Where do the Lib Dems go from here?
July 23rd, 2008
What happens when the third party works - but doesn’t win?
A strongly argued post by the Norfolk Blogger, Nick Starling, has been picked up by several in the blogsphere for the way it powerfully sets out the dilemma facing the Lib Dems.
Reflecting on the massive changes in the political scene Nick notes that Cameron has “turned around the fortunes of the Conservative “brand”, removed the tarnish from it and has stopped people feeling embarrassed to be openly Tory. This is no little achievement and deserves praise and recognition.”
Looking back to Crewe & Nantwich and Henley where there were massive Lib Dem operations he pointedly observes “…it is clear, therefore, that the long held Lib Dem view that “Where we work - we win”, is not always going to be the case” - a view that has major strategic implications for the party.
Nick goes on: “The new strategy for the Lib Dems must be about winning seats of Labour. This has, in the past, seemed like a very low priority, and the party has to wake up to the fact that it is possible to win from Labour from a long way back (just look at Manchester Withington in 2005 as an example). I remember speaking to a Lib Dem member of staff who worked in Cowley Street in 2003 and made reference to the Blaydon result in 2001, which saw the Lib Dem candidate destroy the Labour majority and make the seat something of a potential marginal. When I asked what chance we had of winning it in 2005 his answer was “None, we have better targets”. this spoke volumes about the attitude of the Lib Dems to targeting Labour seats. There might have been “better targets”, and indeed there may have been organisational problems in the constituency, but my opinion, right or wrong, was that if Blaydon had been a Tory seat more effort might have gone in to sorting the organisational problems.”
The problem with Nick’s argument is that it runs against the instincts of many activists. We see it here on PB where some of the most furious anti-Tory rhetoric comes from Lib Dem posters - not from Labour ones. To them any let up in the fight against the Tories could be seen as a betrayal.
In terms of the general election this debate could be crucial - for if the Lib Dems are able to pick off more than a handful of Labour seats then it could have a major impact on not only the outcome but on the way Brown’s party seeks to pick itself up after the likely defeat.
As a Lib Dem myself I’ve long felt that the long-term objective must be to reclaim from Labour the position as the main party of the left. It might be getting one step nearer.
By-election betting - live latest prices
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
How about being a truly social and economic liberal party ??
1 - now you’re just being silly.
The SDP bit of the party must understand taking votes from Labour. Since the gang of 4, there was an attempt at making social democracy happen by entryism of the labour party (Blair, Mandelson etc.). That attempt has ended (in disaster). The labour party is now back in the fold of the unions. Where is the politics of Milburn etc. to go? Has to be the LibDems. Another attempt at at an SDP would be obvious folly. As Warwick 2 bites, there is the potential for all sorts of transfers of loyalty if the LibDem gets its act together. The Kampfner scenario is entirely plausible, except that England, Scotland, Wales and NI would need to be considered separately.
It is a very good piece from a blogger prepared to write objectively on issues and not in a partisan way. The soft votes are Labour ones yet the Lib Dems have amazingly failed to gain from Labour’s slide. Clegg’s LDs are polling 1.5 points below Ming’s Mori polls.
One statistic quoted is “21 of the top 50 Lib Dem target seats are held by Labour” Yes if the starting point is the 2005 results. The LDs seem to be fighting the 2005 GE not the next one because as Norfolk Blogger says they have ignored the Cameron effect.
If however the present polls are substituted for the 2005 results then the top 20 targets, in terms of “those seats that are easiest to win”, are all currently held by Labour.
Meanwhile the Cowley Street cash still seems to be going to fight battles with Conservatives and precious media space is used up attacking them.
Cleggs’s decision not to contest H and H and his aspiration to cut taxes both seem to indicate to me a preparedness to reposition the LibDems as “Tory-lite”. Probably too simplistic analysis but that was my impression of both issues.
Tactically they currently need to target Labour seats and yes they should aim to replace Labour as the party of “The Left” but not by lurching to the left, in my view. But I’m getting a bit out of my depth here.
When we’ve discussed this before, we’ve usually got entangled with the issue that targeting one party’s seats is not necessarily the same as focusing one’s fire on that party. Tories would like the LibDems to criticise Labour a lot, but who benefits most? It’s not clear.
Say Clegg furiously attacks Labour the day before a General Election - “in the name of God, go!”, that sort of thing. LibDem voters in Tory-Labour marginals might feel this was a hint to vote Tory tactically. Conservative voters in Lab-Lib marginals might well vote LibDem tactically. But Labour voters in Con-Lib marginals would flee - ‘ugh, he’s as bad as Cameron’.
So the net effect is more Tory gains in Con-Lab marginals and more Tory gains in Con-Lib marginals, but more Lib gains in Lib-Lab marginals.
Whether this pays off depends on the relative number of Con-Lib and Lib-Lab marginals, and my impression (maybe wrong?) is that the former predominate. If so, Clegg can’t afford to alienate the tactical Labour vote by being too harsh, unless he’s actually prepared to lose seats in order to try to knock Labour out.
A more promising line seems to me to be ‘you want a change from Labour, but Tories aren’t providing one - here’s the real thing’ - that plays to both anti-Labour sentiment and the ever-present scepticism about both big parties. Naturally this doesn’t stop concentrating money and footpower on winnable seats from either side.
Outstanding article from Samantha Power. It’s very long but well worth the read:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21670
This is a succinct and well-argued piece by Norfolk Blogger, and it makes for a great starting point for a discussion that has been happening in fits and starts here, especially today.
Mike writes “The problem with Nick’s argument is that it runs against the instincts of many activists … To them any let up in the fight against the Tories could be seen as a betrayal.”
This is a problem, but it will just have to be addressed. Lib Dem activists will just have to choose between beating (or not) the Tories through politically siding with Labour (condemning the LDs to permanently becoming the third party) or beating the Tories (or not) through overtaking Labour and becoming the biggets party of the Centre Left and thus the main opposition to the Conservatives.
Both options allow continued antipathy to the Conservatives, they just have to accept that the latter means that in the short term they need to fight a brutal battle on the Left first. Not too great a sacrifice, surely?
O/T - Stars and Stripes, I responded at length to your point at the end of the lsat thread - your thoughts, as always, would be welcome.
There’s also this: ‘Norfolk Blogger said…
I don’t fear a cull of Lib Dem seats in teh South of England for two reasons. Firstly, Lib Dem held seats react very differently to neighbouring seats and tend to be able to buck trends (see North Norfolk as an exmple).
Secondly, a leading Tory with friends in the right places (Ashcroft) told me that you could probably name 35 Lib Dem MP’s who would still get elected if the Lib Dems were on 5% in the polls such is the great organisation they ahve in their constituencies and their personal vote (again, North Norfolk falls in to this category).
You are right about the lack of Labour targets, but that is a point I addressed in my article. the lib Dems have only discovered VERY late that Labour seats shopuld have been targeted on a long term basis.
Wednesday, 23 July, 2008′
Since this is into Lib-Dem futures; let me say this: I believe that the LD’s will now be squeezed into near oblivion in the next 5 years. Will only get 19-20 seats in the next election, and the BNP will rise as the third party by 2015. Any takers?
10 - Is that a wager? If so, I’m on….
Whither the LibDems?
Nowhere is the answer - at least for the foreseeable future. Ever since the War, the third party only prospers when there’s a Conservative government that is unpopular and which the electorate wished to shift.
When a Labour Government becomes unpopular and the voters wish to get it out, the third party fades and victory goes to the Conservatives.
1950, 1951, 1970, 1979 all show weak Lib performance as the Conservatives are seen as the only viable alternative to a derided Labour Government.
1964,1974 (twice), 1983, 1987, 1992, and so on gave the Libs /LibDems their chance. But until they can get over a threshold of something like 100 seats they will always go backwards when it comes to an election where a Labour government has run into major unpopularity.
If the activists see it as their goal to supplant the Conservatives, then they’ll never get anywhere other than irritant third party status at national level - and more than an irritant, in effect they become proxy Labour since they can prevent a Conservative advance from ‘going over the top’, something that does not happen when it comes to Labour getting the Tories out.
10. The rise of the BNP is all too plausible. Given the oblivion Labour is headed for, there is plenty of room for the LDs as well as BNP.
The conservatives have virtually stopped campaigning in 2005 marginals. They are focusing all their resources on seats with Labour majorities similar to Crewe and Nantwich. The only oppurtunities for gains by the Liberals is off Labour; and facing an obliteration in the South and South-West and poor polling, they will do extremely well to retain more than 50 seats.
6 - That’s a very good post Nick, and if I get a chance I’ll try and do the numbers on how that would play out.
Without the backing of such numbers, I’d say that I agree that trying to knock Labour out would probably cost Clegg seats. However, if he is going to lose (precisely those?) seats anyway, he should take the once in a generation chance to deliver that knock-out blow to Labour, who surely will not be this weak again for 20-30 years?
He can’t take as many from Labour as he would lose to the Tories, bu the defecit wouldn’t necessarily be greater than it could be standing still and fighting both ways. By pushing Labour left, he could engineer a great strategic victory, even if the tactical result put great pressure on him for losing 20 or so seats.
This debate should really have been had after 2001 when we only made 5 net gains from the Tories in a dire year for them. It should definately have been had after 2005 when we made two net loses and decapitation failed. It should have been had in the leadership lection in 2006 and wasn’t. We then had another chance in 2007.
Its taken Henley for the cracks to show. basically the strategy is for the party to wait for the populus to have the scales fall from there eyes and see the Tories for the alien lizard child sacrificing devils spawn that the “really” are.
I’ve seen it again and again in social work. In most cases with addiction until a client hits rock bottom they don’t reach the point in the cycle of change where they can confront the dstructive behaviour.
I genuinely fear it will take the loss of half the parliamentry party to deliver the shock.
But by then the situation will have reversed its self. We’ll have a string of excellent secnd places against a Labour opposition but it will be the conservatives that will be shedig votes while in power.
basically instead of preparing for a share of power after this Labour government we are preparing to pick of the pices as a minor opposition party to the next conservative government.
I will read the thread with interest.
9 Punter “35 Lib Dem MP’s who would still get elected if the Lib Dems were on 5% in the polls such is the great organisation they have”
I would be inclined to believe that was the case if we had not seen a different picture of the current state of the over estimated LibDem machine in Henley and C and N
15 I’m not sure that’s right that Tactical Labour voters would flee. If they are soft enough to be tactical they are likely to be just as prone to the current disillusionment with Labour as any. Plus if they have been voting Lib Dem for some time many will have simply stopped being TVs and actually become Lib Dems voters.
Latest Gallup Tracker :
McCain 42% .. Obama 46%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109027/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-4Point-Lead.aspx
And further, there is no iron law that says there must be a third party of some strength.
It is entirely possible that we could go back to the 50s and 60s and fit all the LibDems MPs into a taxi.
Yellow Submarine,
I’ve always thought you were one of the most sensible LD posters on the site. I have two questions for you if you’ll indulge me.
1. Would you agree with my assessment that the LibDems should focus primarily on keeping the seats they have instead of looking for gains? I think they have lost share and will therefore lose a bunch of Con-Lib marginals.
2. Could you, yourself, ever vote for the Tories under Cameron… if not, may I ask what is it about the new Tories you still don’t like?
The attitude to Blaydon, labour areas etc was very prevelent in the party in the 1997 to 2000 era. It was one of the reasons I left the LIb dems in 98 and 99 I was involved in local election campaigns in two Labour areas which in effect had resources removed from them.It was only the fall out of the Iraq war that gave the Lib dems an “in” in some seats…surprisingly few though.
The targetting strategy ala 1997 required a local party to raise huge amounts of money that were then matched. it made almost impossible for Labour held seats to get to the level that was required.
The Tories can now match them for funding and campaigning technique…the big problem though is that Tory candidates and MPs are often every bit as energetic as the Lib dems thus killing the lib dem usp.
The only thing for the Lds to do is to limit the damage and wait for a tory gopvernment to become unpopular again at a time the labour party is still struggling…
I ask because to my mind you and Mike s are exactly the kind of LibDem voter we should target
20. there is no Iron law that politics is dominated by two big parties. the combined lng term LAB/CON ote has been in decline since 1951.
Sorry Brian,#13, unfortunately Labour can rely on a core vote who will always vote labour. It’s in their blood and only a change of generations will change it. The Lib -Debs on the otherhand rely on voters unhappy with the Tories or floating on the political wind. Therefore doomed doomed doomed.
20. Unlikely, the two-party duopoly has been in terminal decline for 50 years…
What could possibly reverse it? Only the LDs retreating to fight a small proportion of the total seats, imho, which isn’t going to happen…
1. Some of us are trying, Jack.
17 I think he is meaning seats with an incumbent Lib Dem MP. Not the case in Crewe & Nant. The locals would seem to back him up with pockets of Lib Dem success being located where they have incumbent MPs diverging from regional trends eg Eastleigh. Whether they could really now resist a full on Conservative landslide at a General Election is the question you can’t know the answer for.
Yellow Submarine, #24. You are so wrong! The U.K. has always had 2 major parties ever since the 18th century. Remember the Whig’s and Tories?
10 Can you supply 1 scrap of evidence for the rubbish you have just posted .
On the topic of the thread I agree pretty much with what Nick Starling has said on his blog . There is in fact much activity and campaigning going on in Labour held target seats in the North and Midlands . How many are gainable at the next GE is open to debate and depends on a large extent to what if any recovery there is between now and 2010 . I have always maintained that there will be a recovery in Labour support in which case LibDem gains from Labour will be in single figures but if Mike Snithson and some Conservative posters on here are correct and Labour are facing a meltdown in 2010 there would be 20-30 LibDem gains from Labour just as there was a similar number of LiBdem gains from the Conservatives in 1997 despite LibDem suppoert not rising compared to 1992 .
The question is what do LibDems do in the South of England where there are no Labour seats for them to target . The answer is to continue and fight the Conservatives defend what we have , minimise losses and perhaps pick up an odd seat in return . How successfull this will be depends again as to whether Labour recover between now and 2010 and the Comservatives fall back and by how much . The Conservatives do not have any right to have a free run at the nexr election with their policies and/or lack of them going unchallenged .
It is no secret that I personally regard a Conservative government as a disaster for the people of this country waiting to happen , I do not expect Conservatives on here to agree but there are many voters out there who would agree and down here in the South it is the task of LibDems to persuade that part of the electorate to vote LibDem .
23. How Kind ! I’m afraid I’m a poor sample for your focus group because I’m simply too tribally anti tory because of my personal narrative. But you’ll never need my vote. Thinking back to the leafier parts of my old constituiency and indeed my current one its this. Brand decontamination may be new fangled language but it speaks to a powerful truth. the number of LD members in my old council seat who were basically centre right/small c conservatives but were too nice to vote Conservative.
they recycled. they had a gay nephew, the did third world charity work with there church. they worked in the public sector etc etc.
Everything cameron has done from the outset. the uskies, the vote blue/go green, the nelson mandela photo, the “there is such a thing as society, its just not quite the same as the state” couplet has been quite brilliant.
of course its all marketing and marketing works. we’ve had some of these voters on lne for 20 years and not made them our own. i will deal with this in my next post.
Mark Senior - no-one would say give the Tories a free pass in the South, and obviously LibDems will keep fighting the good fight there. Similarly, you are right and they are targetting Lbour seats in the north.
I think what I and others are saying is that you as a party are maintaining some sort of parity that is tactically understandable, but strategically misguided.
You say that you would expect to pick up plenty of Labour seats if they meltdown, which may be true, but I think you should hunt for them, even to the point of taking money from half-hopeless cases down South. I think trying to attack both is a short-term position, and I think Clegg shoud be bold enough to throw much more at Labour, even at the expense of fighting a lost battle in the South.
Even if we all share your fears of a Consrevative government, I’m not sure the same Lib Dems would necessarily sanction the explicit view that to marginally increase the chances of preventing it, ou should sacrifice the opportunity to become their main opponents in the next decade.
16 - That’s what I fear too. The idea that there are 35 Lib Dem MPs who would get elected if the Lib Dems were on 5% of the vote is laughable. 10 might, maybe. Incumbency might be worth a bit more to the Lib Dems, but it’s not a silver bullet that shoots Tory werewolves dead.
The question Lib Dem supporters don’t seem to be asking themselves is where the increased Tory support is coming from. Have Labour voters switched en masse to the Tories, leaving the Lib Dems with their previous supporters (more or less)? Or has there been churn, with some Lib Dem supporters switching to the Tories, some Labour supporters switching to the Tories and some Labour supporters switching to the Lib Dems? I’m sure that research will have been done into this, but while I don’t know the answer, I strongly suspect the latter. In which case, a swathe of Lib Dem MPs are looking much more vulnerable than the raw data would suggest. It’s not just a question of squeezing the remaining Labour vote in Lib Dem/Tory marginals: (1) that Labour vote might not be amenable to voting Lib Dem rather than Tory and (2) the previous Lib Dem vote might have switched already to the opposition.
The question is therefore not just how do the Lib Dems woo disaffected Labour voters but also how do they retain appeal to soft Tory voters? Nick Palmer’s analysis seems wholly flawed (and self-serving). The Lib Dems’ approach at the next election should be “placing a brake on the feral Tories”, positioning themselves as hostile to the current Government and intending to restrain the next one (but ultimately siding with the Tories rather than Labour, making it safe for voters who are hostile to the Government to vote for them).
In any other European country I’m sure you have a liberal-left party. Brown’s extraordinary Party conference speech - tough, authoritarian, full of moral certainty, was no blueprint for the future of the left. I seem to remember someone on here - might have been Chris from Paris - saying he thought it sounded like a Conservative speech.
We can almost certainly expect a Tory government to come in with such themes as conformity, tradition and small government. Who is best placed to oppose this? At the moment I would say the Lib Dems on an ideological level. But voters are stuck in their ways and many will be loathe to abandon Labour. This might be enough for Brown’s successor to get a foothold to rebuild the Party. But they musn’t be reliant on the Unions or sink into Brown-style authoritarianism. I doubt Labour’s ability to change so I’ll stick with the Lib Dems.
29. also much looser with more shifting coalitions. if you add up the irish, the nats, the lib dems and a few single issue people we must have the biggest none aligned grouping for decades with a vote share to match.
30 ‘The question is what do LibDems do in the South of England where there are no Labour seats for them to target’ Not wholly true I could identify 2 Bristol seats and Oxford East not to mention those in London.
Even if you could fit all the Lib Dem MPs in a taxi they’d be arguing about whether they should be social democrats or national liberals. And then there’s europe. A lot of Lib Dems on here seem closer to one of the other parties than to each other. Then the average voter doesn’t know or care about the result of the arguments and whether the Lib Dems are left or right, they just vote LD as a protest.
Anyway, I’ve got a prediction, I think everyone who posts on here will be dead and buried before the Lib Dem’s form a non-coalition government. The Lib Dems might cease to exist before then.
26. “Unlikely, the two-party duopoly has been in terminal decline for 50 years…”
That there has been a decline in the two-party duopoly is a fact; that is is terminal is an assertion. I don’t actually expect a return to a duopoly, but then neither would many commentators have expected that during the inter-war years.
#30. Not rubbish Mark, merely the way I think that politics will go in the next 7 years.
The area in which I live, is a Lib-Dem controlled ward, and has a L-D m.p. You ought to here my neighbours talk about the council they voted in. A Money Grabbing Machine, they call it. I however do not belong to any political party, but will vote Conservative in any near future G. Election.
re 23. Test - you will have to work very hard with me. In Bedford we have recently selected a 22 year old PPC who I believe will be LD party leader within 20 years. He won’t win here but he’ll find a good seat for 2014. Watch the name - Henry Vann.
Morus
Using the numbers from the last election (and Pippa Norris’s spreadsheet) there were 64 LibDem seats of which 43 had the Tories 2nd (17 within 10%) 18 had Labour 2nd (12 within 10%) and one had Plaid second (Ceredigion)
In terms of seats where the Lib Dems were second, there were 15 Tory seats Lib Dem second with a majority of 10% or less, and 10 Labour seats with Lib Dem second with a majority of 10% or less.
If you look at majorities under 20%, then there were 40 Con1-LD2 seats and 27 Lab1-LD2 seats.
33 I am not sure that it will make a lot of difference whether the Lib Dems position themselves to the left or the right. They are going to be squeezed at the GE as it will become a straight two way fight between Labour and the Tories. The Lib Dems enjoyed success after 1997 because disaffected Tories voted Liberal or didnt vote at all. I agree with Mike, the Lib Dems need to be on the left. If(and its a big if) Labour implode, the Lib Dems could benefit considerably.
37,
I think you have identified the big elephant in the room as far as many potential Lib Dem voters are concerned and that is the EU.
I could seriously see myself voting Lib Dem on the basis of their position on local taxation, decentralised government, civil liberties and a host of other minor issues.
But the fact that they continue to be the main cheerleaders for the EU - which to a large extent is opposed to many of their Liberal policies - makes it imposible for me to even consider supporting them.
I do not for a minute claim that my view is the prevalent one but I do know of voters within my immediate circle of friends and contacts who feel the same way and I wonder (because I genuinely don’t know) how widespread that view is.
two interesting statistics to throw into the pot.
1. the average length of a LD Council administraion is 4 years * This is mch shorter than either Lab or Cons.
2. 250 plus Councils in Britain have had a LD council administration in Britain, more than half.
So we have become very very effective about gaining other peoples votes but then seem to lose them again. Cowley Street should hve a statue of Lord Rennard put in it bu ultra localism gains protests votes and doesn’t make liberals. When the grievance disappears or is forgetton the voters all to often desert back.
Does the bobbing up and down of national LD ratings acordin the mdia levels support this theory ?
90% of Central Labour donations now comes from the Unions. For the Lib Dems faced with the challenge of overtaking Labour as the party of the left that is a massive disadvantage.
The incoming Conservative Govt will inadvertently help the Lib Dems out by reducing union contributions to £50,000 a union. With Labour’s financial advantage gone, the Lib Dems 60,000 members could take on Labour’s demoralised (I guess then down to 140,000) in a straight fight. By 2010 it is also possible that the LDs will have as many councillors as Labour.
But has Nick Clegg the vision and the cojones to shift direction? Can he switch off resources from the 20 most at risk LD MPs facing the Conservatives and instead invest in Labour seats?
40. He went to my school. Don’t remember him but he’s a bit younger than me anyway. Might have had an elder brother.
42 - That is indeed a big danger for the Lib Dems. That is why they need to pitch themselves on one side or the other of that battle. This is not the time for “a plague on all your houses”. You will note that I am careful not to say whether the Lib Dems should be on the left or on the right - that is not the same as saying which side you are on at the next election. “Change” is the zeitgeist, and the Lib Dems need to ensure that they are associated with it.
41 You would do better to factor in the Polls now for the Targets eg a Tory with an 8% 2005 majority over the Lib Dem is likely to be a damn bit more safer than a Labour MP with a 15% 2005 majority over the Lib Dem.
41 Morus - Apols for the typo - Lib Dems had 62 seats last time
33 The detailed data in Comres/ICM/Populus comparing voting intention now with how people voted in 2005 gives a very good idea of where the movement of voters is going . There is net movement from Labour to LibDems and from LibDems to Conservatives . In recent months the 2 sets of movements are roughly equal . There is also a net movement directly from Labour to the Conservatives .
The last Populus poll figures are typical
LibDem to Con 26
Con to LibDem 7
Lab to LibDem 33
LibDem to Lab 7
Lab to Con… 52
Con to Lab… 1
I would suggest you look at the detailed data to get the picture . Note Populs sample size is 1500 Comres/ICM 1000 therefore numbers changing will be higher with Populus .
16. Yellow Sub - excellent post.
While this is the time for the Lib Dems to sort out where they need to be to make gains at the next election, there is a bigger question to ask (the one that Morus does at [8]) - what are their long-term ambitions?
It is easy to do post mortems after a death. It is a good deal harder to address what is about to go wrong before it does. That is what the Lib Dems need to do now. Unfortunately for them, I suspect that too many of their activists want to fight the wrong fight (electorally speaking, it is of course entirely their right to fight an ideological battle against the Tories if that’s their wish, though they’d be better off in Labour if that’s the case). History suggests that activists take a while to accept a new political reality and prefer to try to turn the clock back and fight the last election they lost, rather than accepting the other side’s win. It took successive and heavy defeats to bring Labour around in the 1980s, and the same for the Conservatives in 2001 and 2005. I doubt the Lib Dem activists will be much different.
181 from previous thread- Morus, I’m starting to be sorry I ever brought up the issue! I guess I’m so used to our federal system that it doesn’t seem so strange to me that 500,000 people in Wyoming have the same House representation as 900,000 people in Montana. Of course, as others have mentioned, this remains the inevitable product of a system designed over 200 years ago and is entrenched in the Constitution. Only constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention could change this state of affairs, both of which seem very remote possibilities because they are so difficult to engineer. But the hurdles to overcoming population discrepancies seem to me much lower in the UK, which was my motivation for asking about it in the first place.
On topic, I had asked about this Lib Dem strategic issue here a month or so ago, suggesting that it made a lot more sense for the Lib Dems to start training their fire on Labour presuming their goal is to win the most seats possible. The mood was not very receptive here on PB, with someone saying, I paraphrase, that this would merely play into the hands of the Tories, or that is exactly what the Tories would like for them to do. But if past Tory voters are less persuadable than they’ve been for decades and past Labour voters more persuadable (or amenable to voting Lib Dem) than they’ve been in decades, how does it make sense to keep plowing ahead with an anti-Tory strategy?
The article notes that the Lib Dem vote share, so far, seems to be stagnant with the Conservatives picking up all the Labour vote. Maybe what’s really happening is that the Lib Dems are indeed picking up some of the disaffected Labour vote but are bleeding just as much to the Tories from the right of their own party, which is disgusted with the fact that the party doesn’t seem to see that Labour is now the greater evil. This is just a theory, but seems to make some sense. What is your read on it?
40 - How odd, Mike - I met Henry Vann only last night! He’s running in your old seat, isn’t he? I agree, he could well be an excellent Lib Dem front bencher in a decade or so.
If we’re spotting future talent, I was at a Salon event organised by Standpoint magazine last week. The Conservative PPC for Norwich North (currently held by Labour’s Dr Ian Gibson with a majority of about 5400) was also there to hear Michael Gove speak on terrorism - we were at university together a few years ago.
Her name is Chloe Smith - if she wins, and I think she might - you might want to remember that you heard her name here first. That’s my prediction for the decade.
50 - Thank you for that. I shall go burrowing.
52. Don’t issues like this make you sometimes think the rigidness of the constitution was a mistake? It seems the obvious conclusion, but whenever I suggest it to my American friends its akin to heresy.
43. People don’t care about europe, people care even less about the Lib Dems. I imagine the Lib Dems policy towards europe has ben used as a cure for insomnia. However, it does illustrate a point that the Lib Dems are more interested in bickering with each other about what is the true “liberal” thing to do than about changing the country. They remind me of the phrase “they want all the power and none of the responsibility.”
45.If the Lib Dems want to overtake Labour they should court the unions. Didn’t Cameron appoint someone to do it for the tories?
40 Henry Vann. Thanks. I will check him out.
Perhaps we can get him to defect
52- Ha, Mark Senior at 50 just provided the factual basis for the theory I was proposing! Thanks Mark.
55. Precisely why I am against written constitutions.
55. Precisely why I am against written constitutions.
53 - Majority: 6696 (16.6%
50 - “Con to Lab… 1″
Did they ring Quentin Davies?
apologies for the double post
51. The Lib Dem have had nothing but heavy defeats in General Elections.
Paul M - I’m much obliged to you for the figures. That does imply that such a move would mean a guarenteed loss of seats, but I still think this tactical loss could be offset by a strategic gain. This is why I thought Clegg setting a target of increasing doubling seats was stupid. Wrong target, sets the wrong expectation.
Stars & Stripes - that’s a fair challenge - it is easier to change things, but I if the only extremities are contigious land masses, then they are harder to change even than the US constitution. I’m glad you brought it up, because it made me think.
I can see sense in your theory about attracting Labour voters at the same time and rate as theey bleed LibDems to Cameron. If true, and assuming Cameron doesn’t move much further left, then keeping going Left implies they will pick up an increasing rate of Labour voters, but the shedding of voters to Cameron would slow as they would already have left. There are more Labour voters to gain than Tory-lite LibDems to lose, because Labour are bigger. The advice would remain the same - move Left.
48 Punter “You would do better to factor in the Polls now for the Targets”
Well that’s right as of today, although less than 12 months ago you might have drawn an opposite conclusion. The LDs shouldn’t be devising a long term strategy based on short term polling driven tactical considerations.
56
You keep repeating that mantra but there are plenty of people who do care about the EU who would otherwise be natural Lib Dem voters. I wonder (again I don’t know) if, since much of the anti EU movement is based around civil libertarian arguments, there are proportionally more potential natural Lib Dem voters within the movement than within the general population. As I say, with the exception of their position on the EU, much of what they claim to stand for is natural territory for the real liberal movement.
Politics goes in cycles, no party can gain votes or seats election after election. After 3 good elections, its the Lib Dems turn to have a downer. The trick will be to minimise the extent of the down so they start stronger for the next cycle.
56. I think it’s the opposite problem for the Lib Dems. They’ve become so used to being the third party they don’t have any real drive to get into government one day. As for the unions, being associated with them is toxic for a modern centre-left party.
59. There’s nothing wrong with having one, as long as it’s not too difficult to change. Two thirds of congress would be a fine requirement, but the 3/4 of states is just ridiculous.
Stars and stripes - Don’t worry about it we have a similar situation. Ireland can stop what all the rest of the continent of Europe want to do. It is what having a federal system is all about.
61 - Wikipedia (I know…) has 5,459 majority (11.6%) in 2005.
Winnable, in Norfolk, either way.
55- I don’t know about heresy. It is a funny thing about history, though, that such an important and enduring document as the U.S. Constitution was drafted by such a haphazard collection of folks so long ago, all with dubious legal authority to do what they were doing, and that we still live by the rules they came up with. One of the most lamentable consequences of its rigidity, in my view, is that the Supreme Court, itself with dubious authority, took it upon itself to act as the safety valve, of sorts. That is, since some of the rules are so difficult to change by the mechanisms provided by the Constitution, the Court would patch over the problem by “finding” law in the Constitution that required this or that to happen. I would much rather have a Constitution that made it reasonably possible for law to be changed through democratically elected representatives of the people rather than having to rely on fictions created by nine unelected and unaccountable individuals to overcome this problem. No accusations of heresy here, Socrates.
57,53,40.
How daft to speak of a 22-year-old PPC as a potential leader. AT that age he should out doing a real job, in the real world, getting some experience of life.
Let him do that, run a business, work on a building site, drive a train, be called to Bar or whatever. come back at 40 and then he might be of some use as an MP and then a potential leader.
As of now, he’s useless and will remain so.
70 Wells has 61.
69. Not true. The rest of Europe could adopt whatever measures they want without Ireland. Lisbon didn’t pass - we’re not a federal system yet.
58 To some extent it does but note that even with Conservatives in the ascendancy there were still 7 people eho voted Conservative in 2005 saying they would now vote LibDem . What we do not know is whether the LibDem to Conservative switchers are predominately in seats where the LibDems are weak ie Con/Lab marginals and the Conservative to LibDem switchers are predominately in seats where the LibDems are strong .
Clearly that is what we LibDems would like to be true and it does have a logical reason to be true .
72. Mike told us to back Obama in 2005. What odds on Henry Vann as a future PM. 50/1?
72 - Thus the word ‘potential’. Mike’s already said he won’t win this time, and he might not next time either.
I suggetsed in a decade or so he might be ready - that’s plenty of time to have some sort of career and a family, which is preparation enough I would say.
Nich says “time to wake up and smell the coffee”. The wake up has happened - the question is was the alarm set early enough
His starting premise that the Lib Dems targets at the next election are predominantly Conservative is certainly flawed IMO (though I’ve no inside knowledge)
He may have a point that it hasn’t been done for long enough - most of the gains “from Labour” in 2005 were target seats when they were Tory held in 1992 or 97. Watford for example wouldn’t have been a credible target seat until we won the Mayoral election there (something done AIUI without a lot of central party support). Picking out other of the current targets out 6-10 years ago would have been next to impossible.
66. Perhaps, but I think the effect of the Lib Dems being anti-EU would be negligible. Most Eurosceptics are also core tories.
68. The unions may be toxic, but all parties would like the funding they provide.
If a written constitution could be made truly flexible, then there wouldn’t be any point in the constitution. If it’s not flexible it’s not going to reflect the true interests of the people. We can’t substitute constantly resisting authoritarianism with a legal document.
73 - Aristotle at the Guardian has 5,459. Not impossible the Guardian just copies it of Wikipedia though…
53, 77 etc. If we’re making ambitious predictions, the first woman President will be Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
80 Could be the difference between the ntional and actual majority in 2005.
80 - CORRECTION - Wells gives both Actual and Notional 2005 results. I’m quoting actuals, you’re quoting Notionals.
Tomato, Tomarto. Let’s call the whole thing off…
79
Not sure that is true at all. Most of the core Eurosceptics are not Tory because they consider that historically the Tories have been responsible for much of the ever closer union. It is true that there are more eurosceptics in the Tory party than any other but there are also many disillusioned Tories and those who would not vote Tory for many other reasons (including their historical position on civil liberties until recently) who would look favourably upon a truly social and economic liberal democratic party.
Unfortunately social and economic liberalism are not good bedfellows with the EU.
72 I suppose in 1997 there were a fair number of Labour candidates who were standing with a view to gaining experience for next time who actually found themselves elected, including some who were not especially vetted by Millbank since they weren’t in a target seat.
82 - snap!
81 - Beat you to it, Mr Socrates!
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/06/02/and-last-but-not-least/
64- Just try a little creative gerrymandering, Morus. How about the new constituency of WI&GE (Western Islands and Glasgow East)?
86. Ha, must have skimmed that one. Still, loads of people run (Kucinich, Paul etc), I predicted she’d get there.
81 - In all seriousness, I think that would be a very astute bet indeed. let me know if you can find a bookie to lay it.
I need to head out for dinner. This has been a great thread already - I look forward to catching up on the rest of it later.
Let’s hope all the LibDem staffers I was out with last night are reading - and that they adopt my ‘Abolish Speed Cameras’ proposal!
87 - I’ll suggest it to the Boundary’s Commission!
88 - Fairy nuff! Let’s see what job Obama gives her if he wins…
Night all.
re 76. …and Cameron and Harman..etc.
Henry does have “proper” job.
85. Let’s hope a fair few fruit cakes get elected as Tory MPs next time and start causing Cameron problems immediately.
SNP moving back out… 3.7
re 93. Good - might offer even more value.
76. A great deal longer than 50/1, I should think.
It is sometimes possible to spot future party leaders in their early 20s (Hague and Kennedy to name two). It seems a good deal more difficult to spot future prime ministers. Brown might have been to those watching carefully, but as he’s never won a general election, many of the the same objections count.
84. I disagree, you can see it on any thread about the EU, they are always dominated by Tories.
95. In all seriousness are there any young MPs who look like future Prime Ministers? I can’t think of any.
My forecast. LDs lose perhaps a dozen seats to the Tories, gain perhaps half a dozen from Labour, lose perhaps 1 to Nats. Finish somewhere in the 55-60 box…
33
Isn’t the so called Lib Dem ‘incumbency’,simply the fact that they never have to fight a GE on their reccrd in office or any prospect of being elected into government?
Given the so-called crucial nature of Glasgow East you would have expected a lot more betting interest. Total amount matched on Betfair is just &79,000 and I am personal responsible for more than 1% of that.
If there was serious money going on then I would say that there was goodish information out there. There isn’t and the prices are mostly a reflection of the polling
95
David Cameron and George Osborne spring to mind!
We’ll worry about the next one after those two and Boris carve up the next 5 parliaments between them.
Socrates is not a Tory. I am not a Tory. I forget names off the top of my head but I know there are others on here who are not Tories and who are very anti EU.
You also make the mistake of thinking that because peple are vehemently anti Labour they must be natural Tories. Many of those on here who will probably vote Tory at the next election will do so because they are opposed to Brown (and Blair before him) and think a Tory victory is currently the best way of making sure we at least start to get some of our civil liberties back.
But many of us would say we know we are taking a risk. The Tories appear to be fairly recent converts to the idea of civil liberties and much of that is down to the hard work of one or two senior people combined with a pragmatic approach to some of Labour’s more costly schemes. But I certainly wouldn’t say that in the longer term we have that much confidence that the Tories would stick to their guns on that.
And as far as the EU goes, as I said, it is an unpalatable truth for many but it is the Tories who have presided over much of the integration in the last 35 or so years. And the current hierarchy in te Tory party certainly don’t inspire confidence as far as their Eurosceptic credentials are concerned.
Serious EU sceptics are currently wedded to the Tory party as there is no realistic alternative. But that should not be confused with core support for them - at least not on the important issues of the EU and civil liberties.
The Lib Dems are already streets ahead on the civil liberties issue and also give the appearence of being genuine about the issue. Their support for the EU seriously undermines this both as a philosophical standpoint and as a means of converting that philosphy into votes.
43. I agree with you, I would be very interested in the Lib Dems if they would drop the EU nonsense. I would add to that their support for PR which to me seems entirely self-serving. They were also the party to make a fuss about the idea of prisoners voting. If they could stop the obsession with poorly thought out and anti-democratic constitutional issues I could vote for them.
101 - meant to quote 97, not 95
99 - I’m not sure I wholly agree, but if so they may be seen as standing in the way of a change of Government. That would imply an anti-incumbency effect.
101. Even when times are as bad as they are now I can’t help but feel comforted by Tory complacency. Osborne’s chances are small in my opinion, the Tories won’t want to repeat Labour’s error with Brown (yesterday’s man) and Tory leaders have always had a habit of emerging from nowhere.
100 Mike Smithson
Sorry if I missed it but what came of your meeting with Hills ? Are they going to be linked in to the “best odds” compiler on the site ?
99. No, it’s to do with the fact that almost 40% of people say they would vote LD if they thought they could win, a figure that has remained remarkably stable since the 1950s.
When they do capture a seat, those 40% of voters have no reason not to continue voting for them. Plus the LDs can usually exert a tactical squeeze on the third placed party…
102
Just to add that I know it shows I have not been paying attention but I am not even sure that our resident arch Eurosceptic SeanT is what you could call a core Tory. He seems to be far too independent of mind for that.
#97 I can think of one.
Justine Greening for the Conservatives.
Rod
How does that tie in with the stats posted earlier that appeared to show that the Lib Dems have a lot of trouble keeping councils once they have won them?
102. Socrates is a Tory.
You may not be a Tory but you seem to agree with the Tory position on practically everything and also seem to be intending to vote Tory next time. If it walks like a duck…
I agree that the best electoral position for the Lib Dems is to tack left and provide an alternative to the Tories in the other direction. Let Labour sink in the soggy centre.
I’ve long believed that the third party should pull up alongside the main party that’s sinking, in order to provide a nearby alternative for the “Time for a change”-ers without forcing them to make a big jump. If you want refugees from a sinking vessel to come on board you rather than a rival, draw up closely alongside on the other side from your rival (who will hopefully be standing off a bit further). If the jump is far less, you stand a better chance of drawing the moderately disaffected as well as the more highly disaffected.
Unfortunately, it’s only natural to see what’s working best for whichever of the Big Two is on the up and be drawn to match it.
Accordingly, from about 1993-2003, the Lib Dems should have provided a centre-right alternative - admittedly made harder by Blair piloting the good ship SS New Labour to the part of the electoral sea preferred by many of the now-reluctant passengers of the listing HMS John Major’s Tories. Now, Clegg should navigate to the left of the torpedoed MV Brown’s Labour and provide an easy escape for the beleagured passengers. If he stands off too far (especially in the direction of SS Cameron), the escapees will figure that if they have to jump that far in that direction, aim to land on the more luxurious liner that looks far more likely to navigate to Port Downing Street.
102. Great stuff! I’m also of the mind that a Tory administration might well have instituted the ID card scheme and all manner of authoritarian ‘anti-terror’ legislation had they been in when Labour were. I’ll vote Tory this time because we have to get Labour out.
I can’t understand how people can claim to be democratic and liberal in their outlook and support the EU. In my view Douglas Carswell’s group in the Tory party is the best hope for liberalism and local democracy. The elected police chiefs idea is great. I’d also love to see Frank Field’s ideas on recalling MPs and a primary system for candidate selection to see the light of day.
Frank Booth - “Let’s hope a fair few fruit cakes get elected as Tory MPs next time and start causing Cameron problems immediately.”
Why should they - Blair got away with a majority of fruit cakes on his back benches for ten years.
106 oh I am complacent yes - fortunately the party orgainsation is not - I am complacent because its very satisfying after 11 years in the wilderness and also because we will win despite my cpmplacency, not because of it. However that is more than compensated by (and I am not throwing the accusation back at you here, just stating for the record rather) the amazing capacity of Labourites not to see the utter stuffing they are about to take and the sheer lunacy of people still defending the cretin-in-chief.
Defending Brown is tantamount to declaring oneself King Trifle and clambering into the dessert section in Iceland - unintentionally hysterical for anyone with a few seconds to waste witnessing it.
You need to work on your bird identification then.
I have never been a Tory, and the fact that I believe I have a duty to exercise my right and responsibility to vote and that I vehemently oppose the left does not make me a Tory. I am a Libertarian. If there was a serious alternative to the Tory party then I would support it. For now they are very much the lesser of three evils.
Rest assured, whilst I will be glad to see the back of Labour, I expect things to get far more interesting once the Tories are in and a lot of those you seem to think are Tories will be making life ‘interesting’ for Cameron.
@97:
David Cameron?
Morus raised on a link to his site the issue of what new Liberal poicies they could run with that did grab the headlines. His idea of banning speed cameras would be very Liberal and would also grab the headlines. It would have massive appeal from the car driving voters.
However today’s Lib Dem policy makers seem to forget the Liberal part of their name and lean to policies that seek to restrict and impose restrictions on people in the belief that this tackles the problem without even analysing the facts.
Less than 4% of deaths on roads are caused by a vehicle driven above the speed limit. Also a large part of that 4% are driven by the unlicensed/joy riders who cannot be caught by cameras any way.
Speed cameras are an illiberal way of tackling the bulk of the road deaths.
110. I haven’t looked in-depth at that, but obviously a key difference is the LDs are in power in those councils, and being in power often necessitates making unpopular decisions…
Plus the FPTP electoral system at council level works rather differently, often producing large numbers of marginal seats, so relatively small shifts can produce large turnovers of seats…
41, Paul M,
On those figures, it could be possible for the Lib Dems to make a net increase in seats.
If they were to lose about 17 (pretty much those with a majority less than 10% over the Tories) due to the national tide but gain those 27 where they’re less than 20% behind Labour (national tide plus possible tactical voting), they’d be 10 up.
Unlikely and everything would have to break well for them (plus the variances in seats would imply that they’d retain some of the 17 within 10% whilst losing some of those outside, and fail to gain some of those Labour targets whilst making surprise gains in others), but it’s by no means implausibe.
However, right now I do tend to the view of a modest net loss by the LDs.
119
point taken.
111. Depends what you mean by “Tory” really. I certainly couldn’t have supported their stances in times past. I’ve come to the party because they have become what I am: pragmatically socially and economically liberal, with an acceptance of a social welfare net. My strong support for people like Obama and Prodi shows that I’m not any standard right-winger.
@122:
BURN THE WET! BURN HIM NO…
…wait…
(Broad church, Martin, broad church.)
81- Herseth did have one foot in mouth moment early in her House career that I can share with you, although I haven’t been able to find a reference to direct you to about the statement. In a fit of bombast not long after her election in June of 2004, she proclaimed in a speech to a Democratic interest group that South Dakota had become one of the bluest of blue states because it was, by virtue of her election, one of only a few that had a congressional delegation composed solely of Democrats. Only a few months later, Senate Majority Leader Daschle (D-SD), was ousted from his seat by his Republican opponent, John Thune.
118
I think one of the main problems with speed caers is they are not intelligent. By that I mean they can do only one thing - catch people speeding. Unfortunately they cannot deal with whether the speed is appropriate or not (there are plenty of deaths caused by people driving nominally within the speed limit but at a speed that is not suitable for local conditions). In addition they have been used as a cost cutting exercise to replace police patrols which could catch people driving dangerously and not taking into account the local conditions. - which is a much bigger cause of road deaths.
125 obviously that should read speed ‘cameras’
Sitting here patiently waiting to see Jack W’s ARSE. Tum te tum. Tap, tap. Tum te tum, tap, tap.
How long now?
118. The thing that annoys me is when they restrict the law after problems from people breaking the law. There’s a road right near me which had a 40 limit, but boy racers often speed there and get into crashes, so they decide to reduce the speed limit to 30 (and now to 20). It’s the same thing when they reduce the alcohol blood limit because of people drinking six pints and crashing. The way to have a good legal system is to have unrestrictive reasonable laws, but enforce them firmly.
I’m going to pop my prediciton for tomorrow in here I think
SNP 35%
Labour 33%
Conservative 9%
Lib Dems 7%
Solidarity 6%
Scottish Socialists 5%
Scottish Greens 3%
Others 2%
124 I presume Daschle will replace Johnson now surely. I mean he can’t be standing again.
129 turnout 29.4%
127 tyson. Soon ………….
Bed Time. Got to start shift at 3am.
132. Jack
http://www.meltontimes.co.uk/news/MP-to-enter-civil-partnership.4318778.jp
will they have a special edition of Melton Times?
134 Andrea.
…. have you purchased a new hat for the nuptuals ??
The ARSEing hour cometh.
Ask not for whom the ARSE polls, it polls for thee.
Good night Richard.
132- Jack W- still here. Bit like waiting for a bus. Tum te tum. Tap. tap. Sigh…..
@134:
Is Dave going to Hunky Dunky’s big day?
134- Andrea, come stai? Sei stato a Glasgow oggi?
E’da tanto che non scivevi! Tutto bene?
110
Exactly,if you don’t have a record to defend.
I just can’t buy the line that a Lib Dem MP, somehow does their job so much better or has a superior local organisation to many Labour or Tory MP’s.
130. Johnson’s had quite a strong recovery. He’s definitely running again.
125 Richard you are right it is inappropriate speed for the situation that can be deadly. Also agree about the reduction in police patrols. Incidentally Govt spin and the anti-car block include inappropriate speed (under limit) and tailgating to boost the 4% stats to 30% of deaths.
Rod Crosby, maybe the 40% that would vote Liberal is an upper limit therefore the best that the LDs can hope is to get just over 30% of it?