Comments on: Opinion on Nick Clegg’s first anniversary: Martin Land – Has it really been one year?

By: Clegg's Candid Fan

Clegg's Candid Fan — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:14:34 +0000

“This was in part because the mathematics involved (primary school level) was beyond arts-educated journalists, so this line received no coverage and it didn’t seem possible even to get the journoes to understand it.”

But one of my gripes was that it didn’t get any coverage in Lib Dem literature. Although the “blond buffoon” strategy was misconceived, the election was still, to some extent, a contest of unpopularities, and we should have been hammering home that there was no danger of a vote for Paddick “letting the other one in”. Instead we carried blithely on as though it was a first-past-the-post election.

By: Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:04:38 +0000

With the GLA elections, it became clear quite early on that our candidate didn’t stand a chance. The early hope that perhaps just we could persuade anti-Ken people to vote Brian first and Boris second, and anti-Boris people to vote Brian first and Ken second didn’t materialise. This was in part because the mathematics involved (primary school level) was beyond arts-educated journalists, so this line received no coverage and it didn’t seem possible even to get the journoes to understand it.

We could then have really pushed the idea that with Boris or Ken at the top, we needed more LibDem GLA members to do an effective job scrutinising him. Perhaps that could have worked, though again getting it into the media might have fallen down on the inability of the British journalist to employ any reasoning involving mathematics and/or logic.

Most London activists worked out there really wasn’t much point in putting much time, energy or money into the GLA elections, far better to save it for future Westminster and London Borough elections.

FPTP elections do seem to work for us because the challenge to put in the effort to win a single ward or constituency fires us, and we can see and immediate and dramatic effect when we do it. With list elections, generalised campaigning over the whole area rather than concentrated campaigning in parts of it, and with the ultimate aim to push our overall percentage up to win extra seats overall rather than winning individual local seats, just doesn’t fire us as much to go out and commit time and energy. Going out and pushing in my patch because I know we can win in my patch by that pushing works, going out and pushing in my patch when my efforts will just be pooled and we won’t do that well because so many other patches go unworked doesn’t, it actually leaves me lacking in motivation to work even my patch.

STV may work better for us, because what that actually involves is going out and winning a quota of votes for an individual candidate. We can effectively draw up our own constituency from the multi-member constituency, whichever parts of it we think most likely to be worth working to build up that quota.

Constituency with list top-up is a sham, because the only effect of working hard to win a constituency is to knock one off the list candidates elected. It’s hard to get across the message and way of thinking that only the list votes really count because they determine the party balance. Even Germans, at least in my relatively limited experience of discussing this with them, seem to find it hard to understand despite years of experience with the system.

By: David Morton

David Morton — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:05:50 +0000

19% in ICMm is not as good as it got in the last parliament which is the one whoes results we will be defendng/building on.

also if we are picking polsters then why pick the only one out of the 5 nationals that is showing a passible result at the moment ?

The points about membership are well made. However it would have strengthened martins argument had he linked this to the growth of list PR. We don’t seem to be flourishing on the London, Wales, Scotland and Euro lists because the system is the antithesis of the “Local Champion” model.

By: Clegg's Candid Fan

Clegg's Candid Fan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:26:17 +0000

“19% in the latest ICM poll. That’s about as good as it gets between elections.”

You’re joking, of course?

Even under Clegg ICM has put the Lib Dems above 19% as often as below it:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention/icm

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:49:08 +0000

I think that Nick does OK in TV interviews and he does ‘exasperated’ fairly well. I would like to see a bit more humour and a little charm. Whether we like it or not, people do tend to pay a huge amount of attention to leaders. They have to feel that they know Nick, and I don’t think that he is relaxed enough to convey that impression.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:31:31 +0000

I have to admit I am not impressed with the idea that Cameron or Brown would want our frontbench. They are meant to be Liberals after all, not Tory or New Labour.
As for party membership; it is declining in all political parties. A national leader can provide the leadership that inspires people to join, and the influence to raise funds. He cannot micro manage struggling local parties. If you want more members then you have to do it. I know it is not easy.
Whether Nick Clegg visits your local party or not – it really depends on what return he can get on making that investment given he can’t be everywhere at once. Obviously target seats are priority, other seats are worth visiting if you can get good local coverage and possibly many more members. You need to make an offer he cannot refuse.