One of our candidates, telling last Thursday, was told by his Green party counterpart that this particular ward, Clissold, was the Green Party’s one target in the whole of London. They had volunteers coming to Hackney from places as far flung as Orpington and Grimsby. So, how did they do? Well, they didn’t beat Labour, but they pushed us into third place. Clearly where they work, they win. Well, come second, anyway.
Only here’s the thing. Apart from the one ward, Cazenove, in which we kept all our councillors, the Green party pushed us into third place all over Hackney. Even in our target wards. Even where you’d more chance of spotting Ed Milliband at a bacon butty eating competition than a Green campaigner.
You see, when it came to the anti Labour vote in Hackney, the Greens cycled up behind us and ripped off our protest T-shirt. Or rather we just handed it over to them. Leaving us naked apart from a tattooed bar chart on our chests claiming ‘Labour can’t win here’ and another on our backs, proclaiming ‘Tories can’t win here’. Looking at the results around the country from Manchester to Greenwich, it’s a similarly dingy green picture. One that the European elections have reinforced.
I only joined in 2010 but it seems to me that First Past The Post has pushed us into an approach to campaigning that favours tactics over a positive, long term strategy and relationship. As far as ordinary people are concerned, up until 2010 we’d been saying one of two versions of: ‘Vote for us; we’re not as bad as them’. We benefited from being ‘none of the above’. And as soon as we got into national government, we acted in a way that doubled their sense of betrayal. It turned out we were ‘the above’.
Calls for Nick Clegg to go miss the point. Everyone’s experience will differ, but on the doorstep, if I was going to take an ear bashing, it was because of our role in the coalition, particularly over tuition fees, not because of one man. Replacing a leader is superficially attractive. Because it avoids us all looking in the mirror. And calls to crank up the volume on our achievements in government are only half right. It’s not about the messages. It’s about listening. It’s a conversation we need to have not a shouting match.
I believe our core vote should be at least a solid third nationally not hovering around 7%. Not because we appeal in a vague, centrist, not wanting to offend too many voters way. But because in an increasing complex, competitive, inter-connected world we are the only party that can offer a progressive, evidence-based and profoundly human approach to people’s hopes and problems. But to do that we need to start really listening. It’s what the most enduring relationships are based on.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
28 Comments
Very good stuff. I’d be interested to hear what shape the author thinks the listening should take. Would it amount to admission/contrition over some of the areas we’ve been less successful in? A change in tone? What, precisely? I ask because “listening” is often talked about as something political types generally should be doing, but only rarely do people say what it should look like. If you see what I mean.
I certainly agree about listening – but isn’t the Green’s real advantage over the Party that they have a clear and extremely important objective – that is growing in strength because of the recent IPCC and US equivalent surveys?
Saving the only planet where we can live – does rather trump concerns over whether an issue is liberal or not.
I am very much in favour of a “listening” campaign on the doorstep. We have a real problem in re-engaging our former 2010 voters and winning back their trust. Principally because of tuition fees, our brand is broken. We need to eat some humble pie and start asking voters, what realistically they want from us next time round. I say realistically because (a) we can’t make unfunded spending commitments like Labour are doing; (b) we will be lucky to form a coalition with anyone, let alone have the whip hand in any negotiations. This means that by necessity we can’t implement all our manifesto. I hope that on that basis, voters will be willing to talk to us again in the coming year, rather than slamming the door in our faces or staying at home in droves when it comes to election time.
It seems like Liberal Democrats cannot help putting their heads in the sand over the reason for the lack of popularity.
The fact is that the Lib Dems decision to go into government with the Tories, and discarding fundamental pledges they stood on when seeking election, have resulted in the general population viewing them with suspicion. The electorate finds Lib Dem excuses about why they did abandon their position on tuition fees and public spending to be self-serving and dishonest.
The fact is that it was the Lib Dems who themselves held out tuition fees as an iron-clad commitment, no-one forced them to do so and no-one forced them to stand on a platform of “No more broken promises”. You could have engaged in a “confidence and supply” arrangement, and if you had to go into coalition, there’s no reason you could not have emphatically stood behind your tuition fee policy. The Tories would have backed down rather than go back to the polls over that one policy. Furthermore, you stood essentially on an anti-austerity platform that you jettisoned shortly after the election.
I think you need to stop being evasive over the fundamental reasons that voters who used to support you no longer support you, and the obstacles to their returning to the fold. They thought you were a centre-left party and you did not correct their misapprehension. So please, look to these issues and honestly and straightforwardly address them, rather than evading them and misleading yourself.
The problem, fundamentally, is that there isn’t time to actually fix any of the things the Lib Dems have lost support over in the next year. There can be no mending tuition fees, no persuading the Tories not to have a top down re-organization of the NHS after all, no repeal of the Bedroom Tax. There isn’t time and it would likely be impossible to deliver in coalition anyway. Instead all that can be done is to try and pushes the successes and claim credit for the economic improvement and hope no-one will notice the three long years it took to come. The Lib Dems need to put a clear case for how they differ from what has happened in coalition and convince voters to return to them.
Even with no change of message, this can’t happen with Clegg in charge. And any change of message will be difficult to carry with Clegg still there.
Getting rid of Clegg isn’t an alternative to the other stuff; it’s a necessary step to make the other stuff work.
The Greens have a strong brand. Everyone thinks they know what they stand for.
We could have a stronger brand if we were clearer on issues like e-cigarettes where a more permissive approach would save millions of lives.
But you are right that the squeeze message dominates. A third party should, under FPTP, lose everywhere. If, however, it is not as bad as Labour, to Tories and vice versa, then it could win, almost everywhere, if the squeeze message is heard. It is a tragedy that it has to be said so loudly that our limited bandwidth to the electorate has less room for a positive message. But the alternative is losing everywhere.
@ Jack
“Getting rid of Clegg isn’t an alternative to the other stuff; it’s a necessary step to make the other stuff work.”
Necessary, but not sufficient. We need someone convincing, with a strong image and real strengths to take his place. So far, no real alternatives have been suggested.
As I have said before, without convincing contenders for the role, there can be no contest.
I agree with your analysis though I do still think the Lib Dems would do better without Clegg. The problem is that Clegg has done nothing that shows us what sort of a person he is, what he really believes in and what his principles are. These are things that can be gauged by someone’s action. As an example, Gordon Brown was a deeply flawed individual but he did persuade other world leaders to drop third world debt. That says something to me about the man. John Major and then Tony Blair did a lot to bring peace to Northern Ireland. That also tells me something about these two equally flawed men. But I honestly cannot see anything that tells me much about the sort of person Nick Clegg is. We know in September 2009 he tried to persuade Conference to drop abolition if tuition fees because he didn’t believe it could be afforded but he still made the Pledge. And then reneged on it. This sort of turn and turn again casts doubt on what he really believes in.
@ Joe Otten
I really do think that you have not registered that a large part of the electorate are furious with the mainstream parties who they see as ignoring their interests [because of the extremely skewed impact of the austerity measures]. Midway between the Labour and the Tories no longer has a constituency it has been gobbled up by UKIP.
I have said before that it is ‘liberal’ that needs to be far less significant and ‘democrats’ is where the greatest emphasis lies.
Did you see how Zac Goldsmiths petition for Recall is thundering ahead with signatures? That space, attending to the democratic deficit, currently remains unoccupied.
Joe Otten… “It’s us or the Tories”. I still see that on Lib Dem election leaflets and I it still makes me want to screw the leaflet up and stick it somewhere inappropriate in the canvasser’s anatomy.
Please, whatever else you do, don’t insult your would be supporters by telling those inclined to the left (sorry about old school usage) that you’ll keep the Tories out and those inclined to the right that you’ll keep Labour out.
Otherwise we’ll think you’re opportunistic, (insert insult of choice), with no real convictions. … and, of course, we know you’re really not like that at all 😉
@RC
Why do you think that Cable is so bad?
“Ed Milliband at a bacon butty eating competition”
So it’s now acceptable to a Jewish joke on a public forum ? I would suggest the editorial team take note.
@Steve Way: “So it’s now acceptable to a Jewish joke on a public forum ? I would suggest the editorial team take note.”
Firstly, Ed is an atheist. Secondly, it’s a reference to this – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-fails-to-look-normal-while-eating-bacon-sandwich-ahead-of-whistlestop-campaign-tour-9409301.html – not a Jewish joke.
Ed is of Jewish descent whatever his religious practices and is known for being so. This comment is likely to offend those who do not read the Indy but do know and share his background and is uncalled for.
@Steve Way: It was all over the news, hardly restricted to the Indy – that’s just the link I chose. I’m surprised anyone interested in politics missed it.
@Joe: As a matter of interest, why would you think e-cigarettes be a winning issue? We had Rebecca fighting on them for years and even I don’t know where we stand!
Though, true, I think we do need such an issue to fight on.
Jow Otton
We could have a stronger brand if we were clearer on issues like e-cigarettes where a more permissive approach would save millions of lives.
Brilliant. The policy to save the Lib Dems is to take a clear stand in favour of cigarettes.
I believe that the Party now needs to decide a philosophy on which to go forward to the general election and the future. We cannot continue trying to be all things to all men (and women) and when we say that we need to get ‘the message’ over, what exactly is that?
I think that we are at a crossroads. Are we to continue more as a liberal (Orange Book) party, or return to the left like, or beyond, Labour?
I see the main issues as:
State spending and finance: soft (Labour) or hard (Conservatives)? That’s the first big decision.
Welfare and social: What is it about? Having a caring tolerant society that looks after those in need? Or paying benefits to people on salaries in excess of £30,00 a year? Taxing the minimum wage? Paying housing benefits rather than sorting out the housing situation?
Europe: Being in favour of the EU is fine. But we mostly, I think, realise that’s there are great problems with the current EU institutions and change is necessary. Why not say so? Are we afraid of being realistic? The electorate are not fools, and have just indicated so.
Coalition: we fought for decades for PR. That would inevitably have meant coalition which many now seem not to like. I think that Nick Clegg and the others did the right thing in forming a coalition with the Conservatives. It has, I am sure, been difficult, but in my view they have done a good job. However now it has brought into the spotlight many of the differences in the Party.
Government: Being a party of ideals and opposition is fine but Government is hard work and has to deal with the realities. Where do we want to be?
Are we going to dream the impossible dreams (no tuition fees) or become a party that understands what it could be like to have a Government that is careful with everyone’s money and has a caring social heart?
In my view the Liberal Democrats are the only party that could possibly combine those.
Let us have the debate quickly and decide. Then maybe the electorate will know what we really stand for and not be so confused, which I think they are at the moment.
Incidentally, I approve of Liberal and Democrat. It’s a great combination!
On e-cigs, Sarah Noble is right that Rebecca led for us, with strong backing from Chris Davies on the same committee. LibDems/ALDE group in fact had considerable success, see http://www.sarahludfordmep.org.uk/node/2376, against Labour desire to regulate them as pharmaceuticals. Tories abstained on pretence that better deal could be had (not true) and Farage just failed to turn up.
@ John Critchley
I like ‘a party that understands what it could be like to have a Government that is careful with everyone’s money and has a caring social heart?’
I don’t know if members generally have kept up with latest grim messages on climate change, but if you have you might agree that the Party’s policies on this should be beefed up.
@:Steve Way:
” This comment is likely to offend those who do not read the Indy but do know and share his background and is uncalled for.”
I think that may, indeed, be true about you comment, Steve, but possibly inadvertently. Quite a lot of atheists are very sensitive indeed with attempts by others, ‘friendly’ or not, to place their activities in the context of any religious framework. Ed Miliband comes from a family who have actively and positively rejected all religion for a century or so and it seems to be offensive to this (presumably seriously-thought-through?) position of theirs for anyone to try to place their present day actions in the context of what their great grandparents might or might not have thought or felt.
Flings ain’t what they used to be
@ Steve Way
I think the reference in the article is to the photos of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich on the campaign trail recently. He was widely mocked in the media for the way he ate it. You may have seen the photos. Unfair but that’s the media we have.
As Ed Miliband doesn’t keep the rules of Kosher as a non- religious Jew, it is not specifically a comment aimed at his Jewishness in my view.
Absolutely where I stand, Simon.
Helen
The Miliband article is a joke, Lord Oakeshott’s behaviour is a joke in very bad taste – there is a huge difference.
First of all everyone, I’m sorry that I’ve not responded before now. I hadn’t realised that this had been posted.
@JohnGrout. I think you are spot on when you suggest admission/contrition. It’s all very well getting beaten up on the doorstep by people who are furious with us, but, in my experience, the listening has to come from a position of admitting that we realise that we have screwed up and want to make it right. This has nothing to do with a grubby, unprincipled desire to cling on to power nationally. It goes right to the heart of the issue of why so many people feel disengaged and angry with politics. It’s a slightly superficial analogy, but people are used to celebrities messing up and asking for another chance. I think we could be given another chance. But I think it is only the one. And we have to demonstrate clearly with our actions that we have genuinely changed.
I also think you’re spot on in terms of asking the question what does this listening look like. It’s not just a question of listening to people’s fears, which are expressed, say, in terms of uncontrolled immigration being the problem and agreeing to an illiberal solution. I was really struck when canvassing how often you’d meet people who were first generation immigrants who felt that immigration was out of control. But the interesting thing in Hackney is the way that the issue is broader than immigration. House prices and rents have shot up so dramatically that so many people either can’t afford to live in Hackney any more or struggle enormously. The issue is actually one of community. I’m not sure yet how one can practically apply this to policy development and application, but it seems to me that community goes to the heart of what we are as a party. It’s also a positive expression of what seems to me to be expressed negatively and in terms of fear by UKIP
@John Roffey I would agree that the Greens have a clear, distinctive brand. but, the evidence in Hackney suggests that they benefited from our protest vote collapse rather than necessarily a clear understanding of Green policies. And I would also agree that the issue of whether something is liberal or not is, on the whole, far too intellectual for most people. Although, with something like ending child detention (I don’t know if you were at conference when Citizens UK spoke so movingly on the platform about this) it’s visceral. So, I think we need to be really clear how our approach helps people in really basic ways. For example, our approach in Hackney was supported by the campaign line, “more power to you”. One of the areas that we’ll be campaigning on is giving tenants and residents on estates the power to manage maintenance contracts themselves. We kept coming up against stories of poor workmanship and people paying over the odds for the work that was done.
@marquessofbrixton. I completely agree that we need to face up to voters’ mistrust. I don’t know if you caught Tony Blair on the today program a few days ago, but I thought his analysis was very similar to what you have posted: “But the problem they have is very simple. They fought the 2010 election on a platform significantly to the left of Labour and then ended up in a Conservative government with a platform significantly to the right of Labour… “http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27585260
However, I’ve always felt that the left-centre-right debate is not particularly helpful and is often dangerously simplistic. And I would use UKIP’s popularity as evidence that people will vote for parties which don’t necessarily place themselves squarely in what would traditionally be called the centre ground.