You’re right that the party has lost valued activists because of the coalition. But I think a lot of the loss of activism is the age-old problem of activists who are shy about meeting the electorate. This is particularly a problem now, as we adapt to the new situation of being in government at a time of a very serious budget deficit.

People I trust tell me that membership figures are up. But probably reluctance to go canvassing is also up, partly due to a misplaced fear of hostility on the doorstep. Hopefully, with time, shyness will decline, and new members will gain experience and confidence to go out canvassing. (And for any new member reading this, canvassing is easy – you are just gathering information, you don’t need to know the answers. Why not try it out this week?)

“I will not actively campaign for the current party orthodoxy of Orange-Bookery, and I have spoken with many former activists who feel the same.”

This is a real pity. If you can’t campaign locally, I wish folk like you would join the social liberal forum, seek out like-minded Lib Dems standing for the council, and travel to canvass for them.

I like the party with a balance of economic and social liberals. I’m sure most feel the same way. But if folk like you leave, that’ll inevitably shift the party’s centre of gravity away from the left.

@Alex P “Can I pick up on one small point from your post, George? Why do you keep equating anonymity with lack of courage? I don’t get it. It is true that people posting malicious drivel (here or elsewhere) will often want to be anonymous, but that doesn’t mean others don’t have legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous.”

I completely agree. Some anonymous people contribute to the debate in a serious and respectful way. (And some of them are members of the Labour party) They are an asset to any discussion. Sorry if I appeared to say the opposite.

But, if someone is going to be rude, I think they should at least have the courage to give their real name.

Accusing someone of being rude is pretty counterproductive. But, if you make general comments about rudeness, some polite people think you are referring to them, while rude people pay no attention. So, for the record, I’m not talking about you

@an angry voter “To be fair George – apart from yourself we end up repeatedly seeing the immaturity of Lib Dems on here and in public”

Thanks for the compliment, but I think you’re being unfair on a lot of Lib Dem contributors to this site.

All too often immaturity and rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. I’m sure there’s some immaturity by pro-coalition Lib Dems which I’ve not noticed. But I’m very conscious of aggressive comments in this forum from anti-Lib Dem people. I particularly dislike it when they attack people, rather than specific policies, or where someone picks a sentence out of context, and attacks it as if you hadn’t said anything else. It’s pointless to continue a discussion with someone like that.

I think the best approach is to ignore the people who annoy you, and just engage with the people who don’t.

Unfortunately, most people do the opposite, and as a result, the internet is full of flame wars. Then the bad drives out the good, and people who enjoy serious respectful discussion go elsewhere.

That said, I think the discussions on LDV have improved recently.

@daveN
Thanks, nice of you to say that.

And then we get the Lib Dems lambasting the public, whether it be decrying them as racist, cretins or ungrateful creatures – We dont take too kindly to being spoken of like that, and the least you could do was apologise. But we’re the bad guys as another LD has said, – because we have that cheek to hold a different opinion.

I have posted many points critical of the party over the last year; I am not a party member, just a (former) serial Lib Dem voter, so my name wouldn’t mean anything to anybody anyway. I don’t usually weigh-in just for the hell of it, so I hope I am not one of the anonymous troublemakers you are referring to, but even so I don’t think the fact that anyone chooses to post anonymously should be held against them. It is not cowardly, it is perfectly reasonable. Personal liberty and all that.

I think part of your problems is you don’t see any correlation at all in local to national politics, I am sorry it does not work that way.

“Besides, for the local elections, we’re not campaigning for the coalition, we’re campaigning for Lib Dem councillors. In some parts of the country, we’ll end up in coalition with Labour against the Tories. In many parts, we’re trying to unseat Tory councillors.”

When the electors believe government is wrong the first chance they get to show their feelings is at LE, it does not matter that Liberal Democrats are the minority in government, Liberal Democrats made certain promises which with hindsight turned out to be lies.
It does not matter the spin on that, Liberal Democrats failed those; who voted for you because of those promises, the perception is Liberal Democrats will promise and say anything to gain or stay in power.

So vote for us to keep Conservative/Labour out in LE or GE I don’t think is going to work anymore.(not even with AV)

The first chance to show Liberal Democrats just how pleased the electorate are with government and Liberal Democrats in particular is on May 5th, maybe, just maybe Liberal Democrats will listen to the electorate, I fear not because you believe you know what is best and are hoping the AV vote will make it a worthwhile sacrifice, if that fails I hope Liberal Democrats spend the 30 pieces of silver wisely.

James Moss……

I have spent 30 years canvassing for the Liberals and Lib Dems and I have no doubt that if I went out now, you may be right that where we have ‘worked the ground’ before, the door-step reaction may not be as bad as is being painted. But George, the question should not be HOW to respond, but WHO WILL respond? In many areas like mine, the activisits and ground-troops have gone because like me they are unhappy with the recent direction of the party. There is likely to be a poor result for the Lib Dems in May and this will be due in part to current unpopularity, but it will also be due to lack of activists on the ground. In some areas there will be no effective campaign. I will not actively campaign for the current party orthodoxy of Orange-Bookery, and I have spoken with many former activists who feel the same.

There are rumours that Nick Clegg thinks that the party needs to be re-branded, presumably to ‘Not-Quite-So-Orange-Book’. I suspect that won’t bring back your canvassers and activisits back either George. Give ‘em the Old Party and it’s policies back and I suspect like me they’ll return to the doorsteps, committee rooms and polling stations.

“Any perceived hate isn’t coming from the general electorate, but a tiny minority: People who post hostile comments on the internet, without the courage to give their real name. A tiny minority of the country who gather at party conference and chant hate-filled slogans at us, as we walk into our conference. And the media, looking for a dramatic story, who quote the hyped up anger of a few, to give the impression that this is the opinion of the majority.”

Really! You are in a political party the actions of which are damaging and destroying people’s lives. Do you really expect them to treat you with kid gloves? To suggest that your opposition is coming purely from a tiny minority of people on the internet and in the media is ludicrous. Anecdotally, I know many who do not use the internet, but who voted for your party last time and are waiting for a Liberal Democrat to appear on their doorstep so that they can give him or her a piece of their mind. Now you know how Labour and poor Gordon Brown felt when they were being abused right up to the last general election by your party, the Tories’ and your friends in the right wing media. That was because you were all determined we weren’t going to receive a fourth term. “From Stalin to Mr Bean” How nice was that? And there was worse. Much worse. But we’re not wimps in the Labour Party. We know it goes with the territory. We took it on the chin and still went out campaigning and in the end we stopped the Tories getting past the winning post! And then your lot cynically grabbed power and enabled the Tories to do what they planned to do anyway. And you wonder why people are angry?

@daveN “Please don’t attempt to blame the voters for the mess the Lib Dems are in (and yes the Lib Dems are in a terrible electoral mess, that is to say that not many people are likely to vote for them next time around).”

I’m not saying that the electorate hate us, quite the opposite.

Any perceived hate isn’t coming from the general electorate, but a tiny minority: People who post hostile comments on the internet, without the courage to give their real name. A tiny minority of the country who gather at party conference and chant hate-filled slogans at us, as we walk into our conference. And the media, looking for a dramatic story, who quote the hyped up anger of a few, to give the impression that this is the opinion of the majority.

I weasn’t at the trades union march, but I suspect that, if I’d been able to talk with individual marchers, I’d have found most of them to be polite and respectful. Most of them would have listened to what I had to say, and some would have agreed with me on a surprising number of points.

At conference, there were a handful of people, quitely handing out leaflets, asking for us to save the NHS. I didn’t like the hyperbole on the leaflets, but they seemed decent people.

I’ve met Labour members who are polite, honest people, who understand the very serious financial situation the country are in, and who would probably agree with a lot of my criticisms of the Brown chancellorship – but, sensibly, wouldn’t admit this in public.

And those are all politically committed people who would vote for our opponents. The general public are much more sympathetic to what we are doing.

What I’m suggesting to Lib Dem readers of this site is that they don’t let the rudeness of a small number of anonymous posters discourage them from canvassing. They’ll find that if we engage with voters, campaign on issues they care about, they’ll vote for us.

These are very difficult times for the party, because we’re dealing with very difficult problems, left to us by the irresponsibility of the previous government. It’s easy to get discouraged by the difficulty of what we’re doing, and in parts of the country we will pay a short-term electoral price for it. But where we get out there and campaign, we won’t.

I’m not saying that the electorate hate us, q

Which is a pity, because, for all our disagreements, I welcome the chance for pleasant dialogue with Labour people. We need to keep the door open to a coalition in 2015.

Don’t you see? That is the Lib Dems’ problem. People perceive that you are prepared to speak to any brief!

Nevertheless, I agree that Labour has certain afinities with the non-Cleggite wing of your party.

Nice of you to say that.

I’m unable to make the Leicester South by-election. But, if I did, I’d be very happy to drop in for cut of tea… but on the day after polling say. Golden rule for me: never have a cup of tea when I should be out rushing from house to house covering as many voters as possible.

So, sadly, I won’t be able to accept the invitation. Which is a pity, because, for all our disagreements, I welcome the chance for pleasant dialogue with Labour people. We need to keep the door open to a coalition in 2015.

“But then, the UK only elected 57 of us,”

So why on earth do we have to endure your dreadful policies? You made a grab for power without any kind of a mandate whatsoever. Therein lies the basis of the “hatred” you attract. And then of course there are all your somersaults on policy. What did you expect? If you market a tin with “Blueberry Pie” on the label and when the consumer opens it they find metal polish they are entitled to be angry.

Just for the record, the Tories, prior to the bankers soiling their own banks, promised to match Labour’s spending pound for pound. Now why did they say that if they thought that Labour’s policies were sending Britain down the Swannee? And the fact that your party is now parrotting the Tory mantra that it was all Labour’s fault and not the fault of the international gamblers and charlatan profiteers only increases the public’s contempt for you. We are not fools. Stop being an ostrich. Change your policies. Stop cutting too far, too fast. Better still, get out of the Coalition. Then you might find people more prepared to extend you some credibility.Your poll ratings might rise. And you might receive less hostility on the doorstep.

Thanks for the comments. But you’re underrating yourself. That wasn’t abuse, that was reasoned argument. Though reasoned argument I disagree with.

It’s true that the cuts are being implemented at a faster pace than we campaigned for in the election. But then, the UK only elected 57 of us, so we couldn’t do everything we campaigned for.

The cuts are to sort out what the OBR estimate to be the structural deficit (ie a deficit that won’t just go away automatically as the economy recovers from recession). So relying on cyclic growth won’t work.

We could wait a long time for non-cyclic growth to generate the extra revenue to reduce the deficit. We could raise the taxes that Gordon Brown didn’t want to raise in a boom – because he thought the country was taxed enough. Or we could do what Labour campaigned on at the last election, and introduce severe cuts.

The main difference between the Osborne plan and the Darling plan that Labour fought the last election on is that Darling wasn’t prepared to say what their plan was beyond 2014, and wasn’t prepared to even do the preparatory work for a comprehensive spending review in 2009. The six billion cuts last year where small change when compared to a £156bn deficit.

As Darling wouldn’t say what he’d do beyond 2014, you guys can, if you wish, claim that after halving the deficit, Labour would do nothing about the rest for the forseeable future. If that’s the case, I wish you’d say it. It’d be utterly irresponsible, but at least we could have a meaningful debate.

But I prefer a more charitable interpretation of what Darling said: that he’d also try to deal with the rest of the budget deficit and at roughtly the same pace. (The IFS made the same assumption last year, in http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budgetjune2010/tetlow.pdf )

That being so, the main difference is that Labour would make the same cuts, but spread them over an extra two years. Hence my comment: these are Labour’s cuts.

“2. There was absolutely nothing in the Lib Dem 2005 manifesto about reducing spending/increasing taxes to build up a surplus. Indeed, the manifesto called for increased levels of taxation and government spending.”

Not our finest hour. But then, as Labour supporters are always saying in this blog, it’s not the job of opposition to propose unpopular decisions to tough questions. It’s the respopnsiblilty of government, with an army of the best economic advisors in the country warning them of all the potential problems facing the country, to respond to those warnings.

“Prior to the beginning of the financial crisis, you party did absolutely nothing to either call for reform to the government finances or put such policies into written form.”

Vince constantly warned about souring consumer debt. If more had been done to reduce the consumer debt bubble, there would have been a smaller bubble.

“Following the onset of the crisis, Vince Cable supported, almost to the letter, everything Brown did with regards to running a deficit (based on previous spending commitments) to stimulate the economy.”

Apart, of course, from Vince calling for the nationalisation of Northern Rock months before Labour finally did it. Oh, and apart from the bit about Stalin and Mr Bean.

I’ve never criticised Labour’s immediate reaction to the crisis. My criticism is their failure to live up to the responsibility of government between 2003 and 2008. Being in government at a time of economic, boom, brings huge electoral avbantage to the governing party. The downside, is if they make irresponsible decisions, those failings will haunt them for decades to come. And that time has come.

I’ll give you some abuse for writing this:

“These are Labour’s cuts. They employed many thousands of people without the long-term tax revenue to pay their wages. They have negotiated long-term PFI contracts to build capital projects, without the long-term tax revenue to pay for them.

Their promise to the electorate that they would be prudent with the nation’s finances has been turned on its head.

They’ll win seats this May and get hundreds of thousands to attend protests, because they are milking protests against the very cuts they are responsible for.

But, ultimately, I have faith in the British people that, wihle they engage in mid-term protests because they don’t want the government to be complacent, come 2015 they’ll remember Labour’s utter hypopcrisy, and vote accordingly.”

1. They are not Labour’s cuts. They are the coaltion’s cuts and they are being implemented at a faster pace than your party campaigned for in the election.

2. There was absolutely nothing in the Lib Dem 2005 manifesto about reducing spending/increasing taxes to build up a surplus. Indeed, the manifesto called for increased levels of taxation and government spending. Prior to the beginning of the financial crisis, you party did absolutely nothing to either call for reform to the government finances or put such policies into written form. Following the onset of the crisis, Vince Cable supported, almost to the letter, everything Brown did with regards to running a deficit (based on previous spending commitments) to stimulate the economy. Plus, your policy (from the 2005 manifesto) of keeping the national debt below 40% of GDP was exactly the same as Labour’s policy. At the time the financial crisis struck, the debt was below 40%, so we would have been in exactly the same mess if the Lib Dems had come to power in 2005 and implemented their manifesto.

“utter hypopcrisy”

I think that’s what Freud referred to as projection.

However, if you happen to happen to knock on my door in Leicester South in the coming weeks, I’ll probably invite you in for a cup of tea. You look like a nice chap.

Oh and I agree with George. We aren’t obliged to agree with everything the government does, and I feel quite happy to say when I disagree. And on the doorstep people want to talk about local issues. I have not detected any change in attitudes. Of course it may help here that we are the only viable opposition to the Tories.