46 Comments

• FormerLibDem 20th Dec '13 - 6:35pm

  The problem is, the Lib Dems have yet to develop a convincing narrative re why someone should positively vote Lib Dem. Centre left voters – the biggest contingent of the Lib Dems 2010 vote – are now (by and large) implacably opposed to the party. Tuition fees, the NHS reforms, tacit support for the bedroom tax – all these are powerful repellents for former Lib Dems (like myself) who are on the centre left. So… How does the party attract new (or hold existing) voters from the centre right? Remember, the right wing is getting very crowded. There are the Tories and UKIP (both vying to be more illiberal and more intolerant with every passing day). So what’s the Lib Dem call to arms? Left inclining voters aren’t listening to the Lib Dems any more, and Right inclining voters have absolutely no compelling reason to do so. Why vote for the monkey when you can vote for the organ grinder? The argument that voting Lib Dem curtails the worst excesses of a rabid Tory party is, essentially, a negative one. Centre left voters will still see the Lib Dems as supine accomplices, and Centre right voters will be cross because policies they approve of are being blocked. So where does that leave the party come 2015? . Also, the 57 “byelections” strategy is ludicrous. It’s a tacit admission that the party’s national position is so indefensible that effective campaigning is only possible at a strictly local level. A pretty negative position, don’t you think?

• Chris 20th Dec '13 - 6:57pm

  Dire results, with the exception of the headlined one. 10% in mid Sussex is particularly dismal, considering the Lib Dems came within 81 votes of winning a by-election in that ward in 2010.

• paul barker 20th Dec '13 - 7:22pm

  If you look at all the contests of the last 2 weeks & remove the outliers ( +26% & -36%) then all the changes in our vote fall within a range of 4% down to 4% up. Essentially our vote is mostly steady. For comparison Labours vote is about 6% down.
  The big difference between now & a few years ago is the increase in Political competition, not just more candidates but Votes being spread more widely. UKIP is the big one but TUSC & Independents seem to be doing better as well. Given more competition Parties have to do better just to keep their Vote share constant.

• Chris 20th Dec '13 - 7:42pm

  “If you look at all the contests of the last 2 weeks & remove the outliers ( +26% & -36%) then all the changes in our vote fall within a range of 4% down to 4% up.”

  No they don’t. This week alone there were changes of -7.2, -15.6 and -7.7. And even those were calculated by comparison to 2011 and 2013, not pre-coalition levels.

• tonyhill 20th Dec '13 - 8:06pm

  Paul, I really admire your ability to remain so optimistic about our prospects (and that is said without irony or sarcasm), but I’m not sure that it’s terribly helpful to be so blinkered. What these by-elections are revealing (with the odd exception) is that all over the country the electorate is just not interested any more in what we are trying to say to them. UKIP has a narrative that is connecting with people; Labour has nothing of substance to say, but at least they have the advantage of not being the government; the core vote of the Tories is still coming out for them; we, though, are no longer relevant. That is not to say that our ministers are not doing good things in government: they are. But Nick Clegg is, unfairly, a figure of fun, and we have lost our usp, which was being trusted.

• Peter Watson 20th Dec '13 - 8:39pm

  @paul barker “Essentially our vote is mostly steady.”
  Sadly though, this is when comparing the vote with the low levels to which it plummeted after 2010.

• Mark Valladares 20th Dec '13 - 10:57pm

  Tony,

  That assumes that we are actually talking directly to voters. The policy of attempting to run a candidate if only as a flag-waving exercise means that voters have a Liberal Democrat to vote for, but no obvious reason why they should vote for them, and in local elections, where others are talking to voters, we get caned.

  It would be interesting to see what happens where we are actually campaigning on the ground, compared to where we aren’t, but without some proper research, I fear that we won’t find out for certain.

• Paul In Twickenham 20th Dec '13 - 11:31pm

  @ Mark – your point about the danger of extrapolating from a small sample is well taken. So now as the year ends perhaps we can aggregate the results from the whole year and calculate the gains/losses/holds and other useful stats. Armed with that data it should be possible to make some coherent comments about the extent of voter disenchantment with the Lib Dems and the loss of activists doing the legwork.

• Mick Taylor 21st Dec '13 - 8:06am

  There seems to be a pattern of where we do little or our activists have lost heart we do badly, but where our activity is growing, we campaign enthusiastically and hard, we coalesce round strong issues and importantly we stop apologising for being in coalition and highlight our achievements we do much better. Certainly around here, where we have had success against Labour that is the case.
  Of course standing an enthusiastic candidate helps too.

• Tim P 21st Dec '13 - 9:07am

  You seem to be missing results from Highland and Stratford District.

• andrew purches 21st Dec '13 - 9:07am

  The headache for the Party in areas such as Mid Sussex is that the average voter, esconced in expensive housing,driving expensive automobiles ( and expensive they are too) will be natural supporters of the Tory Party, even if any direct financial or shoe leather support will be hard to come by. The Lib Dems were previously the party of protest, but have not had anything to offer against the status quo that has existed for the last ten years. Any protest vote now will now be harvested by the appalling heirs to the BNP, that is to say, UKIP. It will take a generation for it to reach political maturity, by which time this party could well have destroyed our relationship with the EEC,and our economy along with it. The Lib Dems,for what it will be worth, could say then, “We told you so”. Which leads me to the European Elections: Why are we not screaming from the roof tops about the calamity that is facing us if a Tory / UKIP axis sweeps the board next May? really are too wet for words.

• paul barker 21st Dec '13 - 9:49am

  Fundamentally, whats happened is that many voters have moved us from one category to another; from Non-Government Party to Government Party. That cuts off the supply of Protest Votes, except at General Elections. We are down to our Core Vote of 14/15% but that hasnt changed since 2011. If that is Grim its no Grimmer than any time in the last 4 years.
  The upside is that we seem to have suffered very little damage from the rise of UKIP & Labours vote has declined over the past year.
  My objection to pessimism about our prospects is that it actively contributes to making those prospects worse, espec ially where it leads to not standing at all.

• robdn 21st Dec '13 - 10:10am

  If the leadership changed or changed its position NOW there would be time to recoup some of the lost members and voters. It is obvious that the Lib Dems are viewed by the majority of voters as pale Tories at present – and portray themselves as just that by staying close to Mr Cameron’s views – even though Mr Clegg says he wants to be in the central position politically. Lib Dems cannot gain by being pale Tories (just blocking Tory legislation simply looks weak “toys out of pram” stuff) but LDs must work out a better policy presentation to the voters or say goodbye to the current leadership. Surely any change must come rapidly from within the party and not after losing badly at the 2014 polls. How to change to show we are stronger than voters (and leadership) see us? Should the leader fall on his own sword or be pushed? Or can he make a quick make-over in the New Year? Probably the party will look stronger if we all push to one of the above options. My own belief is that we will have to push the leader out or suffer permanently dire results for keeping him as a pale Tory leader who cannot break the Tory party up as he might wish. And if we are the central party we have to include our left as well as our right-leaning members.

  Let’s ask him the vital question – where do YOU stand broadly and when are you going to show the voters where WE stand broadly as a party? Because we are NOT pale Tories.
  (I’m a party member and former constituency chairman.)

• Simon Shaw 21st Dec '13 - 10:29am

  @Mark Valladares
  “That assumes that we are actually talking directly to voters. The policy of attempting to run a candidate if only as a flag-waving exercise means that voters have a Liberal Democrat to vote for, but no obvious reason why they should vote for them, and in local elections, where others are talking to voters, we get caned.

  It would be interesting to see what happens where we are actually campaigning on the ground, compared to where we aren’t, but without some proper research, I fear that we won’t find out for certain.”

  I very much agree, Mark.

  As to what happens where we are actually campaign on the ground then I would refer to the two gains we made off Labour in Merseyside in July (and very nearly a third) – see https://www.libdemvoice.org/2-gains-from-labour-on-merseyside-and-very-nearly-a-third-35486.html

• andrew purches 21st Dec '13 - 10:33am

  And another rather critical problem in local government for us,is the stitch up that can and does take place when Cabinet rule,rather than committee rule is the order of the day. Tory cabels are very effective at leaving everyone out of meaningful decision making, even their own supporters, expecting them to be rubber stampers at Council and doing little else. Perhaps we need Unitary authorities throughout the Realm, with more political balance reflecting the %age vote caste for each candidate.

• Chris Greaves 21st Dec '13 - 12:03pm

  @ Mark Valladares
  I also very much agree with you. I stood for the local Council in 2010 and actually went round knocking on some doors, and managed to pick up 840 votes. I stood again in a by-election in the same ward in 2011, when we put out an address but for strategic reasons did no active campaigning and the result was 87 votes. But at least I achieved my personal objective in the by-election, which was to beat UKIP . . . .

• Mark Thompson 21st Dec '13 - 1:34pm

  The Lib Dems are a niche party for niche members of society. And the more Nick Clegg goes on about his pro EU stance the more you appear to be undemocratic. Your denial of the effects of mass immigration is turning huge numbers of people off your party.

• Chris 21st Dec '13 - 2:17pm

  “It would be interesting to see what happens where we are actually campaigning on the ground, compared to where we aren’t, but without some proper research, I fear that we won’t find out for certain.”

  I don’t quite follow this. If we’re comparing the performance in by-elections with previous local election results in the same wards, won’t that mean we’re automatically comparing like with like, in terms of local campaigning resources? Unless, of course, there are significant areas where the party has lost the ability to campaign on the ground, where that ability previously existed.

• theakes 21st Dec '13 - 3:12pm

  The very noticeable transfer of votes over recent weeks from Lib Dem to UKIP is very interesting. We do not seem to wish to discuss this but it does suggest how flimsy the Lib Dem vote is, protest is now with UKIP. Not much left for the Lib Dems,
  will we get double figure representation in the next house?

• Simon Shaw 21st Dec '13 - 3:28pm

  @theakes
  “The very noticeable transfer of votes over recent weeks from Lib Dem to UKIP is very interesting.”

  Is there evidence of that? If party X goes up by 10% and party Y goes down by 10% it is almost always wrong to assume that this means there is a straight transfer between the two. That is one of the strongest lessons I remember from the Butler (et al) Nuffield Election Studies.

• Chris 21st Dec '13 - 3:59pm

  “Is there evidence of that? If party X goes up by 10% and party Y goes down by 10% it is almost always wrong to assume that this means there is a straight transfer between the two.”

  People being what they are, there’s never going to be straight transfer between two parties. But when, for example, party X goes up by 41.9 points and party Y goes down by 35.9 points, it seems likely that there has been a rather substantial transfer between the two, doesn’t it?

• Graham Evans 21st Dec '13 - 5:25pm

  @robdn Even if one accepts that the LDs are now perceived as pale Tories, there is no evidence that dumping the leader, repudiating our role in government, and swinging to the left would improve our electoral prospects. For all his faults Miliband has sewn up the left-wing anti-Tory vote; it might even he enough to get him an overall majority in parliament. In the period leading up to 1997 the LDs were perceived as part of an anti-Tory alliance, in which voters opted for whichever party could knock out the Tory. UKIP now offers an alternative anti-Tory option, so the concept of an left inclined anti-Tory alliance is now dead and buried.

• robdn 21st Dec '13 - 6:32pm

  @ Graham Evans
  Perhaps I was not clear that the Lib Dems should regain the BROAD party position which includes all LD voters – not leaning one way or the other, left or right (social LDs or economic LDs but both). I would never suggest that the party becomes narrower but rather remains or becomes broader if it HAS actually narrowed its potential by limiting itself to listening to one section of the party membership. All parties need to be broadly based as that makes them vital and appreciated by a wide section of the electors – and therefore electable. I hope my point is clearer.

• tonyhill 21st Dec '13 - 10:46pm

  Mark – sorry about the belated response, but it seems unlikely that in the Haywards Heath County Division (in which I used to live) which we held until this May that we would have put in no effort at the by-election on Thursday. I have done some very limited research on other recent by-elections and unfortunately it is not necessarily the case that a derisory vote is a reflection of a minimal campaign. There are places where in the past we would have polled respectably on a reasonable campaign where now we are picking up a lamentably small number of votes for not much less of an effort. This is not pessimism: it is seeing what is there staring us in the face. Bandying around statistics about vote decline is pointless in a situation where, as Kris Kristofferson put it, “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose”.

• tonyhill 21st Dec '13 - 11:08pm

  Or Bob Dylan actually!

• Julian Dean 22nd Dec '13 - 8:44am

  Maghull in Merseyside! Its a good tactic and one adopted by the right to target the constituencies with the least social need and depravation, its probably why the party enjoys sich success in places such as Birkdale.

• JohnTilley 22nd Dec '13 - 9:33am

  tonyhill 21st Dec ’13 – 10:46pm
  “… … I have done some very limited research on other recent by-elections and unfortunately it is not necessarily the case that a derisory vote is a reflection of a minimal campaign. …”

  tonyhill should be listened to .

  I can understand party loyalists trying to stay cheerful but how low does the party have to fall before they will admit to the truth?

  This poverty of ambition by those loyal to Clegg is self-perpetuating. They go on about how it is all very difficult, that they are sacrificing the party for the good of the country. That it would be worse under Labour. And they repeatedly bang their heads on the new religion of “austerity” so that they will feel better when they stop. And we should all be happy that we might scrape out of the 2015 election with more than 40 MPs.and a few victories in parish councils on the way (so long as the turnout remains below 15%.).

  When will they wake up?

• FormerLibDem 22nd Dec '13 - 10:59am

  If the party gets more than 40 MP’s in 2015 it will be a miracle

• Simon Shaw 22nd Dec '13 - 1:17pm

  @Julian Dean
  “Maghull in Merseyside! Its a good tactic and one adopted by the right to target the constituencies with the least social need and depravation, its probably why the party enjoys sich success in places such as Birkdale.”

  I’m not sure what you are trying to say, apart from possibly suggesting that you are on the far left of the political spectrum.

  1. Labour have targeted Maghull over the last few years. Does that mean that you think they are part of “the right”?

  2. Anyway, Maghull and (my own) Birkdale Ward are not areas with “the least social need and depravation”. Yes, they do not have the very highest social need and depravation, but are very much in the middle 50%, i.e. like a lot of the rest of the country. I never understand why people on the far left appear to be happy to cede the majority of the country to “the right”.

  3. The reason why the Party enjoys “rich success” in certain places is almost always due to hard work. Certainly that has been the case in Birkdale. That’s essentially the point that Mark Valladares made at 10.57pm on 20th Dec ’13.

• Simon Shaw 22nd Dec '13 - 1:20pm

  FormerLibDem
  “If the party gets more than 40 MP’s in 2015 it will be a miracle”

  No, it will be due to hard work.

• FormerLibDem 22nd Dec '13 - 2:40pm

  Simon Shaw, with the best will in the world (and probably with the best of intentions) you are deceiving yourself. Where are the votes going to come from? The Lib Dems have comprehensibly alienated a significant proportion of their base – and have attracted no new support whatsoever. Essentially, the problem is this: If you DISAPPROVE of the govt, why should you vote Lib Dem? If you APPROVE of the government , why not just vote for the Tories? As i said in an earlier post, why vote for the monkey when you can vote for the organ grinder? As things stand, the Lib Dems national position is hopeless. Therefore, the only alternative is to fight a “57 byelections” campaign. And this is probably the most damaging admission of total surrender imaginable. To follow such a strategy (and to think that hard work on the ground will solve the party’s problem) is a tacit admission that the party’s national position can no longer be defended. Face it, parties don’t generally fight general elections as if they were 57 separate byelections unless they are in deep trouble, do they? I know you care passionately about the party (so did I, once upon a time) but don’t let that blind you to the seriousness of the position out there. However, I wish you a Happy Christmas and a good 2014.

• JohnTilley 22nd Dec '13 - 3:11pm

  Simon Shaw 22nd Dec ’13 – 1:20pm
  FormerLibDem
  “If the party gets more than 40 MP’s in 2015 it will be a miracle”

  No, it will be due to hard work.

  Have you considered that it would need a miracle for people to be able to work that hard ?

• Sesenco 22nd Dec '13 - 4:10pm

  The collapse of our support in Mid-Sussex ought to be setting alarm-bells ringing even among the most enthusiastic supporters of the so-called “coalition”. The rationale behind the leadership strategy of moving the party to the right is: (1) that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories share a common ideology, so a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is a natural meeting of minds; and (2) that if we discard our centre-left supporters, an even larger number of voters who are economically conservative but socially liberal will flock to us. If such voters exist in great numbers, then one would expect to find them in Haywards Heath. This isn’t 1950s England. This is a prosperous suburb with a fast rail link to London. Yet voters there are flocking to a party to the right of the Tories! I predict that if we remain within the “coalition” up to polling-day 2015, we will be left with 3 or possibly 4 MPs, none of whom will represent constituencies in England. I’m not going to waste ink blaming the Leadership. Over 90% of members who attended the special conference in Birmingham voted in favour of the “coalition”, so the blame must be fairly and democratically shared. There is one way, and only one way, to avert electoral Armageddon, and that is to exit the “coalition” forthwith.

• David Dobbie 22nd Dec '13 - 8:44pm

  Very well done Lesley in taking Scotter back from the Tories after 12years. The former Lib Dem County Councilor (& former Deputy Leader of Lincs CC, when it was last a coalition run council) Maurice French, who died last year, would of been the happiest to have seen it return to the Liberal fold. Hopefully Lesley will retain it for more than the 20years Maurice held it by representing all the constituents as he did and not having the typical Tory complacency of expecting to get a candidate that lived 20 miles away elected in the most N.W. part of Lincs. The UKIP challenge since May in Lincs has fallen away due to the LincIP/UKIP split. 🙂

• Simon Shaw 22nd Dec '13 - 9:31pm

  @Sesenco
  “The rationale behind the leadership strategy of moving the party to the right is: (1) that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories share a common ideology, so a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is a natural meeting of minds; and (2) that if we discard our centre-left supporters, an even larger number of voters who are economically conservative but socially liberal will flock to us.”

  I think you are mistaken if you think that is the rationale. I think, rather, that it is that moving slightly to the right to a more centrist position is the only logical strategy unless we only ever envisage entering a coalition with Labour.

  I’ll also ask the same question as I have asked before. Who do you expect the voters in the middle 20% to 30% of the Left-Right political spectrum to primarily vote for? Incidentally, personally I would not categorise that 20% to 30% as being “economically conservative but socially liberal”.

• Peter Watson 22nd Dec '13 - 10:58pm

  @Simon Shaw “Who do you expect the voters in the middle 20% to 30% of the Left-Right political spectrum to primarily vote for?”
  I expect most of them to decide whether on balance they approve more of tory or labour policies, or to prioritise one important policy over the others, and pick one of those two parties accordingly. Just as most voters have done for many years. This was thankfully a decreasing trend, but I fear that the behaviour of the Lib Dems in coalition might have set back the cause of multi-party politics, except for those parties with a strong link to a region (e.g. SNP, PC) or issue (e.g. Green, independents).
  Your final sentence sums up the problem faced by a centrist party by highlighting that the ‘centre’ contains those who are “economically conservative but socially liberal” but equally those who are “economically liberal but socially conservative”. And those who are a little bit conservative or liberal on both areas. How can the Lib Dems or any self-professed “centrist” party hope to be a suitable home for every combination of political views which places an individual voter as neither consistently to the left or to the right? On every issue, for each voter the party satisfies it will disappoint another, but it is unpredictable which way it will go. At least if I vote Labour or Conservative, I can have reasonable confidence when they will make me happy and when they will make me angry, but I no longer know what to expect from the Lib Dems.

• Simon Shaw 23rd Dec '13 - 9:44am

  @Peter Watson
  You clearly believe that Britain should have just two parties – Labour and Conservative.

  Which rather begs the question as to why you post on Lib Dem Voice.

• Paul K 23rd Dec '13 - 10:36am

  @Simon Shaw

  @Peter Shaw is reflecting the standard two-party tribal narrative, which runs deep particularly on the left of politics.

  For example, I was out canvassing in an estate on Saturday (wasn’t everyone?) and still got the standard question: “The Tories represent the rich, Labour represents the poor. Who do the Lib Dems represent?” He did accept that rich-poor polarisation is unhealthy , and we need something in between these two extremes, but “something for everyone” remains a difficult message to sell, even at Christmas.

• Paul K 23rd Dec '13 - 10:37am

  Sorry I meant @Peter Watson obviously!

• Peter Watson 23rd Dec '13 - 1:32pm

  @Peter Watson “You clearly believe that Britain should have just two parties – Labour and Conservative.”
  Nonsense. I suggest you read a post before replying to it.

• Peter Watson 23rd Dec '13 - 1:41pm

  @Simon Shaw “Which rather begs the question as to why you post on Lib Dem Voice.”
  Having been a member (of the Liberal Party and the SLD) and voted for that party or its descendants in every election from the mid 80s up to 2010 (apart from the 1997 General Election when I lived in a tory seat winnable by Labour), I come to this site for reasons to vote Lib Dem again. Sadly I find few.

• Simon Shaw 23rd Dec '13 - 5:31pm

  @Peter Watson
  “‘You clearly believe that Britain should have just two parties – Labour and Conservative.’
  Nonsense. I suggest you read a post before replying to it.”

  I did. Perhaps you didn’t mean what you wrote.

  Your response to my question (actually addressed at someone else): “Who do you expect the voters in the middle 20% to 30% of the Left-Right political spectrum to primarily vote for?” was: “I expect most of them to decide whether on balance they approve more of tory or labour policies, or to prioritise one important policy over the others, and pick one of those two parties accordingly.

  As most of the right-ward and left-ward 35% to 40% can be expected to vote Conservative and Labour respectively, the only logical deduction from your comment is that you, personally, believe that Britain should have just two parties – Labour and Conservative. That is what I said.

  If you meant something else then you need to explain why you said what you did.

• Peter Watson 23rd Dec '13 - 9:00pm

  @Simon Shaw
  I wrote that I expect most of them to pick one of Labour or Conservative. Polling suggests that more will do that than will choose the Lib Dems, and over the years much Lib Dem electoral success has come from exploiting a two(ish)-party system by capitalising on antipathy to either one of the big two. I did not write that people should vote that way, and apart from a Labour vote in 1997 I had never done so myself up to and including May 2010. I also wrote that voting for one of those two parties was “thankfully a decreasing trend”, and suggested that voters might still look to other parties or independents. Perhaps your definition of “should” is different from mine.
  I believe that, sadly, the Lib Dems in government have done much to damage the appeal of a third mainstream party by appearing to endorse enthusiastically policies that contradicted previous positions and making it unclear what principles such a party is founded upon. The centre-ground is an attractive notion but too hard for a political party to define let alone stake a claim to. Claiming that it is half-way between the Conservatives and Labour is not helpful as that shifts with every new policy either of those parties adopts. It is also pointless: why not just leave those two parties to negotiate without the Lib Dems? What is the unique selling point of the Lib Dems?

• Mark Valladares 24th Dec '13 - 4:57am

  Actually, I think that there is evidence of a differential effect in terms of Liberal Democrat support.

  In my part of the world, where we had done no work in 2009, we picked up 200 or so votes. In 2013, that vote collapsed. Yet in wards that we held, and had campaigned in, we hung on in 2013.

  So, the question is, is a significant proportion of the vote share that we have lost nationally in places where we had little chance of winning anyway and, if that’s so, does this support the suggestion that Liberal Democrat MPs can defy the uniform swing theory and hang on?

  It implies that, in many places, in 2010, our support was broad but shallow, which might seem a bit depressing on the face of it, but explains why we had so few good second places. We therefore must focus our efforts, as was always the advice, in places where we can win.

  It is, though, only a theory, and without some meaningful analysis of relative effort in individual wards, it is very hard to validate.

• Rebecca Taylor 24th Dec '13 - 7:12pm

  @Andrew: we are screaming the dangers of an EU exit. Every piece of literature that goes out from MEPs is full of such messages and Nick, Danny and Vince and others have been very clear on the danger to British jobs and investment. Nick even called Eurosceptics unpatriotic! We are fighting a pro-European campaign for 2014 as the party of IN and our key message is “In Europe, In Work”.

  I am slightly concerned that you appear to have no idea of this. I know it’s difficult for us to get our messages in mainstream media especially re the EU, but all the broadsheets have carried such stories.

• Eddie Sammon 24th Dec '13 - 7:30pm

  We need to stop scaremongering about EU exit. If people are genuinely scared about exiting the EU then I suggest they look up the phenomenon called adaption.