I want to thank all those Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem to ensure that a Conservative was not elected in their constituency.
I also want to thank all those Lib Dem supporters who voted Labour for the same reason.
The first time I ever voted it was for Labour. I had been a Liberal supporter from my teens, but my preferred candidate had no chance in my area in South West London. Labour selected a doctor who was black as their candidate, and he came in for all sorts of nasty racist dog-whistle and overt attacks during the election campaign. He seemed a decent man to me so I voted for him. Sadly he did not win, although I was pleased to see him take his seat in the Lords some time later.
The next time I voted I was living in Kingston where I have never had a reason to vote tactically.
Voters have become increasingly sophisticated in their understanding of First Past the Post and tactical voting. We have to thank all the vote switchers for holding their noses, in some cases, and backing the person most likely to defeat the Tory candidate. It worked.
So I was rather taken aback to see comments on social media from some party members moaning about the low Lib Dem figures in some non-target constituencies and complaining that the candidates didn’t do enough campaigning. They assume that the single figure percentages reflect our true base vote. This, of course, flies in the face of our clearly enunciated election strategy, and also the underlying assumption that Lib Dem voters should vote Labour where it would have the desired effect.
Now that we have resumed our place as the third party in Westminster we can draw on the benefits of more speaking time in the Commons and greater media coverage. We can also draw down a far larger amount of Short money – public funding for opposition parties. During this Parliament we will identify the next tranche of winnable seats and start putting resources into them. And at the next election we will be asking even more voters to vote tactically for us.
Of course, none of this would be necessary if we had Proportional Representation. Bizarrely we now seem to be agreeing with Reform on the need for a change to our voting system.
However, PR (I’m assuming STV) comes with its own health warnings, especially if the electorate is used to voting tactically under FPTP. I have seen some internal STV elections go awry because of this. Members assumed that the most popular candidate would get elected so gave their first preference to a promising newcomer – and were then astonished when the popular candidate wasn’t elected. I have even seen this used as a reason not to use STV for internal elections. That is wrong thinking – STV works, but only if voters are completely honest about their preferences and don’t try to game it.
If we do move to STV for Westminster we will have to do a lot of work to change the tactical voting mindset. No more squeeze messages, no more two horse races, no more assertions that X party can’t win here. We will have to think up some new slogans to explain that voters can follow their hearts. We may have to swallow the fact that some extremist parties will gain seats. And we will have to learn how to make a coalition work.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Adam Harley selected for Strathkelvin and Bearsden
When Not the Nine O'Clock News demonstrated how to deal with chess prodigies
Diversity, Inclusion and Equality Programmes bring out the full capacity of a nation.
A Big World of Small Things
Is the UK hobbled by Brexit in its response to US tariffs?
Katharine Pindar
David Raw
Mike Peters
31 Comments
I completely endorse this thinking Mary, at least while we have FPTP. I have no problem saying that I’ve voted Labour and Green tactically before. I would also have voted Plaid in Caerfyddin and SNP in Moray East or Gordon. I feel no shame in those admissions, nor should anyone else in our party. Are they liberal parties? No. Did we need the Tories gone at this election? Absolutely.
And it is Reform who are agreeing with us 😉
I’d also like to thank all the Conservatives who voted Lib Dem to keep Labour out.
I am NOW in favour of first past the post. What a mess of a result this would have been if under PR and we would have given the impetus to the Greens that they seek, what 42 seats. We have to think of our own personal survival and that is clearly best served under FPTP. The Canadian Liberals ditched the idea, we should do the same.
Persoanlly would find it difficult to vote tactically for a member of a party that refuses to introduce PR. If s/he won, that person could easily claim my vote (along with everyone else’s) as a mandate to maintain FPTP.
Happily I can vote without having to face the dilemma.
@theakes – Think again. The election strategy we used was designed for FPTP. We would have had a very different approach if it had been under PR, aiming for a larger overall percentage rather than ruthlessly targeting individual seats. One of the problems of FPTP is that it does not reveal how people would vote if they could simply choose their favourite party, or indeed how they would rank them all.
Trouble is that this wasn’t just limited to labour Tory marginals. I would have expected for instance that we would lost votes in seats like Hitchin or Earley and Woodley despite the strength of the local party. But we lost votes in plenty of other places as well, including a good number where we were second last time, even a few where we were the tactical choice to beat the Tories.
Whether this should have been prevented depends allot on the seat and how many target seats were nearby; but it seems it was just determined by the extent to which the local party was willing to defy orders to campaign target seats instead, and perhaps to some extent whether local members were still sufficiently motivated to campaign much in the first place.
Whilst I do share a lot of sympathy with people in more traditionally Labour areas of their disappointments with our vote shares in those places, I think we had to mindful we we’re starting from the ground-up. We spread ourselves so thinly in the 2019 election that it wasn’t an efficient campaign and we knew this was the election of the anti-Tory Government so it made sense to work our campaign this way.
And yes, in my area of Stoke we did a limited targeted campaign, but like Mary said we knew going into this that if we wanted to make a real impact in this election we had to put all pooling, resources and efforts into those tactically Tory areas – I was not omitted to this fact. It was disappointing that we didn’t increase our share of the vote in Stoke South (where we targeted ‘soft Tories) and lost our deposit, but I was certainly not complaining by the end of the night by the national picture.
And Mary is exactly right. Now that we are the third party we will get media attention, short money from Government, more donations and MOMENTUM. I have already heard we are seeing more members and I think if this can give people the motivation to join our party (especially in local areas) then that will give us a bigger army to help streamline our resources and get more volunteers as admittedly Stoke is area where we are particularly lacking.
Great article Mary.
When you change the electoral system, it probably takes about 3 electoral cycles before the electorate as a whole appreciate the new system and can work it to best express their needs.
Theakes – can you imagine the cries of hypocrisy if we now changed our view and accepted FPTP. I’ve been a member of the party since 1972 and throughout that time we’ve been in favour of STV. What is the purpose of an electoral system? It should be to ensure that the composition of the body being elected is as closely representative of the views of the people as possible.
Our first step now in this area should be to push for STV for local government. Yes, that would mean that we would have fewer people on councils such as Richmond and Eastleigh, but that it only fair. It would also mean that my own authority, Buckinghamshire, would no longer have the Tories with more than 80% of the seats on less than 40% of the votes.
I believe the decision to tactically target key constituencies was correct, but I think we do need to be concerned at the way our vote has atrophied elsewhere. Mary, you say, “I was rather taken aback to see comments on social media from some party members moaning about the low Lib Dem figures in some non-target constituencies” but I think the problem is, those low figures aren’t only in marginal constituencies: Across the country there are scores of safe Labour seats where there is no reason for tactical voting, and yet even there the LibDems are getting 4% or 3% of the vote. That is something to be worried about.
@Theakes. You should bear in mind the old saying ‘One Swallow doesn’t make a summer’. There have been 21 General Elections in my lifetime and in 20 of them FPTP has worked to our serious disadvantage. To abandon PR (STV) on the basis of one election where we have got seats roughly proportional to our vote would not only be hypocritical, but stupid. To do so, as you suggest, for narrow party advantage, in circumstances not likely to be repeated, would destroy our credibility as a party.
On the Short Money point see
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/more-money-and-questions-for-lib-dems-as-third-largest-party
“According to the Parliament website, opposition parties are entitled to £22,295.86 for every seat won at the election, plus an additional £44.53 for every 200 votes they gained. This cash is paid every year of the Parliament. “
I agree with Mary but I hope the outcome of the election will see many new members in non target seats with the enthusiasm to become a target seat next time. I still support STV but there is a health warning. It is likely that we will be in the range of 5-15 % of the vote with our voters being younger, univeristy educated professionals, which is the fate of our sister parties across Europe.
I would have thought the time for major activity in non-target seats is not actually at general election time – there aren’t the resources. We now have 72 MPs through targetting – so we can get much more attention on the national political stage. Great result.
Working on non-target areas to identify more potential targets is for other times. And if those non-target seats have been putting what little effort they have available into nearby target areas, then those target areas, as well as consolidating their own position should not forget their non-target helpers. e. g I expect help at every possible local authority by-election – not necessarily aimed at winning immediately but in identifying and building up support.
Yes the one thing that counts to me is this Party and if that means we have to sacrifice a long term cherished principle in order to prevent the dramatic growth of other party’s, subjugating us to the position of on lookers, I am mainly thinking of the the Greens, then so be it.
It’s not worth assuming that the parties’ vote share under FPTP would be replicated under PR, since, as Mary says, tactical voting will no longer be a consideration. And to all those worrying about how many seats Reform would get under PR, I say this: considering how many seats Labour was able to get on a little over 1/3 of the vote, what you should really be worrying about is how many seats Reform could get under FPTP, under the right circumstances.
Mick Taylor is right to say “To abandon PR (STV) on the basis of one election where we have got seats roughly proportional to our vote would not only be hypocritical, but stupid.”
One of the first elections I engaged with was the February 1974 GE when the then Liberal Party came away with just 14 seats on 19.3% of the vote. I have been a convert to PR eversince.
Parliamentary representation reasonably proportional to vote share is the only real democratic basis for elections. Had we had PR in this election and national vote shares were similar under PR we would now be discussing a coalition of Labour (34%), LibDems (12%) and Greens (7%) to form a majority government.
Historically, the vote share of the progressive parties will keep the far right out of power and the opposition of one nation Tories will keep coalitions on the centre ground.
If the Labour party is smart they will realise that they have an opportunity in this Parliament to maintaind their participation in Government for decades to come.
Of course any change in policy on the voting system would destroy our credibility and people’s trust for evermore. As to tactical voting in my area of Newcastle under Lyme, although I just managed to get the 5% people I met often said they wanted to vote for me and our policies but felt the need to vote tactically to avoid getting a Tory back in.
As regards trust, I am pleased to hear Ed Davey say we will campaign on the basis of our manifesto. I gave people a good summary of our manifest in a hustings and many liked it, except of course the Tories. We are a centre-left party and I regret the period when Nick Clegg gave a different impression, so lets now stick by that and continue radical ideas for the long-term future of our nation.
An excellent article which I agree with except for the last point – Fair Votes does not imply Coalition. Minority Governments can work as long as the Leading Party is sensible. That would apply particularly to our situation where a Minority Labour Administration could reasonably expect Us & the Greens to vote with them on most things.
Changing to PR will be difficult for us but its pointless trying to work out how Voters will behave, we don’t know because they don’t know – its a question most of them haven’t asked themselves yet. Its a fairly safe bet that Labour will lose Votes but whether we or The Greens will be bigger is an unknown unknown.
Paul,
there was a Labour minority government after the Feberuary 1974 election but that lasted only six months until Harold Wilson called another election. and gained a majority of just 3 seats that was soon lost by by-election defeats. In order to sustain the government, the Lib–Lab pact was formed in March 1977 and lasted 16 months.
According to The Ashdown Diaries, in the lead-up to the 1997 general election, a coalition government was discussed withTony Blair. Blair was still considering bringing LibDems into his cabinet in 1998 to create a political realignment on the centre-left , John Prescott threatened to resign over the issue and there it ended.
@theakes
Ref posting at 12th Jul ’24 – 10:39am
I don’t understand. Democracy applies to ALL participants (playing by the rules) doesn’t it? You’re surely not implying fair votes would be fine for LDs but not for competing parties such as Greens?????
Am I missing something here?
I can see Theakes’ point. PR hasn’t exactly led to overwhelming representation for liberal parties on the continent of Europe; and there may well be a sound principle in (current) Liberal politics – that if Nigel Farage wants something liberals should probably oppose it!
“Yes the one thing that counts to me is this Party and if that means we have to sacrifice a long term cherished principle in order to prevent the dramatic growth of other party’s, subjugating us to the position of on lookers, I am mainly thinking of the the Greens, then so be it.”
People like you are the reason why, even if I lived in a part of the country where the Lib Dems were not a derelict force I’m still not sure I would want to vote for them.
“the underlying assumption that Lib Dem voters should vote Labour where it would have the desired effect.”
That’s an assumption that should be challenged. The blunt reality is that Labour never return the favour. Labour and the Conservatives have a cushy duopoly in operation at Westminster and they’d both prefer to see their opposite number take a seat than help any of the smaller parties gain the seat.
One of the key missions of the LibDems is electoral reform, for the sake of improving democracy by making it more representative NOT for the sake of securing more power for ourselves.
If elecroral reform (PR and other associated measures, voting ages, registration, boundaries, regional power, elected 2nd chamber) was achieved, along with the other key missions of not concentrating political power in the hand of a few in big and central government. Then we wouldn’t need / need to be the same LibDems any more, and our efforts could be spent with other new parties that would emerge from the inevitable break-up of the main three parties.
“One of the key missions of the LibDems is electoral reform, for the sake of improving democracy by making it more representative NOT for the sake of securing more power for ourselves.”
This is something I 100% agree with and in this regard I have to quote the new PM – Country first, Party Second. A democracy that represents the people of this country is far more important than worrying about about any damage it may do to the the party.
@ExLD Leeds: that’s a ludicrous reason not to vote LD. Theakes is in a vanishingly tiny minority regarding the desirability of PR, as you must well know.
LDs have been consistent in calling for PR for decades and continue to do so.
@Tristan Ward: Each country has its own political party system, which has evolved because of multiple factors of which the electoral system is only one. In some European countries (e.g. Finland, Estonia) liberal parties are among the main parties of government. FPTP is not a barrier to populists gaining power — look at India and Modi’s BJP. Frankly Farage is more likely to become Prime Minister under FPTP than under PR, because Reform would find great difficulty forming a coalition under PR. And as others have said, we’d be fighting elections differently under a PR system (and so would all the other parties).
Anyway were we to abandon electoral reform now it would be a bigger U-turn than tuition fees, and it would look even worse for us.
There are also other forms of PR than STV. Many countries in Europe use d’Hondt method. There are some different versions of d’Hondt method, depending whether the country in question uses open or closed lists or something in between.
STV has its pros and cons, and so do the other proportional systems. Maybe some comparison between the pros and cons would be interesting.
I support Proportional Representation in principle, regardless of the political consequences.
A voting system should elect people who are representative of public opinion. If a political party gets 10% of the votes it should get 10% of the seats.
In my opinion the question should not arise about whether a voting system benefits one party over another. I was pleased to see that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon continued to support PR even at a time when they massively benefited from FPTP. I hope and expect us to stick to our principles as well.