Tag Archives: general election review

Introducing the General Election 2017 Election Review

After the 2015 election disaster, a comprehensive post mortem led by James Gurling analysed what had gone wrong and made a huge number of detailed recommendations of what should be done differently next time.

However, the snap election of 2017, coming just two years later and out of left field, meant that we were still recovering from 2015 and had not had much chance to implement many of those changes.

Another disappointing result demanded further analysis, although a snap election was a very different challenge. So the Federal Board concluded that a review should be relatively ‘quick and dirty’ and sit alongside the 2015 review in informing future decisions.

Finding someone completely uninvolved in the election to lead the review proved an impossible task, and in the end Gerald Vernon-Jackson failed to dodge the bullet and was appointed just after the Bournemouth conference. Three months having already elapsed since polling day, Gerald was asked to produce something fast. He mustered a strong team and over a long weekend of intensive work they interviewed some 58 stakeholders from across the party.

Their report was produced quickly off the back of that evidence-taking and serves as a candid appraisal of the snap election campaign. It was formally received by the Federal Board and sent to the Federal Campaigns and Elections Committee and Federal Audit and Scrutiny Committee to inform ‘lessons learned’ exercises.

Some eyebrows were raised at the anecdotal character of the report, but in fairness to Gerald and his team it was exactly what it said on the tin: a coherent synopsis of the perceptions of 58 stakeholders and the panel itself, drawing together the common threads from the accounts they heard. It does not purport to be a comprehensive analysis of the sort conducted after 2015, and was always designed to sit alongside the earlier report in providing a route map for future campaigns.

Posted in News | 30 Comments

Don’t forget to have your say on the General Election campaign

After every General Election, the party conducts a review of the campaign so that we have a written record of what worked, what didn’t work and what we need to learn for the future.

The ink was barely dry on the huge number of recommendations from the 2015 campaign when we were off again.

There is a difference in the process this time. In 2015, it was the job of the Campaigns Committee to run the review. This time, though, party structures have changed. The Governance Review ensured that the Campaigns and Elections Committee runs the election so they can’t be allowed …

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 6 Comments

Reaction to the General Election Review

Welcome to our whistle-stop tour of the coverage of our General Election Review. If you’ve missed our earlier pieces, you can read the document here.

The Mirror has a poll at the end of their piece. 28% of respondents say they’d vote for us in the future. I’ll take that.

The BBC quotes Tim Farron’s response:

The review – carried out by members of the party’s Campaigns and Communications Committee – made a string of recommendations to help the party fare better in any future coalition.

These include that Lib Dems should make it clear they will only automatically vote for legislation covered by the coalition agreement, and that the “wider party” should be represented in the negotiations.

Tim Farron, who replaced Mr Clegg as leader, said: “Blame and criticism can provide short term satisfaction, but do nothing for a future vision.

“This report is about setting a way forward, recognising the mistakes we made, and learning from them.”

Posted in News | 4 Comments

Six key points of the General Election Review

The Liberal Democrats’ Campaigns and Communications Committee has published its Review of the 2015 General Election today. Have they correctly analysed what went wrong? The review team conducted extensive interviews with key players and based its conclusions on feedback from 7500 party members. The report doesn’t pull any punches. Many activists will identify with its criticisms and will be heartened by its recommendations. In fact, from what I can see from social media, even some of the harshest critics of the last few years are finding this review to be satisfactory.

And, in the media, Patrick Wintour had this to say:

Posted in Op-eds | 28 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMartin 19th Jan - 10:14am
    Thank you Paul, even so I suspect nominations would have to be contrived to get five candidates. Nonetheless I do not think there will be...
  • User AvatarCatherine Jane Crosland 19th Jan - 9:59am
    Thank you, Paul. so to clarify, if each candidate needs to be nominated by at least ten percent of *other* members of the Parliamentary party,...
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 19th Jan - 9:46am
    Catherine 18.5 Nominations must be of a Member of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons, who must be proposed by at least ten...
  • User AvatarTony Hagon 19th Jan - 9:45am
    I’m very sad to hear this and my condolences go to Helen and his family. Bob was passionate about the arts in the Far North...
  • User AvatarCatherine Jane Crosland 19th Jan - 9:36am
    Martin is probably right in saying that it would not be possible for all five to stand, because it would not be possible for five...
  • User AvatarMolly 19th Jan - 9:24am
    The best way to help a favoured candidate secure a post permanently is to give them the advantage of having the job for a period...