Author Archives: Chris Moore

Where Next?

Post-General Election, there has been a slew of articles, in Lib Dem publications, about our strategic direction. Three interlinked commonplaces come up time and again. All, in my view, are wrong.

Let’s take them one by one.

1. There are not many plausible targets left.

In fact, there are twenty-five plus seats where we are in obvious contention. The majority are located in our southern heartlands and adjoin existing seats, easing the use of regional organisers and help from other local parties.

But twenty-five isn’t many, you may say.

Here is a short list of our best General Election results in seats since World War II.

2024: 64 gains
1997: 28 gains
1983: 12 gains
2005: 11 gains

All the rest were single figure gains or losses. In historical terms then, we clearly do have enough targets to be getting on with.

2. There is little else left to gain without significantly increasing vote share.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 39 Comments

Red Line

Proportional Representation for Westminster as a red line in coalition negotiations with Labour has the overwhelming support of Lib Dem members.

But a Lab-Lib Dem coalition is an extremely unlikely outcome at the General Election. Based on May’s opinion polls, Baxter’s Electoral Calculus predicts an overall Labour majority of 190. We are on 20 seats. Adding tactical voting assumptions to the calculus raises our total to 25 and gives Labour a “wafer-thin” majority of 268. And even if by a combination of “socialist” scandal and Tory re-invention, Labour do fall short, they may well choose to govern with the support of other parties or as a minority.

Still, do we not need to think about and be prepared for all eventualities, even the roughly 5% chance (my estimate) of going into coalition? We do.  But that is precisely what we are NOT doing. In fact, all the attention about possible electoral outcomes has been focused on the wished for (and feared) scenario in which we hold the balance. The problem is that the red line we have custom-designed to protect ourselves in the unlikely scenario of coalition will damage our chances in ALL electoral scenarios.

I share fellow members’ anxieties (and hopes) about a coalition with Labour. Our electoral debacle in 2015 was a pointed lesson in what can happen to a junior partner post-coalition in a FPTP system. PR might mitigate such post-coalition damage; though if our share of the vote is as bad as in 2015, we would fall below the minimum quota for a seat in the vast majority of STV constituencies.

In any case, you may say, PR is not only a prophylactic to electoral damage, it’s also our most popular policy. It certainly is! Amongst Lib Dem members, it enjoys possibly unanimous support. But the election won’t be won by appealing to party members. It’s the rest of the country we have to appeal to. It’s not even that the electorate actively REJECTS PR. So it’s not a matter of persuading the unenlightened of the superiority of PR. Voters just have other much more pressing priorities:  the cost-of-living crisis, the state of the NHS and our rivers and other such mundane matters. PR comes far down their list.

From previous experience of General Elections, we know that the media loves to talk about our stance on coalition, who we will go in with, what we want from it etcetera. Such talk absorbs a disproportionate amount of our precious broadcasting time; particularly given how infrequently we do actually go into coalition. But if we choose PR as our red line, that is what the electorate will hear about us most. They will realise that we value PR above all else. They will understand their concerns are not our concerns. And it will affect their vote accordingly.

This is, of course, unfair. And fortunately, it’s an avoidable error, once we understand that a red line intended for negotiation with a potential coalition partner is possibly the key message in our positioning at the election itself.

We must have red lines, not just one red line, and those red lines must resonate with the electorate, not just garner an indifferent approval.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 27 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • Simon R
    @Michael. Asking a single person to work 7.94 hours a week (if they are able) in order to earn the money they are being given by the state doesn't seem very on...
  • Michael BG
    For deep poverty rates by family type see JRF Poverty 2024 Report p 147 https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2024-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-t...
  • Michael BG
    Peter Martin, The public ‘won’t, rightly or wrongly, be in favour of a general increase in benefits to the unemployed’ (5th Oct 9.01am) I question t...
  • David Raw
    As a pro-European and a believer that the Lib Dems should resurrect their commitment to rejoin the EU, I must say David Warren makes a more than reasonable poin...
  • David Warren
    I am not surprised you had unfilled places given the cost of attending. This really needs looking at so those of us on low incomes are not excluded....