Mark Senior who sees it as more important to bash the Tories than bash the Labour party.
The Liberals have been out of national power for so long, they have lost the real desire to have it again. If they did, they would go for their rivals and not their opponents.
6 - I think the issue is that the change in the 1920s and 1930s occurred whilst the Conservatives were in power in the main. I think the LibDems may wake up when Cameron is strolling down Downing street with a majority. That is when politics would become interesting as I could envisage several scenarios where there is a gutter fight on the left.
10 Conservatives and Labour are both rivals and opponents and the LibDems have to fight each equally . It is no use myself bashing Labour because here in Worthing Labour is virtually nonexistent . The opponents here are the Conservatives and therefore I will bash them not Labour . If I lived in a strong Labour area it would be a different matter .
12 - You can not fight a war on two fronts, you will get squished in the middle. Oh well.
Attacking the Tory party made sense when the Tories were weak and in seeming eternal decline, but that has passed and either the Lib-Dems can wake up to that fact and seize the current opportunity to turn against the new unpopular party, or they will waste all their effort and wither away.
All evidence so far points to the latter.
I was always struck by how eager the Lib Dems were to destroy the Tory Party in 2005 instead of attack Labour. There will always be space for a right-wing party in British politics. If the Tories were going to collapse, it would have been in 2002/2003 under IDS. Howard pulled them back from the brink and by the time the election came around it was clear that, although they would lose, they would still come together as a unit and get a significant parliamentary caucus.
Mark,
To really want power, the party must bash their rivals - Labour. Locally it maybe the Tories, but nationally its Labour.
The question you have to ask is, do you want to be in Government/official opposition or do you want to be the third party?
I cannot see the Liberal Democrats having a chance of doing this for a while, especially as Labour are now in government. However the 1983 scenario meant that only the electoral system really prevented them from overtaking labour. So if Labour does a 1983 in the future (highly unlikely in next 10 years, more so in the 10 years following that) then the liberals will have to grab the opportunity with both hands, and they would be in a stronger position than they were prior to the 1983 election (on the basis of the 1979 result)
15 - Indeed further evidence if needed being provided by the lamentable failure of the decapitation strategy. Although it may have fared better had the Lib Dems not announced their intentions. D’oh!
The Lib Dem strategy should be to hold onto their seats in Tory areas and win as many seats as they can from Labour. They are going to do neither by being seen to be only attacking the Tories.
At best the Lib Dems might win a couple of seats from the Tories at the next election, but are more likely to lose them whilst the Labour areas are a target rich environment for them.
15. Even under IDS, I never thought there was a serious possibility of a centre-left party eclipsing a centre-right party.
15,
Good point. Lord Rennards decapitation strategy. Well, they claimed one victim I guess. But why did they not go for labour? Because they do not really want power.
Surely the task for the Lib Dems is to represent Labour and the Tories as a single entity (”Torbour”?), attack them as a single enemy.
20,
There wasn’t becauase even in 1997, the centre right go over 30% of the vote.
Ok Seanf this is it! local government news of the week perhaps even the decade, the century even!
http://tinyurl.com/32xf7o
Is Ryde Pier burning?
24 Presumably, the primary school vacancies must be linked to the high proportion of pensioners on IOW (which made it very unwise for the former Lib Dem MP to be an enthusiastic proponent of euthanasia).
25
On the other hand, the day centres are somewhat overloaded!
Herewith the Daily Mash’s take on the Soc Gen thing we were discussing on the last thread
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/french-trader-was-forced-to-work-30-hours-a-week-20080125680/
Mr. Fear leaves it to last paragraph (yes, I did read it to the end) to explain why he wrote this nonsense: he is pissed off that the Lib Dems will not support the tory attempt to force a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Just like the tories refusal to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and the Acts of Accession circa 1972, the “Thich Tory Toffs” really don’t have a policy between them. Watching Letwin riddle like the worm he is on Question Time last night merely proves the point.
22 Or the “laries”? You’re not too aged to laugh here, are you?
This, ultimately, is the only way to go. And, of course, Mark is right, that you attack your main opponent where you are - you have to, or voters just say, “if I want to get rid of the Govt, I vote against them. If the Tories are first in a seat, then I will vote Tory. Ergo, you have to give people reasons for voting against the Tories. Also, attacking Labour all the time will not induce the former labour supporters to be squeezed across to the Lib Dems.
28 If you are a Lib Dem supporter, I think that you rather prove my point.
I don’t understand why Labour and the Lib Dems don’t merge. They seem pretty indistinguishable to me, though the Lib Dems are perhaps a little further to the left. Seem to get on pretty well in most places too…the rivalries in some Northern cities seem little more than family spats.
28 - you attack Seans article because its true, its why the Liberals are condeming themsleves to perpetual 3rd party status.
Letwin was surprisingly ok last night. Laws and Robinson were useless. And why oh why was Alex James and the woman from the Mail on.
The audience were the real winners last night.
29 These days, though, the Lib Dems are seen by voters as the most left wing of the three main parties. Back in the days when they were making inroads into Tory areas, they were viewed as somewhere in the middle, between Conservatives and Labour. This means they’ll always be on the defensive in Conservative-inclined areas, and have to go on the offensive in Labour-inclined areas.
29 surely attacking another party is how most parties win over voters from that party. Labour in 1997 attacked the Tories and won over some Tory voters. Labour have still have so many seats where their support is shallow that surely nationally the lib dems have to go for those areas. Lib dems will never win the likes of kensington of Broxbourne
29 - But forever appearing to face 2 directions at once is confusing and counterproductive one must take on ones rival in a Catonian manner and follow a variant of the following advice: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
28. As its clear from the nature of your post that you lack a certain self-awareness, its probably worth pointing out that your inarticulate and unpleasant post indicates a lot more about you and the people you support than it does about any of the ‘points’ you raise.
28. Why are all these astroturfers so bad at spelling and grammar? Or are they all, in fact, the same person?
34 - My constituency is getting mentioned rather a lot today.
29: If you are a Lib Dem activist in a Tory area your job is to keep those who voted Lib Dem last time onboard. How does being only anti Tory and left of Labour help do that?
34. “Lib dems will never win the likes of kensington or Broxbourne”.
That was once said about Solihull and Carshalton.
I think twhat distinguishes those of a Liberal persuasion is found in the wonderful quote by the ex-Liberal MP, Michael Meadcroft. He described his politics as “I want a fair society but I don’t trust the state”.
At the moment it is “the state” that is the greatest threat simply because the government has been in power too long. In 1997 it was the “fair society” aspiration that was most critical.
That’s very much my philosophy.
37 That wasn’t bad spelling - James was showing off that he can speak Latin!
Great article Sean and your comment at 7 is one of the great ‘what ifs’ of British politics and the inspiriation for much academic study.
I happen to agree that there will always be a centre right party in UK politics - whether it is the Tory party is no longer immediately in doubt, but it doesn’t mean a return to Tory hegemony.
The vast majority of Lib Dem seats are in traditional areas of strength. Sean Fear’s point about the Liberals winning 300 seats in the 1920s shows how their appeal remained (and does today) - there must be at least 100 contsituencies that have had Lib/Lib Dem MPs since 1945. That’s a problem for both Tory and Labour in that the Lib Dems seem to able to appear to a wider range of demographics (at least on the ground). So talk of most of the post 1997 gains returning to their ‘natural’ (Tory) home is not necessarily going to be duplicated by the reality.
42 - Somewhat, although I studied Latin at school I did have to have wiki help on that quote!
As usual good article Sean.
31 yp (and others who I know have similar views) often seem to think that there is little difference between Liberals and Labour. That is far, far from the case. The key word is ‘Liberal’ which Labour definitely is not. I certainly have views in common with many Conservatives and have many views that are not held by main stream Conservative or Labour supporters at all, but probably held by what I would describe as progressive supporters of the Labour and Conservative party (often represented on this forum). It is one of the reasons why I hate the Left/Right label.
It is true that like many Liberals I celebrated the Conservative defeat in 1997, but let’s be honest, I’m guessing quite a few Tories were probably keen for that change and would have probably prefered a defeat in 1992, when they would have probably come back quicker.
42. ?????
32,36 et al: Yes I am a Lib Dem supporter, and you prove my point about the tories being devoid of policies.
Just like Blair relied on the maxim “Oppositions don’t win elections, Governments lose them”: Cameron follows the Blair model too closely.
Try “Thirty years of tory scum” as a synopsis for the June 2009 election (same day as euros ‘cos Labour are broke). The old tweedledee, tweedledum line with a bit more edge
46 I was referring to the post from James at 35 - “As for the rest, Carthage must be destroyed!”
41 Mike. Great quote. And I agree 100% with your comments.
33 - I don’t agree and the polling doesn’t appear to bear this out.
I can’t find in any of the pollsters archives linked from here a ‘where do they appear on the political spectrum’ question, but MORI ask whether parties are ‘extreme’ or ‘moderate’. And it shows almost no movement over the last few years and also the Lib Dems are seen as the most moderate.
1994
Moderate (%) Extreme (%)
Con 16 8
Lab 16 8
L/D 25 2
2006
Moderate (%) Extreme (%)
Con 16 8
Lab 16 8
L/D 28 2
If anything voters seem to think the Lib Dems are less left wing than previously.
47 Such a pleasant way to debate. At least Mark Senior does not resort to Ad Homien attacks.
48. Yes - but I wasn’t.
From a Lib Dem perspective then the answer to this question is “No”. Heres why.
1. declining membership. Labours has declined but so is ours. they still have 3 times as many members.
2. its an irredeemably middle class party with no cultural roots in uch of working class and urban britain.
3. While declining the Union link will always be life support for Labour.
4. the parties current “real estate” is predominently held against the Tories and is under threat. Unlike classic US military doctrine we don’t have the resources to fight to major wards at the same time. Cleggs election shows that the priority is shoring up what we have rather than targeting new ground against labour.
5. With the exception of the gays and “Urban Intelligence” areas the party just isn’t able to do identity politics properly with the block votes that come.
6. It its self as strategic competitors on its left flank. Look at what the SNP has done in Scotland. My tip for the next 10 years is a female led, more media savvy green party bobbing along at 3 to 5% in the polls and fishing in the anti establishment pool. You can see plaid occupying similar political space in wales.
7. ultimately there is substantial socialist/collectivist/authoritarian political space on the left that the liberals can never occupy while still being liberals.
8. finally i’m not sure we would actually want power. I think we have the best parliamentary party for 70 years ( setting aside size) and our great councils are great. But its filled out with to much dross. The incredibly effective pavement machine that destroys incumbants at council level but then gets turfed out after 4 years because it never really wanted power. just to slag the other lot off.
Fortunately i don’t think any of this matters. The paradigm of two party politics is broken. Further extension of PR is a (long term ) inevitablity and we’ll settling down into being a major player in a pluralistic system.
53. Excellent post - at least until the conclusion, which looks like a belated retreat into Lib Dem wishful thinking (perhaps the tendency toward that should have been a point 9.?)
47. Thanks for proving my point…
This level of debate and intellect amongst it supporters is clearly an additional reason why the LibDems will remain also rans in perpetuity…
It’s natural that Tories here and elsewhere would like to see Clegg join them in concentrating their fire on Labour (though I think cuddles is overstating it a bit when he describes Cameron as becoming very popular). There are three reasons the other way:
1) Nearly all Libdem seats (I think?) have Tories in second place. They really need to defend those seats in the current situation rather than dream of getting lots more. The way to do that is to harvest Labour tactical votes, and that won’t happen if they enter a tacit Labour-bashing alliance with the Tories.
2) There has been a significant shift of voters from LD to Tories in the recent past: it’s natural to try to get them back.
3) Polls suggest the membership and current voters are more anti-Conservative than anti-Labour.
I doubt if points 1 or 2 would inhibit Clegg from working with the Tories if Parliamentary arithmetic made it attractive. But he needs to hold his seats first.
And the post at 53. is why the LibDems may still have a chance of making an impact…
41: I agree with Mike Smithson, and the Lib Dems (and Greens) seem to be the parties closest to expressing this outlook and philosophy.
I do find the categorical rejection of this outlook by so many Tory and Labour activists (and posters here) somewhat depressing.
55. tory equates to “deviod of policy”, it doesn’t matter how many times you avoid it, it WILL catch up with you.
Do you want to debate the tory position (today, perhaps it will have changed this afternoon) on Northern Rock??
56. I don’t get your point (2), Nick.
I thought the main shifts in the ‘recent past’ i.e. since 2005 were Labour to Tory and the ‘Iraq’ Lib Dems returning to Labour?
At GE2005 election Razzall was in constant communication with his Labour counter parts (source Ming) and the LDs only had a decapitation strategy aimed at the Conservative shadow ministers not the actual Govt Ministers.
The LDs have the smallest total donations of the main UK 3 parties. So where are they NOW directing their few resources? I had a quick look at one LD donor called “Betterworld” and in the recent past all of its £25,000 local donations since Oct 06 has been to 7 LD local associations where the main rival is a Conservative either, as the MP or the main challenger. Though why they would waste any money fighting Edward Leigh in Gainsborough is a puzzle.
Betterworld are just one example (I know), but it does indicate some merit in the argument that the LDs strategy is still to focus its limited resources onto fights with the Conservatives.
The Meadowcroft quote is charming, but it is a self-contradiction, a delightful nugget of intellectual confusion.
It does indeed sum the Lib Dem mode of thinking up quite well, but that’s no reason for celebration.
Vote CLEGG get BROWN.
Incidentally, vote-splitting has become awfully common in the sort of middle-class seats that Labour won in 1997, where Guardianistas are torn between disliking aspects of Labour and not wanting the Tories back. The LDs lead the council in Broxtowe in calition with us, but had no serious campaign at GE level last time (no posters for the Parl’y candidate, council candidates reminding their voters it was OK to vote for me and them at different levels). The Tory problem in such seats is that they have to get well over 40% to avoid Palmer’s Paradox (that the more people think they’ll win, the less likely they are to do so, because it galvanises the tactical vote).
60: you may be right, but although that was the initial pattern I thought recent polls suggested a LD->Con movement (which was actually making LD voters more pro-Labour, since the pro-Tory ones had pushed off). But others with more time to check may be able to correct me.
59 as opposed to the current plan which the economist today describes as “a shameless sham” and “the worst of both worlds and missold in the bargain”
64 - The problem for Labour and LibDems is that by going for one more squeeze of the tactical vote udder they may overplay their hand and cause a backlash which pushes up the Conservative vote.
64. Which is why I think Labour must call the General Election on a day which co-incides with local elections. If they gave the ‘vote-splitters’ just one ballot paper, they run the risk of some of the Labour GE vote leaking to the Lib-Dems.
On a Hain return. It’s true that previous resigners were often back before long. But that was under Blair. Brown may or may not see it differently - who knows?
Still, it seems completely appropriate that after a resigning offence you spend a while on the backbenches - and then, if you’re good, we need you back in the Cabinet. Resigning is a bit like a jail term - you come out eventually.
On YouGov on the mayorals, isn’t it standard practice only to count those certain to vote, or those giving themselves a 9 or 10 out of 10 chance of voting? Or does that not apply to YouGov?
64 Nick, you reinforce the point that the LDs are not focused on taking on Labour as they will not challenge you from a strong local base.
A strange move since the strategy of not taking on Labour is what cost them their place in the top 2 to Labour in the last century.
….Those that do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
The Alliance was never going to overtake Labour in 1983. The votes distribution was just too much skewed in Labour’s favour. There was an outside chance they could have “destroyed” the Tories at the turn of the 21st century, say if IDS had continued to lead them into the 2005 election, or if Redwood had somehow seized the leadership. That never came to pass, but if Cameron should slip-up badly at the next election the Tories will be back on the critical list….
The LibDems best prospects in the short term is for the electoral system to produce deadlock. Both Labour and Tories have been in long-term decline since the War, and we are quite close to a situation where FPTP loses its capacity to manufacture majorities completely. There is a real chance, in my view, that no party will achieve 40% of the overall vote for the forseeable future, and that may even become sub-35% at some point. The disillusionment with, disconnection from, and disinterest in politics has, I think, now gone past the point of no-return…
The LibDems have improved the structure of their vote since 1992, and it’s hard to see them falling much below 50 seats in the Commons. Quite what will emerge from a hung parliament (or series of them), or “wrong”-winner outcomes, is open to speculation. I imagine, as in the 1920s, just as much will depend on the personalities involved and their tactical miscalculations, as on the actual arithmetic of the results.
Sean, your first sentence. In most cases, first past the post doesn’t reduce constituencies to two parties, but to one. Okay, so a second may eventually come back into contention when the holder goes way out of favour - so for instance some seats that were considered ’safe’ Tory in 1987 looked far from it in 1997 - but in any given election, the vast majority of seats are uncompetitive.
67. Already started to happen in a few places. A lot of softer Lib Dem voters viewed the decapitation strategy with great distaste - and the Lib Dems also found that squeezing the residual Labour vote too hard in some areas led to it being unexpectedly motivated to vote for the Tory candidate instead.
In many of the Lib Dem-Tory marginals all the easy Labour tactical switchers have long been gained, there’s no mileage in that avenue any more. So any appreciable switch back to the Tories by voters who defected in 1997 will sink the Lib Dem incumbent. There’s not much the Lib Dems can do about this - but snuggling up to Labour certainly won’t help.
Sean an excellent analysis I thought. I fear the LDs being used again by Brown come 2010 and finding like Ashdown none of what was promised being delivered.
O/T Does anyone know what time the party starts at tonight? I have 6 at the NLC in my diary…
Talking to Lib Dem staff in 2001, I predicted that the Lib Dems were more likely to replace Labour than the Tories as a party of government.
Even so, the odds have got to be strongly against it. Even now, it looks more likely that the Lib Dems will make strong gains as the Tories take over now, and finally make it to second place by taking seats from the Tories when the pendulum swings back again.
Still, the odds are surely on Tory - Labour domination continuing, not least because the Lib Dems may end up as a junior coalition partner which may do them no good electorally at all.
re 31 because the the Labour party is a party of repression - think 42 days detention, ID cards, Civil contingencies Act, various Criminal Justice Acts, and the Lib Dems are a civil libertarian party. I could no more be a member of the Labour party than I could fly.
O/T - “Construction work on the new £60m Northern Rock offices, near Sunderland, was halted after the roof was torn off.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7208402.stm
Why are Northern Rock currently building new offices for £60m?? Are they running out of space for all the money they’re getting from the government?
62. YP “The Meadowcroft quote is charming, but it is a self-contradiction, a delightful nugget of intellectual confusion.”
I don’t think it is self contradictory. Challenging I grant you.
But to be self contradictory logically would imply that you have to trust the state to get a fair society, which I don’t agree with and I suspect you don’t either.
It is really gratifying to see so many Conservative posters having the best wishes for LibDems at heart that they are parrotting that LibDems should be attacking Labour and not the the party that they themselves support . In itself that is a good enough reason to ignore their advice .
I think ‘wrong winners’ would be a really persuasive argument for electoral reform. If at some point say the Tories win 4% more votes than Labour but Labour turns out to be just short of a majority and governs for a few years, either in coalition or minority, that will really start to get people complaining.
Take that with a Lib Dem junior coalition partner and things might just start to move. But it really doesn’t look likely unless the Labour MP supporters manage to persuade the Labour party on purely ideological grounds.
79. Well you can play with the meaning of words like ‘unfair’ and ‘trust’ a bit to try to square the circle, but at the end of the day it is a contradiction.
If society is, in its current condition, ‘unfair’ then realistically the only agency that might change that is the state, using its coercive power. If you don’t trust the state to do that, then it’s pointless trying and you might as well accept the status quo.
My position would be that the state is reasonably efficient at doing some things, but is very bad at most things - so as a matter of practicality, best to keep the beast well tethered.
“The Conservative Party is like the poor - they will always be with us”
80: Mark, it’s only logical for a third party to concentrate their efforts on the most unpopular of the two main parties. At present that is Labour.
If you disagree with the above don’t snipe explain why I’m wrong.
OT- “Rogue trader scandal broadens out”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7208439.stm
OT. Big move to Romney for GOP nominee following yesterdays debate. No better than 2/1 most places, but PP still offer 11/4.
82. I suspect we are dancing on a pin head here and I very much agree with your last paragraph, but I can’t see what is wrong with an objective of a fairer society without expecting it to come about by more and more government control. There are many laws that I would like to see go that I think would make society fairer. And there are a few new laws I would like to see (but much less than those I would get rid of!)
56 Nick Palmer Nearly all Libdem seats (I think?) have Tories in second place.
In 2005 of the 62 LibDem MPs elected, 43 had Tories in second place and 18 had Labour second with 1 Plaid. That said, in 26 of the LD1-Con2 seats, the majority was fairly comfortable (over 10%) as opposed to 7 LD1-Lab2 seats where that was the case. Not as clear cut as people might assume. Haven’t looked at the new boundaries though.
87. Intriguing - could you give me an example or two of laws you would like repealed to make society ‘fairer’? I can see how removing legal disabilities for jews, nonconformists, gays etc. fitted into that liberal tradition historically - but surely there’s not much mileage there any more.
Normally ‘fair’ is code for ‘a flatter income distribution’ or attacking the ‘privileges’ of some group or other, which generally means using the state’s coercive power directly or indirectly (e.g. via taxation). Certainly that’s the case among most Lib Dems I encounter - and they don’t seem to share Meadowcroft’s anxiety about using state power to achieve these various ends.
31
‘I don’t understand why Labour and the Lib Dems don’t merge.’
I don’t understand it either, as apart from the Lib Dems love of all things EU they would be very comfortable in the left wing of the Labour party.
75 - I thought it was 6:30 so now I’m worried I might be wrong..
86. I think Romney is a better prospect than Obama for winning their respective party’s nomination. Not sure how to devise a betting strategy from that, though?
Hills are offering 9/1 on Rudy winning the Florida primary. That has to be value. He’s only 7s for the nomination itself.
I know he has slipped in the polls but still 9/1 ??
The EU is the Lib Dem’s Clause 4. It prevents them from the rational merger with the Greens. But as for merging with Labour, I would have thought the personal hatred of so many Labour partisans for the Lib Dems completely rule that out.
Interesting article and a discussion I’ve tried to start on here before (with little success). Labour is starting to lean far too heavily on the unions for my liking - and remember they don’t have public support likethey used to.
It all depends on how Labour seek to reinvent themselves after they lose power. The prerequisite for any Labour/Liberal fight is a Tory government. Until then people will vote in the best way to keep the Tories out.
As for the Liberals not being up for a fight with Labour, Sean has a point. I had to gasp at the television last night, seeing Lembit doing his best to defend Peter Hain with the line ‘ All the Parties have had trouble with funding’. Still, as we know, anyone who gets Lembit’s support is in big trouble - so maybe he was playing a more subtle game.
41. ““I want a fair society but I don’t trust the state”. ”
Mike - that’s exactly the line Cameron is running on.
The room is booked from 6:00 until 9:30.
“In all likelihood, the intervention of the Green… was just enough to cost them this seat”
That would not surprise me. In Scotland it has become pretty clear over the last few years that it is the Lib Dems who suffer most when the Greens appear on the scene. And this is likely to be very apparent at next year’s Euro election.
Yes and have thought so for some time. Blair positioned Labour in the Asquith slot - in the middle. Ok when you are on the attack, not so good when under threat
Off to PBC party
53. “Further extension of PR is a (long term ) inevitablity and we’ll settling down into being a major player in a pluralistic system. ”
No it isn’t and no you won’t.
Otherwise a refreshingly honest and insightful post.
Indeed, I want a fair society, I don’t trust the state, but even less do I trust parties who equate their interests with those of the state.
Right well I’m off to the party!
Offhand, I can think of numerous organisations that are interested in promoting “fairness” in its widest sense, which are not agencies of the State. For example, churches, charities, the Co-op, residents’ associations, sports clubs, etc etc etc
Meadowcroft’s slogan works for me!
84. “80: Mark, it’s only logical for a third party to concentrate their efforts on the most unpopular of the two main parties. At present that is Labour.
If you disagree with the above don’t snipe explain why I’m wrong.”
Raplh - you can’t expect Mark Senior NOT to snipe. It’s what he does.
He’s possibly the most humourless, pompous and tedious poster on here (myself excepted!)
The reason he disagrees is because he hates Tories. Simple as that.
He’d rather attack Tories than win power.
Therein lies the problem.
98. Stuart, at the Scottish elections, the Lib-Dems lost one seat, the Greens lost 5.
104. “He’d rather attack Tories than win power.”
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Liberal Democrats are; 25% Liberal and 75% Social Democrat.
Most Economic Liberals have joined the Conservatives since the 1970s. The ones left are the uber, uber Liberal Liberals (ie. the nutty no-prisons, sex-education at 3yrs old, legalise heroin brigade, although some are (soundly) anti-EU) whilst the remaining “social democrats” are the anti-authoritarian left.
They *want* to be supporting Labour, but they can’t, because Labour are too authoritarian. That’s why they treat them with kid gloves..
“Oh please, we want to be the junior partner in a political romp with you Mr. Labour party, but can’t you just be just a teensy, weensy little bit less statist? pleeeeaase?! Let’s not work against other, let’s work TOGETHER! (we both hate the Tories after all) ”
Remember: The social democrats come from Labour and they want (ideally) to return.
106. True, true.
But if you have read any of Mark Seniors post, you will see he is blinded by hatred of Tories and seems to live for coming on here every day to “have a go” (rudely) at any Conservative poster who dares show his face.
I cannot recall ever reading a post of his critical of the current LABOUR government, who are the ones in power.
Good article,Sean,well put together.
I was en route to PBC party when contacted by a leading trainer to be his guest at Cheltenham tomorrow,so I reversed the car and headed west.
I have been asked to pass on the following (may mean more to ptp than myself)
Madison du Berlais, Neptune Collonges, Inglis Drever,Lough Derg.
Haven’t the foggiest what that coded message might mean
Enjoy the party all who venture.
105 - True as it is, it doesnt contradict Stuart’s post at 98
107-Talking of old social democrats, ha the good doctor joined the Tories yet?
Casino, you seem to be off on one and I think your simplistic characterization of Liberals is a little daft. For one, I don’t thik I’ve ever suggested sex education should start before 5.
As for economic liberals, again I don’t think I agree. What about the Orange book? Many EL’s have been put of the Tories because of Europe.
112. Genuine Economic Liberals wouldn’t be “on” Europe. And too many so called “Orange Bookers” want higher-rate income tax. They’re hardly students of Hayek, are they?
Anyway, I’m not off on one, all of what I say is true, with a slight degree of satire. Whether it’s 3,4,5,6 or 7 yrs old, it’s still pretty sick teaching children that young about sex. You just prove my point!!
No need to get so defensive..
112, the Lib Dems stance on a referendum is pathetic. Apparently a number of them want to vote for having one, including Killer Cable, but Calamity Clegg isn’t so keen.
41. ““I want a fair society but I don’t trust the state”. ”
‘Mike - that’s exactly the line Cameron is running on.’
Mr. James Bond fan - I think that’s a misunderstanding. Cameron wants a better functioning, more cohesive society and is pushing the expansion of voluntary organisations as a way towards that. But that’s not the same thing as ‘fair’ - a loaded term which is short hand for social democratic structures.
And Mr. Fish at 103…please explain how sports clubs help promote ‘fairness’
113. Err, true economic liberals would be in favour of the free movement of labour, which the Tories appear to be against.
Gosh - a whole Lib Dem thread…. must be a very slow news day.
Oh - I’ve just realised. Everyone else is at the PB.com party - leaving all the yellow perils home alone…
114. Clegg has already made it pretty clear that his ‘liberalism’ doesn’t extend to anything that might deliver big picture political outcomes to which he is antithetic.
His claim to somehow represent an anti-establishment viewpoint is laughable. But public school, European Commission etc….what did you expect?
119, another thing the Lib Dems and Labour have in common. Treaty aside, Labour wants to change party funding to limit spending and donatons, except for trade unions.
118. It’s Burns’ night tonight. Will it be kilts, haggis and whisky at the party?
116. Except for the fact that excessive immigration prevents markets from equilibirating, thus worsening economic conditions - especially for the poorer parts of society.
122. But I assume you’re in favour of the free movement of capital - doesn’t the movement of capital to say, the Cayman Islands, depriving the economy of tax revenue, also hurt the poor?
123. Probably, which is why we should set up a system where people store their assets in the UK rather than the Cayman Islands.
115. Social democracy, by definition, means the state being the embodiment of society. If that’s what “fair” means, Mike’s sentence is an oxymoron.
Too quiet here tonight … maybe it’ll liven up when the regulars come back ’suitably refreshed’ from the party.
There have been two centre-leftish parties in this country for almost 90 years. A six year old might wonder why they haven’t merged, rather than allow the one right wing party to rule for most of that time.
Of course they had a chance not long ago - “the love that dares not speak its name” (Ashdown).
This was a real effort to either merge or work in a coalition by the great controller (Blair) with Ashdown fully onboard (from 1994 - 1999). And Blair was in the stongest position at that time than any other Labour leader had ever been in. So HIS party did not need it. The 5 year process was kept secret (amazing feat), and collapsed when Prescott & Brown caught wind of it. Not that the Lib Dems were too excited! The whole thing exhausted Ashdown, but you can’t say that he and Blair didn’t try.
See here for the story:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/ashdown-blair-the-great-coalitionmerger-plan/
It does seem that when push comes to shove, in any case, the Libe Dems don’t really WANT power at national level. Otherwise, for a start, they’d have insisted that Cable led them.
Economically literate, calm with a kindly cutting edge. He’d have made Brown’s voice louder and higher yet in PMQ debates. And THAT’S when you know he’s in trouble.
Still, as for winning a general election - nah. I don’t think so. They should have leapt down Blair’s throat when given the chance. It won’t come again. And a hung parliament will likely collapse early, if the two main parties will not agree to pr. Which they probably won’t.
I think the Lib-dem’s had a real opportunity to do lasting damage to Labour in 2005. They had a real opportunity to get a proper foot-hold in Labour’s heartlands and to me, they underperformed. I honestly think the opportunity has passed for the next 10-15 years, and we’re now entering a period of Labour/Conservative politics, with Liberals, unfortunatly relegated to bit players.
Having said that, if we see a split between England and Wales and Scotland and Labour lose’s it’s in-built Scottish majority, then this will present the Lib’s with an opportunity at Westminster.
In Florida Senator Mel Martinez endorses McCain.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_martinez
127. It was Blair’s support of the neocon war in Iraq and authoritarian ID schemes that caused a semi-permanent split between the two parties. Let’s not paint him as the great uniter here.
130, not to mention 90 days detention without trial. Insane and draconian then and now.
Surprising that no comment remarks upon the element of chance in all this. Suppose there is no overall majority for the two real parties at the next election, or a subsequent one. Lib Dem Nivarna, or so they think. In fact it will be their nemesis. They will choose, depending upon the figures which one to support and join in coalition. Now the coalition might be unstable and collapse very quickly. In that scenario, sure death for the two coalition partners. Alternatively, they might stick together and survive a parliament. True independence diminishes as time goes on. Do they fight the next election as partners or not ? They might remain independent parties but over time separation becomes firstly unthinkable and then impossible. Vide the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. Or, a better example they two right of centre parties in Australia.
And, to go truly against the received wisdom, PR does not alter this scenario. There might be twenty thirteen entities called parties in Italy but there can only ever be three groupings, the Ins, the Outs and the Irrelevants. Just like the UK really.
132. Nirvana for the Lib Dems would be Tory government for three terms, followed by a fourth election where the Conservatives get most seats but no majority. Then Lib Dems would be in a strong position to demand PR from Labour, as a price of a coalition deal.
Only way I can see it happening. Theoretically the same could do with the Cons and Lab reversed, but the Conservatives would be less inclined to change the voting system and the Lib Dems are too anti-Tory to want to be in coalition with them anyway.
128. Agree completely, the Lib Dems had a great opportunity in 2005 to cause Labour real damage but for some reason choose to focus on Tory seats as thier main targets, the so called decapitation strategy. Of course it failed. I would be very worried if I was a Lib Dem at the poor start Clegg has made, he just comes across as a bad Tory and I can’t see where his party are going to fit in anymore.
133: Yes a three term Tory government. Wouldn’t surprise me (but nor would successive balanced parliaments, a Lib Dem meltdown, a Lib Dem breakthrough, a Labour collapse to a rump, a successful celebrity led populist party, or even one or two more Labour victories).
But I suspect that FPTP will, sooner rather than later, result in the elected one-party state that is actually its logical outcome - no not the perpetual two party seesaw that its devotees favour. Well, actually they mostly hope for a permanent victory for their own tribe.
135. No democratic system, no matter how unfair, which allows one party to get a majority could become a permanent one party state - if only one party is in power only one party can be blamed when things go wrong. Even if it required two thirds of the country to be against them, that number would always be reached eventually. In the long term, governments only lose support. It’s just a matter of how quickly.
136. I should make clear that a system needs to have a free press and free elections to count as “democratic”.
No, the Conservatives will replace both Labour AND the LibDems.
Ave It! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Oh dear, we’re all morphing into one another…
Back in 1990 I remember discussing at which election the LDs would exceed Labour in terms of votes, and then seats.
I can’t remember what year we agreed, but I think Zager and Evans did a song about it.
More seriously, I do think electoral reform will happen at some point. In the years following this, none of the current three major parties will continue in the form we know (and love).
Hello, all. On my way home from the party - which was (and, looking at my watch, still certainly is) excellent.
Great venue - seemed extremely appropriate for some reason. Went off very smoothly and I’ve finally got to meet a lot of the names I’ve read over the past three-and-a-half years.
Socrates (30)
You’re wrong. The dates of the proposed merger were BEFORE Blair came to power and for a year or two after. There was no falling out UNTIL 2003, more or less.
It’s all IFS & BUTS, but who knows whether the USA would have been supported by Blair/Ashdown in a merged party or coalition. Then again you might have seen the true colour of sensible Lib Demerry when faced with the real and hard choices of power.
As for the ID scheme - it, like our culture and country being absorbed by an alien force - will happen one day.
Oh for another leading politician with guts and vision.
Seeing no-one else’s mentioned it yet: new Yougov poll gives Ken a four-point lead over Boris.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2247133,00.html
I do agree that in the event of major electoral reform (ie a PR system), there will be a drastic realignment politically - it may take a few elections, but I see each of the major parties splintering and entering the overall melting pot under such circumstances. The “broad church” that each party consists of would no longer be necessary, so they’d fly apart and make looser and more transient bonds between each other.
Could be very interesting.
usually find your columns interesting sean, but this is total poppycock.
if you were not labelled as a “tory activist” i would definitely have thought that you were the most optimistic of liberals!
Is the party over? Like LDs?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
SBS: v funny last night hahaha - keep dreaming LD
138 LOL just seen it HAHAHA what do you support - Luton?
HEHEHE
140 LOL
LDs will be merging with something small(er) soon.
Proper two party election
Ave it 08 is the honest Tory. A one-party Tory state for the foreseeable future, ostensibly elected. It is what the Tory tribe wants, as the Labour tribe wants the converse.
64 - Hi Nick - I assume you are hoping GB calls the GE in May 2009 otherwise I think the County will go Tory [was it 1976 last time they were in power?] - your biggest danger imo is if a BNP candidate stands, a Sadie G type character would I’m sure take many more voters from you than the other parties.
I would like to remind posters that Roger & Tyson are not imo normal [to me]Labour voters,the majority of my family and friends are Labour supporters and most have “right-wing” views especially on Human Rights,ID cards[may have changed now],immigration etc.
Vote Lib Dem?? - in locals I think LD’s will gain a lot in Ashfield and Mansfield since demise of Independents but nationally no,considered too soft.
148 its a good call - the other parties are a waste of time……
PARTY HARD PBers!
142. I have enough basic understanding of politics to know when the merger was proposed. But the reason why a merger can not now happen in the foreseeable future is because of Blair’s authoritarianism and disastrous war in Iraq. The Lib Dems were the only party to come out of that fiasco with any credit.
As for going along with a policy just because it will “happen one day” according a near-Marxist determinist view of things, well, that’s even less sensible than the reasoning for the aforementioned war!
George W. Bush also has “guts” and “vision”. I would much more prefer a leader with integrity and good judgement.