I’m a data analyst by trade – I’m no activist or political strategist, so I have little else to offer to the party other than analysis of the election results. And I have been playing with the data since the election, trying to figure out the most optimal way to stop the Tory juggernaut from taking over Britain.
I found there was one way to win these elections (or the next, if nothing changes) away from Tories. Not for the Lib Dems – it was far too late for that – but for the nation as a whole. A way practised in this country only in times of great national danger, but nothing out of ordinary on the continent, in countries like Germany, France or Netherlands: an electoral alliance.
An electoral alliance means two or more parties agree not to stand against each other in elections, and urge their respective voters to vote for a common candidate with best chances of victory.
It requires something that the Liberal Democrats have unique experience with, over any other political party in the UK – an ability to look past its particular interests, and unite in the face of a common enemy. It requires a Labour leadership that understands the need to put aside differences and pool common resources to face off the combined might of the City wealth, the tabloid onslaught, and the inertia of the voting public.
Most notably, however, an electoral alliance does NOT require agreeing to each other’s detailed policies, and does NOT equal a promise of a coalition government after the election – although it’s implied if the election goes the alliance’s way – so it’s far easier for the electorate to swallow than a full-on coalition pledge. The Liberal Democrats are of course more than familiar with the idea of uniting one’s strength – but even many Labour voters know the concept of electoral alliance in the form of Labour-Co-op.
What would have been the election results in my what-if scenario? To calculate those, I assumed Lib Dem and Labour have agreed to support each other’s better candidate in each constituency south of Scotland – and that all the voters followed their lead. The result is still an overall Tory win when single parties are concerned, but nowhere near a majority. The Lib-Dems still lose over half their seats (this is why I said it would not be a win for the party, but for the country), but the bloodbath in London and South-West is largely averted. And Labour gains the crucial extra points in the marginals to stop a Conservative government. Most importantly – the Lib-Lab Alliance is now the largest on the ballot!
The seat share (assuming no change in Scotland, although fielding a common alliance candidate in Dumfriesshire would result in SNP victory) would be as follows:
| Conservative | 283 |
| Labour | 261 |
| SNP | 56 |
| Liberal Democrat | 26 |
| Plaid Cymru | 3 |
| Green Party | 1 |
| UKIP | 1 |
| Lib-Lab Alliance | 287 |
Which matches a lot more closely the result everyone had expected before Thursday night, and which would have opened the possibility of a Lib-Lab minority government with SNP support.
Of course, this is just playing with Maths. There is no way to predict whether the voters would listen to their parties, or would rather switch their allegiances in disagreement with the alliance, in which case UKIP may have been an unexpected (and unwanted) beneficiary. This would require a more detailed public opinion survey. But I’m giving this as food for thought to any future leaders of both parties. Lib Dems are uniquely positioned to propose an alliance based on common world views to any party, and the future labour leader will have to recognize the value of a united stand, if the opinion polls (this time adjusted for reality) sway towards the Conservative government continues unabated and unopposed.
I have taken the election raw data from this file: data.csv
* Jakub Kaliszewski has been a member in Carshalton & Walington since April 8th 2015
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
Matt Wardman
Neil Hickman
60 Comments
As a new member, this seems almost destructive and contrary to what we are trying to do in terms of reinventing the party. We could have jumped in to bed with Labour in 2010. Thankfully we made the right choice back then! A Tory majority is better than a Labour majority although I suspect this is not a majority view point. This idea also serves only to further devalue our identity and reinforce that we are good only for the protest / strategical vote and would be another nail in the coffin as soon as this type of vote was not required (ie Labour actually do get their act together at some point).
Jacub – thanks for this but dont give up the day job.
Hi Jakub,
An interesting article, and as a fellow user of stats in my daily life, I like your analysis. I do think, though, that politics should not just be about a fight against a common enemy. There are fundamental issues in our society that are as much about the way people live and think, as they are about who is in power. While I understand the tactic you are suggesting and can see it might be of value to increase LD voice where it counts, I also think a much greater amount of energy should be put into public debate, reform of antiquated systems (such as the FPTP system), and reaching out with a strong set of principles to the next generation of voters.
btw I lived in The Netherlands for 13 years, and people still grumbled about the government, politics and ‘the system’ there, regardless of the colour and flavour of the government.
Why assume the Tories are the Common Enemy? The Labour Party is just as much our enemy as the Tories are.
This is an idea whose time has come. The tribalists of Labour and the Lib Dems alike have had their day. They have failed the nation.
@Neil Minor – agree
“An electoral alliance means two or more parties agree not to stand against each other in elections, and urge their respective voters to vote for a common candidate with best chances of victory.”
All this does is take away nuance from the voter. If you don’t like Labour but are ambivalent between us and the Tories you now only have one option.
Actually, I don’t like all the talk of ‘common enemy’ at all. Most people are OK at heart, if a bit more selfish these days than they used to be. I don’t see either Tory or Labour party members (or anyone else) as the ‘enemy’, I see them as people to engage in sensible debate and persuade them that disrupting the status quo and building a better way to things is what we all need to do
@John Clift “Most people are OK at heart, if a bit more selfish these days than they used to be.”
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
JohnClift
I agree, but the Tory right and the Labour (Len McCluskey) left make me shudder – precisely because they are the sort of people who do not believe in debate and persuasion, but instead in imposing their will on the rest of us.
@ADWilliams “precisely because they are the sort of people who do not believe in debate and persuasion, but instead in imposing their will on the rest of us.”
There’s not a monopoly of that in those two parties.
Simon McGrath 18th May ’15 – 3:58pm
“….Why assume the Tories are the Common Enemy? ”
It is not an assumption it is a statement of fact. Read what this party believes in the Preamble to the Constitution then read anything that officially sets out what The Conservative Party believes.
There will always be a right wing party out to keep the status quo and protect the interests of the powerful and the rich. In the UK we call that party the Conservative Party.
That is why Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism for the reasons which are very simply and clearly set out in The Preamble.
The Labour Party is the main competition for those voters who will always vote against the Conservatives.
The Greens and various nationalist parties and smaller fringe parties also come into the category of competition.
Anyone who cannot recognise these fundamental differences of belief between Liberalism and Conservatism should probably join the Conservative Party or stop trying to understand politics.
ADWilliams 18th May ’15 – 4:59pm
“….the Labour (Len McCluskey) left make me shudder – precisely because they are the sort of people who do not believe in debate and persuasion, but instead in imposing their will on the rest of us.”
I wonder if you can provide a link to anything that Len McCluskey has ever done to “impose his will on the rest of us”.
When has he ever stated that he “does not believe in debate and persuasion”.
I have seen him on TV taking part in debates, trying topit his case in studio discussions etc.
Why do you pretend he is some kind of ogre?
Do you believe the sort of tripe theyprintin The Daily Mail about trade unions?
You will feel much better if you stop “shuddering” and take a more rational approach based on what people actually say and do rather than believing and then re-inforcing the myths of the right wing media.
in 2010 the greens did not stand where I live and recommended a LibDem vote, thanks to the coalition they did stand this time. As yet it is not clear why the LibDem MP lost, fear of Labour/SNP, coalition policies the Tories forced through or what. I see very little chance in 2020 of the greens standing down to support an anti Conservative candidate with the best chances if it is our excellent ex-MP, trust is hard to earn.
JohnTilley
Go and ask Len McCluskey what he thinks of the Liberal Democrats.
I have to say that I gain little from discussions with you – you are not polite (which is the spirit of this forum), and your approach is sneering and hostile. Labelling those who disagree with you as daily mail readers or irrational is not on. Good day and goodbye.
And serependipitously look who followed me 🙂
Readers of this opinion piece seem to have misunderstood and assumed that it’s about ideology. Instead, it’s about mathematics. Analysis of the recent election suggests that the Tories have a built-in edge, underestimated by the polls, which makes them the dominant party in England — and therefore in the whole of the UK. This edge may become overwhelming following the boundary review. A large part of this edge comes from the fragmentation of the opposition. If you’re comfortable with unlimited Tory majorities for the next two decades — as I gather some are — then of course this is not a problem, but then one wonders, why be a member of the Liberal Democrats?
John – as so often you deliberately distort what people you dislike say. I did not say that there are not fundamental differences between Liberalism and Conservatism: i said that both Conservatives and Labour are our enemy.
Just cast your mind back to 13 years of Labour government which gave us an economy on the point of ruin, millions deliberately left rotting on welfare and an illegal war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if you want to know why we should equally be opposed to Labour.
I really take issue when people use phrases like
“millions deliberately left rotting on welfare”
Do you know how degrading that feels to people like me who are in receipt of disability benefits. I am on disability benefits due to severe depressive disorders, I have low self esteem at the best of times.
It really does not help when people refer to people like me as “rotting on welfare”
Kick us a little bit harder why not
Simon McGrath
I quoted the relevant part of your comment word for word.
So it is odd that you accuse me of distortion.
You asked a question, I answered your question. In my answer to your question I said —
“…There will always be a right wing party out to keep the status quo and protect the interests of the powerful and the rich. In the UK we call that party the Conservative Party.
That is why Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism for the reasons which are very simply and clearly set out in The Preamble.
The Labour Party is the main competition for those voters who will always vote against the Conservatives.”
Perfectly rational points in answer to your question, expressed politely. I notice you do not respond to these points in the same spirit of polite debate but try a diversion into an accusation of distortion.
So some LDs suggest we work with UKIP and The Green Party over PR and a Len McClusky run Labour Party for national elections : would this not make us appear two faced opportunists?
I would suggest that to understand what happened in the 2015 GE requires analysis of peoples economic and cultural attitudes and forms of employment. Many LDs are saying it was wrong to form a coalition with the Tories yet we do not know how Labour, UKIP or The Greens will appear in a years time. A LD party which puts forward a few practical value for money solutions to improve the quality of life of the British people is far more likely to earn peoples respect than rushing around trying to form expedient relations with other parties.
I would also suggest that talking about other parties as enemies is likely to turn off many Britons. Also , the LDs should stop giving the impression that they are morally and intellectually superior to others. The various left wingers having tantrums because the Tories won makes Violette Elizabeth Botte appear mature and wise. In the Just William Books , V E Botte would scream ” I will scream and scream until I am sick ” when she did not get her way.
Simomon McGrath.
Millions were not left rotting on welfare under labour. They were just less keen on applying 900.000 sanctions, increased homelessness, unpaid work, the bedroom tax and forcing the disabled to attend interviews until they got the result they wanted. That’s not to say they were blameless. And yes the war in Iraq was bad, but unfortunately The Lib Dem helped destroy Libya and how many hundreds of thousands of were lost or ruined there? . We’ve been in power, we did bad things and we need to stop acting innocent about it. Personally. I think an anti Tory electoral alliance is a good thing.. The other parties are not interchangeable and the belief that they are lead to 8 seats, year after year of lost counsellors and one lone MEP. Ultimately, you have to be honest and realistic. The Lib Dems have 8 seats and probably are going to have to form electoral alliances to regain anything approaching the ground that has been lost.
JohnTilley 18th May ’15 – 5:05pm
“There will always be a right wing party out to keep the status quo and protect the interests of the powerful and the rich. In the UK we call that party the Conservative Party.”
It was interesting to hear Cameron, in his speech today, claiming that the Tories are the ‘one nation party’ – for hard working families. Clearly any one who does not belong to a ‘hard working family’ for what ever reason – is not part of the nation in Tory eyes!
@john roffey perhaps youissed the constant Labour referrals to hard working families over the last 18 years?
Hi Jakub, keep posting! I may not agree with you, but like any suggestions which create a greater diversity in our political debate. Welcome to a party where non-conformity is the norm 🙂
I pretty much gave in reading this after the third paragraph. I’m afraid the article shows very little knowledge of political realities.
I gave it another go and then read “To calculate those, I assumed Lib Dem and Labour have agreed to support each other’s better candidate in each constituency south of Scotland – and that all the voters followed their lead.”
At that point the whole exercise becomes futile because this will never happen. The author then admits in the final paragraph that this might not happen at all for the precise reasons why it shouldn’t happen.
This is a clever analysis. I disagree with the anti-tory alliance, but analysing alliances and data is good.
For someone who disagrees with an anti-tory alliance, I am actually more interested in an alliance with Labour than one would think. Labour have some very good candidates for leader and Yvette Cooper, my favoured, has just said she will support the government’s recent corporation tax cut.
I wouldn’t see it as an “anti tory alliance” but rather a “pro pragmatic politics” alliance. I am not as comfortable with a formal alliance with the Conservatives at this moment in time. I think on too many issues they are still too out of touch.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-relationship-business-yvette-cooper-party-leadership-corporation-tax
Simplistic. Flawed. Problematic.
Not all people who support the Lib Dems have Labour as their second choice. Mine is the Conservatives and in the marginal seat I live in I vote Conservative to keep Labour out.
A simple analysis of the numbers given the dramatic fall in the Lib Dem Vote is that previous supporters went many ways. To the Greens. To Labour and to the Conservatives. If they voted at all. An even simpler analysis would state they all went UKIP given how the percentages on the election coverage always swang in opposites it seemed whenever a seat result was analysed. Now it may be those previously voting Lib Dem as a protest at the two big parties and government in general may have gone UKIP. A more nuanced Lib Dem votes is unlikely to have though.
TCO 18th May ’15 – 8:12pm
“perhaps youissed the constant Labour referrals to hard working families over the last 18 years?”
Labour have shown clear concern, through their policies, for those that cannot be hard workers, for one reason or another – they have not excluded them from the nation.
@John Roffey – by your own definition so have the Conservatives “shown clear concern, through their policies, for those that cannot be hard workers” – of course in their case it was Pensioners.
I detect a lack of equidistance in your positioning.
@John Roffey http://www2.labour.org.uk/hard-working-families
It is a common feature of a small group who regularly comment in LDV to hold up a pantomime villain of what they (possibly genuinely) believe the Labour Party or certain individual trade unionists to be.
This is odd because the self same people were amongst the keenest defenders of the strategy of the last five years which said we were “anchors in the centre” and therefore logically could happily work with the Labour Party in a Coalition government.
Or are they now showing their true colours? Was all that talk in the election about working with either Con or Lab just so much eyewash? Were the voters really supposed to understand that the intention was only ever to work in Coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives?
Simon McGrath”labour..an economy on the point of ruin” Where did he get that nonsense from other than from the Tories.
Labour did not cause the Bank crisis, it began in the US with sub prime mortgages. UK debt/gdp ratio was not excessive at that time . perhaps he should do a bit of research on google.
TCO 18th May ’15 – 10:56pm
“@John Roffey – by your own definition so have the Conservatives “shown clear concern, through their policies, for those that cannot be hard workers” – of course in their case it was Pensioners.”
What is this obsession with hard work? We have reached a stage when robots are doing an increasingly greater share of the work previously undertaken by humans – why are we not following the example of the more sophisticated nations:
“How part-time work and exercise may explain why Holland is one of the happiest countries in the world
It has been revealed that 26.8 per cent of Dutch men and 76.6 per cent of women of working age spend less than 36 hours a week working. The Economist attributes their happiness and their work structure to the fact that dual income has not often been a necessity for a comfortable life, and an adherence of the traditional view of a family with stay at home mothers.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-parttime-work-and-exercise-may-explain-why-holland-is-one-of-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-10255905.html
Is it just that part of the heritage of our ruling elite is the sheer pleasure of seeing the serfs work themselves to death to provide them with that extra profit?
@BrianD as the IFS Report on the recent economic crisis makes clear, Labour failed to reduce its debt and deficit levels to those of almost all other major Western economies during the “boom” of the mid noughties. Consequently the UK economy was in a far worse position to survive the crisis than our neighbours and competitors.
@John Roffey it is twofold:
1) the people who rise to the top in any organisation are the obsessives. They then mould that organisation in their image.
2) the Protestant Work Ethic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
The Labour Movement owed its founding to protestant Methodism and to the Trades Guilds seeking to preserve their competitive advantage
BrianD 19th May ’15 – 8:09am
and
John Roffey 19th May ’15 – 8:30am
Both provide a welcome response to the empty sloganising off all sides.
I particularly warmed to the quote about The Dutch who seem to have the good sense to avoid the danger of making workaholics into heroes.
Our ruling class seem to share this fetish of “hard working families” with Stalinism.
David Cameron and his feudal lords fom Eton are now the party of the Stakhanovite Family.
@John Tilley “Our ruling class seem to share this fetish of “hard working families” with Stalinism.”
Given the link I provided above I trust you also include the Labour Party as members of the ruling class? http://www2.labour.org.uk/hard-working-families
@John Tilley “It is a common feature of a small group who regularly comment in LDV to hold up a pantomime villain of what they (possibly genuinely) believe the Labour Party or certain individual trade unionists to be.”
It would seem that the crop of Labour leadership contenders are doing a far better demolition job on Labour’s recent record than any LDV poster could manage.
Given the pro-business stance of both Creagh and Cooper-Balls in recent days and their recognition of the failure, especially of Miliband’s team in this area, it would seem there is the potential for a coherent future coalition with Labour if (and its a big if) they can drag their party with them.
JohnTilley 19th May ’15 – 8:59am
“Both provide a welcome response to the empty sloganising off all sides.”
It does trouble me that, at the time of so called ‘new beginnings’ – the status quo seems to be meekly accepted with no attempt to view the real problems within our society and to identify their roots!
‘David Cameron’s Ancestors Received Slavery Compensation’
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/%E2%80%98david-cameron%E2%80%99s-ancestors-received-slavery-compensation%E2%80%99
Perhaps of greater concern, today, is the impact that the unregulated global free market has had on employment:
Most of the world’s workers have insecure jobs, ILO report reveals
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/19/most-of-the-worlds-workers-have-insecure-jobs-ilo-report-reveals
UK governments – and therefore political parties – are supposed to be finding ways to resolve these issues – certainly within the UK.
John Tilley,
I agree with almost all you say in this thread, except the defence of Len McCluskey.
Len McCluskey is an exclusionist, a defender of the true faith. He is not interested in a broad front alternative to Tory domination, he insists on the primacy of his narrow labourist point of view – as if trade union power was the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Many Lib Dems are also exclusionists, defenders of the true faith. They are not interested in a broad front alternative to Tory domination, they insist on the primacy of their narrow liberal point of view – as if a fundamentalist belief in freedom of any kind irrespective of who it might harm was the answer to life, the universe and everything.
The exclusive brethren of labour unionism and fundamentalist liberalism, alike, hold the rest of us all back and allow the kleptocrats to triumph.
“unregulated global free market”…you need to experience life outside of CiF, no offence intended.
@David Allen on the contrary, despite the sad/welcome self-exclusion of Dan Jarvis, the Labour leadership contenders seem on the face of it to be determined to move the party to a centreground position where some useful common cause might be made.
Sardo_Numpsa 19th May ’15 – 11:01am
“unregulated global free market”…you need to experience life outside of CiF, no offence intended.”
Please expand.
I believe “unregulated free market”is a tautology, and as “free” markets have never existed I will just refer to regulation part of the phrase you used.
While you may believe that global markets need more regulation, and you may have a point, referring to current global markets as “unregulated”, nevermind “free”, makes you sounds like somebody who reads stuff and the Guardian and repeats it without thinking through what you are saying.
Sardo_Numpsa 19th May ’15 – 11:01am
“unregulated global free market”…you need to experience life outside of CiF, no offence intended.”
On reflection – there is of course notional regulation on global corporations – some with a fair degree of restraint – elsewhere less so. However, what restraint does exist has moved, generally, to self regulation – particularly in the UK.
Although these corporations have not managed to achieved their ends in China & Russia – they are working hard to achieve this particularly in the former. However, overall globally, I think it fair to say they are unregulated on a global scale.
Well I suppose if you can make up your own definitions can you say whatever you want and justify it to your satisfaction.
I’ll leave it that, conscious of going off-topic.
Sardo_Numpsa 19th May ’15 – 11:40am
“I believe “unregulated free market”is a tautology, and as “free” markets have never existed I will just refer to regulation part of the phrase you used.”
I have partially answered this comment in my last post. Your comment on the global market being ‘free’ is very important – because it generally excludes SME’s – and arguably this is partly where regulation or help is needed.
I usually read the free online version of the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent and Mail each day. I also watch C4 News and BBC & Sky News at least once each day. I am also a regular watcher of YouTube for subjects that fall outside the MSM.
I think this does provide a reasonable span of views – do you think something is missing?
Fair enough, that’s more news than I could subject myself to in a day.
I will confess to being a ‘news junky’. 🙂
David Allen 19th May ’15 – 9:45am
In fact David I may well agree with you about Mr McCluskey. To be honest I know very little about him or his views.
I am however pretty certain that I know more about his views than those who parrot the lazy media stereotypes about all trade union leaders. I do not include you in that group.
My objection is to the ill-informed, unwashed Tory prejudice that is repeated by some regulars who comment in LDV.
By all means attack Len McCluskey for what he actually says and does if that is illiberal. What is really stupid is to accept a Murdoch cartoon stereotype of elected trade union leaders and attack that as if it was the truth.
I would welcome a coming together of people from the Labour Party, the trade union movement, the co-operative movement and the Greens in England along with proper Liberals to work together to oust the political wing of The Eton Rifles from Downing Street.
= )
John,
I don’t claim encyclopaedic knowledge of McCluskey’s views either. I was mainly reacting to his recent threat to pull his union’s sponsorship away from Labour if they didn’t elect the right leader. The trade union block vote is (a) appallingly illiberal, (b) a bullseye shot in the foot for those who use it (if I haven’t hopelessly mixed metaphors here!)
Ah the numbers!
Unfortunately most people who vote are not mathematical genii, nor data analyses. They choose for whom to vote for a whole range of reasons, some sensible some not, some discernible, some not, some liable to persuasion, some not.
In the end we must proclaim what we believe in, say what we would do if in power, and seek to persuade those who are willing to listen. If this election has taught me anything it is that seeking to understand the mood of the nation through ‘polling and crunching’ is akin to hoping for Xmas presents by only believing in Santa Claus.
David Allen
No Liberal or Democrat would defend the block vote.
It is worth noting hat the equivalent of the block vote is used at shareholders AGMs all the time by so-called oligarchs and pension funds.
Strangely there is little or no criticism of this in the print media or on the BBC.
Why is it wrong for a trade unionist to use a bock vote but considered perfectly normal for a rich individual who owns a block of shares to exercise a block vote.? In the Thatcherite “flog off everything to our private pals” government of the 1980s there was a lot of empty talk of shareholder democracy. What happened to that?
@John Tilley “I would welcome a coming together of people from the Labour Party, the trade union movement, the co-operative movement and the Greens in England along with proper Liberals to work together to oust the political wing of The Eton Rifles from Downing Street.”
Please define “Proper Liberals”. Please define “the political wing of the Eton Rifles.”
I’m not sure that you should base a political philosophy on the writings of Woolfie Smith or of a teenage Paul Weller, but you may recall part of the song:
“Thought you were clever when you lit the fuse,
Tore down the house of commons in your brand new shoes,
Compose a revolutionary symphony,
Then went to bed with a charming young thing.”
@David Allen – agree totally. There’s nothing Liberal about the lock vote. Trades Unions are there to represent their members not plot the revolutionary overthrow of the elected government.
@John Tilley interestingly the Block Vote is also used at our conference to determine policy.
Electoral Alliances are a step too far at this stage especially for us Lib Dems. We have to lick our wounds, take the medicine and move forward positively. 13,200 new members is a start and worth developing. When we have established an identity then move towards a strategy which unites us.
If Tim Farron becomes the leader – I hope he does – then I hope he will work towards establishing a strategy which is done on a demand and supply basis. The two biggest issues facing the government are the EU referendum and the question of the unfairness of the election result for all minority parties. On the first, I hope we can move together with like minded Tories, the Labour and Green parties to ensure a Yes vote in 2016 or 2017 for the country. On the latter issue we have to work with UKIP – shudder, shudder – but exploit the deep sense of in inequality there is about the outcome of the election.
Both of these difficulties have potential for the party to demonstrate its continuing importance influencing decision making despite the fact that we have only 8 MPs.
We can move onto matters such as Human Rights legislation and Snoopers Charter and build bridges towards the parties where they ally themselves with our views and principles. Influence is going to be just as important as power for the next 5 years at least.
Jakub,
I am also a Data Analyst and didn’t think your thesis was worth considering. Lib-Labism was a big factor in our demise in the early 20th century. Lib-Conism produced the same results. Everybody voted for the other party in the pact and saw no need in us.
Striking insights from the data:
1. We got over 10000 votes in 64 constituencies. In 2010 it was 280.
2. We didn’t improve our share of the vote in a single constituency.
3. We lost 346 of 631 deposits.
Any data analyst worth his salt would advise to apply for a winding up order. But, somehow there is no point. Many of us would lose a vital part of our soul if we found ourselves holding a labour or conservative membership card.
Jakub is correct – what will be left of the UK will be eternally ruled by Tories, until the end of time, unless some alliances are forged and compromises made under some type of umbrella party that unites the left. Mr Tilley is right and the Tories are indeed the “common enemy” of the “common man” (that is, persons of modest means, at least 70% of the population). To Mr McGrath – do to others as you would have them do to you – and in addition study carefully these figures: The richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth. The poorest 50% own just 9.5%.
TCO,
“@BrianD as the IFS Report on the recent economic crisis makes clear, Labour failed to reduce its debt and deficit levels to those of almost all other major Western economies during the “boom” of the mid noughties. Consequently the UK economy was in a far worse position to survive the crisis than our neighbours and competitors.”
I really dont know if this is correct, but it is also besides the point. Whether government policy was right or wrong, it had pretty widespread support from all parties, with the differences between them not enough to have made any significant difference when the recession hit. No party in the Uk was saying we were living beyond our means, and conservatives were just as keen to bribe voters with someone elses money. In many ways policy is exactly the same now, despite all this argument, except we are borrowing way more than labour ever did. The fundamental solution is also exactly the same. The current plan is for growth to wipe out the deficit and stabilise the debt. The real difference now is probably a modest shift (considering the total sums) choosing between more or less of benefit cuts and tax rises. Where the pain falls, not how much pain there is.
I agree with the fundamental analysis. The ‘right’ is more united than the ‘left’, so fares better.