To start, three pieces of promising news: in six of the last seven annual rounds of local elections, the number of Liberal Democrat councillors has gone up. Secondly, the change in our vote in Crewe & Nantwich was pretty much the same as in Dudley West, South East Staffordshire and Wirral South – the three big Labour gains from the Conservatives in the run-up to 1997 – a general election at which we then made huge gains in the numbers of MPs we had.
Add in to that the steady but very clear improvement in our poll ratings since Nick Clegg became leader, and there’s plenty of cause for quiet optimism about our electoral prospects – provded we put in the hard work necessary.
But we shouldn’t be complacent that just any sort of hard work will deliver the right results, and there are two signs in that news that we need, in particular, to broaden our strength across the country. Whilst we have been gaining seats at local elections, our overall share of the vote has tailed off in recent years. And in addition the Crewe & Nantwich result reminds us of how much harder work it is to win when we start in third rather than second. More strength across the country will not just deliver us more councillors and councils, it will also up the odds of a Parliamentary by-election being a real chance for a breakthrough for the party.
We also have the prize of overtaking Labour as the second party of local government hanging tantalising in front of us – Labour has only 600 more councillors and on The Guardian‘s figures after this May they have only three more councils than us.
The challenge, therefore, is to do at the council level what we have done so successfully at the Westminster election level. Over the last few elections, and carrying on since 2005, we have managed to combine both a very clear and strong targeting strategy (having to persuade along the way many who are tempted to spread efforts thinly to little effect!) whilst also growing the list of seats where we are in serious contention at the same time.
Yes, we put a far higher proportion of our resources into the key Parliamentary seats than we used to – but also, the number of such seats has grown. It’s this mix of focusing efforts on the key battleground constituencies whilst also increasing the size of the battleground that has allowed us to continue to grow in the number of MPs and win places where we were nowhere ten years ago – such as my own Hornsey & Wood Green where in 1997 we were on 11%, with no councillors, not even any second places in any wards and no delivery network.
I have personally been particularly struck by the increasing numbers of fellow MPs and would-be MPs I meet at the party’s training weekend for key seats – each time we seem to have had a bigger and better team.
But how do we replicate that on a local level – so that we continue to build on the hugely powerful impact of careful targeting and focusing of resources on those areas where they can make a difference, but at the same time make a much larger number of seats and councils competitive so that we are expanding our base across the whole country?
Too often those are seen as conflicting aims. But whilst it is certainly true there is some tension between them, I believe we have been at our most successful where we have found ways to achieve both at the same time.
Those with an interest in American politics may notice the parallels with the “map changers” strategy of John Edwards and the “50 states” strategy of Howard Dean – both wanting to concentrate on the really winnable races whilst also growing the breadth of the party so that it doesn’t end up just hunkered down in a small number of redoubts.
As if that isn’t a hard enough circle to square – we also need a strategy that can actually be turned into specific concrete steps. Too often in the past plans to build up weaker areas, reduce the number of black holes and so on have turned out to generate lots of fine words but very little actual action.
This is an issue we need to address with some urgency because 2009 will, almost certainly, see local and European elections on the same day. And in those areas what message will it send to voters in the polling station when they see the Liberal Democrats on one ballot paper but not the other? That could rather undermine our otherwise very strong message about how we can win right across the country under the European voting system and how we are in a period of genuine three-party politics.
Indeed, I’ve been told that the most strident feedback the party has received via its website after both this year’s and last year’s local election has been from people angry that they went to vote – and didn’t find any Liberal Democrat candidate on their council ballot paper.
So – what should we do? I think we should set ourselves the following challenges.
First, to stand a record number of candidates in the 2009 elections. In 2005 we had candidates for 89% of the seats – around 260 short of a full set. That is a number that should be possible to crack next time – break it down per regional party, per MEP or Euro candidate, per MP, per whomever wants to help – we can make that a manageable individual target.
Second, to run an earmarked fundraising operation to allow people to “adopt” a ward where there has been no Liberal Democrat candidate for the last eight years and donate towards running a campaign there for the first time – and gather in the pledges in advance so local parties can see what is on offer to encourage them to stand a candidate! I suspect that in some cases there is a lack of ambition when it comes to standing candidates from local party committees, so here would be a really powerful way of helping to raise people’s ambitions.
Third, I loved the “Community Canvass Week” initiative the party ran for the first time last autumn to encourage people to get out on the doorsteps talking to the public. So let’s run it again – but with a big publicity and training drive in advance so that we get more people trying door-knocking for the first time – and so that we provide people who are in areas of very weak Liberal Democrat organisation “self-starter kits” so they can get going even if there isn’t a working local party organisation to run things. More people knocking on more doors in more areas – that is crucial to expanding the number of wards in which we are competitive, and will also do our European election prospects no harm at all.
Fourth, we need to lower the barriers for someone to move between thinking they want to do something to improve their area and finding that there is only a very weak party organisation and having read and followed everything in Chris Rennard’s How to win local elections book and ending up a local councillor. So my fourth suggestion is that the party should produce a more general self-starter kit, one that takes you through an easy to follow series of steps that help build up the party’s presence and strength – but short of running to win a council seats, because that isn’t for everyone – and if that’s the only option on offer, it will also put off those who might be willing to end up being councillors, but only after a more gentle introduction. Recruiting a couple more donors for the party, writing regularly to the local newspaper, using your own website to promote the party’s online campaigns – there’s a myriad of steps you can take, so let’s make it easy for people to take them.
And fifthly, we should ensure that we have at least a modest local internet presence covering every part of the country, helping point the public at more news about the party, how to join, how to get in touch with the local team etc. With the number of existing sources of news and information about the Liberal Democrats, I am sure it can’t be beyond the wit of a clever programmer or two to be able to put together an effective mini-site system that covers our internet black holes at a minimum of cost and effort.
There are I am sure many other ideas, but I’ve deliberately picked up a relatively small number that, when broken down, would require any individual to do relatively little – at low cost of both time and money. Collectively though – it could make a huge difference to our ongoing battle to establish ourselves firmly as a major political party in all parts of the country – and to persuade people that British politics really is a three (and in Scotland and Wales, four) party system.
And how do we make it happen? Well – I’m sending a copy of this over to Ed Davey, chair of the party’s Campaigns and Communications Committee – because this seems to me to all be about campaigning and communicating better.
But – particularly in our party above all – it’s not about waiting for someone from on-high to impose a decision. Instead – it’s about what you do in your area. I wouldn’t be MP for Hornsey & Wood Green if I’d waited around for someone from on-high to decide I should be. I’m an MP because I and my colleagues locally made it happen: we got the ball rolling and in due course got help from outside. But the key was us wanting it to happen and taking our fate into our own hands.
So if you agree with any of what I’ve written above – take fate into your own hands too. Oh, and don’t forget first to go help in Henley!
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
GUEST POST No sign of an end to defections in local government
Monday night is Parish Council night...
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Steve Trevethan
Nonconformistradical
Jenny Barnes
Mick Taylor
Mark Frankel
44 Comments
A valuable and interesting analysis as always by Lynne. I particularly agree with point one (cutting the number of areas without LD candidates) and point five (having an Internet presence everywhere). We are good at using the Internet to begin to overcome the two-party media squeeze – we need to capitalise on that further.
Excellent. I get the feeling tha the party is at last about ready to take this sort of advice about how to make the breakthrough effort we need.
I think you’re being a bit optimistic here and we really need to be more radical, both in terms of policy and how we do things.
What would be really useful for both the party and voters would be to have some national policies about local government such as :
* Standards on expenses, pay, transparency and governence over and above the legal minimum – we should be setting the highest standards at both national and local not meeting the legal minimum.
* Standard policies on issues such as affordable housing, waste, IT, etc.
* Knowledge sharing and consulting of specialists within and without the party.
We should also attacking Labour and Conservatives on their huge cuts to important local services – instead of Lib Dem Councils being the scapgoats because the Fire Authority cuts funding, and the government cuts their funding we should be making a big issue of why peoples council taxes are rising and their services are being dropped and cut.
Then we need to push some radical policies that make the party stand out, rather than be seen as ineffectual, or sitting on the fence and irrelevent (which is unfortunately, and sometimes even accurately, how the majority of the voting public see us). Drug Laws, Sex Workers, Scrapping beaurocracy en-masse (i.e. scrapping the nightmares and white elephants that are Tax Credits, ID Cards, Databases of communication, etc), and more.
Finally, as you said in points 5 and 1 – we need to make it easier to get involved .
Unless you want to cold call people in by-elections, deliver pamphets or be a councillor there isn’t much you can really acheive as a member without just handing over wads of cash that are never accounted for.
How about including free membership of specialist groups, and subsidising them from our budget in exchange for them providing services, policies, and advice ?
Lib dems online never really had support from the party, there are various opaque cabals that you have to pay to join and maybe receive a quarterly newsletter (this has certainly put me off joining technical specialist groups in the party), all very cosy if you’re a career politico, not if you only have a fulltime job and family.
Very good.
As ever it is necessary to learn how walk a tightrope at a low level before we can gain the confidence to cross between mountain peaks and climb up to the highest summits.
No over-extension, but also no poverty of ambition.
Lynne you say nothing about the elephant in your room. The performance in London in May.
Very good and very insightful analysis I think….I very much agree with the thrust of it…I think we are at somewhat uneven levels of development across the country and out overall strategy has to reflect that…I live in a place where we are effectively starting from scratch (we only have 2 councillors etc) and apart from 97 it is a pretty solid Tory seat….our strategy has to recognise that uneveness and level it out….
It seems to me that the ideal focus right now would be on recruiting more members. Something along the lines of a “recruit a friend” internal campaign would swell the ranks overnight and, in doing so, provide more much-needed manpower and funds.
I really think this kind of discussion should be in the private members only part of this website. Would we really discuss all this kind of thing in a local newspaper?
Tony Greaves
No but this isnt a local newspaper…..I dont think it does any harm for people to see Parties absorbing electoral lessons in public…Labour certainly did it on Labour Home and there was a much sharper debate on there as you can imagine…if somebody saw this who wasnt a Lib Dem I think they would say it shows strength of character to discuss like this in public….
Has there been any research about how much a website improves the chances of a local party to reach voters and potential new members? The piece of Chris Black from April, which went almost unnoticed, suggest that it is efficient use of resources especially for small local parties.
Hm. I remember the vitriol some of us got for having this kind of debate in the private parts of cix not long ago (or longer ago in ALC publications, Radical Bulletin etc – which were available to anyone who really made the effort but hardly at the click of a button). Now it seems we carry on regardless in the full glare of anyone who wants to read – and join in. How about asking how many of the people who join in here are not actually Liberal Democrats?
Tony Greaves
That was then and this is now…and to be honest if we werent having these debates in public then it would reflect very poorly on our party…pick up any newspaper and you can read any ten-a-penny Labour MP giving their tuppence worth on their problems…and to be honest this piece isnt even critical, its constructive….so I am really at a loss as to what the problem is…
Tony,
From what I’ve seen of the comments everybody here is a lib dem. (I’ve voted lib dem, paid my membership, contributed towards leadership campaigns, set up mailing lists, and tried to kickstart technical stuff, membership no 82***91 FYI)
I think it’s fair to say that there is nowhere internal to discuss these things.
Conferences are once a year, expensive to get to, expensive to get into, and policies are watered down before they are even discussed there.
The manifesto discussion website resulted in 0, Nil, Zilch impact on the manifesto, and is now not even working.
In my (admittedly limited) experience local parties are frequently only interested in either very local issues (speedbumps in feock parish, somebody building 6 flats in perranwell), or the pure party politics of council elections and squabbles.
The mailing list servers are a great idea – but like many grassroots good ideas the great and good are almost entirely absent – a few MPs are on the local community party lists, but don’t expect any debate or interest regarding actual policies onthem with anybody who has any say.
The lib dem members website is next to useless – the only useful working feature is the mailing lists, and websites – but those don’t ammount to much if you’re only talking to yourself, or preaching to the choir and ignored by relevent party officials. I can’t get budgets, funding, upcoming manifesto ideas, policies, etc through it. I can’t get much information from the public website either – try finding the LD policy on drug liberalisation (no wonder Nick Clegg seems to ignore/forget it) – it’s not linked from anywhere (not even the news stories on drugs), its in the equivilent of Douglas Adam’s “locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard”.
*sigh*
I feel that these blogs are the only way to shame party officials into listening or responding, what’s more, as a Voter (and I really wish more party campaigners and officials would think like a voter rather than a politico), I want a transparent and accountable party, the same as I want a transparent and accountable government. If we set the standards within the party, people can expect us to set standards in local and national government – a very positive thing.
Anyway, despite it’s many faults, I still support the party (in my voting, donations, time, opinion and blogging) – it’s the best party we have in the UK, and we have better parties here than in the US and much of europe – it’s just that like Oliver – I want more.
Quite right, Darrell. I think Chris Rennard ought to publish on here his top secret plans for winning Henley too…..
It wouldn’t matter if all the Tories came along to read them and to implement them before we do.
Their most recent campaigns are pretty good imitations of Lib Dem camapaigns anyway, and I am sure you will agree that we ought to make it easier for the Tories to win.
@ John…
Errrr which article are you reading because I dont think there are any secret plans here; what we have is a constructive discursive article on what we should do after Crewe. A sense of proportion would be nice. Is it ok to discuss these issues in public? Of course it is…..everybody else does and besides we live in the information age when people do expect openess and transparency not just from their government but from their political parties too….
Tony: I don’t see a problem with the issues in Lynne’s piece being discussed in public (and I suspect she’s carefully chosen the content to ensure that’s the case!).
There are other aspects that might more appropriately be discussed privately, particularly those that get into specific campaigning technqiues, but for those and other similar points there is a discussion in the Members Forum which compliments this thread.
John,
Nobody here is advocating public disclosure of by-election tactics, we’re talking about what we should do to make ourselves more electable – The tories neither need to worry about what we do, nor do changes to how we run our party translate into much that Labour or Conservative parties can copy at all easily (and even if they did, as a voter, I’d be happy if they too were more transparent and accountable, and less beholden to rich ex-pats and right-wing cabals or homophobic special interests – it would make it somewhat less painful when it’s “their turn” to run the country).
What’s more I think it’s crazy to really think that by-election tactics like how to emphasis that our candidate is more local than theirs, or some other candidate is a toff (or in henley a chav), or how many leaflets can be stuffed in how many letterboxes or how many poor sods get cold called by people the other end of the country with no interest in henley beyond gaining another yellow seat in the commons, really make us more electable.
Call me crazy, but how about pushing some really good policies, getting votes because of them, and getting our messages accross.
From what I’ve read of the N&C by-election it was purely logistics and party politics rather than local and national issues, and a total failure to emphasise how local and national problems and policies are linked and what we plan to do about them!!
This is certainly how campaigns here in the southwest are done, (but of course without any appearences from the great and good, or as much effort, because we’re a “safe” area)
Mark,
Where is this “members forum” of which you speak ?
I haven’t seen it linked anywhere from the libdem members website. I’ve never been told about it in any emails from the party (out of the 200 or so I’ve received in the last year)
Aaron: see the link at the top of this page. Stephen also does a blog posting here publicising it about once every six weeks.
Mark,
Ah..
You mean a LibDemVoice members forum. Naturally not linked to from anywhere – something else that would be nice to link to from the lib dems members page (along with LDV and libdemsblogs.co.uk)
I think that adds further weight to my previous point, that actually there is nowhere internal (LDV can be considered external) to discuss these things.
Tony Greaves wrote: “How about asking how many of the people who join in here are not actually Liberal Democrats?”
I for one am not a member of any party, though I symphatise Liberal Democrats. Does that mean, that anything what I say should be ignored? Should the Liberal Democrats take in consideration only those ideas, which come from card carrying members of the party?
Aaron Trevena wrote: “something else that would be nice to link to from the lib dems members page (along with LDV and libdemsblogs.co.uk)”
Actually LDV and libdemsblogs.co.uk are linked from the public page of the Lib Dems, see here.
Aaron says…
What’s more I think it’s crazy to really think that by-election tactics like how to emphasis that our candidate is more local than theirs, or some other candidate is a toff (or in henley a chav), or how many leaflets can be stuffed in how many letterboxes or how many poor sods get cold called by people the other end of the country with no interest in henley beyond gaining another yellow seat in the commons, really make us more electable.
Agreed Aaron. Let’s talk not only about techniques, but national policy, and not shy away from European issues either…
Okay, I have thought a bit more about my concerns. Putting aside the dual standards, it’s not so much that things are being debated or that other people might get to see them, but that it is not a debate within the party.
I (rather obviously) believe in vigorous discussion and debate within the party but I think it should be within the party. The whole blog thing seems to me to have got out of hand in the other parties and we should try not to let it get out of hand in our party.
For instance I simply refuse to try to debate the future of this party in a serious and constructive way with someone like Yasmin Zalzala. The way we debate with political enemies is different from the way we debate amongst ourselves. Or it should be.
Yet here who knows who is which?
Tony Greaves
Doesn’t it show quite a black and white vision to say, that anybody who isn’t “one of ourselves” is a political enemy?
Agree with NN.
There a zealots and trolls in all parties, and it’s best to avoid wasting time with any of them.
There are also partisan people in all who while not complete timewasters, are more than happy to take things out of context for their own agenda.
It’s not black and white tho – there are people reading LDV and other blogs who are “just voters”, and they should be included not excluded. How are you going to get more people interested by discussing things in partisan echo chambers between westminster politicos who have forgotten what it’s like to actually think who to vote for, and just how little impact it feels like a Parlimentary or EP vote has.
What Lynne doesn’t say is that in her own patch the Lib Dems did very badly (relatively speaking) and seemingly had no campaign presence until the final week.
Nothing seemed to be done to support Brian Paddick and while Labour were out for the month before 1 May, the Lib Dems only seemed to be active in the final week.
The result was enough to suggest that Lynne’s personal bubble is slowly deflating and that H&WG Lib Dems have lost members and momentum.
In my ward, which we (Labour) lost to the Lib dems by 700 votes in 2006 we topped the poll.
No doubt someone will be along shortly to rebut all this in a second, but it is not just meant to be a bit of pro-Labour propaganda but a warning to Lib Dems that chasing the Tory vote exposes Lynne and co to a Labour revival.
Obviously that seems like a strange thing to say now, but the Tories are not going to be 20% ahead on polling day at the next GE and lots of centre-left voters will be galvanised by the prospect of a Tory government.
I was talking to a former member of Lib Dem staff at the weekend who was regretting the death of “the project” and the failure of key Lib Dems to recognise what a threat the Tory revival is to them. I fear she had a serious point.
As you requested speedy rebuttal I’m happy to oblige 🙂 The idea that the Lib Dem campaign didn’t appear until the final week is nice spin, but hardly true.
If you look at the votes, you’ll see that Hornsey & Wood Green was one of the constituencies in London where the Liberal Democrats topped the constituency vote, and two of the three best ward results on the list election were also in Hornsey & Wood Green.
There’s never any excuse for complacency, but your comment does remind me rather more of the mix of Labour complacency and wishful thinking that I’ve heard so many times before in Haringey (“Oh the Lib Dems are only popular in Muswell Hill, they’ll never win outside that”, “Oh, they’re only popular in the the most middle class wards in the west, they’ll never win in wards with big estates like Hornsey”, “They might have a few councillors but they’ll never win a Westminster election”, “Oh, they’re only popular in the west, they’ll never get any councillors east of the railway line” and so on…)
I rather agree with Aaron….i really dont see the benefit in talking to ourselves…it’s the first sign of madness supposedly though we’d also pass the second stage by answering back – much better for politics all round and us if we discuss these things openly….
Tony: “The whole blog thing seems to me to have got out of hand in the other parties and we should try not to let it get out of hand in our party.”
We had a much more vibrant and useful set of blogs way before the other two parties did. Indeed, reading and getting involved in them was one of the reasons I (and others) joined the party. I wouldn’t have had access tot he members forum two years ago, I wasn’t a member, I am now because I was able to join discussions such as this and could see that not only was it a party I broadly agreed with, but it was also a party that wanted to listen to me.
If we lock ourselves away in private for all constructive strategic discussions then the next potential members like me, for example, won’t get those benefits.
Times are moving on—reading Lynne’s blog, having Adrian comment on mine, talking to other prominent members finally prompted me to get my wallet out.
I don’t see anything in Lynne’s (rather good) post that is in need of being secret—sure, you can make additional comments in the forum if you wish, but if we all make sure that this is for public consumption then no harm.
Lynne, I mostly concur, and I think we can all benefit from sharing ideas like this, I really need to get on with helping out our local party a bit more, now the elections are over. I especially agree about the potential uses we can put to websites and improving our online presence, especially in areas we’re weak.
MatGB: “We had a much more vibrant and useful set of blogs way before the other two parties did”
You really must be a bit delusional if you think this is true. Compare the trajectory and impact of this site vs ConservativeHome.
Of course, if you define only Lib Dem blogs as being useful to you then your statement might be correct, but that would be a bit myopic.
PT, Tories have ConservativeHome (which seems to me be full of fanatic zealots, for whom even David Cameron was still a while ago a dangerous socialist) and Iain Dale’s Diary, and what else? MatGB was talking about a set of blogs, and indeed, if you take a look at LibDem Blogs – Aggregated, you’ll find a real spectrum of views from about 200 or so different blogs. The Conservatives doesn’t have anything like that, or if they do, they sure have hidden it well.
NN is right Passing however, Conservative Home does provide a vital function because it reminds us just how awful a Conservative government was and will still be….
Not so much well hidden as not looked for by the average Lib Dem.
If you bother to look for them you will find they are there aplenty and have been for some while.
Sure Iain Dale and ConservativeHome hog the limelight, although Guido is broadly sympathetic and it seems a bit mean of you to miss off Dizzy. Then it depends a bit what you are after. Coffee House works well (although may be a bit formal for your taste, also the rest of the Spectator stable). A large number of MPs and PPCs blog (e.g. I know John Redwood is a bit of a bete noir in Lib Dem circles but his blog is particularly well maintained IMHO). Then there are the more personal blogs (e.g. Daily Referendum, Letters from a Tory etc etc).
This is not to say that I expect you to agree with the views expressed in these blogs or necessarily feel the need to read them at all, but they are most definitely there. Iain Dale used to keep a fairly comprehensive and well-maintained list although it seems slightly harder to dig out in his new format.
Passing Tory wrote: “…by the average Lib Dem.”
As I said previously in this thread, not for you or any other Tory, nut for Tony Greaves who wouldn’t like to discuss with people who aren’t members of the Liberal Democrats, I am not a member of any party, though I symphatise Liberal Democrats. I don’t even agree with all of them, but still I’m interested to read many of their opinions, like I am interested to read those of Labour and Conservative blogs, if they are made easily available.
Liberal Democrats have “LibDem Blogs – Aggregated” and Labour has Bloggers4Labour, which make following the political blogs easier for an independent interested in politics like me, but the Tories haven’t made any such effort, so I understand that as them not being interested to make themselves visible for outsiders, and therefore probably not even very interesting to read.
NN, I guess you simply hated serendipidous discoveries in old-style bookshops then.
In terms of blog aggregation then to an extent you have a point, although both ConservativeHome and IDD compile content (although it is clear that this takes an editorial stance in each case). I suppose it comes down to whether you want all your information through one, centrally organised (and therefore controlled) feed or whether you prefer something a little more distributed.
Although, given the tone of your comments you strike me as the sort of person I meet canvasing who says “well, I’ll never vote Tory now” when you know full well they have never voted Tory in their life and even if you let them write the manifesto they still wouldn’t.
PT, I didn’t hate the old-style bookshops, but in a modern information society there’s so much information available, that an aggregator makes following what’s happening (and picking the interesting bits) much easier for a busy reader like me, and therefore also enables those who participate to the aggregator to make their voice heard.
Aggregators are automated, and therefore it’s unlikely that they would be controlled, it’s all about making things easier for those who want to read blogs. Of course you can keep the Conservative blogosphere “more distributed”, but don’t expect me to spend more time for searching the good bits from it just because the Tories seem to be too old-fashioned to adopt modern technology.
I’m not pretending; I said I’m not a member of any party, but I symphatise the Liberal Democrats. I didn’t claim that I had voted the Tories, or ever would. (Maybe I could, if they had a much better candidate than the other parties, I actually stress the personal qualities when choosing who to vote.) But to be frank, I don’t care what you think about me and my political views, and actually they are none of your business. But with that tone you sure aren’t making me any more favourable to the Tories.
Well, NN, you have more or less made my previous point for me. For someone who has previously written
“Conservative Home does provide a vital function because it reminds us just how awful a Conservative government was and will still be….”
to then go on to say
“But with that tone you sure aren’t making me any more favourable to the Tories.”
is a bit comical. Just who do you think you are kidding?
You are confusing me with someone else. Your first quotation wasn’t from me.
Personally I don’t think that ConservativeHome represents all Tories, just the kind of Tories I don’t like, and it seems you are one of them.
[Abusive comments edited out – mod.]
what charming language, NN.
apologies for the misquote; yes I had you confused with Darrell.
It was far from clear that MatGB was talking about aggregators when he talked about a set of blogs (or rather, it seemed clear that he wasn’t); I rather assumed you were deliberately winding me up and reacted accordingly.
Passing Tory, I was reading political blogs a long time before most current political blogs got started, and way before I joined the Lib Dems—my first “political” blog was distincly non-partizan. It was reading the diversity of LDblogs that got me back interested.
Back then, there were very few Conservative blogs worth reading (Conservative Home really ought to rename Cornerstone Home given its Editor’s focus), and many of them are now defunct.
At the start, I linked to virtually every political blog I could find (there really weren’t that many 4 years ago) and while the Tories had more than Labour, the Lib Dems were ahead back then as now.
Of course, the non-aligned non-partizan blogs remain better than virtually all the party specific sites, still.
If you want to believe that the current fairly vibrant Tory blogs predate the diversity of the Lib Dems, go ahead, but it simply isn’t true, sorry.
PT, comments passed in ether. I said “set of blogs” and “before“, both are important.
As it happens, I don’t tend to use the LD aggregator, I have my own feedreaders, but I was talking historically, and the comment was aimed at Lord Greaves, who is worried we might go the way of the other parties—I was pointing out to them that it’s the other way around and they’re actually following us.
But we’re talking over two years ago, which is an ice age in blogging terms, water under the bridge.
Comparing LDV to ConHome today is also erroneous, Lib Dems have always been more decentralised and less inclined to cluster around one specific site, and that’s how we prefer it.
I’m not sure the Lib Dems did win the constituency vote in Hornsey and Wood Green because we don’t have a proper breakdown of the postal vote. But I’m notr claiming Labour stormed the place, merely that the Lib Dems were in retreat – as they clearly where.
Some Labour members (not me) were surprised by how well the Lib Dems did in 2005 and 2006 blew away the last cobwebs of complacency for many. What I was surprised by was how far the Lib Dems slipped back from 2006.
But my point is not one of electoral banter – it is about the Lib Dems as a party of the left. The further Nick Clegg moves from that the more difficult it will be not just to hold Hornsey and Wood Green but lots of other places too.
The Lib Dems won all those west country seats in 1997 because they were a party of the moderate left. It is a mistake to think that they can change their spots now and not suffer.
You are entitled to hate the Labour Party but don’t make the mistake of many in Labour who’s hatred of the Lib Dems blinds them to what is really going on with the electorate.
In Worcester’s local elections this year we only had four candidates! Less than 50% of the seats up. However that is because we are a small party. But I can fully understand the issue with people not seeing the LibDems on their ballot papers. We need to encoarage more people to get on the ballot papers, it’s essential.