It can almost be universally agreed that 2019 (until the end) was ‘the year’ to be a Liberal Democrat. We saw a Local Election renaissance and won seats hand over fist (sadly not mine in Lancaster), we walked the Euro Elections with a 1500% increase in seats and won over defectors galore. But by December, we lost our leader, many of our MPs and missed most of our target seats. I think we have to be frank about the state of British Liberalism; however, I believe solace can be found in our prior success and our ability as a Party to reflect on failure and adapt.
The party to many seems to be rather gutless in the current climate and many ways, that is understandable. We’re facing a global viral pandemic; COVID-19 has halted every facet of society. Moreover, it has to be respected that Ed Davey and Mark Pack must find themselves in an awkward position. As interim leaders, they have to serve a role of continuity until a new face can take over. I have every confidence in the party leadership to keep the party functioning in the present, especially with our elected representatives playing a pivotal role in their communities fighting the virus. But going forward, I fear licking the wounds dealt by the December election could be a path to terminal decline. For a new leader, I think we should also call it a new start.
In terms of how we electorally salvage our party, I believe we already know the correct answers. Firstly, I think it was naïve and reductionist to attribute our 2019 Local Election success to Brexit. Many wins were four years in the making; Local Parties turned 2015 misery into 2019 success with dedicated community activists. Community Politics has sent Liberals to Westminster before and can easily do so again. Secondly, we need to rediscover our radical roots and a concrete position. In 2005, a strong centre-left, liberal platform afforded us our best showing in Westminster with 62 seats. It seems promising to be seeing pledges on UBI and public services from Layla Moran, but whoever takes over must recognise this to progress.
Practically speaking, we have to be realistic of the situation, we can presume a greater equilibrium in the Lab-Con dynamic as Starmer cements his position throughout the Parliament. We must accept the lack of electoral reform in this Parliament. Non-Aggression is the only solution; coalition building can wait but attacks on Corbyn only consolidated a message of chaos in opposition. A focus on opposition should allow Labour and ourselves to focus in our respective strongholds. In the next Parliament, we can push for reform from government or opposition in hopefully more substantial numbers.
* I am a Wirral member and the current Chair of North West Young Liberals.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1297
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Brexit putting England and Wales tap water safety at risk
Regional Candidates Committee - let the verwaltung* commence (but not until the New Year)
Should Labour move to the right on immigration? The Week in Polls
4th Dec
Nonconformistradical
David Garlick
Simon R
Mick Taylor
Diana Simpson
12 Comments
This article conveniently ignores our performance in 2010, which was of course our best ever in terms of vote share, which was achieved with a manifesto anchored in the centre ground.
In truth, the ideology of our manifesto matters very little. Nick did well because he was charismatic and was able to communicate to ordinary voters. We also had policies that were relevant to normal people, such as the personal allowance increase.
I also wish people would give it a rest with the constant calls for UBI as a panacea with no indication at all as to how it would be funded- it’s getting like bingo on here and seems to be mentioned in every post.
In reality, UBI would result in most people being worse off after you’ve trebled income tax to fund it.
“we walked the Euro Elections ….” ??
Maybe you should have run? As far as I remember you finished second.
I enjoyed the first paragraph which had a science fiction feel to it. 2019 was a great year and if you run time backwards it ended on a high note.
Trying to work out how well we will do in any set of Local Elections is complicated, its a matter of how much better we are doing compared to 4 Years before versus the same calculation for The Tories, our main rivals in Local Government. It was always likely that we would make substantial Gains in 2019 just because we did so badly in 2015 ( see Coalition).
It was fairly predictable that our Gains in May would give us a temporary Boost in The Polls, thats a familiar pattern, we go up in The Summer when “Journalists” are asleep & by the time Politics “Wakes Up” again in The Autumn the Boost has faded without most Voters even noticing.
What was different about 2019 was that The Tories gave us a second set of Elections a few Weeks after the Locals, allowing The Boost to do us some good & giving us a further Boost which rather went to our Heads, but that is another Story.
We cant expect that peculiar set of events to ever repeat but we can go on rebuilding our Local Government Base.
I’ll reply to some of the comments raised. Firstly, the issue with 2010 is while we did so well in terms of popular vote, we sadly have to let that translate into seats. I would love PR to negate that issue. And in terms of translating local success to national success, I accept it isn’t a given and definitely takes work. We didn’t have the time in 2019 to do this. My point is to allow the work in time for 2024. But you raise a good point.
Encouraging to read this, thank you, Tom – I like your sense and your spirit. Yes, we need once more a strong centre-left Liberal platform, and we can surely start to build it again in the next few months.
I couldn’t care less whether our platform passes the purity tests set by the “left wing” arbiters of morality.
I do, however, agree strongly with the conclusion to this piece – we must concentrate our attacks on the Tories. The seats we are most likely to gain are held by them and the voters we are most likely to entice voted for them in 2019. It’s a waste of time attacking Labour, just as it’s a waste of their time attacking us. There is frankly no point in us spending this parliament equivocating and playing a clever dick game of equidistance – this Tory government is a disgrace and we need it gone.
Every general election is sui generis. There is no more point to re-contesting 2005 than 1955. The position open to us in 2005 is firmly shut because Labour has cornered the centre-left and reclaimed its moral authority both ideologically (Corbyn) and now pragmatically (Starmer). It’s true that Blair’s rapidly growing authoritarianism after 9/11 allowed us to run off with Labour’s conscience for two elections. But that door is now locked and bolted and we’re not here just to be other party’s moral consciences as and when they let us. If we allow that then we’ll always be hoisted by our petard every time we enter government. We’re here to administer sharp jolts to both parties by showing them that liberalism remains an enduring set of principles that magnetizes a significant minority of the electorate.
John Smith
is the answer to a questionnaire the doctors use to test our short-term memory and risk of further decay inn ageing.
He was elected as the leader of the Labour Party after Neil Kinnock resigned and had played his own part as Shadow Chancellor in causing that unexpected defeat by the Tories in 1992. Guardian economist Chris Huhne explained a similar policy of aligning income tax with earnings related National Insurance, to flatten out a perceived anomaly and hope that the electorate did not notice the increase they would be paying. One Conservative MP had resigned his seat in the expectation of this mass defeat. A policy of privatisation continued, despite the practical difficulties in rail transport.
BBC News has today carried live at lunchtime the statement by the First Minister in Wales (Labour) (and in Welsh). He should have been followed by the Education Secretary for Wales, but we did not see her in England.
His preference for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to work together could be repeated later this afternoon, depending on who represents the government in the daily Downing Street press conference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
was an important part of the peace conference which followed the Great War by explaining that Germany could not afford to pay reparations. The UK Prime Minister (DLG) took a similar view, but the French did not. Enforcement was problematic.
After WW2 the unconquered USA offered Marshall Aid to damaged countries, but were refused by the USSR and other communist countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes