I have an article published in the January edition of the Government Gazette, the monthly magazine of the Centre for Parliamentary Studies, looking at the Lib Dems’ prospects for the coming general election. Here’s what I say …
A missed opportunity. That was the consensus, inside and outside the Liberal Democrats, on the party’s general election results in 2005.
The disappointment was the greater as realisation dawned that the unique set of circumstances of that election – an unpopular government and an even more unpopular opposition – might never again be repeated. What could have been the Lib Dems’ breakthrough yielded only an extra ten seats.
What, then, can the party look forward to at the 2010 general election?
Some media commentators (and pessimists within my own party) believe we will be doing well to avoid a wipeout. Though the Tories’ ratings have slipped significantly since the summer of 2008, David Cameron’s party is polling regularly at around 40%, while the Lib Dems hover in the high teens. That represents a swing of some five per cent towards the Tories since 2005, enough to see off many Lib Dem MPs, especially in the south and south-west of England.
And yet few actually expect the party’s parliamentary representation to be decimated. A seemingly well-sourced article in The Times in December 2009 reported that the Tories were withdrawing resources in some seats they had been fighting hard; cited was the Lib Dem seat of Cheadle, in Cheshire, which would fall to the Tories on a swing of (yes, you’ve guessed it) five per cent. The paper went on to add that ‘some incumbent MPs, particularly Lib Dems, are putting up fiercer-than-expected resistance’.
This anecdotal data has polling evidence to back it up. In summer 2009, YouGov conducted the largest yet survey, of some 240 marginal seats with a sample of around 35,000 voters, for PoliticsHome.com. It forecast the Lib Dems would win 55 seats, a decrease of eight on the party’s current standing.
This is, in my view, an under-estimate for two reasons. First – and it’s an especially relevant consideration when looking at Lib Dem MPs and the party’s target seats – it is the ability of a local party to organise an effective ‘ground-war’ campaign which often marks the difference between a successful hold or gain, and a near-miss. Such battlegrounds go largely undetected by opinion polls.
And secondly, the party’s poll ratings nearly always increase during the course of a general election campaign: by an average of 3.9% in every election since 1979 (bar the ill-fated 1987 ‘Two Davids’ Alliance campaign).
There’s a very simple reason for this. The news media – which for four years and eleven months of each Parliament is generally happiest ignoring the Lib Dems – is at last obligated by law to give the party a fair crack of the broadcasting whip.
The London media’s obsession with referring to ‘both parties’ must seem a bizarre 1950s’ anachronism to the four-tenths of the UK where the Lib Dems are in either first or second place. For instance, in Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool or Oxford – to name just five cities – the Tories have not been able to elect an MP or a councillor for many years.
This levelling of the media playing field has an especial pertinence for the 2010 general election campaign: it will be the first ever in which there have been televised debates between the leaders of the three major parties.
This is a fantastic opportunity for Nick Clegg in his debut election as party leader, and one for which his two predecessors, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy, would have given their eye teeth. Of course, there is the chance of a gaffe, a ‘mis-speak’, which will derail the party’s campaign. But the potential rewards of appearing at the top table – of being regarded by the public as an equal citizen with Messrs Brown and Cameron – vastly exceed that risk.
In fact, Clegg starts 2010 as officially the most popular of the three party leaders: all polling companies which measure the party leaders’ popularity have the British public ranking him ahead of David Cameron (just) and Gordon Brown ( by miles). But up to one-third of voters have yet to form an opinion, either positive or negative. After a solid year building his profile – on issues ranging from the Gurkhas, to MPs’ expenses, to Afghanistan, to calling on the Speaker to quit – he has emerged well from the shadow cast by Vince Cable’s political superhero status.
It will be a big moment, too, for the individuals at the top of the party structure in what will be the first general election in the modern Liberal Democrats’ history when Lord (Chris) Rennard, the party’s chief executive who retired last year, has not been in the campaigning hot seat. Interim chief executive Chris Fox and director of campaigns Hilary Stephenson will be key players, along with former MD of Saatchi’s John Sharkey and ex-Bell Pottinger director Jonny Oates; while Lib Dem MPs Andrew Stunell and Danny Alexander will provide the links in to the Parliamentary party.
For all its newness as a general election team, this is a talented, experienced and demonstrably successful group of professional campaigners. Great results can (and will) be expected of them.
My prediction?
This will be the first change-making general election since 1997, and I’ve a hunch the Lib Dem result may well resemble it, at least in one regard: the party’s share of the popular vote declined slightly compared to the previous 1992 election, yet its parliamentary representation increased.
There will, no doubt, be losses to the Tories in 2010 – though I’d expect at least one surprise victory, and many resilient holds – but these will be more than offset by gains from Labour: the scale will depend both on the month-long campaign itself, but also on the months-long campaigning already taking place up and down the country.
The prize at stake is huge. Yes, there’s the chance that the 2010 election will produce a hung parliament, with the Lib Dems in the role of so-called ‘kingmakers’. More importantly, there’s the chance to usurp Labour in its so-called ‘heartlands’, establishing the party’s opportunity to turn even more of the electoral map gold at the election-after-next.
Nick Clegg’s stated aim is for the Lib Dems to replace Labour as Britain’s leading progressive party in opposition to the Tories. This could just be his moment.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Photo gallery
Raven (1977) - by the writers of Children of the Stones
Learning from the Zen masters
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
Michael BG
Mary Reid
Simon R
Hywel
17 Comments
“And secondly, the party’s poll ratings nearly always increase during the course of a general election campaign: by an average of 3.9% in every election since 1979 (bar the ill-fated 1987 ‘Two Davids’ Alliance campaign).”
I’m always cautious of this analysis which may in part be down to pollsters methodolgy. It wasn’t the case with ICM in 2005.
You may be right, Hywel. Equally, we may find that it’s 2005 that was the exception because of the greater exposure the party had in the 01-05 Parliament because of the Iraq effect.
I think also we may gain some form of ‘Clegg bounce’ because it’s his first election as leader, and because of the TV debates. (Clearly that depends on Nick performing well).
And isn’t it “aqua and cerise” now 🙂
Hopefully your right 🙂
Anyone who’s sat in a campaign office with me during elections will know I am very much a glass half-empty person (or even it’s actually only quarter full it just looks fuller than it is 🙂
I realise the need for an optimistic conclusion, but nothing you outlined earlier in the piece justifies those last two sentences. That aside, i completely agree with pretty much everything in this article. Clegg basically needs to stay solid, not make any of those momentum-sapping gaffes, and try and transcend the debate between the other two in a really effective way.
We should not forget the less-than-remote possibility that the LibDems will be the largest party after the next election, as I said in my letter to the Indendent.
Nice comments that I generally agree with – and certainly think that the party should be looking for at least 15 or 20 Labour gains – but more than that. to get close enough to be the clear challanger next time as well – in both Tory and Labour held seats. Only comment a pedantic one – I think that technically a decimation of the parliamentary is exactly what is expected by many – that being a loss of 10% – 6 or 7 seats.
But in the end the Lib Dem’s will end up in third place, labour will more then likely be in second, the Tories will win and the biggest winners will be the non voters.
It is a shame really that the Liberals cannot get close to labour or the Tories, we do need to have a more powerful third party, sadly i do not think you are near it yet.
I do not vote anymore no party meets my needs I’m disabled.
Stephen, your reading of the 2005 election result as ‘disappointing’ is interesting. Perhaps, one looks at things rather differently when one has cut ones campaigning teeth at a time when the Parliamentary Party was more usually in the teens than the fifties, and see the job of defending 52 seats in 2005 being done so well that we actually came out with 11 net gains.
The talking down of that result was no doubt a carefully orchestrated exercise by those who wanted to get rid of both Charles Kennedy and Chris Rennard (obviously for different reasons). It succeeded in both objectives, but the myth of 2005 being a disappointment survives and is a dangerous reading of history.
I predict that no matter what the result after the 2010 election the same game will be played, by the same characters, this time aimed at different scapegoats. I predict this because it is the way that those at the centre who invest everything in the ‘air war’ (itself a tasteless, testosterone filled and illiberal self-description) endeavour to off-set their failings in comparison with the far more effective results of those who campaign on the ground alongside local people in their constituencies.
In the first 1974 election we scored 19.3% of the popular vote and won just 14 seats. In 2001 we scored 18.3% and won 52 seats. Over those twenty seven years the party adopted (overcoming the bitter resistance of those at the centre) both the targeting tactics and the local campaigning strategies learnt in local government campaigns. We became very effective ground campaigners and used some of our central funds and central fund raising to invest in targeted seats. It was, as you say, these ground campaigns supported by careful targeting of resources that were the real success stories in 2005 in which we polled 22.1% and won 63 seats.
One could argue that over every election from ’74 to 2005 the ‘air war-mongers’ (if they want to call it such) have been ineffective at adding positively to the outcomes produced locally. Why? Because although they came to see the effectiveness of those community campaigns, they never understood why they worked and how they needed to be conducted internationally in a UK wide campaign.
Robert
It is a shame really that the Liberals cannot get close to labour or the Tories, we do need to have a more powerful third party, sadly i do not think you are near it yet.
I do not vote anymore no party meets my needs I’m disabled.
This is ambiguous, but it doesn’t make sense either way. Does “get close to Labour or the Tories” mean in terms of policies or in terms of numbers of votes?
If it’s in terms of policies, surely it’s silly to say in effect “None of the parties meets my needs, but I want the choice to be reduced by the third party becoming more like the other two”.
If it’s in terms of support, surely it’s silly in effect to say “I wish the Liberal Democrats got more votes, and I don’t prefer any of the other parties to them, but I’m not going to help my wish by actually voting for them”.
There are so many times in the Liberal Democrats when the answer to “Why can’t we be saying this?” is “If we did, it would lose us votes”. Often what is actually happening here is that whatever “this” is, it is something that benefits most the sort of person who says “I never vote, none of the parties are any good for me”. When people adopt this “don’t bother, don’t vote” attitude, the result is only to push politics away from them further as the parties take it as a cue not to bother with them. That is why politics here, and even more in the USA, is so skewed to the benefit of the rich. Rich people generally turn out and vote. Poor people are the most iikely to say “I never vote, politicians are bad people only in it for themselves”.
If only both progressive parties could get their act together, we wouldn’t be in the position of having a Tory government thrust upon us.
Wishful thinking perhaps…
@Bill –
I’m not sure we’re disagreeing, much 🙂
Big steps forward were taken in ’05, not least that Lib Dems are now in first or second place in c.250 seats. However, given the opportunity available in ’05 – and given the undoubted failure of the much-publicised decapitation strategy – I think it’s hard not to see an increase of 10 seats as under-performing.
Wasn’t the decapitation strategy really a piece of post-hoc rationalisation that backfired because we didn’t win the relevant constituencies? It wasn’t as though anyone consciously decided that we would go for the seats of top Tories. It just so happened that some of the seats where the Lib Dems had been mounting increasingly vigorous campaigns were those of high-profile Tories (Theresa May, David Davis, Michael Howard, Tim Collins etc.) The mistake was to badge it as a decapitation strategy. After all other high profile Tories, William Hague, IDS, Francis Maude etc. were left alone, presumably because we were not so strong on the ground in those constituencies.
Cheadle hasn’t been in Cheshire for nearly 40 years.
And I do hope you’re using “decimate” correctly – i.e. to reduce by 10%, not to 10%.
That’s all.
But it was the Tories and the media (specifically the Tory media) who “badged it” decapitation strategy.
I believe that the General Election will pivot on which Leader is seen to be competent and who puts the best campaign for Britain to the Electorate.
The TV Debates will be crucial for Nick Clegg as he has greater ability to make the better gains in the media war.
Local people already identify hard local work and high volumes of case works with the L/Ds.
L/D`s are the choice of representatives who will stand up for building community and in giving most decisions back to the local community.This can and has only occurred where Liberal Democrat Councils have been elected over 40/50 years and acted as the democratic servant of local people and listened to their issues.
In that all important task Nick Clegg has gathered momentum, in growing response by the day, as more ordinary families realise that he does care about what they consider to be most important areas for change next time.
It is only Nick Clegg`s L/D`s that support a new `Fair Britain’ putting Fair Taxes first, that will liberate and free 4 million from paying tax on the first £10K on their earnings.
This will put more money into the pockets of the least off by making those in the top 10% of earnings pay more.The pledge for fairness in taxes will not come about with either Labour or the Tories who support the status quo for bankers and `non doms’.This would be heresy on the most hard working lowest earning over taxed burdened families in Britain.
Vince Cable would levy a tax on the profits of the high paid city bankers and give this money to the poorest 4 million.
It is absolutely clear that Nick Clegg greatly cares about Britain`s growing child poverty under Labour and wants to target resources much more closely related to the performance of individual children with the `Pupil Premium.
Britain has become a more unequal place to live over the last 10 years and the question must be asked -Whose fault is this?
State Schools deserve Fair funding equal to their independent counterparts and Nick Clegg has campaigned for smaller classroom numbers of 20 children and not over 30 that exists today.Children would then receive greater individual Teacher attention and each pupil whether Special Needs or Gifted/Talented would all benefit fairly.
This Election is about a campaign for greater education chances for those at the bottom and reducing child poverty via Fairer Taxes.This message will only resonate from the L/D`s and from Nick Clegg`s talented Team in the campaign for practical progressive Liberal change.
We must use every sinew of effort to help win L/D Seats to deliver a Fairer Britain this time and for the next generation.
I agree with Stephen that L/D Gains will be secured in 2010 and hope that the Gains this time will be significant to the quality of campaign,message and for the sake of the `Silent Majority’.
This is not so much a comment but an enquiry- I have just recieved notification of my pension rise for 2010 and it amounts to £1.85p per week. My council tax will increase by a lot more than this. Additionally my gas and electricity costs will continue to rise throughout the year as the profiteering continues
MY QUESTIONs before election day is –
Do the Lib Dems have any pol;icy to having an idex linked government pension ?
Have tthe Lib Dems any plans in place to stop the continual rise in gas and electricity before it becomes available only to the rich?
Peter M Chadburn