I know, I know. We still haven’t caught up on sleep from the last campaign and our families have forgotten who we are. We just want a break, right?
Yes, of course we do. But we also need to start thinking about the next steps. If you want to be involved in Lib Dem campaigning, joining ALDC (the Association of Lib Dem Councillors and Campaigners) is pretty much essential. They will give you access to all the resources you need and will help you develop the skills necessary for fighting a winning campaign.
They have two of their intense but incredibly useful training weekends coming up:
At Kickstart you’ll get great training, advice and bespoke mentoring for your team to help you build and improve your campaign plans and knowledge, looking ahead to your next electoral success. We have something to offer everyone whatever your role in the campaign, and regardless of your experience. Kickstart is the bootcamp you need to win.
More than anything, the weekend provides an opportunity to meet and network with like-minded Lib Dems who want to campaign hard to get the best deal for their community.
So, what do you get?
- 30+ hours of training with courses suitable for both new and experienced campaigners
- Time to work as a team with an experienced mentor who can look at your plans and advise you from an independent perspective about how to make them even better
- Guest speaker along with a three course dinner on the Saturday night
- Drop-in sessions on more specialist campaign techniques and skills
- In-depth strategy and review sessions on what worked for people in the 2016 elections
- Two-nights full board accommodation – including meals and refreshments – in a dedicated training centre with bar and leisure facilities
Find out all you need to know about how to book your place here.
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
46 Comments
As a member of the poor Lib Dem infantry not sure I need “bespoke mentoring”. Just now would happily settle for a nice cuppa and a break from all the briefings to the weekend papers (from “senior party sources”) that Tim should make way for a “big beast”.
No return to Orange Book. I don’t know whether Jo Swinson is an Orange Booker or not, but if she isn’t, I hope that she will succeed Farron, whose charisma is abysmal.
Replace tuition fees with a graduate tax similar to the way NHS is funded in Libdem 2017 manifesto. You must “do a Justin Trudeau” by telling voters what they want to hear, not just what we want.
Another potential Trudeau-style policy of telling voters what they want to hear would be a promise to end all Syria airstrikes.
We must develop different economic policy sets for different post-Brexit scenarios, from the best one to the worst one. But any scenario would require some form of import substitution and local supply chain development policies to mitigate the impact of import-driven inflation on businesses’ production costs. Export-oriented policies are essential to take advantage of weaker pound, as well as because of the fact that most voters believe in mercantilist argument of “export is good, import is bad” (no joke, most of them believe like that and we must take advantage of this ignorance). Unlike the tuition fee fiasco in the last coalition, these kind of policies are ACHIEVABLE. Remember, in some cases we must tell voters what they want.
We could have a by election in Thanet South by December. Government seat loss? Would another election solve anything other than seeing the SNP further decimated, the number of marginal seats they hold or just hold is amazing. Where we will be is difficult to assess. A swing to left might get us over 20 seats.
Change of leader, I am happy with the current one, provided he answers questions concisely and does not blabber on. I would be much happier with Jo Swinson for a variety of reasons, woman, Scot, ability, personality etc. There is however one major caveat. Tuition fees, (our Iraq). I recall she supported it, (Cable introduced them!). There seems little or no chance of getting the youth and young persons vote in 95% of the seats with that hanging in the background unless we change our stance, but who would believe us? At last the present leader has a clear conscience on that one or would her personality and presence override the problem? I am really torn on this one.
What we need more than anything is a new manifesto.
The lesson to be learned from Brexit and last Thursday is that both votes were a vote against austerity and a vote for hope.
Nobody wants a second referendum debate. We voted (or abstained) on article 50. So why not just say that we will not leave the EU? It’s bad for people. We will revoke article 50 and find a way to address immigration issues with the other EU27. Are we undemocratic? No. We just do not respect a Leave campaign based on lies, half truths, false promises, not to mention the question of funds channelled through the very DUP that this Tory government is getting into bed with. We will develop policies to address the distribution of wealth. We will address the land/housing market. We will address education and training (scrap or seriously reform tuition fees and student debt). Address social care and employment for an ageing population. These issues cannot be solved by 1p on the basic rate of tax. Political parties have neglected a whole swath of the population and they have bitten back. It is time to take the gloves off or fade away.
P.J. – Agree. Land value tax should be introduced, as well as a dedicated health and care tax. Replacing current tuition fees with a graduate tax would relieve students from debt burden, thereby encouraging them to take more risk, while developing vocational training to draw young people away from universities. But it’s too late to remain in EU, unless another election occurs before 2019. Something similar to dementia tax should be offered, but there must be a distinction between property and liquid assets when setting a target.
OK, I’m going to get this in now (as I guess very few will have seen it on an older thread).
I have seen Jo’s name mentioned more in the last couple of days, than at any time since I started contributing here.
Please everyone – put down the popcorn for one second and take a massive step backwards.
Tim has now got the kind of media exposure (and experience) that the Lib Dems could only dream of a couple of months ago.
He is learning all the time and improving and will almost certainly continue to do so. Unless there is clear evidence that the public don’t like him and won’t support him, any talk of replacing him would seem to me ill advised.
The only real advantage of Nick’s unfortunate result, is the opportunity to move forward with a more radical centre left vision which in time may broaden the core vote, bring more seats into play, bring the youth and hopefully public sector workers back on board and above all let time and new personal restore the TRUST of ‘no more broken promises’
For the Lib Dem’s to even contemplate electing a leader who voted for tuition fees would in my view be absolute folly and make the questions about Tim’s faith (largely now dealt with) seem trivial.
Nothing in my humble view, would stop the party in its tracks quicker.
OK, pick the popcorn back up, sit back and enjoy the chaos unfolding across in the blue corner. Lets try and keep the Yellow corner strong and stable.
Be very very careful what you wish for.
We have just seen what happens when high risk decisions are made.
Let’s not disappear down the same rabbit hole and blow the last 2 years progress.
“Back to the future” would need to have a huge SWOT analysis and a hell of a lot of serious market research conducted to avoid it ending in tears.
VERY WELL SAID MIKE S
theakes – with only Stephen Lloyd and Farron remain possible (both voted against tuition fee), Farron is a better choice.
Our economic stance is sufficiently left, as a series of mercantilist export-oriented policies would not affect this. A more Social Libetarian stance with even greater focus on civil liberty and ethical foreign policy (like ending airstrikes) is a better choice (a political spectrum has 2 axes: Economic Right-Economic Left; Social Authoritarian-Social Libetarian).
Graduate tax! Yes, yes, yes! 2% across the board for life, I would go for! Retrospective ( from now on) for all graduates from before the fees and loans era.. ( like me and most MPs)
I don’t like the idea of a graduate tax.
But yes, we do have a leadership problem. Never before have we fallen below 3% in so many seats in England. For a 3rd Party leader Tim has a huge unpopularity rating… I am afraid many people find him annoying…
But like others I am very wary of having a pledge-breaker as Leader, which is how the “big beasts” got to be big….
Mike S – agreed on all you said. I don’t see why the Party cannot just advocate remaining in the Single Market with some targeted controls of immigration flow. If this was asked for in the negotiation the EU might agree to it, Belgium a fully committed member of the EU has more controls on its borders than here. Not that I am against immigration but the leave brigade continue to link the single market to freedom of movement but there is some flexibility here. With regard to Nick Clegg, I am glad he’s gone and will now re-join the party and campaign against Orange Booker policies and libertarianism which is against social liberalism.
@ Andrew McCaig
“Never before have we fallen below 3% in so many seats in England. For a 3rd Party leader Tim has a huge unpopularity rating….”
Let me ask one very important question then:
It that because of Tim OR the strategy he was asked to implement OR a combination of both?
Answering this honestly without any bias is critical
Simon Hughes, a well-known social liberal, would make a fine leader if he is still there.
Mike S – both. His strategy was too much of negative campaigning. Besides, as voters had moved on, he should have campaigned for EEA/EFTA.
Well, we should also have a written party mandate of ruling out any Coalition with Tories from now on (even if the situation is similar to that in 2010). You must remember that Lloyd George’s act of “putting country over party” had wrecked the party apart. And then Nick Clegg. Better playing the king-maker game like the IPP in the late 19th century, less risky.
@Mike S “For the Lib Dem’s to even contemplate electing a leader who voted for tuition fees would in my view be absolute folly”
I sort of agree, but voting against tuition fees at the time made Tim Farron’s defence of them now sound awkward and unconvincing. He gave the impression that he voted against tuition fees because he thought it was more important to keep his promise than vote for the right thing. It was just confusing and seemed inconsistent, a bit like much of the campaign (e.g. explaining why legalising cannabis is good … sort of, after balancing the pros and cons, and some experts told us so … but it should be tightly regulated and we don’t want our kids to smoke it; grammar schools are bad apart from the ones we already have; we don’t want a hard Brexit but we might accept a soft Brexit well no actually we don’t want any Brexit; etc.).
Tim Farron certainly had problems clearly communicating the party’s policies, but to be fair I don’t think anybody else would have done a better job with the material he had to work with. The party should probably improve that before it thinks about replacing the leader. And even then it should have second thoughts, since with a clear vision for the party to communicate (and some help in being more succinct and direct), a leader with the personality and background of Tim Farron might successfully reach out to voters that Lib Dems are failing to convince.
@Mike S “It that because of Tim OR the strategy he was asked to implement OR a combination of both? Answering this honestly without any bias is critical”
I totally agree.
It would be helpful though to know how much of the strategy was of his own devising.
We probably have to be prepared to consider the possibility of a leader who voted for tuition fees, or there would be a very limited selection of candidates for any leadership contest for some time to come. There does have to be a leadership election within a year of the general election – this is required by the Lib Dem constitution. It seems important that this should be a proper contest, rather than Tim Farron just being re-elected unopposed.
Agreed Peter.
We may never know here and that’s fine by me.
My big concern is that he isn’t scapegoated.
I trust behind the scenes, brutal honesty (as well as the inevitable political manoeuvring) will prevail and that a full SWOT analysis AND serious market research AND testing is conducted before any decision is made.
Tim’s supporters claim that there is nothing wrong with the perception which most voters have of him that could not be corrected by minor changes in how he presents himself and the Party. Tim’s opponents claim that he is fatally flawed and there is little that can be done to change the perception which most voters have of him (if they have any perception at all). Opinion polls may not be very good at predicting the outcomes of general elections, but that is because they are up against a moving target as well as for other statistical reasons, etc. However they are very useful when marketing a product. I think the Party should commission a polling company to identify whether Tim is a product which can never really take off, or whether it is simply a matter of time and a change in packaging that is needed. The report should be confidential and Tim then allowed to decide whether he wants to stay as party leader or step down.
It’s not, Tim. It’s the wishy washy amateurism of the policy and the “organisation”. The ‘Yooth’ video was a classic example.
It used to be said that Loyalty was The Tories Secret Weapon, it should be ours. Where is the evidence that Tims Leadership has failed ? Half the Voters dont know who he is yet. It takes a very long time for Party Leaders to seep into the public consciousness & Parties that change Leaders too often end up looking ridiculous – Exhibit One : UKIP.
That we lost our deposit in so many Seats is the flipside of The Ruthless Targetting that got us 12 MPs, we cant have it both ways.
Tim isn’t a marketing product. Why didn’t you advocate the same exercise for Nick Clegg when his popularity was at an all time low the party ended up with just 8 MPs? Tim has managed to increase the number of MPs so it’s an upward trajectory and I am delighted Tim is opposing the conservative plans to expand the number of grammar schools. This money should go towards improving comprehensive education and opportunities for all not on an elitist system.
@Paul Barker. Loyalty is the Tory Party’s secret weapon? I think not. The Tory party is an autocratic monarchy, which practices regicide as the need arises. That is the secret of its success.
An opinion poll came out today: Lab 45%, Con 39%, LDem 7%. Meanwhile in France Emmanuel Macron’s La République en Marche is predicted to win between 415 and 445 seats out of 577, gaining about 32.6% of the votes. It hasn’t come about from 20 years of community politics, as useful as it is, but through having a charismatic leader, a popular manifesto and unpopular opponents.
I just can’t see how things are going to change quickly under Tim Farron. Why spend decades building support when it doesn’t need to take decades?
@ paul On the contrary, the leader is the main marketing outlet of the Party, particularly for a small party. If the electorate cannot relate to the leader, then the battle is half lost before it even begins. Ask Theresa May.
It would be just plain daft to replace Tim as leader now. After the last election, at least people know who he is now. If we changed leader to anyone else except Vince Cable they would be starting back at zero public recognition, and if we change to Vince it would look like a step backwards and be a constant reminder of the coalition years.
Tim can and will learn from this election experience, and be better next time. Give him a chance.
@Paul Barker. A Lib Dem Target seat strategy -whether it involves 20, 60 or 100 constituencies makes no difference at all to the vote in the other 500 or so seats. There the vote depends much more on general national sentiment than on local campaigns that mostly range from low key to non existent -and always have. If we had targeted no seats the extra resources spread very thinly everywhere else would have made no difference at all.
The problem we faced this time was two fold. Firstly we are still suffering the fall out from 2010-2015 which culminated in our Parties worst General Election performance in the century and a half since the Liberal Party was formed. Without going into the old debate about why that happened, surely no one can believe that the loss of trust, loss of voters and loss of elected representatives plus staff and campaigning capacity in large parts of the country makes no difference. It took half a century to build up to the record levels of (post 1920’s) electoral success we attained by 2005. Recovery from the disaster of 2015 can’t happen in 2 years however much some wishful thinking said it could.
Secondly, for a year, we pursued a more or less single issue policy platform that was badly out of synch with national opinion and saw us fall from a national average of 11% at the start of the campaign to just under 8% on polling day. We unveiled some excellent policies in the Manifesto but by then had already written ourselves out of the picture in most people’s minds.
@Eddie Salmon. But the Macron example is highly misleading however much it appeals to those wanting a magical quick fix. In France the 2 main Parties had, for different reasons, wrecked themselves. In the UK the two traditional main parties have just both jointly taken their largest share of the national vote in half a century. Something they could achieve in part because the Liberal Democrats, who had previously taken around 20% of the vote in every GE from 1983 to 2010, had wrecked themselves.
@ paul holmes You seem to have forgotten that as soon as you go into Government you automatically lose the protest vote which always constituted about half our national vote. This was scooped up by UKIP and too a lesser extent the Greens. (Indeed well before the Coalition the Greens were capable of out-voting us in Euro-elections.) In retrospect it is easy to recognise that in purely narrow party political terms it was a mistake to go into Government in 2010. But if the limit of the party’s political ambition is to spend half a century sitting impotent on the opposition benches, one must ask the question: “Why bother?”
Anyone looking enviously at France should bear in mind that their Electoral system is even more broken than ours. En Marche are widely predicted to get three quarters of The MPs on less than a third of the Vote, thats Undemocratic, Unhealthy & a bad start for a Government planning Major Reform in the teeth of vested interests. And thats before you look at the dreadful turnout.
For us, we need to remind ourselves that Brexit is either going to be Fake (Norway) or a disaster & both our Major Parties are committed to it. That comes on top of decades of deep division in both The Tory & Labour blocs – they are riding high now, at least in Votes but that cant last.
@Graham Evans. Well Graham I did specifically say ‘without going into the old debate about why the disaster happened…’ we had to accept that the events of 2015, whatever caused them, are still having a terrible effect on our electoral chances -and will for quite some time to come.
But since you insist on reopening the old debate:
1. We spent 8 years running Scotland in coalition without destroying ourselves in Scotland (and four years in Wales). The destruction only happened later as result of what ‘we’ did in 2010-2015 at Westminster. We are told that our successful Leader in that Scottish Government flew to London to offer advice after the 2010 result but was cold shouldered by Nick Clegg.
2. The sensible policy stance (not in retrospect) was to only enter Coalition if PR was guaranteed. That way our vote could fall as a result of Government and we would still return as many or more MP’s because a fair voting system would more than compensate for our gross under representation under FPTP. That was a policy stance forced by wise Liberal Party heads on a Jeremy Thorpe who was very keen to enter Coalition in 1974. However I still clearly remember the Parliamentary Party meeting when a new Leader, Nick Clegg, told us that “PR would no longer be a deal breaker in any future hung Parliament.”
3. There was a deliberate strategy to dump the ‘wrong voters’ who had given us 20% of the vote across a quarter of a century (see the writings of Nick Clegg’s senior strategists such as Richard Reeves) and replace them with a new wave of ‘Liberal Conservatives’ -who of course never materialised.
The rest as they say is history.
“You seem to have forgotten that as soon as you go into Government you automatically lose the protest vote which always constituted about half our national vote.”
The Thirsk and Malton delayed election took place after the formation of the coalition and the Lib Dems polled 23% up from 2005. So a strange use of “as soon as” there.
“Indeed well before the Coalition the Greens were capable of out-voting us in Euro-elections.”
Well that hadn’t been true for 20 years and 4 rounds of elections.
Changing the Leader seems to be seen by some as a magical solution to whatever the Party’s problems are. I’m much more concerned that in this strange unstable political situation we should be as well prepared as possible for another early General Election. I am well aware that our activists have been battered, hurt and exhausted by four successive bad results: Euro-elections 2014, General Election 2015, Referendum 2016 and now this General Election. I’m not at all surprised that people want to give up or at least take some time off from it all.
The problem is that there is no other radical, internationalist, pro-democracy party in Britain. We’re it. We’re the only people standing up for these values. What will Britain be like if these values are extinguished?
From what I have been told, when the Canadian Liberals were in the political wilderness a few years ago, they went out and started asking people what their ideas were, what they wanted for the future. Maybe it’s time to stop talking to each other and to go out and do some listening.
Catherine
My view is that whenever a leader has a contest against , rather than a contest between two new candidates after a leader steps down, it weakens the leader, or draws attention to divisive types of politiking .
One reason that Corbyn was a weak leader going into the General election was the no confidence vote and Owen Smith candidacy.
I think our policy or rule on leadership is something to change, like the stuff about the leader and deputy being mps.
Who is our deputy ?
I think Tim has made mistakes and I am not happy others are not happy in his leadership.
I like and respect and back him.
It is the party and it’s policy, it’s attitude and approach on Brexit we need to come into the brave new world on.
In Layla Moran , for example , we have one to watch for the leadership of tomorrow or the day after , so to speak. Jo Swinson would be fine too, but my view is might be better to be Scottish leader one day as there we could do with a woman , everyone else has a fine female leader !
We need more talent and more mps , but need to make better use of those not in the commons, other parties have leaders not there !
The party now needs to be moderate in its tone but radical in its rethink !
As I have commented elsewhere, my view is that the national campaign was weak. I am not seeking to adjudicate on why that was – my greater concern is that there should be a really professional, objective, analysis of where there were shortfalls and what can be done to remedy them.
It is also imperative that weary as we are, we maintain and boost our own political tension across the country – and that means picking ourselves up and continuing to campaign in our local areas as visibly, sensibly and positively as possible.
Along the way we need to develop a pithy statement/image as to why we should exist……one with which the electorate can readily identify us (whether or not they agree with us).
Lorenzo, Jeremy Corbyn was not, ultimately, weakened by the contest with Owen Smith. His position was strengthened, because he was re-elected by the Labour membership, with a higher share of the vote than before. Now, of course, he is presumably secure in his position as leader until the next election, and there is a high probability that he may be Prime Minister one day.
My comment that we needed to have a real leadership contest, rather than Tim Farron just being re-elected unopposed, was not meant to suggest that we necessarily need a change of leader. If there was a contest, and Tim Farron was re-elected with a larger share of the vote than before, then this would strengthen his position as leader, which would not happen if he was just re-elected unopposed.
The Lib Dem constitution requires that there must be a leadership election within a year of a general election. If no other candidate stands, then the leader is re-elected unopposed, which is what has sometimes happened. But we cannot ignore the fact that many people in the party are questioning whether Tim Farron should continue as leader. These questions can only be settled, one way or the other, by a leadership contest.
Three points
1. Having Corbin as prime minister horrifies me as much if not more than a Tory. There are many many lib dem members and voters like me.
2. I have spoken to no one who thinks Tim Farron is a credible leader. As one Tory said : whatever the question Tim Farron isn’t the answer. Luckily is tho election all three leaders were so dreadful it wasn’t as much of a problem as it might have been
3. Overhead at the station this morning: “My son voted as a student in Sheffield Hallam was is delighted to have got rid of Nick Clegg”. That broken promise has cost us a generation of voters.
Tristan Ward 12th Jun ’17 – 8:33am……………Three points
……………………….1. Having Corbin as prime minister horrifies me as much if not more than a Tory. There are many many lib dem members and voters like me…………………….
And an awful lot who don’t agree…
……………2. I have spoken to no one who thinks Tim Farron is a credible leader. As one Tory said : whatever the question Tim Farron isn’t the answer. Luckily is tho election all three leaders were so dreadful it wasn’t as much of a problem as it might have been…………….
Three leaders????? Which election were you watching? Corbyn went from strength to strength with every interview/public appearance…Tim waffled and May floundered…
………………….3. Overhead at the station this morning: “My son voted as a student in Sheffield Hallam was is delighted to have got rid of Nick Clegg”. That broken promise has cost us a generation of voters……………
I can’t disagree with that last sentence…What this election proved is that ‘Hate Politics’ (Mail/Sun, etc.) just reinforce the beliefs of their readership…Young voters get/share information through other channels and, sadly, the alternative they wanted wasn’t us….
Tristan, I don’t think we should be taking advice from the Tories about who should be our leader! Let’s face facts. We were nearly destroyed by being in Coalition because we lost our way. Tim took over as leader of a party that faced destruction but, in spite of poor local election results after our by election successes, we have ended up with 3 more MPs and a few near wins. Steady as she goes.
The Tories are imploding internally and Labour now have a Momentum group that are all bright eyed and bushy tailed. Once the euphoria of winning 31 more seats wears off they will be fighting each other too.
What should we do in this situation? Start blaming each other as well? Or carry on working at our policies and campaigning methods so that we are ready for the next election whenever it comes?
This time we were squeezed except in areas where tactical voting helped us. The voters fell out of love with May and young people fell in love with Corbyn. They haven’t had time to get disillusioned with Labour but they will and then we must be ready but that won’t happen if we start a leadership battle.
What we need most of all is a single, simple policy that we have & the others dont. Soft Brexit is emerging as the new consensus so we need something more. We should drop the ghastly 2nd Referendum idea & simply oppose Brexit. At the very least we should call for Article 50 to be suspended until such time as we have a Majority Government that actually wants Brexit & knows what it means by that.
Catherine
I do not agree with your conclusion based on the example I gave. You are correct of course in your interpretation , but I think Corbyn would have been stronger if from the beginning he had been supported more . I understand many thought him useless behind the front we see. I cannot comment on that but believe his leadership contest only helped shore up his support in the party at the expense of , not adding to, unity.
Our party has never challenged a leader in this way.
Soundings are better, and if Tim lacks support behind him, it is better that he faces it . I hear rumours. I ignore them. I know people like you are the same , and are amongst the most sensible and understanding.
My sense of the wider public , caused by the media as much as anything and the leadership in its approach to it, is that Tim has had a very bad press , in that , because he does not have the cult of Corbyn type singularly odd following unlike any internal party one previously, he could not gain the popularity his very likeable personality might get.
My understanding of the antidote is that we should look at the alternatives and reevaluate the leadership as a result.
I admire Norman Lamb . I like him .
Would he be worse . No.
Would he be any better. No.
Should we change to him. No.
We need a change of approach. We need to be the voice of reason and logic as well as of the underdog and the mainstream of the people who care .
If I though we had an obvious candidate to do that other than myself who thinks it, they would do it and I would back them.
We don’t!
I back Tim but want us to wake up and stop whistling in the dark and get with reality like we should.
Tim Farron was the best option of the remaining MPs in 2015, but he does not excite people, his performances in the Leaders debates were very poor.
We should consider appointing Jo Swinson as the leader, she is young and energetic, look at what Ruth Davidson has done for the Tories in Scotland, they are now winning seats that were ours in 2010.
Going in to the election and announcing that the Tories are going to win a landslide was poor by Farron, accept defeat probably drove potential voters away.
Our policies need a re-vamp
We should focus the NHS and education, offering more money for these through increase in taxation be it Income Tax or Corporation Tax or bringing in extra taxation for dividends paid to non UK tax payers.
Our achilles heel was the tuition fees and we should put our hands-up and say at the time we had no alternative and in hind-sight it should have been restricted to £6,000 and make this part of our education policy. Furthermore, we should offer to write-off tuition fees for those who work X years in the NHS or as teachers or police etc. Finally, we should say that whilst tuition fees are millstone around students necks, what students and their parents really want is some form of maintenance grant to help them with the exorbitant living costs, maybe we should even say that universities can only change say £3000 per year for student accommodation. We need to once again become the friend of the students.
We should acknowledge Brexit as reality and not offer some half-baked second referendum on the outcome of Brexit. The UK is leaving the EU and that’s a fact, we need to live with this and offer our options on the negotiations.
At the next election and that could be this autumn or March next year, we need to have a 30 seat election strategy. Focusing on seats we have won or narrowly lost, working on Labour voters in these seats convincing them that we are the only party to beat the Tories. We should look at the local Green Party in our target seats and come to some sort of election pact with them
We need to run 30 by-elections in seats like St Ives, Yeovil, Wells, Cheltenham, N Devon, N Cornwall Cheadle, Hazel Grove, St Albans,
To stand a chance of recovery we need to change leader, have focused policies, accept Brexit as reality and run a more focused campaign with the aim of winning 30 seats.
I agree whole-heartedly with Panicos. Jo would be a great leader and stand head and shoulders above Maybot/Boris and Corbyn. Yes on NHS and education – lets offer real, paid for policies, not just Labour’s platitudes. Yes on students – we need a credible also paid-for offer focused on the poorest 20%. On Brexit, I’d be happy either with saying we think it is terrible so we will vote against regardless OR a policy of trying to limit the damage. But please let’s not bang on about it all the time! And yes absolutely to a 30-seat strategy.
The Leader is a figurehead of the Party not a marketing tool or business unit. He/she is the spokesperson for policies which come from conference and members. It doesn’t make sense to change leader at this stage after an election has just been fought and particularly as the Party has made progress and gained more seats. 2.5 million votes should not be sniffed at and the Party is now well ahead of UKIP as the third national party in British politics. The policies need sharpening up but can be delivered through Tim Farron and he is more than capable of communicating them given the right message. There was little on the environment, fracking and renewable energy, policies for the elderly and disabled… but Tim spoke eloquently on the former and with great authority. If your football team improves on its position in the league table from the last one it would be counterproductive to sack the Manager, far better to support him/her and their team.