I was having a look at data from previous elections recently with a particular focus on the number of seats and percentage of votes gained by the third party in the last few decades.
The first thing that is clear and which I already knew is that in the last three general elections, the Lib Dems have consistently increased their number of seats. The figures are:
1997: 46 (+26)
2001: 52 (+6)
2005: 62 (+10)
The huge leap in 1997 is often put down to our improved targeting campaign techniques championed by Chris Rennard.
There is something else interesting in the figures which I had not realised. I wanted to see what happened when you compare the percentage of seats we had won with the percentage of “proportionally earned seats” we would have got in a proportional system. I was particularly interested to see if and how this had improved over the years and indeed it has.
In fact when you look at the figures since 1970, this is what you get:
This chart shows vote share plotted against seat share:
As you can see there is not much correlation between the two. The vote share bounces around all over the place but the share of seats is clearly trending upwards with a few small interim falls.
This graph shows the “proportionally earned seats” share on its own though:
In every general election since the second one in 1974 (so the last 8, coincidentally every single one since I was born in July 1974) the proportion of seats won with respect to the share of the vote has increased.
The fact is that the third party has consistently got better and better at fighting first past the post elections.
Whenever I have been asked how I think the Lib Dems will do at the next election I have always said that I think our share of the vote will be higher than last time (22%) but that our number of seats may well fall. A number of other Lib Dems have taken me to task on this suggesting that I am not taking into account how difficult it is for our opponents to shift us once we win seats and that I am being too pessimistic. The data above seems to back up their view.
The history of elections in my entire lifetime would suggest that if the Lib Dem share of the vote goes up then our number of seats will too. If this doesn’t happen then it will be bucking a 36 year trend.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that we will not lose seats at the coming election.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems urge government to fund scheme that traces Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Free digital skills training
Reform civil war
I appear to be banned from Belfast Pride
Ruth Clark
Mike Peters
Roland
20 Comments
Interesting analysis. However, the trend suggests we won’t see a breakthrough in the “percentage of proportionally earned seats won”, since that seems to have been flatlining since 1997. Thus we may add some seats assuming that the vote share goes up. On the other hand, how many seats are there (especially in the North) where the Lib Dems have repeated achieved a good second without previously winning – these may tip over to us, creating another “1997 effect” with the share of seats won rising faster than the vote share.
I’m not sure which is more likely myself, though I hope for the second 🙂
How about this for praise on Politicalbetting.com: “These aren’t words that often pass my key board but that LDV leader is well worth a PB thread. I think his analysis is simplistic for a number of reasons but his argument is correct. The LD’s have become more and more efficent at using there FPTP share of the vote. Even more so at Council level. 100 seats at roughly 20% of the national vote is perfectly possible all things being equal if we just keep grinding on.
“But are other things equal?”
Well done Mark!
The targetting strategy is part of the equation.
However another consideration is the ratio of the Lib Dem and Conservative vote, as there are not many LD/Labour marginals. When the Tories increase their vote, they are more likely to gain from the Lib Dems than if Labour do the same.
I am also concerned that the Tories have a lot of money behind them, and will therefore get out more of their vote in the marginal seats.
So I think that the best we can hope for is that the personal reputations of our MPs will keep them in.
My memory of the Lib Dems at the last general election was one of how unpredictable they are. The overall total was as expected, but the actual seats that we won certainly were not predicatble. So I think it also comes down to how well organised the local parties are. On a national level, only a small number of people are likely to know that.
Trouble is that some of the excesses of targeting in the past have left us with relatively few seats we can realistically win. Nick Clegg has talked about winning 150 seats next time – are we actually making a serious effort in 150 seat this time. If not then this aim will not be achieved because we just won’t have enough good prospects. We’re always fighting the last general election..
Of course, this does remind us that we can’t be complacent and need to keep pounding the doorsteps and getting out FOCUS!
I’m wary of all predictions involving people who have it in their own hands to win or not. It is not something to predict, but something to go out and achieve.
That said, I think the interesting questions are: a) are we nearing the limits of the target seat strategy – or is it possible to target seat ourselves all the way into government? b) are the other parties becoming better at doorstep campaigning and targetting, and what impact does this have?
If every party ruthlessly follows target seat strategies, equally well, it should be fairly easy to see that this will result in a more proportional result than if none do, because each targets a number of seats in proportion to their resources.. Targetting is a poor man’s proportional representation. But what we have at the moment is perhaps a combination of better proportionality from targetting, and a bonus for targetting better than the others do. The second of these may be vulnerable.
Geoffrey and Jon both right. All things being equal, when the Tory tide rises we will lose more due to the lesser number of Lab/Lib marginals. Something that should have been addressed in 2005.
The emphasis on targeting began soon after the formation of the new Party. As a member of the FE, I wrote a paper on concentrating resources predominantly in the South West and where we had strong local government presence. This was accepted – just. This then influenced both the selection of the new Chief Executive and then the new Director of Campaigns.
Although money made a huge difference to what could be done in 1997, the strategy was there in ’92. [We should be ever thankful to Anthony Jacobs (General Election Team ’97: Head of the Target Seats Campaign) for giving Chris (Director of Campaigns) a free hand and much encouragement in an organisation [the General Election Team] which is independent from the Party’s day to day structure.
The real difference in ’97 – and this was first identified by Ashdown’s strategic brilliance who watched the figure like a hawk – was the answer to the polling question (put something along the lines of …) ‘Do you trust Labour on the economy?’
This was important because when it began to be positive in the middle Nineties the old Conservative scare (in most of those target seats) that ‘a vote for the Lib Dems will let Labour in’ failed to resonate to have its previous traction. It was the moment to move from the previous equi-distance policy.
Our MPs in these seats have done a great job and the power of the incumbency when they have won once, been re-elected and are seeking re-election for the third time is very powerful. Added to which there is, in these seats, palpable proof that ‘the Lib Dems can win here’ which is also critical.
However, everyone should keep watching the results of that question, ‘Do you trust Labour on the economy’. When it turns negative and/or the complementary question for the Conservatives becomes highly positive campaigning becomes very difficult.
@Bill le Breton: An insightful post – nice of you to share your inside knowledge 🙂 I wanted to pick up your last point:
However, everyone should keep watching the results of that question, ‘Do you trust Labour on the economy’. When it turns negative and/or the complementary question for the Conservatives becomes highly positive campaigning becomes very difficult.
George Osborne’s ratings for trust on the economy have been very unimpressive IIRC – whereas Vince Cable is the preferred Chancellor even of Tory voters. We could use a line like this in Lib Dem-Conservative marginals: “a vote for us means Vince Cable will have more say over economic policy, regardless of who is Prime Minister. A vote for the Conservatives in this constituency does nothing to reduce the number of Labour-held seats so you might as well vote for competence and responsibility.”
This will be an easier line if the polls are unambiguously predicting that the Tories will be the largest party – then the choice will be between minority or majority government, and in that situation we are an attractive choice. So we have to hope that Gordon Brown doesn’t do too well in the polls.
We started to do well in seats in 1997 because we had then worked out how to play the system (there is obviously a bit more to it than that, but that’s probably the main reason). Ever since then we have managed to keep doing well because we remain good at campaigning and at using incumbency, and that coincided with a time when Labour were still doing well in the polls and the Conservatives weren’t.
That has now changed and the Tories are doing well in the polls, and it is the first time it has happened since we knew how to target properly. So quite simply, we don’t know whether “when the Tory tide rises we will lose more due to the lesser number of Lab/Lib marginals.”
We do have some very marginal seats against Labour (not just in the North, but in the South too) but we are also targeting some more long-shots against them too. In 1997 we won long-shots against the Conservatives, this time we will do the same against Labour, and so although we may not on paper think we have many potential gains against Labour I think the reality is different. Plus, we are also targeting a few Conservative seats and I bet we will win some of them, which would be seen as bucking the trend completely.
So quite simply, we don’t know how we will perform against Tories when they are doing well until 7th May, as this is a new experience for all of us.
The 2005 result, though a net gain of 10 seats, was a disappointment to many, given the uniquely favourable circumstances (the unpopularity of the Iraw War and student tuition fees – among students, and the failure of the Howard “interm” leadership to transform the Tory Party).
The reasons may be twofold:-
(1) The lack of professionalism of Charles Kennedy (would you want a Prime Minister who fumbles when asked about his own policy?).
(2) The increase in support among middle-class progressives and students alienated swing voters in Lib Dem/Con marginals.
Does anyone know how the polls reacted to Kennedy’s catastrophic Manifesto Launch performance?
I doubt that the Tories will have much success against Lib Dem incumbents, because of lot of Tory support is actually quite soft. Are the masses really rolling their eyes at the mention of Cameron’s name as they did with Tony Blair in the late 1990s?
Thanks for a fine article Mark, on your main point I would expect the proportion of “earned” seats to rise to around 50%; perhaps 90 seats. Certainly the “Tory Tide” has been & gone.
Have you thought about our vote share, this Election could be the first since 1983 where the share really matters, particularly in how close we get to Labour. The polls are not much use yet & wont be for another month or so. We know our vote share will rise as election day approaches & we should get ready to ride on any Liberal Tide.
There are a lot more than there used to be, though!
The combination of the rise in our vote in 2005, the fall in the Labour vote in the same year, and some pretty good boundary changes from our point of view has resulted in a real rise in the Lab-Lib marginal. I think we actually have more second places to Labour MPs than we do to Tory MPs now; certainly those two numbers are much closer than at the 2001 GE.
Also, I expect to find that the Lab>LD swing in our target seats is higher than the Lab>Con swing in their targets – not because our targetting is more effective; Ashcroft money probably makes theirs more effective, though I think we’re still more efficient – but because we have an unpopular Labour Government and an untrusted Tory Opposition, and moving from Labour to LD doesn’t require trusting Cameron.
One reason why we did well in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was we learned how to earn tactical votes from Labour – that was partly born by desparation after 18 years of Conservative governement. I’m not sure we’ve yet learned how to do the opposite, or whether the “anti-Labour tactical voter” is something that exists after 13 years of Labour. Perhaps it would only be created with the same conditions in reverse.
Happy to see evidence to the contrary, though.
The trouble with statistics is that you can prove anything using them.
For example, an alternative interpretation of the data above is that, in the last 9 elections, the Lib Dem seat percentage has fallen every time the Tories have won an election (with one exception) and risen every time Labour has won an election (also with one exception).
The exceptions are October 1974, when Wilson’s minority government was confirmed in power, and 1983, when the Liberal/Alliance vote had nearly doubled after the formation of the SDP.
The rise in propoprtionally-earned seats tends to be greater during elections where there is a change of governent, so any recent flatlining since 97 may be discounted for this reason, just as the relative stability in this figure during the 80s can also be discounted.
I’m also interested in our relative performance against a ‘rising tory tide’ (ahem, an ‘ebbing Labour tide’ might be more accurate) as it will be the party’s first experience of this since the merger.
I am particularly hopeful that by showing we are capable of fighting equally against all opponents we will reaffirm our independent platform and thereby prove our credentials as a party of government.
It is symbolically important for the long-term prospects of the party to make gains against both our opponents, as well as being important on pragmatic grounds to make overall gains.
So I have to like Mark’s optimism, but I agree more with Joe’s statement: hope is nothing without determination.
“I’m also interested in our relative performance against a ‘rising tory tide’ (ahem, an ‘ebbing Labour tide’ might be more accurate) as it will be the party’s first experience of this since the merger. ”
History says that we do less well against the Tories when they are ascending (not as much as they should be, but the swing is something like 4% at present poll levels). But then history didn’t have us with 60-odd seats. We could well be hurt by the “smaller” parties and non-vote to vote shifts rather than churn. We shall see.
A little noticed feature of elections in the Blair years is the decline in tactical voting. Look at the size of the Labour vote for third placed Labour candidates in 1997 and 2001 compared to the 1980s and early 1990s (and the seats we failed to win on account of it). Recent local elections have shown third placed Labour support collapsing back to 1980s levels, which is encouraging. However, this has been accompanied by a rise in Tory support. But that rise in is not really that impressive, when one considers that the Conservative Party has not won a general election on 38% since the war (or indeed ever?).
I really hope that I am wrong, but given a Tory surge, so many Lib Dem seats are vulnerable that I can foresee a meltdown in the number of seats we hold. Also, if there looks like there will be a close result, with many Labour voters returning to their primary choice, then many of the seats won at the last election when it was clear Labour was going to win, might also lose us seats won at that time.
Having campaigned through the 1970 election, in 1979, and in other disasters, perhaps I am an arch-pessimist, but I suspect this election may prove to be very depressing for the Liberal Democrats. If it is, it will be totally undeserved, but the electorate seems to have such a short memory and such a limited understanding of what is actually going on in the political world, that it seems more than likely.
I hope that there will be a substantial number of Tory votes lost to UKIP and the BNP which might mitigate against this result, but as those parties are as likely to take Labour voters who might in some circumstances support the Lib Dems against the Tories, I am not reassured.
i think that the thing wiht gordan brown is that he is to grumpy so that’ swhy i am voting for the lib dems to win the 2010 election!