Maybe it’s just my own predisposition, but I seem to be seeing the phrase ‘more candidates’ all the time in Lib Dem literature. Mark Pack’s excellent pamphlet ‘How to Rebuild the Liberal Democrats’ talks about ‘more candiates’, Tim Farron has used the phrase, and my regional chair has just asked me to contribute to a by-election fund so we can stand ‘more candidates’.
All of which is good stuff, especially if more candidates lead to better quality candidates and increased diversity of candidates because more candidates are applying to fly the Lib Dem flag. But I’d also like to encourage the idea of ‘smarter candidates’, which requires asking the question: is this the right election for the Lib Dems to stand a candidate at all?
Cynics may point out that my current hobby horse is cross-party cooperation, and it is. But I’m still a Liberal Democrat who wants to see liberalism – especially social liberalism – enacted in this country. And for that to happen, we need the cooperation of other like-minded people who aren’t necessarily Lib Dems, people who Caroline Lucas, Lisa Nandy and I called ‘progressives’ in our recent book ‘The Alternative’.
We have to walk before we can run, and cross-party cooperation among the progressives is still sufficiently new that talk of standing down candidates feels a bit risqué. And it may not always be the right option. But consider this: we had an amazing result in Witney, yet what did it do to our national share of the polls? Nothing! We’re still at 8%. There has been no Witney bounce.
That tells me that we have to be smart about where we field candidates. The Greens have been smart in Richmond Park. They knew they couldn’t win, but they know that the Lib Dems could. So they have stood down their candidate, encouraged their supporters to vote for Sarah Olney, and all they’ve asked in return is good faith discussions over targeting wards in the 2018 borough elections.
That’s why I found it a shade discomfiting to see the speed with which we announced we were fielding a candidate in the Sleaford & North Hykeham by-election. Given the need for cross-party cooperation, and given the Greens’ gesture in Richmond Park (and the fact that three Labour MPs called for Labour not to put up a candidate, which might act as an encouragement for Labour voters to vote tactically for Sarah), at the very least we should have asked the question: is it right for us to stand?
I suspect the Tory majority in Sleaford is so big that no-one else can possibly win it, short of intercepting the Conservative candidate’s nomination papers before they’re handed in. But let’s learn from this. Let’s build in an extra question into every by-election selection process: is it wise from the point of view of promoting liberalism for us to stand a candidate in this election? (It’s possible our constitution might need tweaking to allow for this, but constitutions always need updating as realities change.)
Ultimately, it’s about more than just electoral tactics. British politics is crying out for an alternative to the Conservative/Ukip axis that’s revelling in representing the angry brigade and taking us away from enlightened and compassionate ideas. Many people would love to see political parties cooperating for the general good. We Lib Dems can make a really valuable contribution to a resurgence in progressive politics – but only if we learn to ask when we are best taking on the fight ourselves and when we are best supporting others of different policies but similar mindset.
* Chris Bowers is a two-term district councillor and four-time parliamentary candidate. He writes on cross-party cooperation, was the lead author of the New Liberal Manifesto, and is unofficial coordinator of the Yorkists.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
30 Comments
If we had not stood a candidate in Sleaford, then Lib Dem supporters in the area would be disenfranchised. And it would give the impression that the Lib Dems had written off certain parts of the country.
Incidentally, it seems rather a pity that (unless I have missed it), Lib Dem Voice has not published anything about the selection of the candidate in Sleaford, in comparison to the extensive coverage of the Witney and Richmond by-elections
“Many people would love to see political parties cooperating for the general good.”
But the reality when political parties cooperate is different, isn’t it?
What voters mean when they say ‘why don’t you work together/cooperate?’ is ‘stop squabbling like children’. When actual political cooperation happens, the smaller parties are branded ‘sell-outs’ by their opponents, the voters and often even their own side.
Further, the desired lines of cooperation would be different for individuals or blocs of voters. Our national vote breaks in all sorts of directions.
Perhaps more importantly, would we really stand aside for a Corbynite, pro-Brexit Labour candidate (because that’s the likely alternative to us at the moment).
While I have some sympathy with the ‘get-these-bad-guys-out-by-working-together’ argument, at the moment the picture is far too muddled to make this sort of choice. Indeed, it should be clear to all of us that our party needs to fight with all it has to avoid oblivion rather than make decisions that contribute to our own downfall.
Although I agree with Catherine’s point above that it’s a shame, I have to say, I think Chris is right (at least for now).
If there was a GE in the near future, the tories would almost certainly increase their majority significantly.
To get our voice heard, I do indeed believe this strategy is sensible in many areas. In a FPTP system, I think we need to work smart for the common good, otherwise we really are looking at a one party state for the foreseeable future
Mike – given that we came second in so few places last time out, how many seats do you think we’d contest in your general election scenario and in how many of these would Corbyn’s Labour stand aside? And how do you think the majority of voters in these seats (particularly the south west) would react to a straight Tory v non-Tory vote. Given how the voters in these seats reacted to the Tory campaign in 2015, I’m not convinced this is a winning strategy.
Max – fair point.
Under no circumstances should we not stand a candidate. How can we possibly create a ‘core vote’ if we disenfranchise chunks of the electorate. Working together across party lines after the event is a different matter but needs less tribalism, better communication with the voters and a very clear understanding of precisely what we want to achieve and how it takes liberalism forward.
Their is an entirely false assumption that Lib Dem or indeed Labour and Green voters will comfortably swap their votes to any of these Parties. Less than 50% of ALL voters self identify with ANY Party. So the reality is very different as Resident Survey results. When voters are asked which Party or Parties best reflect the voter’s values they often link very different Parties together as equally reflecting their values – UKIP & Green, Labour & Conservative, UKIP & Lib Dem. More evidence comes from observing Lib Dem voters second preferences in elections that see their votes eliminated to transfer to one of the top two candidates, usually Labour and Conservative. In Wiltshire Lib Dem Dr Brian Mathew secured an impressive 21% of first votes in May’s Police and Crime Commissioner ballot. Sadly the presence of Swindon with all-up elections on the same day meant it was the Labour Candidate who squeezed past Brian to be in the “run-off” with the triumphant Tory. So I watched and counted 100 of Brian’s votes to see where they went. 9 went next to UKIP and therefore were discounted. 24 had either a Lib Dem or no second cross and similarly were discounted. That”s 33. 33. The 67 remaining 35 went to the Labour candidate and 32 to the Tory. So if Brian had not stood (and campaigned) the Conservative would have benefited almost as much as Labour. Incidentally watching the UKIP candidates transfers most did indeed go to the Tory but many went Labour, Lib Dem and nowhere. Voters are not “blocs or battalions” to be moved around the political campaign field at the whim of Parties. We need to stand and campaign hard. In doing so we attract 2010 Labour, Green, Tory and indeed even some UKIP voters and increasingly in sufficient volumes to win!
“There is an entirely false assumption that Lib Dem or indeed Labour and Green voters will comfortably swap their votes to any of these Parties.”
Surely a more appropriate time to test the theory is a by-election and then we can have further discussion, either settling on this not being right for us or the positives being worthwhile to continue along this path, when it really matters at a GE.
I am wholly in favour of any kind of cooperation that works to maximise the anti-Tory vote in elections, but I think the points made by Max Wilkinson and Gavin Grant are completely correct. What I think can work, however, is the kind of behind-the-scenes cooperation over targeting and allocating resources and coordinating attacks that the Liberal Democrats and Labour undertook in the run-up to the 1997 election – for a full description, read my chapter in the book Chris co-edited, ‘The Alternative’. This approach can be followed in general (and maybe council) elections, but not really by-elections.
Handing the baton to the Greens in Sleaford would have been a bit pointless given that they obviously feel they are so weak there that they are not going to stand a candidate.
My first reaction is a big No. One of the good things about More United is that it explicitly avoids the path of Parties not standing candidates. We should be grateful to the Greens & WEP for standing aside in Richmond Park but that is a one-off, I dont think we should generally be in the business of suggesting that other Parties do or dont stand, its up to them.
This is a dangerous time but I dont think some sort of Popular Front would help.
@gavin grant
Very useful comments there.
It reminds me of canvassing a resident in my ward a few years ago:
Me: “So how do you think you’ll be voting this time?”
Resident: “Green”
Me (smiling): “Well you won’t actually, because they aren’t standing this time. So, how do you think you’ll vote?”
Resident: “In that case it will be Conservative!”
As Gavin says, people have all sorts of preferences which may appear completely illogical to us.
I am generally a big fan of the More United type of approach. However, just now we happen to have a strong and distinctive policy on Brexit which is leading the challenge to May. Not the time to stand down.
I guess that Lib Dems will have to lose quite a bit more before a majority of us realise that working with other progressive parties may be a better way of winning together than continuing to think we can win across the country under First Past the Post with 8% in opinion polls.
Thank you Chris for the Article and as the candidate for Sleaford and North Hykeham I would just like to identify a couple of things as to why we definately should be standing here in Sleaford and North Hykeham.
The first point to make is that in the 2010 elections we came second. We cannot use 2015 as an barometer.
Second, the Greens have failed to stand any candidates in local by-elections recently and Labour have only stood in one. The Greens have stepped aside for a single issue candidate who is supporting Grantham A&E unit.
And that leaves the Labour candidate who said the the referendum was all about immigration and therefore we should go ahead with Brexit.
Looking at all the evidence, I feel the only progressive choice for Sleaford and North Hykeham is to have a Lib Dem on the ballot paper
Happy to agree with Catherine and Ross.
My experience with Labour is cooperation to them means standing aside for Labour, almost whatever the circumstances or supporting Labour policy almost whatever the issue. Those of us with longer memories can well remember when the Liberals kept Labour in office in 1977 in return for a few policies we wanted enacted. Labour ratted on almost all of them. The electorate turned on us and we took a huge pasting in the 1977 county elections and in the subsequent GE of 1979. That wasn’t even cooperating in elections, just a parliamentary arrangement because of a hung parliament. Just like the recent coalition we didn’t try and sell it to the electorate and reaped the whirlwind. It is my firm belief that if we did cooperate to gain a majority for PR with the promise of a fresh election once implemented and Labour were to gain a majority as a result, they would not implement PR and would not hold a fresh election.
Cooperation with the Labour Party is a recipe for disaster and we should have none of it. Always stand a candidate.
I definitely agree with Ross that it is important always to give our supporters a vote, especially where we are offering a policy option that no other major party is offering.
It would have been handy to have been notified about the candidate selection process, though. I may have missed the email, but once I’d processed the fact of Stephen Phillips’ resignation, and come to the conclusion that I might be interested in standing, I emailed Ross to find out what was happening, and he told me that nominations had closed about half an hour earlier. Obviously we need to be able to get a reaction in the news, and there is also the question of actually filing papers to stand, but IIRC, nominations closed before the writing for a bye election was issued.
If we want to get more candidates, then we need to give them time to stand – 72 hours is quite a tight time, unless you have your position paper already written and ready to go at a moment’so notice. (I’ve just checked my email as I write this, and I didn’t get an email about S&NH, just a few about other bye elections.)
It may be that our more seasoned campaigners are a better prospect for bye-elections, but it’s no use saying we need more candidates if the people who might stand don’t know about the selection until the selection has been made. Might I suggest that we email members at the opening of selection so that they can make enquiries and possibly stand, rather than just asking for help with leaflets etc once we start campaigning? Perhaps like that, we may get a few of those “needed” candidates. Yes, we have members who are prepared for bye elections, and have their applications ready to send in at the moment a suitable MP is promoted to a stewardship, but look how the SNP did in the last general election – I’m sure that was not all seasoned campaigners.
William Hobhouse – which progressive parties would you like us to work with and where’s the common ground?
Phil Culmer – are you an approved candidate? If you are then I would definitely check with HQ why you weren’t notified. If not then you wouldn’t get an email and I would really recommend that you apply to become an approved candidate.
The party should avoid doing anything that makes us look like Labour Lite or Conservative Lite.
Lib Dems need to be obviously distinctive from the other parties and people need to be clear about what we stand for and our liberal ideology on social and economic issues.
Lib Dems should consider co-operation with other parties to get rid of IRA groupies like Jeremy Corbyn & John McDonnell
A deal with the Labour party also happened in the 1906 general election, albeit with fewer people enfranchised.
ISBN 9781847924056 ISBN 9781847924063 is worth a look.
Shirley Williams wrote “This is an important book: a revealing analysis of British politics today and why it urgently needs reform.”
Nick Clegg has a lot to say about the Tories, some of it very quotable, but John Major is quoted on the dust-jacket as saying “People of all political persuasions owe Nick Clegg a debt that I have no doubt history will acknowledge.”
Richard Underhill. Yes indeed, but in 1906 the Liberals were by far the larger party and wanted labour’s help to win the election. Had the Liberals not stood aside in some seats then Labour would not have got a 50 seat toehold in the commons and history might have been very different.
Senior Liberals very much regretted the 1906 pact because they later saw that they could have got most of the Labour seats themselves.
Mick is correct in his above comments on 1906. Labour do not realise the extent to which that party was helped by the Liberals like , the wonderful Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the facts are there.
We need to not be just , distinctive , an over-used word if not explained. Distinctive and daft ?! No , thanks ! This party , our party , needs to be connecting with the decent mainstream of this land and those beyond . Not the 48%!
And if the 48%ers are so right , how come with a stance currently very appealing to them and not the rest , we are on 8% in many polls ?!
If we looked, sounded , and behaved more like more people , those in the main who do not want this country divided , but are luke warm on the institutions like the EU , we might improve our position , just as much as every bit of our current , and Britains political class ‘s obsession with Brexit !
If we addressed people’s concerns and our own , in a way that connected with the mainstream not the fringe view , we might be in the mainstream and not on the fringe of politics !
Gavin Grant. I have always assumed you were well educated even when I have fundamentally disagreed with you. It seems you don’t know the difference between their (belonging to them) and there (as in over there or there are). For people like me concerned to be clear in my language this grates. Please don’t do it again.
Mick Taylor
I hope that was tongue in cheek.
Otherwise your being a little harsh. Its quite common for people to get confused by homophobes. Don’t loose you’re sense of humour.
@ Mick Taylor “My experience with Labour is cooperation to them means standing aside for Labour, almost whatever the circumstances or supporting Labour policy almost whatever the issue”…….. That sounds remarkably like a mirror image of the 2010-2015 Coalition if you delete “Labour” and insert “Tory”, Mick.
As to 1906, to say the Liberals were by far the larger party numerically was true at the time. However, this is a superficial view because underneath the surface the Labour Party was flexing it’s muscles and changes towards a wider franchise w3ere due to come.
However long it may have taken (despite Herbert Gladstone and Jack Pease’s fixing) Labour would have elbowed the Liberals aside as any student of, for example, the Sowerby constituency in West Yorkshire would know. The career of Charles Trevelyan M.P. in Elland is a classic example of changing loyalties, as later. was Douglas Houghton M.P.
The impact and disillusionment of the First World war plus a collapse in traditional nonconformist religious loyalties changed the whole ball game.
Lorenzo, sadly your hero Campbell-Bannerman died….. twas Squiffy wot dun it.
Correction to what could be a misinterpreted :
Of course Squiffy didn’t do C.B. in (Heaven forbid !!) …………
What I meant was that he was more active in getting his Chief Whips to chat with the Labour lot.
John Peters, I hope it was the homophones that confused you, not the homophobes….!
Fair point by Max, but Compass (the mainly Labour broad progressive front organisation including some Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid) was advocating Labour standing down for us on certain conditions – in other words, theoretically we could have chosen a candidate they couldn’t recommend. This sets a precedent. If we considered standing down for a Labour, Green or Plaid candidate, we could set conditions about the kind of candidate we’d support.