The 2023 local elections have finally passed. Many of us put a great deal of time and effort into leafleting and canvassing around our communities to get out the vote and even to sway some voters. At these elections, we won a net gain of over 400 councillors and control of the councils in:
- Chichester
- Horsham
- Stratford-upon-Avon
- Dacorum
- West Berkshire
- South Oxfordshire
- Guildford
- Surrey Heath
- Windsor and Maidenhead
- Mid Devon
- South Hams
- Teignbridge
Whilst the Conservatives received a real drubbing, losing a thousand councillors, Labour failed to make the impact that they were so hoping for. National vote projections produced by Sir John Curtice and Michael Thrasher predict that Labour would fall short of a majority, winning around three-hundred seats, and that we Liberal Democrats would win around forty. What such a result means for our party need not be spelled out.
With (probably) eighteen months until the next general election, the right-wing media have already launched a scare campaign against a possible hung parliament. Many of the recent articles written to this end have revived the term ‘coalition of choas’, a term thoroughly undermined by the chaos of the May, Johnson and Truss premierships. Although often used in reference to a theoretical Labour-SNP coalition, carrying the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum as a quid pro quo, it has now been applied to one between Labour and us.
The publication of such stories could mean that we Liberal Democrats are now considered serious challengers to the Conservatives again. Nonetheless, with these articles depicting anything other than a Conservative government as disastrous for our country, they may prove counterproductive. After years of chaos, an incredulous and exasperated electorate may either risk the prospect of a Labour minority government or tactically vote for Labour to get them over the line, just to bring an end to Conservative rule.
After the 2019 general election, our party resolved to not fight future elections as though we were ‘in it to win it’, i.e., that we planned to win an outright majority. This was regarded as arrogant, and completely ignores the realities of FPTP. In line with our strategy of campaigning to represent communities that feel alienated from the other parties, we must endeavour to bring about a hung parliament, one where Labour can stake a better claim to forming the next government but the SNP cannot play the kingmaker role. This may be easier said than done, given the distortive effects of FPTP, it is the only way to bring about the change that the British people desire.
Although the Conservatives deserve to lose the next election, a Labour majority government would not be the champion of change that they claim to be. Labour has recently backtracked on its promise of free university tuition. Keir Starmer recently revealed his “longstanding view against proportional representation”, despite saying during the 2020 Labour leadership contest that “on electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count” and the fact that two-thirds of Labour-backing trade unions, an outright majority of Labour members, and over half of Britons favour PR. And the constitutional reforms and devolution of powers outlined in Gordon Brown’s A New Britain are not guaranteed to make it into Labour’s manifesto.
On their own, Labour would only implement policies designed to clean up the mess made by the Conservatives, and which could easily be repealed a future Conservative government. They would only implement institutional reforms if obligated to do so as part of a coalition or confidence-and-supply agreement. Following our misfortunes during the Coalition years, we would naturally drive a harder bargain.
For all that the conservative newspapers are trying to convince the public that a Labour-led government with third-party support would be disastrous, their ire has been directed chiefly towards the SNP. Journalistic attacks on a hypothetical Lib-Lab pact have only emerged after our recent local election victories. If push came to shove, when actual parliamentary arithmetic rather than hypothetical outcomes is being considered, who would the conservative press begrudgingly wish to support a Labour minority government, us or the SNP? Of the two, we would be considered the safe option. Whilst they may not be pleased with the prospect of electoral reform or closer relations with the European Union, they will certainly be relieved about indyref2 being avoided.
Besides, would Starmer really gamble his career and the country on a referendum he does not want to avoid enacting policies that he himself is not keen on?
* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.
31 Comments
Good article. Two thoughts:
(1) the expression “coalition of chaos” should be adopted as part of our campaigning strategy and we should make sure it gets maximum exposure – but as an accurate description of what the Conservative Party is.
(2) If the right-wing press etc do what you suggest they will, this could have the unintended consequence of talking the Lib Dems up.
Before 1997, Tony Blair was in favour of PR, but lost interest once he had large majorities. The consequence was Conservative majority governments. Keir Starmer should accept PR as an insurance policy against Conservative majority governments. If he won’t, he
would be out-of-touch with most of his party and could be replaced as leader.
To blunt the coalition of chaos” argument we have to make a vitue of the 2010-5 coalition. People may or may not like the policy delivered (with many of the Lib Dem ones being reversed since) but the coalition government was “strong and stable” (to coin a phrase).
Jim, just one problem – When was the last time the Labour party replace a sitting leader?
@ Jim Dapre
I suspect the Labour Party would forget about PR if it won an absolute majority.
In his upfront comments when Ed says with such enthusiasm that he is fighting the Tories, he should add that the Lib-Dems are not the same as Labour because we believe in a different approach from the old tired systems under which we have operated for too long.
No referendum, thanks. With the MSM, Labour & the Tories campaigning against PR we’d lose it again, just like AV last time. Legislation or nothing.
@ Tristan Ward
Would Labour make the same mistake again? Who knows!
Also, there should be no national referendum on PR which the Tories could influence with a dishonest campaign. Just do it. FPTP should be abolished from all elections. Look at the result in Epsom & Ewell’s Stamford ward. In a 5-party contest, the two winning candidates won with 14% of the votes cast!
This is a waste of our mental energies – Labour will get a landslide.
Go back to 1997 & read up what Experts & Pundits were saying – all the things they are saying now. The BBCs chief Political correspondent said 1997 would be on a knife edge.
Lets concentrate on Our Recovery – I believe we can get back to 2005/2010 levels by the end of the Decade & move on from there.
Starmer’s internal problems are not with his MPs or Labour’s National Executive but with the Labour membership on both European policy and PR. They see these areas of national policy as really serious matters. They are of a different order to the “baggage from the past” which previous Labour Leaders struggled with. Meanwhile there is something rather weird about appealing to people to vote Labour because of his triumph in changing the Labour Party. Rightly or wrongly many people will see this as being obsessed with your own dirty washing.
Great results but those of us not living in a target seat need a good reason, please, why we should vote LD rather than Labour.
1) The only party in a realistic position to exact PR from Labour as the price of either coalition or confidence and supply is the SNP and although they want it, they want something else more. (However, in that (unlikely) scenario, Labour might see the sense of PR as a brake on Tory resurgence in England if Scotland leaves… but a Labour/SNP PR solution might not be one I’d 100% support).
2) I don’t really believe it is possible to campaign for a hung parliament in a GE and get it. Particularly not starting from the low base the Lib Dems are. If over 600 seats are in play where the Party has no likely chance of a meaningful say, it can say ‘we want a hung parliament’ (which might be politically unattractive to some voters) but it can’t really deliver.
I don’t quite get the logic of the Tory team. If they are saying that a coalition with the Lib-Dems would be a chaotic one, what does that imply about David Cameron’s government? Was that supposed to be a ‘coalition of chaos’? It does not stack up on its own terms.
Or does logic have nothing to do with political campaigns?
My favourite type of post on this site:
– There are only two political parties with any chance of forming a government
– Despite Tories giving us austerity (over 330,000 excess deaths), Brexit, covid-covered-corruption, Liz Truss tanking the economy and now only coming up with new ideas when it’s how to bash innocent protestors or immigrants, there is serious chance that Labour needs to enter into some form of coalition/agreement in order to be in power.
– The Tory press are determined to wildly mislead the public to make them fearful of opposition. This has worked before and cannot be underestimated.
– Even if Labour do get in, there’s good likelihood that they’ll continue Tory ways just with higher levels of effectiveness.
– Despite a recent post on this site where former Tory started voting LD due to greater respect for democracy, the one thing we have to avoid is Scottish people being allowed to try in a different direction.
Paul Barker:
Are you intentionally overestimating Labour’s ability to secure a strong working majority? Really with their starting deficit, together with boundary changes and slender pickings in Scotland, they will be lucky to get a majority.
I understand the injunction not to spend mental energy over a very uncertain possibility, however, whether we like it or not, our leaders are likely to face repeated grilling on the subject between now and the election, so there has to be some sort of formulated response that can be repeated with variants. I do think that we should be able to say that the Conservatives as they are, riddled with extremists and dubious chancers, have to be removed, this is the first priority, the next is to say that for us electoral reform is a priority but Labour is not interested and already has plans to run a minority government, nevertheless, whatever happens our party will be constructive and seriously consider the merits of each case, such as …. (at this point raise policies we want to highLight in the campaign)
Basically our leading MPs need to develop responses that pass the onus onto Labour.
Sooner or later a party will emerge that looks further ahead than the approaching contest. What would PR produce?
Would it be something like ten different parties? Say two kinds of Conservative, two of Labour, two of Liberal, Two of Green, One Welsh and and one Scottish? And one Surprise?
How will it work in the Commons? Will there be a Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a Chairperson of the Budget Commission?
Surely these are notions due for discussion or ridicule in every quarter NOW: and not for Shelving till after the mess we approach in 2024. We must now engage the interest or alarm of all voters.
I am 84, a Liberal voter since I got the Vote. But not since Paddy Ashdown have we had the leader we, and the UK need. And THAT, I consider, was because he was not a deeply habituated parliamentary performer, but a soldier, trained to look ahead for three or four potential moves and perils. We do not want the lunacy and corruption of the recent Right, nor the dulness of its main antagonist.
Paul says there will be a Labour landslide. His comment about going back to look at 1997 is right, it is just that I think he overlooks a few key details and the position that Labour went into the 1997 General Election. Labour in 1992 won 271 seats. In 2019 they won 202 seats. In 1992 their vote was 34.4% – in 2019 it was 32.2%. In terms of a swing needed for the Labour Party to win a landslide at the next General Election, it would be much bigger than what occurred in 1997. Some other issues: In 1992 Labour had 49 Labour MPs elected in Scotland. Today they have just one MP in Scotland – there are more pandas in Scotland than Labour MPs. Add in boundary changes (less MPs in Wales for example), Labour’s problems with the large number of its MPs it has removed the whip from (there are 3 just in London – including its past leader who might well stand as an independent) and also noting the low chances that they will not take out Caroline Lucas in Brighton, or totally wipe out the SNP, or win any seats from the Lib Dems or Plaid, and I think it is fairly realistic (at this stage) to believe that Labour will not get a 1997 type majority.
Feet on the ground please.
No reference to our situation in the North, probably our best performances last week were in Hull, Sheffield and Liverpool.
Counting on a Tory collapse in these “southern target areas” is a big ask.
Last Thursday was only a stage on our recovery which must look to having 4,000+ local councillors as we were less than 20 years ago.
Forget talk of Lab/Lib Dem pacts whatever, the membership will not wear another agreement after what happened in 2010. Just let Labour be the largest party and they can rule either as a majority or a minority. What they choose to do is their choice, we should stay out of it and concentrate on building up our councillor and MP base.
there was an error in my previous past – I should have said “and also noting the low chances that they will take out Caroline Lucas in Brighton, or totally wipe out the SNP, or win any seats from the Lib Dems or Plaid, and I think it is fairly realistic (at this stage) to believe that Labour will not get a 1997 type majority”
@ George Thomas “Despite a recent post on this site where former Tory started voting LD due to greater respect for democracy, the one thing we have to avoid is Scottish people being allowed to try in a different direction”.
Could you clarify this, please ? On the face of it it can be taken as some some of (Welsh ?) authoritarian imperialism attempting to oppress folk living in the most northern parts of our land mass. Shurely, shome mishtake ? “Being allowed”……. ?
Please note carefully that Sir John Curtice and Michael Thrasher DID NOT predict that Labour would fall short of a majority, winning around three-hundred seats, and that we Liberal Democrats would win around forty. They looked at a mathematical analysis of the votes cast in the local elections, and estimates what the result would have been if all of these voters cast their votes in the same way in a General Election. John Curtice explicitly warned not to equate the two. Many voters would cast their votes differently if these had been a general election on the same day. And of course we still have between twelve and nineteen month to go until there is a general election; support for the all parties will go up and down in this period. This includes the SNP who are probably more resilient than the media have been giving them credit for; they may indeed lose some seats, but most estimates see them hanging on to the majority.
Whatever the fortunes of the Labour Party, and we should certainly point out their unreliability as a vehicle for genuine change, we should be continuing to primarily target Conservatives with the aim of reducing the number of seats that the Tories will retain next year. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, if the Tories continue to destroy the economy and people’s savings, that LibDems could end up as the second-largest party in the next Parliament. A tall order, I know, but one target to aim for.
@Mark: there are boundary changes in Brighton Pavillion.
On Thursday’s results, Labour are very close to the Greens in Pavillion.
I expect them to have a real go at it.
If C Lucas stands down, I’d say Labour were odds on favourit to take it. Otherwise it’ll be much closer this time.
In my view if there is PR then the Green party would become the main left liberal party. The Lib Dems would only continue as a viable force as a centrist, orange book type party. However they would also be free to be liberal and pro European etc without worrying about marginal constituencies.
Marco, perhaps you have a very different conception of ‘Liberal’ to mine. How and why would the Greens become a Liberal party? How and why would our party stop being a Liberal party? Liberalism, particularly modern Liberalism is a powerful political idea that cannot be lightly extinguished.
PR could in time lead to two Liberal parties as there are in the Netherlands; similarly other parties would be likely to divide too.
@ Martin I dont think the Greens are liberal but I also think many left leaning Lib Dems don’t subscribe to liberalism as I see it either and I was struggling to think of the right terminology.
In general PR systems impose a natural threshold so for most parties splitting would be a mistake. The main sea change is that some natural Lib Dem support would be lost so we would need to reposition.
Daniel Finkelstein, Conservative Peer, wrote in the Times that Lib-Dems are essentially the same as Labour, so they should unite to form one party. That tells us one line of attach by the Tories against us will be just that suggestion, or in other words, vote Lib-Dem and you’ll get Labour. As I said in another post, as well as saying we oppose the Tories, we should say we are not the same as Labour.
Sorry, I meant line of attack, not “line of attach”.
The Greens are most certainly not Liberal and not necessarily democratic. I attended a green conference where one of the participants was a man who claimed to be a founder member of the Green Party. After some interesting discussion we got round to asking how you could introduce green policy given the limitations of a 5 year parliament. This man said “well, of course, once we got a Green Government, we’d have to suspend elections until we’d introduced our policies in full”. Needless to say, he lost the room!
@ Mick Taylor most Green supporters don’t share those views in reality they support democratic socialism similar to what many people on here and the soft left of Labour support e.g renationalisation etc. This is quite different to four cornered liberalism ie political personal social and economic.
Andrew Rawnsley considers a Labour coalition with the Lib Dems. But Lib Dems surely realise PR will never be introduced via referenda in the UK.
Imho PR is not suitable for a referendum in the UK because:
i. The larger ruling party (Lab or Tory) will campaign against – this is fatal to any campaign having the PM and their MPs casting doubt from the get-go.
ii. The RW, billionaire owned press can create doubt by using the world’s worst examples of govt chaos, laying the blame at the door of PR. Expect ‘sky will fall’ headlines, ignoring all the countries(majority) that use PR without any such chaos.
iii. Beyond better representation, the potential benefits to our politics from using PR are largely abstract, fully understood only by a small subset of society. The fact PR offers a truly ‘grown up’ system requires esoteric understanding of how political compromise works, and how things could change without one dominant party.
iv. What form of PR? the merits of various proportionate systems: Party-list, STV, MMP/AV+ require esoteric knowledge that few possess. The arcane nature of that debate would be exploited by opponents to put people off.
Tremendous as they are, we must not bask in these results for too long. The electorate has a short memory and The Conservatives will use that to their advantage. We must remind it of these disastrous 10+ years and point out Labour show no signs of being much better.