In politics, we see a ‘paradigm shift’ occur generationally, which we are now seeing with the Conservatives in office, but not in power. Labour is a party heading for power, but not yet in office. Where do we as Liberal Democrats stand in this generational event, or could it be an event of a political realignment which usually happens once in a century?
Antony Hook has started a serious debate about our long-term vision after the General Election. This article seeks to furtherer this debate, and will prove to be controversial to some readers. However, as Liberals we believe in free debate, as this is a fundamental right in a free and fair society and it is in this spirit, this article should be read.
This article presumes that there will be two seismic political events next year, on which I will focus on the second one:
- General Election
- Conservative Leadership Election
With Keir Starmer likely to be Prime Minister after the General Election, the Conservatives will have a leadership election, which will lead to a civil war within their party. As Conservative Home points out, One Nation MPs have fallen out with the Conservative Grassroots. This has been further illustrated by Tim Montgomerie, who wrote that
He (Nigel Farage) got quite the reception. I’m convinced party members would choose him as leader if they could.
Rishi Sunak has even left the door for Nigel Farage to return to the Conservative Party. It is evident that Farage is seen as the doyen of Conservatism, and Liberal Conservatives may need to find a new political home after the General Election.
Despite One Nation Tories pledging to hold Suella Braverman (or Liz Truss) to account if she is elected, they are more likely to have more in common with the new cohort of Liberal Democrat MPs who will be elected at the next General Election, as they will be representing their traditional heartlands.
As One Nation Conservatives become ideologically detached from the reactionary authoritarianism of the New Conservatives, who seek to Americanise our political culture through culture wars, could we see an alliance between One Nation Tories, who would need to rename themselves – potentially calling themselves the Christian Democrats and Liberal Democrat MPs to form a grouping within the House of Commons and potentially replace the Conservatives as the Official Opposition to Starmer’s Government?
The thought cannot easily be dismissed as the Brexit Valence slowly takes hold over different demographics within the country, which ultimately sees Christian Democrats and Liberal Democrats move closer as part of this political realignment. As analysed in Brexitland, this political realignment allows us as a party to use the ‘Blue Wall’ for establishing ourselves as the voice of cosmopolitan southern England, with a pro-EU identity.
Furthermore, David Gauke in Case for the Centre-Right, raises whether Liberal Conservatives should from a new centre-right party in the case of the Conservatives become an ‘ersatz party’, which becomes unelectable and ungovernable. There are similar parallels with what Gauke is suggesting, in relation to the formation of the Social Democrats in 1981, under the leadership of Roy Jenkins. Both Gauke and Jenkins were on the moderate wing of their original parties, and both served in Cabinet. Jenkins in his BBC Dimbleby Lecture of ‘Home Thoughts from Abroad’ in 1979, talked about a
need of strengthening the centre and ending the see-saw of irreverent dogma
while Gauke although from an opposing political side than Jenkins, concedes that Liberal Conservatives may need to leave the Conservatives.
Moreover, underneath the context of this possible political realignment is the aftermath of a European Referendum. The 1975 European Referendum became the precursor on which the Social Democrats was built on, and could it be the 2016 Brexit Referendum becomes the precursor of what leads to the Christian Democrats being formed. Is Farage, Truss or Braverman going to play the role of Tony Benn did at the 1980 Labour Party Conference, which leads to the One Nationers being forced out of the Conservative Party?
Our leadership cannot ignore the effect it could have on our party, with the risks and opportunities presented by such a possibility occurring. I understand that nothing publicly should be said till the General Election is over, but it would be foolish not to have a fully thought position if this scenario does happen between the General Election and Conservative Leadership Election Result. The stakes cannot be any higher, as there is a possibility that such an alliance could potentially win the 2029 General Election.
The questions for all of us as Liberals, is do we hold out the hand of friendship, as we did to the Social Democrats in 1981 to the Christian Democrats in 2025, if such an occurrence happens?
* Adam Robertson is a member of East Suffolk Local Party, and a member of Liberal Reform. Adam currently works for a Local Principal Authority. Former Parliamentary Candidate for Lowestoft.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Tony Ferguson
David Garlick
Jason Connor
Alex Macfie
Cllr Fran OborskiMBE
47 Comments
In 1981 when Benn lost very narrowly to Healey for Deputy Leader of Labour, that propped up the Labour Party and stopped it fracturing. Had Benn won, Foot would have resigned and Benn would have become Labour Leader and in 1983 the Alliance would have been the main opposition, they were close to being the second party though a long way off in seats because of FPTP. Maybe we will see a realignment of the centre and centre left. Not only are the Tories likely to lose its centre “One Nation” wing but Labour cannot continue to sustain its corporatist Trade Union persona, so maybe its centre group will join with a new grouping. If Labour win in 2024 it will be on a minority and have an exaggerated majority based on FPTP. The Tories will do everything to cling on to power and bribe the electorate in the Budget next Spring (if there is one).
A cautious hand of friendship, certainly. Dominic Grieve, for example, is a decent man who the party should welcome were he to find the “Nat C’s” embarrassing. The late Sir Iain Gilmour was first elected to Parliament as a National Liberal.
But it wasn’t clear in 2019 that Philip Lee, for instance, subscribed to the party’s core values. Being seen as a convenient dustbin for anyone who’s fallen out with another party doesn’t enhance the Liberal Democrats’ credibility.
No we are not a centre right party. Remember that liberal Tories are still Tories! They may be pro environment, pro ECHR and anti populist but they are still pro austerity and so on.
What is the political case for voting LibDem? This is an important discussion. Our current strategy of concentrating on defeating as many Tory MPs as we can begs the question “to what end?” Are we just trying to help get the Tories out and Labour in? Are we seeking to hold the balance of power? (Because if so, further very awkward questions, electorally speaking, arise.) Or are we seeking a re-alignment in the centre of British politics. as suggested by Adam? Or are we simply saying that the more MPs we get the more influence we will have (which is not necessarily true)?
AS for Adam’s very interesting analysis, In the past LibDems have often taken positions to the left of a majority Labour government. I’m not sure how much room on the centre right a Keir Starmer government would leave for us.
Are we still allowed to dream, or is that too dangerous after our 2019 debacle? Assuming Starmer is on course for a majority, perhaps we should be trying to position ourselves to replace the Conservatives as the principal opposition?
This might be quite a good line for campaigning in Mid Beds – an incentive to vote Lib Dem there as it will cause more damage to the Tories than a Labour vote.
The 19th century Liberal party owes its origins to a fractious break-up of the Conservatives and consolidation of Whigs, free trade–supporting Peelites, and reformist Radicals in the 1850s. Although the party saw some breakaways such as the Liberal Unionists, the new social liberal administration that came in with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 was one of the great reforming Parliaments of the 20th century comparable to that of Attlee’s post-WW2 labour administration. The exigencies of the Great War not only marked the beginning of the end for the British Empire, but also the death knell for the Liberal party in the inter-war years.
The revival under Jo Grimond and the merger with the SDP to create the Liberal Democrats saw a coming together of Liberals from the Whig tradition and reformist radicals breaking away from Labour. Bringing in a cohort of one nation conservatives to the fold might possibly recreate the circumstances of the mid 19th century in forming a strong enough political grouping to challenge for power in the years to come.
The political case would be a break with the tired rhetoric of class division (right vs left) and reversal of the centralisation of power at Westminster. A reformist mission based on the devolving of power to the regions with community politics at its heart would be the clarion call.
A really interesting post from Adam.
As long as we have FPTP I don’t see a significant Conservative split. The Tories are going in the same direction as the Republicans in the US and our likely set for a long spell in opposition as Starmer hugs the centre ground.
As for David Symond’s analysis of the 1981 Labour deputy leadership election I disagree with his analysis. Had Benn won (always a long shot) Foot would not have resigned. The party’s right wing in alliance with the left that refused to support Benn were already resurgent leading up to that conference. They won a majority on the NEC that year and removed Benn from his key role as Chair of its Home policy committee soon after. That combination of forces that Foot had aligned himself with would have stayed intact, isolating Benn in the process. Yes there may have been a few more defections to the SDP but the left surge would still have been over.
In those circumstances the result of the 1983 General Election wouldn’t have been much different.
Christian Democrats. Please NO.
If there was an opposition better than Starmer it could get enough seats under FPTP to appeal to the media and the voters. The 2 great issues of our time are climate change and saving Britain from more years of Brexit.
In Greece, over the last 100 years, the olive harvest has started from AFTER CHRISTMAS to OCTOBER 1. 3 months of climate change.
The LibDems and Greens work together in Richmond Borough. Nationally we both have common policies on Brexit and Global Warming. Let’s select the seats we could win and go for it.
Can I thank everyone who has commented on the article, and I welcome any constructive feedback regardless whether you agree or disagree with the article. We live in a liberal society, and I will always defend your right to say what you want even if I detest it, as Voltaire said.
Neil – I agree with you that we need to be cautious if the Christian Democrats break apart from the Conservatives. Any negotiation would need to be built on a solid foundation, although one can argue that has the majority of the people involved may know each other from the Coalition Years, then the foundation may already be there.
The Liberal Democrats would bring the infrastructure and campaigning experience needed to ensure the alliance could be a national force across the country. As we know we can campaigning with precision, and the Christian Democrats would need that as they would not have access to Vote Source (Conservative Database).
The Christian Democrats in the alliance, would bring a wealth of talent to the alliance. One would argue former Cabinet Ministers, although Ed Davey and Alastair Carmichael would be in there from our side, but people with intellectual heavyweight gravitas to the alliance.
Perhaps more importantly, they may break up the fourth estate monopoly of backing the Conservatives. Could papers such as the Financial Times, maybe even the Daily Mail (unlikely) be prepared to listen to the alliance if it went ahead. I would suggest reading Samuel Earle’s Tory Nation book regarding the Conservatives and the Media.
Anthony – I do think you are right we need a compelling vision on why people should naturally vote Liberal Democrat. We need to project a long-term vision of how we think the country should be, and provide a positive alternative to the Conservatives and Labour.
What is the purpose of us having more MP’s, if we don’t intend to seek power. The whole point of us having more MPs, is for us to gain power. Miranda Green at a fringe event asked this same question – do we want to be in power, or seek for our comfort blanket.
We have to trust Ed Davey’s strategy, as at the moment it does seem to be working to the audiences for the this General Election. Question is how do we become a significant national player on the Political Scene, if a political realignment does not happen.
You are right also to question where should we be when Labour take office. They are going to inherent a national debt of 100% GDP, and there will not be much fiscal manoeuvre for Rachel Reeves to play with. Do we work with Labour constructively, to find solutions to the inherent economic problems facing our country or play party politics. I know there are some in the party, who think we will rise like Lazarus within the polls, within a couple of years of Labour taking Office.
John – You are absolutely right to say are we seeking to supplant the Conservatives. I would say that there is a 20-25% chance of us doing that, but if we do well in the Southern Heartlands – then we could potentially become the default party of the South.
However, we need to widen our reach to those economically less well-off, and make sure that they get a fair deal from us as a party.
Joseph – You are right about your 19th Century History, and Robert Peel deserves credit for working with the Whigs especially with the Corn Laws. Indeed it ensured 30 years of Whig-Liberal rule.
What is striking is that Rishi Sunak was trying to channel Margaret Thatcher, yet I would argue he is more socially conservative than her in some instances. She brought in Section 28, which was abhorrent but having read Caroline Slocock’s One of Us – she actually visited LGBT+ people in an AIDS hospital – while we had Rishi Sunak demonise Transsexual People, and make them feel not safe.
Margaret Thatcher beloved in atomic individualism, whereas I think Rishi Sunak does not believe in this – but in paternalism, that the state knows best. There is no such thing as an individual right on Trans Rights, but the Government knows best. That is hardly liberal or fair within modern society.
The detailed outcome of the coming Election is heavily dependent on the level of Anti-Tory Tactical Voting, something which itself is notoriously hard to measure. Depending on how much Tactical Voting there is The Tories could get anything between 60 & 200 MPs – if they were at the lower end then the hope that we could replace them as The Official Opposition becomes a real one.
That should be our Ambition at least.
To my mind, much of the discussion here confuses hypothetical electoral scenarios – replace Tories, replace Labour – with a raison d’etre.
Our raison d’etre is to promote liberalism as that is what we believe to be best as a way of organising society and government.
Replacing the Tories, for example, would require us to appeal consistently to the large number of psycologically conservative voters. This could only be done by moving in a markedly conservative direction. But this would contradict our raison d’etre.
Has everybody forgotten 2019?
We joined forces with a decent crop of christian democrat and pro-EU labour defectors.
This didn’t go well at all for a variety of reasons:
1. Some of the defectors had leadership’s ear and encouraged the adoption of the self-defeating Revoke policy.
2. The utterly unwarranted optimism the defections provoked led to the ridiculous claim that our erstwhile leader was running to become the next PM.
“Has everybody forgotten 2019?”
Absolutely not!!!
Inflicting strategic damage on the Conservatives would be a plausible aim if the LDs were a consistently classical liberal party over the long term.
As it is we’re a highly effective sniper operation which sometimes has a tactical effect. Very occasionally that effect is direct as in 2010, but more commonly temporary movements in votes to us indirectly allow one of the big parties to win or win big – 1964, 1974 (Feb/Oct), 1979, 1983, 1997, 2001, 2019.
John W – I completely agree with you that two big issues are Climate Change and Brexit.
I am disappointed that the Conservatives have giving the optics that they are moving away from Net Zero by 2050. This is a travesty, and I welcome that we as a party are aiming to have 80% of our energy being renewable by 2030. We do need to have a grown-up debate whether this will need to include Nuclear in the short and medium-term.
On Brexit, I think us and the Christian Democrats if they did come to fruition, would both agree that Brexit was wrong. However, to reverse Brexit would we need another referendum.
I welcome that we as a party want to rejoin the Single Market in the long-run. It is in our interest to be in the Single Market, as we need to trade with our neighbours effectively. The whole bizarre thing is that Margaret Thatcher created the Single Market, as a way to deflect attention away from the Bloody British Question of the Rebate. Now the current Conservatives live in some post-truth with the Single Market and who created it!!
My Local Party are in a coalition with the Greens in East Suffolk – how do you propose we should work with the Greens? Are you saying we should work more closely with the Greens?
@Chris Moore “Has everybody forgotten 2019?”
Perhaps not, but I’m sure that everybody has forgotten 2017 when some left-of-centre ideas from Labour turned out to be more popular with voters than anyone expected. Sometimes, It seems a shame that the only response (not least from the Labour party) was to bury Corbyn and any hint of the left in national politics.
“Christian Democrats” ???
What if they aren’t Christians?
In this discussion, “christian democrat” means centrist conservatives with a social conscience.
Christian Democratic parties have plenty of non- believers as members, voters and so on.
@ Chris Moore in 2019 the Lib Dems were second in 91 seats up from about 30 odd in 2017 and gained 1.3 million new voters. This was due in part to our pro European stance.
Thanks for your comments, David. Benn only lost by 49.6-50.4 and that was owing to abstentions and NUPE’s change of vote at the last minute. Foot did state he would resign if Benn had become Deputy Leader and 85% of constituency activists were Bennites. Interesting point though Labour were in a real mess in 1981 and their manifesto in 1983 saw them heavily defeated. The problem in 83 was that the Tory vote of 42% was solid and Labour’s vote of 28% could have been lower. FPTP delivered Alliance getting 25% and nearly 8m votes and only 23 seats.
A good and thought provoking article. But why the continual references to Brexit in the discussion? That seems to me to be a red herring: The LibDems exist (I hope) with the aim of creating a society based on liberalism: That can in principle be achieved perfectly well either in or out of the EU. You don’t need to be in the EU to have a liberal society. Brexit will not be – as some people are assuming – a key issue in the next few elections. The key issues for most people over the next decade are likely to be climate change, the cost of living, and the general perception that the UK isn’t working.
I think the LibDems will do best by trying to create a vision that is based on liberal philosophy and also shows voters how it will address those three concerns. Continually banging on about Brexit is not helpful to that. And yes – to the extent that moderates from the Conservative (or any other party) can support that vision, it’d be worth working with them.
@DavidSymonds
Foot’s threat to resign was done to disuade people from voting for Benn. I don’t think he would have gone through with it, he wouldn’t have been the first or last politician to break a pledge.
The key point about 1981 was that the left had peaked and regardless of the deputy leadership result which was close were on the way down. You are right Benn did have overwhelming support amongst constituency activists but little backing amongst MPs. The trade unions were mixed, yes NUPE switched their vote but the TGWU decision was also on a knife edge until the last minute. There was also some controversy about how the votes were counted. The other scenario worth considering is a challenge to the result had Benn won. This happened at the 1982 conference regarding the NEC elections where I was a delegate from Newbury CLP.
The left is never ascendant for long in the Labour Party as we saw more recently with Corbynism. The 1983 result which some say Healey and the right were more than happy with was echoed decades later in 2019. However in both cases Labour got around 200 MPs.
Unless we get PR the only way the Liberal Democrats are going to even get close to challenging Labour for main party status is by coming up with a strategy to challenge them in their heartlands.
Speaking out on issues that voters in those areas care about would be a good start.
Chris Moore – Change UK failed for a number of reasons. They did not have any heavyweights compared to Roy Jenkins or David Gauke, who served in Cabinet. Anna Soubry served as a Junior Minister in the Coalition, and Chuka Umunma served as Shadow Business Secretary.
They had no organisation at all, and refused to work with the Lib Dems, which they should have done straight away – than after the EU election in 2019.
I voted for revoking Article 50, but I regret voting that way. I thought Jo was right to advocate to go back into the European Union, but was completely wrong to say she was going to be Prime Minister.
Unlikely.
Even if the Lib Dems could manage to exceed the Tory vote on the current polling, the Tories would still have more seats than the LDs. The current polling puts the party at a miserable 12% in September.
Recent by-election wins look very shaky in a GE footing. Failure to recognise that is hamstringing the party’s drive towards actual radical and progressive policies.
The loss of 50,000 plus members since 2019 is telling too.
I havv by e to say I doubt the party will have more than 22 seats based on current polling. And that should see a change in leadership – both roles – immediately.
Conservative MPs mostly will remember Robert Peel and the split in the Conservative Party. Between 1846 and 1857 more Conservative MPs were elected than Whigs but for most of the time the Whigs were in government with the Conservatives holding office only very briefly.
No matter what happens to the Conservative Party after the next general election there will always be a large number of conservative voters who are not liberal voters. We can’t be the opposition to the Labour Party from the right, from a conservative position.
If the Conservatives are nearly wiped out, would this give us the opportunity to be the main opposition to the Labour Party, but from a radical liberal position leaving the Labour Party to be the conservative party?
No, no, no, no, no, no………
Have we learnt absolutely nothing about the effects of working with Tories in the coalition years?
If they want to come and join us as Liberal Democrats – as Stephen Dorrell did – then fine, and I’d welcome them quite happily. But we are NOT a centre right party.
Adam Robertson I completely agree with you that two big issues are Climate Change and Brexit. My Local Party are in a coalition with the Greens in East Suffolk – how do you propose we should work with the Greens?
Ask our President, who we all respect and who is identifying target seats, to discuss with the President of the Greens, a joint list of winnable seats. Then announce to the media that the third force in British politics plans to have, say, 80 MPs.
Identify our common policy priorities, say ‘Health and Wealth with Sun and Wind’ and launch a national campaign. I ran ‘WOW – War On Waste’ in 1972.
Get rid of Thérèse Coffey et al. (I eat tonight with anti-Tory friends from Suffolk Coastal on a beach in Corfu, where I am working).
@Marco: we won 11 seats, one down on the sex and theology debacle of 2017. Great result.
@ Chris Moore so you would rather not have gained new voters and new target seats we might win next time? 2019 was progress compared to 2017 and 2015 before Brexit was an issue. In 2015 we only gained a small % of voters who would go on to vote for Brexit and we would have struggled to win those voters back anyway.
John Waller, there is NO future working in close co-operation with the Greens. They will eat us alive. When will the message get through.
Simon R – If it was not for Brexit, then we wouldn’t be discussing this!!
I agree with you that we need to espouse Liberalism. I firmly believe in the equality of opportunity, and that people should be to live in conformity, and not in poverty and ignorance. I also believe that individuals should be free to choose how they live their life, as along as they do not cause harm to others.
How do we define Liberalism onto a strap line, is another question though?
Andrew – I understand the frustration beneath your comments. John Curtice picked this up at Lib Dem Conference, that we should be doing better in the polls.
There is an argument that we should be on 20%, and we should be bolder on our position in Europe, and be clear what we would do on the Economy. We want to make taxes fair, but we do not spell out in detail how we are going to make it fair. The Federal Policy Committee do need to set this out, and how it is going to be balanced or whether we will need to borrow money in the short-term to ensure we have a fairer tax system.
We should also be clear that we want to join the Single Market, and that we fundamentally remain committed to joining the European Union when circumstances allow.
Interesting stuff. Slightly off thread, but could I raise the dangers to the Lib Dems of unexpected success? If the Tories get a shellacking at the General Election (as seems likely at the moment) and if the Lib Dems do unexpectedly better (i.e. forming part of the official opposition, as suggested in this article) then a lot of unexpected movement is going to take place in the political firmament. I would welcome almost all defectors prior to the General Election (and every single vote eventually cast for us on the day) but we must be suspicious of anyone seeking to move in the few years after Polling Day. We must be on our guard against political careerists, opportunist hacks and the like who might be tempted to see us as some sort of life-raft. This might happen locally as well as in Westminster.
Similarly, we should be very cautious indeed about large sums of money coming our way – the Think Tanks and lobby groups might decide that we would be a suitable mouthpiece for their views, and we might not realise what is happening. We are going to need robust gatekeepers and night watchmen to prevent opportunistic entryism and attempts to buy influence.
If the Conservatives are so heavily defeated at the next GE that they are not even the Official Opposition, then it probably means they bleed support to the right as well as the centre and left. The classic example is Canada 1993, where the Tories went from government with a big majority to a rump of 2 seats, with the recently installed PM herself losing her seat. With an eerie echo of what could happen here, they lost many seats to a populist right-wing party called Reform. The post-script is that the Conservatives were eventually reconstituted by merging with Reform to form a party called “Conservative” but more in character with Reform (which gave Canada its more recent Conservative PM). Could this also happen here? In which case one would have to dread the eventual Tory reincarnation.
I agree with Chris Moore that we need to advocate and strongly define our vision of Modern Liberalism, but disagree with his characterisation of the 2019 election.
I agree more with Marco: the calamity was 2017 where narrow targeting (together with parochial issues) produced that ensured the failure of a subsequent election. I greatly fear we are sleepwalking into a repeat of 2017, with insufficient concern for our overall standings and identity as a Modern Liberal party and too much emphasis on seat by seat targeting. In a General Election targeting is nullified if the nationwide trends are against us. A healthy polling is needed to carry the target seats. 12% will not cut it; without significant improvement we would be lucky to muster 20 seats.
No new centre or centre-right party is emerging this side of an election, I do not think we want to be that party, but there is an opportunity to highlight the tenets of Modern Liberalism as part of an appeal to centrist Conservatives who have Liberal sympathies.
Alex Macfie:
For the Conservatives to be reduced to a rump, our polling would have to be a lot better. With FPTP this could happen if our polling was over double our current doldrums.
The Green issue is more fundamental, which is why the Greens will likely overtake us, as Labour once did, unless we grapple with it. Given the threat to the planet, should the current orthodoxy of economic growth be slowed, stopped or completely abandoned, even if it means freezing current inequality? The right wing answer is becoming clear: plough on. Everyone who cares deeply about inequality uses ‘Sustainable growth’ as a euphemism for hoping we can juggle just long enough for tech to save us – which it might, or might not.
I have a lot of time for Rory Stewart et al but they could already have joined us, and would rather agree a common line with the Greens and other progressives on growth vs gaia – both for the planet and politically – than huddle with one-nation conservatives and look on as the Greens leapfrog over all of us.
@Marco and Martin: the reality is that 2015, 2017 and 2019 were all extremely disappointing elections.
2015: payback for Coalition errors.
2017: opportunity to improve our position squandered by Tim’s personal theological issues.
2019: golden opportunity to improve on those two disastrous performances squandered by adopting a self-defeating strategy and the extremely unpopular Revoke.
I don’t know when you became a member, Marco: but these were the worst three elections by a long shot since I became a member in mid-80s.
What was particularly frustrating in 2017 and 2019 was that with better preparation – Tim thinking through his position on the relevant “theological matters” and electoral strategy 2019, – I believe we could have had much better results those two years.
In general agree with Martin’s other remarks; but I do believe there are recent positive signs in the polling. I don’t if you saw the recent polls in London, Wales and amongst young people. Possible straws in the wind?
The answer to all this seems to be a fair voting system. If all points of view are examined and put into a broad coalition with an agreed programme for government, the U.K. would be much more stable.
If we were a new party formed around 15/16 and went on to get 3.6m votes you’d have to say that was a success. People may have been over optimistic about how quickly we would rebuild from the ashes of 2015. The 80s and 90s are the wrong benchmark – it’s effectively a different party. BTW I don’t think the Tories will get a 1997 style drubbing it would take longer than one term for that to happen.
@Chris Moore “2017: opportunity to improve our position squandered by Tim’s personal theological issues.”
That certainly was a big problem, but the TV interview with Andrew Neill was a car crash for a number of reasons (Brexit and drug decriminalisation spring to mind), and in 2024, Ed Davey will need to be well prepared to defend policies the party might have forgotten to mention in successful by-election campaigns.
I also think that 2017 (and to an extent, 2019) still included “payback for Coalition errors” as neither TIm Farron (surprisingly and disappointingly) nor Jo Swinson (unsurprisingly) distanced themselves from 2010-2015. This might even still be an issue for Ed Davey, e.g. comments about shale gas when in Government.
If the Conservatives shift further to the right following a disastrous GE then some of the remaining might look for a new home, hopefully us. Dont underestimate the power of loyalty with the Conservative Party however. If Labour win and commit to PR in their second term then we should maintain our current strategy. If not then we might need to make ourselves more attractive to the moderate Conservatives to reach a significant number of MPs, say 50.
should we become centre left or centre right ? to go in either direction would lose us the centre vote so much coveted in British politics . what we need to do is what both Labour and Conservatives are doing is re- modelling our message . We have become just another anti-tory party causing their former voters just to stay at home and not vote at all . The SDP tried to avoid that and in alliance with the Liberals offering a broader spectrum of politics .Social Liberals and Social Democrats have much in common we just need to rediscover our shared roots in liberty , equality , and a fair society strong on education , the environment and economic well being . get these key tenants right and avoid the distractions of right and left and the public may gain some confidence in us and return sufficient MPs tp make the difference .
One consideration is if we want the UK to rejoin the EU, and sooner rather than later.
The main obstacle to any party wanting to rejoin the EU is the attitude of the Official Opposition. It is probably the main priority of the EU in viewing future British membership of the EU that both the governing party and the official opposition are united in wanting to rejoin. But it is very unlikely the Conservatives will agree to this, especially as they are likely to become a fanatical Faragist rump party, or be split and in competition with Reform.
The LibDems could unite with pro-EU ex-Conservatives over a commitment to rejoin the EU. Such a commitment, which would be popular in the Thames Valley and much of the West of England, might then embolden Starmer to seek EU membership. With both main parties united in a pro-EU stance, the EU would then move much faster to accept British membership.
This is how new parties form. It was certainly the model in the 19th Century, when new parties (the Liberals) coalesced around Corn Law Reform (a forerunner of Single Market benefits), or a working class movement (Lib-Labs, LRC and Independents). Successful new parties in British politics are always coalitions and often alliances including fractions splits off from older dying parties. A Conservative hegemony is not a given: it only dates from the early 1920s and the death of the old Liberal Party. A reborn Liberal alliance could consign the Conservatives to oblivion.