The Saturday morning of party conference sees a consultative sessions on the May 2011 elections and AV referendum. Ahead of that, a brief outline report has been published by the party which is embedded below. It is from James Gurling, chair of the party’s Campaigns and Communications Committee.
The party’s post-general election review has attracted criticism for being kept fairly low profile, both in terms of who was asked to contribute and the subsequent circulation of the lessons. The general election report has not been made public by the party or circulated very far internally. So it’s good to see that one year on the review this time is being done in a more inclusive way – but that only means much if people take the opportunities to take part in the review consultation, either at conference or by submitting views via email as requested in the report.
The experience of the general election report suggests taking part will be well worthwhile, as several key decisions the party has taken since (e.g. over introducing Liberal Democrat Connect) clearly followed on from that report’s recommendations.
The report asks 27 questions. Guest posts for The Voice about one or more of the questions would be most welcome. In the meantime, Liberal Vision has also blogged about the review and consultation.
Liberal Democrats Election Review: May 2011 elections and AV referendum
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liberal Democrats move out of Great George Street HQ
Sturgeon V Burnham
The Mammoth Book of SF Stories by Women, ed. Alex Dally MacFarlane
What is the meaning of the Chesham and Amersham by election?
There is no such thing as ethical capitalism
Will Johnson restore cabinet government?
Michael 1
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
suzanne fletcher
16 Comments
With regard to the attack on Labour for failing to deliver in the yes campaign, you’ve criticised them for not honouring a clear manifesto pledge? Really?
Its a valid criticism as it amounts to hypocrisy- dont attack Libdems for not fulfilling manifesto pledges when they aren’t. They were doing nothing but point scoring under Miliband at the expense of democracy.
I hope that many members will attend on the Saturday morning session and fill in the many gaps in this report. I would like to know what the central (London & South East) party thinks that is has done to retain former councillors and activists motivated in the party ? The best analysis was done by ALDC which recognised a wide range of sources of the problem. The sad thing is that many good members who have worked very hard for the last 20,30 and 40 years will not be motivated enough to come to conference. The party is in the process of losing a generation of hard working members.
@Paul: Blaming other parties for the failure of a referendum on something that’s always been ‘our’ issue is a bit churlish. I would be more forgiving of point (1) if it wasn’t instantly followed by us complaining that our opponents (shock, horror) tried to win.
I’ve put up my response to the consultation here: http://declineofthelogos.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/lib-dem-consultation-on-av-campaign-review/
I really would like to know from where James Gurling et al get the idea that the Labour Party in some way owed the Lib Dems the favour of a loan of the full weight of the Labour Party electoral campaign machine to support a Yes vote. The Lib Dem sudden u-turn on economic policy before the abortive coalition negotiations, their conduct in the negotiations, the subsequent adoption of a vicious Conservative cutting and privatising agenda, and then presenting this agenda as ‘the new politics’ and attacking Labour for daring to criticise it, are all things which would make it very unlikely anyone in the Labour Party will do even a minor favour for the Liberal Democrats.
All people wishing to learn the lessons from the AV referendum failure need to do is read the academic literature on why referendums pass or fail. It’s the same reasons each time.
A document like this, for it to be effective has to be objective.
We all know what most Labour party members think of the Liberal Democrats right now, so in the end we should actually be grateful that Ed Miliband supported the yes campaign. Like many of his colleagues, he could have easily changed his mind and supported no.
The report says nothing at all about how the no campaign capitalised on the unpopularity of Nick Clegg. That was one of the main parts of their campaign. That was also the reason why Ed Miliband could not associate himself with Nick Clegg. What was a big mistake was that the decision by Ed Miliband not to associate hiself with Nick Clegg became a news story in itself. This matter should have been sorted out between the 2 behind the scenes. The polls show that Nick Clegg is very unpopular, his only hope is that will change in time if the electorate like what he and the government is doing. If that happens at all, it is likely to be a couple of years from now. What is the point in taking a high profile in a campaign you want to win when noone wants to listen to you?
The problem of course is that the report cannot be objective in this way because if it was it would become a news story in itself.
I would be appalled if any serious attempt by the Party to identify the true reasons for the twin disasters in May were to be posted on a public website. Thankfully, for reasons which are, at least in part, outlined by Geoffrey Payne above, this is not such a document. But seriously. What is it doing here?
“I really would like to know from where James Gurling et al get the idea that the Labour Party in some way owed the Lib Dems the favour of a loan of the full weight of the Labour Party electoral campaign machine to support a Yes vote.”
Mr Boothroyd, this duty was not owed to the Lib Dems. it was, presumably owed to the British Public before whom, 10 months before the Labour Party had placed a clear manifesto promise to seek AV. Without even a referendum?
Beg pardon if I am showing naivety in expecting anything like honesty and integrity from the Labour Party. As bad, really, as tuition fees pledges/promises?
@Dave B.
I hoped Labour might have done themselves a favour. In the long term they will find it more difficult to win seats in England due to demographic changes, Devolution of more powers to Scotland and Wales will make an overwhelming case for less Westminster MPs to come from those countries.
Ed M has recognised this – hence his ‘push for the commuter vote’.
However most of Labour could not resist the short term goal of sticking it to the Libdems.
“In extremely difficult political circumstances – none of which could have been predicted at the start of the process”
Is an utterly ridiculous statement. The referendum on STV was proposed by the Lib Dem coalition negotiating team!
Worse, the referendum was pushed though despite obvious warning signs. Labour did make efforts to decouple the referendum from both the reduction in the number of MPs and the local elections.
At the time I called for the AV referendum to be dropped and replaced by some Lib Dem aim that could have been delivered without a referendum, local elections in Wales, Mayoral elections or the euros spring to mind.
Have I missed the bit in the report saying the elections in Scotland were an utter disaster?
Tony Dawson, the Labour Party manifesto did pledge that a Labour government in the new Parliament would hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote – but there is no Labour government, so I do not know what point it is you are making. When the Labour government had introduced provisions for the referendum before the election, it was on the basis that party members would be free to campaign for either side or for none – I would have thought it was far more in the spirit of ‘the new politics’ that a party not seek to restrict members who honestly hold differing views about constitutional matters. A manifesto cannot in any respect prescribe how hard individual members of the Party are to campaign in a future referendum.
Yes, the pledge was unambiguously for a referendum. I think you’ll find that the theory that Labour offered, during coalition negotiations, to introduce AV without a referendum turned out to be a small canard introduced by pro-Coalition Conservatives in order to bounce the party into conceding. Unless you’re calling your leader a liar (see Rob Wilson, “5 Days to Power”, p. 209: “As Clegg has confirmed in the House of Commons since, there was never any formal offer of AV without a referendum either from Brown or from his negotiating team”.)
Then you have the gall to bring up ‘honesty and integrity’. I think we all know if you ever found yourself in honesty and integrity territory you’d hurry out of it and hope none of it had stuck to your clothes.
@David Boothroyd
Your last comment included the words “Labour Party”, “honesty” and “integrity” in one posting.
Please don’t do that again.
David, there is no Liberal Democrat government either, but we are constantly being pilloried for not introducing our entire manifesto. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I’d also take issue when Geoff says above: “We all know what most Labour party members think of the Liberal Democrats right now”
There is no “right now.” Labour hate Liberals. They hate Liberalism. The very idea is anathema to them. More than power itself, they want to preserve the system that ensures them regular periods of absolute power, and that means getting rid of us. Permanently.
All Lib Dems need to shake off the idea that Labour are in some way, deep deep down, our friends. They are not. They not only hold beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Liberalism, but tactically, they want us GONE!
The idea of the Tories being independent in Scotland is understandable, and we should have thought of it first! In fact, what is needed now in Scotland is a complete coalition of opposition to try to prevent the excesses of a one party state. The SNP are ruthless and we could sleepwalk into independence which is supported by only a third of the population, with as many against and a large ‘don’t know’ return. If we don’t putt up a strong opposition to the SNP we could be .bulldozed into whatever they want against the majority of the population.
@Ben I think there is a difference between now and a few years ago. Labour have been more willing than the Tories to support electoral reform, even though the current voting system suits them more than the Tories.
In 1997 Tony Blair was expecting to make an arrangement with Paddy Ashdown both to defeat the Tories and the Labour left. The general election result stymied that. Other Labour figures like Robin Cook wanted to work with the Lib Dems because they supported civil liberties, unlike New Labour.
Now you always get party chauvinists in all political parties, and there has always been plenty in Labour. There are a fair few in the LIb Dems as well. But I think there was so much disillusionment in the Labour party with the Blair/Brown leadership there were a good many who were becoming pluralist simply out of desperation.