We all know the Lib Dems achieved a result we would have been reasonably happy with at the start of the campaign, but one that came as a bitter disappointment after the highs of Cleggmania.
But why did the Lib Dem vote fall back to 23%, seemingly at the last gasp?
Speaking to Lib Dem supporters on the doorstep in the last week, I was struck by how often the issues of Trident, Europe and immigration came up – and our supporters were genuinely concerned.
In the main, it wasn’t that people disagreed with our policies when I took a couple of minutes to explain the real Lib Dem position (with the exception of Europe, where many of our supporters do genuinely disagree with our pro-EU stance).
They were forming their views based on the spin from our political opponents and their friends in the media. It was those misrepresentations that were causing them to think twice about voting Lib Dem.
The problem may have been one of tactics rather than the policies themselves. The party simply wasn’t geared up to rebutting the attacks on those policies – we weren’t expecting to be doing well enough in the polls to attract the attacks.
Nick had a good go in the leaders’ debates, but from those conversations on the doorsteps, it clearly wasn’t enough. People – many of them our supporters – still widely thought that the Lib Dems were softer on immigration and defence than our opponents and it seemed significant enough to affect the way some of them voted.
Lessons for the future? I could be talking nonsense: perhaps other people’s experiences differ from mine and these issues simply weren’t significant.
But for future elections it may be wise to have the rebuttals and messages prepared in advance so when the attacks come (and in all probability they will), we know how to counter them to stop our own supporters taking fright.
We have strong policies in all these areas. Not ones every single person is ever going to agree with – of course not. But good policies that stand up to scrutiny and compare positively to anything the other parties have to offer. We need to think some more about how we stop our political enemies misleading our supporters
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Geoff Reid
Tom Bailey
Leonora Scipio
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
41 Comments
Dead right. All the available time in the last week should have been spent addressing the Euro, the immigrant amnesty and Trident (in that order), rather than hoping that the papers wouldn’t mention them, which was never going to happen.
I am not in a position to comment on the wider population, but I can speak obviously for myself.
I studied the manifestos of all parties in great detail. I wrote to Evan Harris on a number of occasions. While I disagreed with the policy on defence and taxation, I absolutely agree with the liberal stance on immigration and found many other policies generally agreeable including to some extent, education policies.
A long term Tory supporter, I have lately found them wanting – marriage tax benefits and similarly pointless giveaways, not to mention a lack of any detail as to where the deficit cuts would land (by all the major parties, including the LibDems). Still, in the end I did not vote Lib Dem and plumped again for the Tories.
The reasoning was simple: had I been convinced the Lib Dems would cut a deal or even a coalition with the Tories, I would have voted Lib Dem. I think there is a lot of merit in ’rounding the edges’ of the Tories. The risk I could not countenance was that the Lib Dems would cut a deal with the Labour party, something I viewed as a disaster in waiting (and still do).
Agreed, in principal but tbh I doubt it made that much difference. We were still on 27% the morning of the poll and I can’t imagine all those voters walked into the booth held their pencils over the Lib Dem box and suddenly said “Oh, wait! What about their policy on Trident?”.
The damage that was done by our failure to counter those attacks was probably what cause the drift down from 30% to 27% but it didn’t cause the collapse. That was all FPTP and two party squeeze.
It seems slightly delusional to put it all down as a presentational problem. There’s no escaping the fact that our policies on immigration and Europe are miles outside the mainstream.
Further to the last point, there is obviously a benefit to ‘agenda-setting’ the national debate away from the areas where you are ‘weaker’ as per Richard Nixon’s ’47-y-o Dayton housewife’ example. But where these areas can be simply disarmed, eg focus on the referendum for the Euro, and certainly when they are being widely discussed anyway, they cannot be ignored.
The Tories made a similar mistake in 2001 when they perceived Health and Education as weak areas for them, so they didn’t talk about them, when they could have gone all-out on ‘You’ve paid the tax, where’s the improvement?’
An alternative would be to change the policies we put in the manifesto.
The idea of a manifesto comes from the tories. Sir Robert Peel’s original manifesto of 1835 when he issued a short two page document with the intention of de-toxifying the Tory brand and in particular to dissociate the tories from their previous opposition to electoral reform.
So if we have unsaleable policies we should dump them.
There is no prospect that a majority will emerge in this country for membership of the euro in the next five years and therefore we should say that we will not propose joining it over the lifetime of the next Parliament.
I think the real problem with Trident was the idea that we wanted ro replace it with a system that was effective as Trident but cost a lot less only we didn’t know what that was – why not just say we can’t afford the damn thing and leave it at that.
On immigration the regional thing was a nightmare and should be dumped – however our sensible policy on what you do with the people who have been illegally living here for a long period of time seemed totally in keeping with our core values – and I thought Nick Clegg did a good job of dealing with that question – so I wouldn’t scrap that policy.
Its likely that Cameron failed to get a majority because of the disappointment he did not follow through with promise of an EU referendum when the Lisbon Treaty was signed.
If you check back that was when the opinion polls started to slip downhill for him.
Like it or not the British public desperately want a say over our future relationship with Europe.
After the massive boost Clegg got following the debates – the electorate started to look at what was on offer.
For many they didn’t like what they saw.
Our Nuclear deterant is important, so is imigration – but the economy and redressing the balance between the Wealth producing private sector and the Wealth consuming public sector is probably fundamental.
PR – no wide support, itsimply a mechanism to allow inclusion in Government for groups who have little or no support for their policies.
@ Alex “There’s no escaping the fact that our policies on immigration and Europe are miles outside the mainstream.”
More like: there’s no escaping the fact that the Tories poured millions of their slush funds into targeting seats which the Lib Dems duly lost while organising a repulsive campaign of abuse, distortion and misrepresentation through their tycoon friends in control of the right wing press lasting weeks and damaging our reputation, suppressing our percentage of the votes.
These two factors alone cost us both seats and votes and should NOT be either forgiven or forgotten.
I spoke to one of our MPs on polling day who claimed that the immigration policy being put so publicly when it need not have been mentioned or written up in such an obvious way had cost us 3% of our poll ratings.
There is some anger that the “amnesty” was written up in such a way that it could be used as a weapon against us.
Note – The Tories and Labour barely failed to mention immigration in their manifestos. Some issues are better left until after an election.
@ Elliott
You did not vote Lib Dem, so why should we listen to you?
We can ’round the edges’ of the Tories, but what lies inside is fundamentally not of our liking: ideological worship of the free market at all costs, addiction to anti-democratic methods of government, attachment to privilege, opposition to political reform, dislike and mistrust of Europe.
These are not Lib Dem values.
Robert C,
Because not listening to the people who almost but didn’t quite feel they could vote for us is a bloody stupid attitude?!
If we want the votes of people like Elliot in the future, we darned well better to listen to their views!
Elliot,
A vote for the Lib Dems on Thurs, however you felt about our policies, might have helped the cause for PR. With PR you would have far more hope of “rounding the edges of the Tories” in the future. Just out of interest, why didn’t that persuade you?
The problem was that the leaders’ debates, which might have seemed like victories, were not, because so much of it was tied up with issues where the Liberal Democrats’ principled stands and carefully calculated policies are easily distorted and misrepresented by the Tories’ friends in the press. There was a huge amount of scrutiny of our policies in these areas and virtually none of the other parties’ . The spotlight was trained relentlessly on us and the loony policies of the Tories (e.g. privatise schools, fixed immigration quotas) were hardly given any scrutiny at all.
@Ellie
Elliot says he would have voted for us had we said we would back the Tories in power. So basically he is a Tory who would settle for Tory-lite. I don’t think asking us to be ourselves while offering power on a plate to a party that, make no mistake, hates our guts and would rip us to shreds if it had the chance, is a reasonable or acceptable position. I wish Elliot good luck, but he says he is basically a Tory. If he supports our values, he should vote for us, end of story.
This thread seems to have attracted significantly more Tory trolls than most.
Certainly immigration had an effect, I got plenty of that yelled at me but the big factor was far deeper. A big group of voters like what we say, they like our leaders, they just cant imagine us in Government. That makes a strong argument for us to enter a Coalition. Apart from that its just more work & giving people more time. Time is on our side, the Old Parties continue their long, slow decline & we are winning the arguments.
The impression I got was that the immigration policy was a big vote loser, which is why Cameron kept banging on about it in the leaders’ debates. Getting rid of Trident and Europe were also probably net vote losers, but not of the same scale.
Maybe Clegg could have refused to be drawn on what he would do in a hung parliament, beyond saying something anodyne like “we’re always happy to talk to and work with other parties”.
The real issue is why are people opposed to these policies. I believe it has a lot to do with ignorence of the general public, the complete bias/power of the media and people’s general apathy about politics and the issues surrounding it.
Europe for example. If people understood just how enmeshed our business and economy is with the rest of Europe, and the world for that matter, then the fact that Lib Dem’s were pro Europe would be seen as a benefit.
As always it’s a question of educating people on the facts and reasons behind the policies, instead of allowing them to judge each parties policies based on the propoganda, fear and ignorence generally pedalled by the media and certain political campaigns.
That however is much harder to achieve than anything else, and compared to the other two parties the Lib Dem’s have far less money and resources to launch a major campaign of education. Perhaps they always get a minority vote because the majority of the population actually do get most of their opinions from the Daily Scare and other papers of such ilk. Perhaps its because reasoned and sensible people are in the minority; but that’s the problem with Democracy, everyone gets a vote, no matter how much or little they understand the issues being discussed, and a lot of people simply aren’t interested in learning about the issues beyond picking up a paper.
I agree that the basic concept of a manifesto should be re-examined. We needed much more detailed background material available, say by hyperlink – from a properly web-based document.
I will hang fire on most specifics for now, except for this. We should have said from the outset something like: “We will replace the open-ended ’14-year rule’ (supported by Labour and Conservatives, under which anyone illegally in the UK can be made legal after 14 years) with a one-off ‘route to earned citizenship’…”
@Ellie
I am not against proportional representation. I won’t say I’m “for” it, but an obvious conclusion is that in Europe at least the UK is one of the full hold-outs for the current “first past the post” system. I should point out, of course, that proportional representation increases influence of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ (just one or two seats having an overly strong influence on the wider house), and consequently it does increase the tendency of larger parties to ‘buy votes’ through a whole bunch of expensive pet projects targeted to particular constituencies. Still, I’m not against it, I’m just cognisant of the fact that it is not a panacea for all ills.
Nonetheless, PR didn’t convince me because I just don’t rate it as a high priority in the current context. On a longer term basis your argument may have merit, but the problems we have need addressing now, while the earliest PR could be introduced would be at the next election. What might have convinced me would have been a single party who came out and described 100% of where the budget will be cut/ taxes raised, in order to close the deficit (let alone bring down debt). At the very least, some clear ‘areas of interest’ and ‘general intentions’ would have been useful. As it was, Lib Dems were marginally more clear than the other parties, but only marginally so.
@Robert C
I find myself lost in a gap somewhere in between Tories and Lib Dems – ie, one of the voters who might have otherwise voted LibDem had they been given the right reasons to do so. Of course I made clear that my views were my own, but as the views were distinct from the original post in some respects.
Anyway nonetheless may I suggest that you are attributing many of the characteristics to the Tory old guard to the entire Tory party. Your suggestion that the Tories want a ‘free market at all costs’ would be akin to my suggesting that the LibDems wanted to be part of Europe ‘at all costs’. I’m sure in both parties there are those for which both comments are true, but to attribute either of them to the wider parties I think is unfair. In both such cases, I see room for both parties to move – hence my ’rounding the edges’ comment.
Truth be told, I am not clear on what policies would result if a coalition was formed (with either ‘old’ party), but presumably there would be give and take. The alternative is that no-one gets anything they want.
Incidentally, I also find the Tory hard line view on Europe daft, but I do share the concern about joining the Euro when there are obviously two powerhouse economies already part of it, alongside a whole bunch of other economies that can’t or won’t follow the rules they in turn signed up to. Could you imagine the public reaction if we were already part of the Euro and we thus had to participate in the bailout of Greece, and possibly Spain and Portugal? In short, I share the long term view that the UK should increase its involvement in the EC, but the short term view that it should not happen until the existing EC countries learn to follow the rules. This is a view that I think longer term will ‘infiltrate’ the Tory party, and the LibDems could help speed this up.
So no, you don’t need to listen to me 🙂 But feel free to respond in turn should you so wish.
Alex is right. (see top).
Why publish proposals or even “long distance proposals” for 10 or more years time (like the Euro), when elections are about bullet points, headlines, sound-bites, there is no space to explain in long paragraphs what you really mean. Life is no longer like that, when a lot of people talk in text-speak language. The front page of the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Sun, was a constant drip, and the Tories found the weak points and briefed journalists accordingly. A fantastic anti-Lib Dem media campaign was whipped up in the last 10 days.
A lot of Liberal Democrats said “ah, but, people dont really read all that stuff” and even more amazingly, were oblivious to what was being said because they dont themselves read the papers bought by millions of readers.
@ Robert C
I think my previous post made clear my position in respect of “Tory-lite”, which I admit is an interesting anecdote. The short answer is that I am genuinely somewhere between Tory and Lib Dems and I think “Liberal Tories” might be more accurate. If I had my wish, I would pick and choose the best of policies of each, but alas that is merely a pipe dream.
Rest assured I am making similar comments to the Tory party as well, and drawing similar fire.
@ Alex
Europe for example. If people understood just how enmeshed our business and economy is with the rest of Europe, and the world for that matter, then the fact that Lib Dem’s were pro Europe would be seen as a benefit.
This is an excellent point. And it is why I find the Tory hard line view on Europe daft (particularly so when the Tories are typically associated with big business to a greater degree than the other parties). If we were outside the EU, to buy and sell stuff outside the UK would be subject to double taxation treaties, import and export duties, regulations and customs delays. This is a very, very real cost to business.
@ Elliot
I appreciate your dilemma. On economic issues, I find myself at the leftward end of the Liberal Democrats, wishing they would consider taking back the railways into public ownership rather than talking about giving the franchise holders even longer to make a mess of things and absorb even more subsidy, for instance. The Conservatives are doctrinally opposed to public intervention of any kind and would like to see an extended role for private enterprise, while I think it has gone far too far, is causing major problems and is not the solution to providing many public services.
However, on other issues, I am towards the rightward end of the party. I am actually against an amnesty on principle and wish we could find some way to crack down even harder on illegal immigration in a way that is both practical and fair. I think the fairness aspect of the amnesty is what puts people off.
However, leaving such non-immediate issues aside, proportional representation is an absolute demand as far as I am concerned, preferably single transferable vote, or possibly alternative vote plus or the German additional member system. These all preserve the constituency link and have proportionality. Anything other than a referendum on one or all of these systems, as soon as possible, is not acceptable. Unfortunately, David Cameron is proposing a commission or some such fudge, which we KNOW is a promise not worth the paper it is written on.
We also need rules over funding (no donations over £50,000 and no pouring of massive funds into local campaigns either during or prior to election periods).
The political system has got to change, It must become fairer and more representative as well as less open to the vested interests with their pots of money that they can throw at it. Neither the Labour party nor the Tories may want this, but it has to happen now or it never will.
I read that the idiot Brown says that reform of the eletoral system is a high priority for him.
What a hypocrit!
He could gave changed it before this election but now that he is clinging to power with his finger nails in the doorpost, the moron is boot licking the LDP–he should resign now and at least give his marriage of convenience wife the dignity that she deserves.
What a tosser and who the hell is Prudence? Brown sold our stash of gold against professional advice at about 200 GBP per ounce, today it is 840???
Make a deal with Cameron, I don’t think he is half as slippery as the one eyed Scot–let him go sit in his own country and spare us the incompetence.
I found no problem in addressing any of these issues in hustings and on the doorstep. The problems lie with strategy and tactics not with policy. And that’s best left for the members forum.
No. The disinformation campaign put through the media regarding said policies did a lot of damage and unfortunately we didn’t do enough to counter it.
But the main problem was fear. A section of the population were scared stiff of the Tories winning, another section sick and frightened of New Labour staying. Actually quite a lot of people were both, you can include me in that. As a result, some of us voted Liberal Democrat, but unfortunately many others panic voted for what they felt would be the least worst option.
This panic was encouraged deliberately by the media and by New Labour and the Tories themselves. I have been inundated with negative leaflets and letters from both for weeks, and this week a torrent of it came through the door. I dont think the Liberal Democrats can compete in that way because they both seem to have so much money to splurge on this sort of campaigning, I think we need to harness non traditional media better and talk to more people face to face.
The other thing is, many people I talked to, in different parts of the country, were all set to vote Lib Dem because they felt they were going for some sort of positive change. Nick Clegg did a lot here. But then some local campaigns, instead of listening to peoples concerns and focussing on the positives in the manifesto, decided to brawl with the others in the traditional negative way. We cannot win by playing it that way – first it makes us look like hypocrites calling for better politics, and second feeding the fear sends people straight back to Tory or Labour even if they dont like or relate to those parties – the fear response makes them vote *against* the other rather than *for* what they genuinely want.
A lot of people dont understand the policies and explanations and comparisons have to be made, but this can be done without feeding the fear, in a non patronising way that clearly links policies to peoples lives. This was working for us, so why did some local Lib Dems fuck it up by falling into the same old same old negative campaigning? It is so depressing hearing how people were motivated and feeling positive, but then were turned away by this rubbish – it will keep happening until local Lib Dems get on message, which is to say, treat constituents like intelligent adults instead of using tacky scare tactics.
Elliot
Posted 8th May 2010 at 12:14 pm | Permalink
Incidentally, I also find the Tory hard line view on Europe daft, but I do share the concern about joining the Euro when there are obviously two powerhouse economies already part of it, alongside a whole bunch of other economies that can’t or won’t follow the rules they in turn signed up to. Could you imagine the public reaction if we were already part of the Euro and we thus had to participate in the bailout of Greece, and possibly Spain and Portugal? In short, I share the long term view that the UK should increase its involvement in the EC, but the short term view that it should not happen until the existing EC countries learn to follow the rules. This is a view that I think longer term will ‘infiltrate’ the Tory party, and the LibDems could help speed this up.
So no, you don’t need to listen to me But feel free to respond in turn should you so wish.
this is a great example of the mis-information & lies we are up against
we already are part of the loan package to Greece
its not a Euro currency deal, its a European Union deal
the UK is a member of the EU
also, surely it is in the UK’s interests that countries we trade with, & that a lot of people go on holiday to, have holiday homes in, retire to etc, are stable?
Yes.
People despise illegal immigration. If people are “living in the shadows” want to come out of the shadows, they always can (by returning home).
The European Union is not a democratic body, it is a Trojan Horse with neo-feudalist corporate aristocrats seducing the masses with temporary promises of “socialism”.
Only an honest government that forces people to live within their means serves the public good.
Trident? Not a decisive issue.
The Euro was a real issue. We make a big mistake in thinking that being pro Europe is the same as being in favour of joining the Euro. There is a good argument about the inflexibility of fixed exchange rates ( see Greece, ireland) and the greek riots showed why this policy is a mistake
RW said:
Wrong. It is a Eurozone deal. The money is being put up by individual countries who are part of the Eurozone, not by the EU (which neither has power to make such a deal nor sufficient funds to do it). The UK is not contributing a penny. That’s not to say we won’t be in trouble if it fails, of course.
Malcolm Todd
Posted 8th May 2010 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
RW said:
we already are part of the loan package to Greece
its not a Euro currency deal, its a European Union deal
the UK is a member of the EU
Wrong. It is a Eurozone deal. The money is being put up by individual countries who are part of the Eurozone, not by the EU (which neither has power to make such a deal nor sufficient funds to do it). The UK is not contributing a penny. That’s not to say we won’t be in trouble if it fails, of course.
ah, got that a bit wrong then
we are however part of it via the IMF
& i wouldnt be surprised if EU countries are ‘asked’ to help
@RW
As far as I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), but I think there was a big squabble about the politics and there are some EU rules which prevent the ECB from buying up sovereign bonds. The end result is that I think the loans are going to be managed by the IMF but funding is coming almost entirely from Eurozone countries (for the most part this means Germany and France, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands which is hiding behind Germany in the negotiations).
In any event, we are a contributor of funds to the IMF, yes. And it is fair to say that the situation currently affecting the Euro affects everyone in the region including us. The IMF is in place as a kind of sovereign insurance policy which the UK helps to fund (the US is by far the biggest contributor, by the way) but which in turn the UK benefits from. I should point out that the UK has drawn from IMF loans in the past.
The IMF takes a lot of flak from all sides, but there is little doubt they have helped address some otherwise intractible financial problems in many countries. That being said, being on the receiving side of an IMF loan is not a pleasant place to be: they come in and offer funds where the country in question has largely exhausted other routes of funding (sometimes due to bad luck but in most cases due to spiralling sovereign debt caused by overspending). The IMF attach very stringent conditions to force countries to fix the behaviour that got them into trouble in the first place (when politics has failed to do so), and this is what they are doing in Greece. Greece will no doubt come out stronger for it, but it’s going to be a hellish ride to get there.
Trident was a non-issue. People want it but not enough for it to influence their vote.
I was so disappointed in Nick when he basically lied about our attitude towards the Euro in the final debate. We should be proud of our pro-European values, not try to hide them. Nevertheless, I agree with posters above who say that the Euro is not seriously going to be on the British political agenda for decades – so why bother losing votes, especially in the South-West, over it? Just leave it out of the manifesto.
The regional immigration policy is stupid and should be scrapped. Trying to pretend the amnesty wasn’t an amnesty was also dishonest. We should not scrap this policy. It is a fundamentally liberal idea, even though it is definitely unpopular. With immigration so high on the policy list this time round, the amnesty was always going to hurt us, but there are some things which we should not compromise our values for.
How come the Liberal Democrats support the EU which taxes us all so that landowners can be paid huge sums every year for the privilege of owning land they have inherited tax free thanks to huge and unlimited exemptions from Inheritance Tax for lifetime gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets owned by the weatlhy? The Duke of Westminster receives about £300,000 every year and Price Charles receives about £500,000 every year from the CAP. And the Liberal Democrats support the EU and the CAP. Wow! What fairness!
I left the Liberal Democrats in the early ’90’s, after the Iron Curtain had fallen and it still became a kind of heresy in the party to want to leave the EU and the Common Agricultural Policy.
During this election, many more people became aware of the EU- and Euro-fanatic nature of many Liberal Democrats, and realised what a disaster it would have been if we had, like the Greeks, given up our currency for the Euro, which LIberal Democrats wanted.
Too many Liberal Democrats want to lose our Pound into the Euro and our country into a country called Europe, and voters are coming to realise it.. That is certainly why I would never, ever, vote Liberal Democrat nowadays. There is, of course, the EU-sceptic Liberal Party, which is worthy of support.
How much money do the Liberal Democrats receive from the European Union, I wonder?
Dane – you can support an institution without supporting everything it does. The Lib Dems support the existence of Westminster government, but we don’t agree with all the policies that come from it.
Kate why is it a “principle ” to encourage and reward illegal immigration and actively wish for immigration to be as high as possible ? Can you explain precisely what this principle is because I am at a loss ?Incidentally if I hide for ten years can I pay no taxes on any income in that period too ?
If so I will admit it is an excellent principle ….see you in ten years ..YEAH BABY
@ Alex
“The real issue is why are people opposed to these policies. I believe it has a lot to do with ignorence of the general public, the complete bias/power of the media and people’s general apathy about politics and the issues surrounding it.”
Spot on.
And this article is also spot on.
The amount of times I have argued with fellow Lib Dem cllrs or PPC’s and told them that they need to be more vocal about these issues on the doorstep is unbelieveable.
Furthermore, if Lib Demmers learn to speak or communicate the language of the working man/woman with these messages, these would’ve also helped.
But no. I got _rolled eyes_ and patronising feedback.
We just don’t ‘get people’ and the Tories do, even though they manipulate them at every cost.
“Kate why is it a “principle ” to encourage and reward illegal immigration and actively wish for immigration to be as high as possible ? Can you explain precisely what this principle is because I am at a loss ?Incidentally if I hide for ten years can I pay no taxes on any income in that period too ?”
Perhaps if people actually applied a little bit of thought on this subject they would realise why the amnesty makes more sense than any other possibility.
1) People living here illegally have to survive somehow. With an illegal status this means one of two things. Crime, or working illegally for people who exploit their status to pay less than minimum wage. Both of which are extremely damaging to our society and economy respectively. People working below minimum wage undermines the whole point of having one, meaning that british citizens are not competing on a level playing field when it comes to finding work. This seems to be one of people’s complaints, that immigrants work for less money and ‘steal our jobs’. If we have a level playing field, and british citizens still complain about this then the problem is not immigration, its either the minimum wage not being high enough, or a serious problem with the employability or motivation of British citizens.
2) To say illegal immigrants will just go straight on the benefit system is, in all honesty, a pathetic and ignorant discrimination against people who have risked everything to try and get out of a life which any one of us would find impossible to even comprehend. With a legal status, they would be subject to the same laws and policies on benefits and having to find work that everyone else is. I’m willing to bet they would try a hell of a lot harder than some British citizens do. If this is an issue its with the benefit system and not the amnesty itself. And of course, once they are working, they are paying in to the system, something they are currently not doing at all, despite ‘enjoying’ the benefit of our public services.
3) To say that this amnesty for people who have been here for 10 years would create an incentive is a nonsense. We already have, in place, a 14 year period whereby illegal immigrants are granted legal status. We have a real issue that needs to be dealt with. We can’t find and send back every illegal immigrant, that has been proven already. All this policy does is stop another 4 years of illegal working and zero taxation for people who are likely to be eligible for citizenship anyway.
As an aside, I honestly think the majority of concern over immigration is the nations inability to face up to it’s own shortcomings, finding a scapegoat for serious problems which they feel are beyond their control all mixed with a general fear of different cultures that we have inherited from a generation where the world was a much more closed and insulated place. We do have a decline in national identity, but this has nothing to do with immigration, it’s born from a nation that is more and more apathetic about the communities people live in, and more and more materialistic and self centred.
Immigration was the key issue of the campaign for all. The other parties were noticeably quiet on the point and only ever talked about it when attacking us.
I know that we never intended for it to become a flagship policy, but I think we should have done more to come up with rebuttalls. E.G when Cameron accused Nick of allowing spouses of immigrants in after ten years during the 3rd debate, we didn’t point out that the numbers he was quoting were ludicrous. Who stays in a country for ten years without their spouse? No one. If the spouses were here, they would be part of the original group of people being assessed to stay.
It wasn’t the policy that was a problem – it was being caught on the hoof defending policies we were never expecting to defend. A consequence maybe of not really expecting Cleggmania…
Three very different policies here, I think. On Europe we simply can’t give in to the prevailing Euro-scepticism. The argument for Britain’s future at the heart of Europe simply has to be fought and won.
On Trident it was very unclear whether or not the Lib Dem’s were committed to an independent nuclear deterrent of some sort. The impression given was that if no cut-price solution could be found they were prepared to abandon it. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling very uneasy about this. Most people still believe in nuclear deterrence as a sort of last ditch insurance policy in an unpredictable world.
I think the amnesty for illegal immigrants was an excellent policy. But clearly the electorate don’t agree. Of course the Lib Dems should have distinctive policies but there seems little point having policies that are both distinctive and unpopular. They will be the first to be dropped in any coalition deal.
@ Chris “Of course the Lib Dems should have distinctive policies but there seems little point having policies that are both distinctive and unpopular.”
I completely disagree. Many things which are in the nations best inetrest are unpopular with the majority of people who don’t understand them, and bringing them up afterwards can lead to claims that you deliberately misled the electorate