Three principal council by-election were held yesterday. In Cambridgeshire (CC), the Conservatives comfortably held their seat in Bar Hill ward, polling 46% of the vote to finish 536 votes ahead of the UKIP candidate. Fiona Whelan finished a close third with 13.9%, an improvement on the party’s vote share in the ward’s previous election in 2013 of 5.4%.
The contest in Oswestry East ward in Shropshire (UA) once again saw the Conservatives secure an easy hold, with their candidate finish 411 votes ahead of second place Labour with 47.5% of the vote. Lib Dem candidate Amanda Woof registered 16.5% to finish fourth, with the party not fielding a candidate in the ward’s 2013 election.
Elsewhere, Labour made their first principal-council gain of 2015 by taking a seat from UKIP in Mark Hall ward in Harlow (BC). The Lib Dem’s vote share dropped by 4.4% in polling 3.4% to finish fifth in a ward where we had previously held all three seats.
* ALDC is the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors and Campaigners
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
Matt Wardman
19 Comments
“……The Lib Dem’s vote share dropped by 4.4% in polling 3.4% to finish fifth. in a ward where we had previously held all three seats.”
To answer Peter Chegwyn’s question — no the top of the party has not woken up, they are not smelling the coffee.
82 days until the polling stations open in the 2015 General Election
John Tilley is right. The coffee will be cold before some people wake up to smell it.
John Tilley & Peter Chegwyn
Given that the undoubted problems we are facing are very largely a consequence of the democratrically arrived at decision of our party to enter the coalition, your solution prior to the imminent general election is………?
And don’t come up with the worn out mantra of blaming everything on Nick Clegg.
Denis, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the strategic decision to enter Coalition in 2010. Entering similar arrangements in Scotland Wales and umpteen councils since the 1980s did not have a similar destructive impact.
What was wrong was the // strategy purchased by Clegg from Marshall, Laws, Astle and Reeves of shunning former supporters in pursuit of a new core vote of broadly soft Tories which found expression in the Rose Garden, and a slew of policies aimed at these voters – (whose preferences had been tracked by Cortzee’s polling and which dominate our choice of issues and positions).
So, of course, ultimately it is the Leader’s mistakes that have got us here and not the fault of those conference reps who supported Coalition, most of whom had in their minds the success of Coalitions working in Scotland, Wales and their local councils which many had direct experience of participating in.
So what to do – even now?
Cable has managed to force those in charge of economic policy to adopt a wiser set of economic policies https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work/articles/waugh-room/danny-0-vince-3
We now need to shift the rest of our policies we campaign on in a similar and complementary direction.
If we don’t then our ground campaigns (broadly against the Tories) will continue to be out of step with our air campaigns which continue to be directed at realising the Marshall/Laws/Astle/Reeves project.
A good manifesto, expressed as specific, measurable, attainable, realistic campaigns to be realised in the next Parliament, with scope for local campaigns to link these to local issues, and communicated by people whose reputations have not been trashed, would be a great start.
@Denis L
The party who voted for coalition didn’t vote for an austerity policy. I remember Ashdown justifying our about turn on TV . How many members would have voted for coalition knowing that the signed promise not to vote for increased Tuition fees would be dishonoured?
“How many members would have voted for coalition knowing that the signed promise not to vote for increased Tuition fees would be dishonoured?”
The coalition agreement was quite weak on this though – and IIRC an attempt to have an amendment on this specific point wasn’t taken for debate at Birmingham.
It is not I think a “worn-out mantra” to assert that Nick Clegg is primarily responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves, although opinions may differ as to how and why this has happened. What is more of a “worn-out mantra” is to assert, as Bill le Breton does, that Clegg “purchased” (whatever that means) a strategy from Marshall/Laws/Astle/Reeves.
Two of these, Astle and Reeves, were junior apparatchiks with no great political experience, and it does not seem in the least likely that the silly remarks that Reeves in particular may have made reflected truthfully the opinions either of Clegg or other members of Clegg’s inner circle.
As to Marshall and Laws, their ideological position within our party’s spectrum is well known, but there is no evidence that this is also Clegg’s ideological position – indeed, one of Clegg’s faults (or merits ?) is that he has no strong ideological footing – and the fact that Laws’s ideological position has not proved an obstacle to his playing a major role in the formulation of our general election manifesto, without any obvious expressions of disquiet from within those with differing ideological positions in the upper echelons of the party (Vince Cable, Simon Hughes, Steve Webb and so on), rather suggests that he has not been remotely as malevolent a force on the policy front as some posters on this site believe.
Well Hugh. whoever you are, Astle and Reeves were extremely influential. Astle remains so. (as obviously were Sherlock and Wright). Yes they were inexperienced but actually not much less experienced in politics and winning campaigns than Clegg and Laws. Both of whom gained their platforms through safe seat routes. They never understood the activist. In fact they had little respect for their pedantic approach to building communities of support.
It is quite obvious that Cable has asserted himself over Alexander and Laws on our economic policy (see above) which is now very different to that pushed by our members of the Quad (Clegg, Alexander,Laws – but yes, a Quad) during the first 4 and a half years of this Parliament.
We shall see how the Manifesto eventually comes out and whose fingerprints are on it. Anyone who had the confidence in their contribution would surely also have had the confidence to place it before the FPC before committing the Party to its top five.
That said, I admired the way Laws justified the front page. But it remains a totally uncampaignable document.
To try now to say that the Reevian strategy was not ‘bought into’ or purchased by Clegg is not defensible. Read the record. Oh and do come out in the open – the fresh air is wonderfully stimulating and the light of day so much more invigorating than those dark corners of Wolf Hall.
Hugh p 14th Feb ’15 – 12:22pm
Hugh p
It is difficult to where to start with this comment of yours — but maybe you would like to explain the size of the salary given to Reeves during the period in question if he was merely a ” junior apparatchik ” ?
I am guessing that you did not know who Reeves was and what he was doing ?
He might have cause to be a bit upset to be described as a ” junior apparatchik with no great political experience”.
You go on to say —
“….As to Marshall and Laws, their ideological position within our party’s spectrum is well known, but there is no evidence that this is also Clegg’s ideological position – ”
Your view seems contrary to that in the book by Jasper Gerrard, who I believe interviewed all three individuals in researching his book. Perhaps you know better?
You are clearly very keen to defend Clegg and Marshall.
You might make a better fist of defending your heros if you familiarised yourself with the facts first.
My solution to try and stop an election disaster is for NIck Clegg to step down as leader and for the Parliamentary Party to replace him with Vince Cable . It’s is a Clegg problem . Our candidates in held Parlkamenary seats don’t put Clegg on their leaflets etc because they know it will damage their chances of re-election . trying to pretend he is not leader but that won’t work at the General Election when Cleggs on the TV every day.
It’s not to late to save us from disaster.
Julian Astle was campaigning while at centre for um to change the party policy on tuition fees,
he has the political judgement of dead hedgehog, I suggest Hugh P read Astle article in the Telegraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/julianastle/100083736/reports-of-the-lib-dems%E2%80%99-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
“Clegg heads a serious and ambitious cohort of MPs who have no interest in the politics of perpetual opposition. They want to change the country. But they also want to change their party, and change it for good.
Having studied extensive private polling from the past 20 years, they know that there is significant latent support for the Lib Dems waiting to be tapped – as there is for any party of the centre that can capture the public imagination. A majority of voters have long claimed they “would consider voting Lib Dem” but worry about “wasting” their vote if they do so. What do they mean by this? In part, they mean that they don’t think the Lib Dems can win outright so won’t vote for them – a chicken-and-egg conundrum with no obvious solution. But they are also revealing some other, related opinions: that the party is insufficiently serious; that it cannot be trusted with power; that it isn’t capable of governing.
Clegg is hoping the next five years will change these perceptions. By governing – and by facing up to the difficult decisions that governing involves – his party is already recasting its image in the public eye. In doing so, it is addressing important and long-standing brand weaknesses. It is making the difficult transition from the politics of protest to the politics of power, swapping public affection for public respect”
How’s that going, well 1% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 plan to vote Lib Dem and 75% of people who voted Lib Dem plan to vote for someone else. I wouldn’t trust Astle to run a bath, but I see he is still listed as is special adviser for policy to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg at 10 Downing Street.
Ditching leaders so close to a general election will do us no good at all even though Clegg is a dirty word out there, unjustly I think. What happens i May will happen. I suggest though that our first action after the election should be to ditch the awful Connect system we are lumbered with and this Minivan rubbish. I drove one of those when I was 18. Guess this import works well in Presidential elections in America but shuttleworths (remember those) and later Ears were both doing us proud at a time when we were, do you remember, actually doing rather well! Data, data, data, data, data ….. defeat!
David Hollingsworth wrote:
“My solution to try and stop an election disaster is for NIck Clegg to step down as leader and for the Parliamentary Party to replace him with Vince Cable .”
I agree. All the opinion polls, plus a wealth of anecdotal evidence, tells us that removing Nick Clegg and replacing him with Vince Cable, even at this late stage, will increase our level of support. I doubt that it would make much difference in Scotland, but I think there is a fair chance that it would save several English and Welsh MPs.
My real fear about continuing with Nick Clegg is that once the election is called, he will be the public face of the Liberal Democrats who will be seen in the media day and night talking the usual centrist flannel, and by so doing will undermine all the hard work that has been going on in the constituencies.
We can expect another 80 off days of intense mudslinging between the two largest parties. That is like to turn off large chunks of the electorate. A party like ours that puts across a positive message based on the good things that we do could well benefit. But we have to have a leader who appeals to voters.
“….As to Marshall and Laws, their ideological position within our party’s spectrum is well known, but there is no evidence that this is also Clegg’s ideological position – ”
Clegg “doesn’t do” ideology.
In much the same vein, Alastair Campbell’s greatest single achievement in the dark arts of spin doctoring was to assert that Tony Blair “didn’t do” God. The truth, of course, is that Blair’s obsessive form of religious belief is on a par with that of Ron L Hubbard and not a million miles less doctrinaire than the Ayatollah Khomeini. But Campbell realised that it would be better for New Labour if the public were kept in the dark about all that. So he duly pretended that Blair “didn’t do” God. Until Blair went off and joined George W Bush in his crusade for Iraq, and half a million died in Blair’s religious war.
Well, Clegg isn’t saddled with that blood on his hands, thankfully. But pretending that he doesn’t do ideology, while leaving it to people like Marshall, Laws and Centre Forum to do it all for him, is a similar form of duplicity. Clegg buys into the Tory smaller state, big time. That’s why his first declared policy slogan back in 2008 was “Big Permanent Tax Cuts”.
Laws, much like Jeremy Browne, takes the view that he should present a case for right-wing economic liberalism, and honestly seek to persuade the party and the voters to accept it. Clegg understands that what he truly wants is too far removed from Preamble Liberal Democrat principles to be accepted by the party as a whole. That’s why he pretends that he “doesn’t do” ideology.
David Allen
You have a point when you say —
“… Clegg understands that what he truly wants is too far removed from Preamble Liberal Democrat principles to be accepted by the party as a whole. That’s why he pretends that he “doesn’t do” ideology.”
He belongs to a class of people who think they are born to rule. Honest democratic debate with the likes of the common hoard are all a bit unnecessary for the public school elite with their sense of entitlement. They do not consider honesty in politics to be any more important than honesty in their tax returns and banking arrangements.
I wil leave aside your other point about blood on his hands. Clegg has other blood on his hands (check out the death toll and isery in Lybia in recent times) and don’t forget he was keen to con us all into a war in Syria in 2013 and happy to send UK troops back to Iraq despite a promise of “no boots on the ground”.
@David hollingsworth
“My solution to try and stop an election disaster is for NIck Clegg to step down as leader and for the Parliamentary Party to replace him with Vince Cable . “
@Sesenco
“I agree. All the opinion polls, plus a wealth of anecdotal evidence, tells us that removing Nick Clegg and replacing him with Vince Cable, even at this late stage, will increase our level of support.”
You mean the Vince Cable who, as Cabinet Member responsible, was “the Father of £9,000 pa Tuition Fees”?
What could possibly go wrong with that idea?
I don’t have the warmest of pro-Clegg feelings and would vote against him like a shot, but anyone who thinks ditching him now is remotely viable and trouble-free (unless clear un-tampered video evidence is found in the next week of him and Miriam robbing banks naked and high on drugs whilst shouting racist obscenties) is living in rose-scented 100-pper-cent-proof lala-land. The door is shut. Get over it and do something else more constructive.
matt (Bristol)16th Feb ’15 – 3:09pm
Matt – great news – do you want the YouTube link?
Any regular reader of LDV will know my ocassionally posted opinion regarding NC, his equidistance disasterism and basic political mistakes but getting rid of him now is not a viable option. Sadly that passed with 2014.
I am also of the belief that the best we can do now is work for sound mainstream preamble-believing candidates and hope that no one has the bright idea of us entering into coalition with anyone in May. Our party must not be the hostage to electoral mathematics or personal ambition.
MY EYES!