The frantic and febrile environment of a general election isn’t always conducive to clear-headed thinking, but I fear we Lib Dems are guilty of some serious fuzzy-headedness that even a general election shouldn’t excuse.
This is the background. We tumbled from 57 seats to 8 at the last election. This election is all about limiting Theresa May’s majority, and under a voting system that doesn’t help us. If we’re smart about it, we could boost our seats to the point where we have a healthy bloc that will recapture the oxygen of publicity needed to push liberalism to a wider audience. If we’re not smart, our number of parliamentary seats could actually go down.
Against this background, the Greens have offered to stand down in about a dozen seats if we stand down in one. Sounds like a good offer, eh? Except the local Lib Dem party in the one seat we’re being asked to stand down in has said no.
That seat is the Isle of Wight, and it’s important to stress that the local party there is being very honourable. Its brief is to fight for liberalism, and as we had the MP there until 2001, it’s potentially fertile ground for us. So IoW Lib Dems have quite reasonably said this is an election where we need to rebuild the Lib Dem base, and in principle we should support that.
But given where we’re starting from, given how much is at stake, given that it could make the difference between having a single-digit number of MPs and a number in the 20s, someone should be guiding the Isle of Wight party about the wider implications their decision could have.
Let’s be clear – we’re talking about the Greens here, not Labour. Several respondents to my posts on LDV have made it clear they don’t consider Labour a progressive party. That’s an argument for another day, but even with the many Labour people I share a lot of values with, I don’t believe we should be making any deals with a Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. I think we should be receptive to the people Corbyn has attracted into politics, as many of them are looking for that ‘something better’ that we also seek, but I see very little in common between the policies of Corbyn, McDonnell et al and liberalism.
Which is why I’m baffled at our approach to another seat which is crying out for us to be smart. In Jeremy Hunt’s constituency South West Surrey, Louise Irvine is standing as an independent National Health Action Party candidate. She’s the GP who successfully fought the downgrading of casualty and maternity units at Lewisham hospital, and beat Hunt in court. She could beat Hunt again if she had a clear run, and the Greens have already said they will stand aside.
We’ve said we might, but only if Labour does. This is misguided! We should not make any decision conditional on Labour. We are fighting hard to highlight that this election is about more than Brexit, including the likelihood that the Tories will take another axe to the NHS. So if we stand down, and Labour doesn’t, we can rightly claim the moral high ground on health.
I realise cross-party cooperation is difficult, and I myself have argued that it doesn’t always have to be about standing down candidates. But given the unique situation we’re in, the fact that even paperless candidates attract enough votes to affect results (as we saw in the recent council elections), and the absence of a fair voting system, we need to be clearer-headed in our thinking.
* Chris Bowers is a two-term district councillor and four-time parliamentary candidate. He writes on cross-party cooperation and in 2021 was the lead author of the New Liberal Manifesto.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers' Diary: Conservative members are now attacking their real enemy... each other
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A quiet conference
From Creeting St Peter to the (Liberal Democrat) world...
On the 20th anniversary of the Orange Book
David Le Grice
Roland
Mick Dyer
Steve Trevethan
Tim Oliver
59 Comments
The Tory majority in Bath is smaller than the Green vote.
The Greens have that as one of their top three target seats.
IoW LDs shouldn’t even consider it until the Greens stand down in Bath.
I’m not in politics to be a “not Tory”. I’m in politics to be a Liberal – to elect Liberals to political institutions. The Progressive Alliance is merely a device to shuffle voters between “not Tory” parties. So I reject it on the grounds that it doesn’t do the real work of converting voters from -all- other parties to Liberalism; rather seeks to shuffle some voters between different “not Tory” parties.
Secondly, I cannot stress this enough – this plays directly into CCHQ’s attack lines. Every time we bang on about this alliance, they get fresh quotes to stick on their leaflets about a “coalition of chaos”. Vince’s remarks the other day were very quickly turned into graphics and uploaded onto Twitter by CCHQ. Did we learn nothing from 2015? We absolutely must never, ever, ever repeat or reinforce someone else’s attack lines – we need total, tight message discipline if we are to break through.
Happy-go-lucky amatuerism is fine if your opponents aren’t ruthless, well-resourced, and efficient. We have none of those advantages – let’s stop feeding Tory attack lines, stop pretending like we can get away without talking to icky Tories, and focus on the hard work of getting voters to switch to us in our target seats because they want to vote Lib Dem.
Chris Bowers’ analysis is spot on here although I’m unclear what he means by ‘guiding the IoW party …’ As an ex-Labour Party member, I know that there are many individual members who don’t support its current leadership and who we could work with locally. What we mustn’t do is get close to the Labour Party itself, its policies or organisation. Nor should our actions be determined by Labour’s decisions. After its coming General Election defeat I expect there will be plenty of disillusioned Labour members, supporters and even some MPs open to joining/supporting us. This will be especially true if Corbyn remains leader or is replaced by someone equally toxic and hard left such as John McDonnell.
This is not the “only seat” the Greens want the Lib Dems to stand down in. They have asked “half the planet” to persuade us to stand down in Bristol West. Only two problems with that. We held it until two years ago and just beat them comfortably two weeks ago in the West of England Mayoral election!
It never fails to strike me how the Green Party claim to be against First Past the Post; and yet are also the first to exacerbate its defects by calling for progressive alliances.
You call yourselves Liberal Democrats but our democratic system relies on voters being given a choice of parties. It makes a mockery of voters’ decisions when parties stand aside – as though your party’s voters belong tribally to your own party and should be directed to whichever party you wish as only your party commands. In every seat in which the Lib Dems stand aside a candidate, they diminish the democratic choice in that seat. Yes, you can encourage tactical voting – but that is different from not giving voters the choice at all.
And frankly, the votes at the moment are with the Tories and not Labour and the Greens. The effort spent in amassing an electoral alliance with these two parties would be better spent working out how to encourage more disaffected Tory Remainers to vote Liberal Democrat (an appeal which at the moment should be unique to the Lib Dems). The more the campaign focuses on Corbyn’s weaknesses, the less credible the claim that the Lib Dems are better placed than him to be the Opposition: at least Corbyn criticises the government, not other opposition parties.
I agree with Chris Bowers this is no time for tribalism.
It gives me no joy to say that the Isle of Wight Lib Dems were beaten by the Greens in every council seat last week and mostly got derisory votes less than three figures.
Given that this used to be a Lib Dem parliamentary seat until 2001 – and we finished second in 2010 – something must have gone dreadfully wrong with the IOW Lib Dems when we dropped to fifth (two places behind the Greens) in 2015, and from 22,000 votes to 5,000 votes. Can it just be the Coalition factor or is there more to it ?
As for Jeremy Hunt, Labour has expelled the local members who wanted to stand down, so tribalism triumphs again.
We’ve already committed not to stand in Caroline Lucas’ Brighton and Hove constituency, and while it’s not much of a loss for us not to stand there, nor is it much of a loss to the Greens not to stand in places like Richmond Park and Twickenham.
I’m very comfortable with the idea of us standing down, where appropriate, and I don’t blame the Greens for wanting a bit of reciprocity, but they are being unrealistic with some of the requests, and IMO, over-egging their sacrifice by not standing in places like Richmond Park. The Greens can’t afford to lose too many deposits, or to run campaigns in every constituency, so nobly standing down is a win-win for them. They save money, get publicity and goodwill all at the same time.
I’m sure there are some seats where it would be reasonable for us to stand down, and I don’t blame the Greens for asking, but some of their requests are simply not viable, either for them to win, or for us to not stand.
On the other hand, we really shouldn’t have to think for more than five minutes before deciding to stand down in Jeremy Hunt’s constituency. We have no chance of winning, and nor does any regular political candidate, but a dedicated candidate, such as the GP, could run him close, and put him and his policies under close scrutiny.
I see Natalie Bennett is standing in Sheffield Central where the Greens came second last time and there was a catastrophic fall in the Lib Dem vote.
Is Joe Otten going st stand down this time ?
The party needs to work out what it is:
Is it a not Tory Party? If so apologise for the coalition and ask other parties to stand down but be prepared to return the favour and remember your voter base will always be soft as people will have voted for you because of what you are not, not what you are.
The other alternative is to be a liberal party that doesn’t do deals because the other parties are not liberals.
I suspect the party will choose the former, they have been slowly moving that way since they started the two horse race style of campaigning decades ago. One sniff of power was always going to impode a voter base built that way.
I sense an almost glib assumption that if we stand down our voters will automatically vote Green or, in SW Surrey (which I know well) for the NH candidate. Don’t bank on it! They might well decide to do nothing or vote for another candidate. No way should we stand down in SW Surrey – please let’s not intellectualise about ” put him and his policies under close scrutiny”. That would really hurt!! Get real – most people probably don’t know what they want, sadly, and the LDs need to stop expecting the electorate to “come to their senses” as a result of meek arguments – we need to be much more abrasive and in the electorate’s face.
1. The only way the Greens can get another MP is to get others to stand down. It is not in our short and long self interest to be compliant to their desires
2. The Greens are very, very left wing, economically, strategically, military alliances etc, where we are much closer to the Conservatives than the Greens and that is saying something
3. Surrey South West, we came within a hairs breath of winning that in the 1981 by election and in 2001. The coalition and a local party problem destroyed us last time. It is a seat where we are bound to come back in time and where we will probably come second this time once the voters have worked it all out.
4. I O Wight, Liberal MP for several years after February 1974 and again 1997. Again we will bounce back there once the coalition is forgotten, essential to stand and make the first steps on that path. The Greens have a damn nerve with their request
5. Sheffield Central: badly mauled by the coalition and Tuition Fees in this high student population seat. Since 2015 the Greens have fallen back nationally and in votes in Sheffield, see the parliamentary by election there last year, whilst we started to come back on the local Council last year. Again Central should be on our hit list next time, provided we stand this time and start to get our vote back.
6. The Greens are are rivals, we have to demolish them not give them more staging posts.
7. See Vincent Cable is down to speak at a Compass meeting next Monday. he should politiely withdraw, more pressing matters to atted to.
I think a lot of voters will take a very dim view of politicians trying to barter their votes between different parties. Those voters who wish to vote in a tactical manner are already perfectly free to do so and many will. Those who prefer to vote for the party they believe in (hopefully the Liberal Democrats, of course) shouldn’t be denied the chance to do so.
The only certainty I see arising from parties withdrawing from contests is a fall in voter turnout. People won’t bother eat at a restaurant (polling station) if they don’t like any of the options on the menu (ballot paper). The Liberal Democrats have to be on the menu.
Speaking just for myself, as a very new Lib Dem party member with a predominantly Conservative voting past history, there’s no way in the world I’d consider voting anything other than Lib Dem under any circumstances at this election – and certainly not Green as I consider Lucas to be a “stunt and gesture” politician of the very worst kind.
Progressive Alliance = losers?
Refusing to give voters a choice of the party they actually want to vote for ?
We can’t win so we’re throwing in the towel ?
We shouldn’t be doing these kinds of pacts: it’s playing directly into the Conservative narrative. Even if Labour isn’t part of this “coalition”, many people will assume they are and vote accordingly (as in: go Tory). Also, this is potentially putting off people looking for an alternative to the Conservatives or Labour: they don’t see the Greens as an option (too small a party to make a difference), but they need convincing that the Lib Dems wouldn’t be a wasted vote.
Firstly let me correct David Raw in his figures. The Greens did not beat the Lib Dems in EVERY seat because the Lib Dems took 2 seats, as opposed to the Green ONE in the IW Council election last week. Or is he going to argue that those 2 seats were not Green opposed? If the Greens are so popular on the island, so much so that Lib Dems are queueing up to vote Green where there isn’t a Lib Dem candidate how come the Greens didn’t take more than ONE seat? After all there were 7 other seats begging. No the Greens aren’t as popular on the island as they would like to make out, and the REAL truth is that even if the Lib Dems didn’t field a candidate, and assuming all Lib Dem voters voted Green (which they won’t) it won’t make an iota of difference on the result – they still won’t beat the Tories. The Lib Dems lost a huge amount of voters in 2015 because the voters were disgusted with their performance in the Coalition, their broken promises and the fact that they were stupid enough to field a candidate from the mainland who had no connections to the island. Those who understand island mentality would know how much influence a home grown candidate can have. Don’t play with voters. If the Greens were so good they would win on their own policies and not need favours from the other parties. I for one would rather spoil my paper than vote Green given their performance in this snap election.
This is based on a number of false assumptions – that voters will go where we tell them & that The Greens are in the same league as us. We actually dont know if we would even be first choice for Green voters denied a candidate, Labour seem more likely in many places. Over the last few weeks average Green support in The Polls has fallen from 4% to 3%, they are being squeezed.
For comparison, in the 5 Polls since The Local Elections, we are averaging just over 10%, up about 1% on the 10 Polls before May 4th.
With you all the way Chris.
This is not the election to demonstrate we can be as tribal as Labour.
Today it was leaked that May is looking at the fox-hunting debate again – because if there is something needed to unite backwards looking Tories post a successful leave campaign it’s foxhunting – and is ensuring that Tory safe seats are taken by those most likely to vote in favour of its return. If by standing down a candidate/offering a paper candidate in 5 seats we take out 5 pro-hunting MP’s then it will be worth the cost, if by not contesting in another 5 seats we elect a Tory MP willing to stand up for electoral reform to reflect our nation of divided opinions then bring it on, and if by doing so we increase a lib dem’s chance in 7-10 other seats then the party is on it’s way to doubling in size.
In all probability I doubt we’ll win IoW back in the next 20 years, it’s a very difficult seat to target and we have bigger priorities in Hampshire.
That said it’s completely the wrong territory for the greens, their local “success” there is like labour winning more votes in a southern rural seat; the most they can hope for is to be a noticeable minority.
There is also some hope for us with the incumbent standing down after calling homosexuals “a danger to society” and the prospect of the seat bieng split next time allowing members on the island to target the most winnable one. Its also very expensive and potentially time consuming to cross the solent to reach our Hampshire targets so if we stand down a lot of members will likely stay at home and do nothing.
As Cyril Smith MP would have put it, “the Greens should have been strangled at birth “. By the way is it still ok to quote him?
This is the time for pluralism not tribalism;
I joined the party in 1979, during the general election then, and I am a Liberal and want a Liberal government. One of my reasons for joining a party with only 11 MPs at the time (happy days!) was that our party seemed to be an antidote to the My-Party-Right-Or-Wrong tribalism that so infects the UK. I don’t want to confuse the issue of standing aside with working with Labour (which I believe has held back reform now for decades). But the Greens have enough in common with us to work with us and have the generosity of spirit to stand aside for us in two more seats tonight where we can win. I believe UK politics will feel more civilised if we reciprocate. I hope we do, because we need the seats!
Interesting that on another item, some posters mention the 1906 General Election won by Campbell-Bannerman with a Liberal landslide.
It’s often forgotten that relations with the emerging Labour Party were better managed then with Herbert Gladstone the Liberal Chief Whip in 1903 negotiating an electoral arrangement with Arthur Henderson of the Labour Party. If that had been maintained who knows what might have been. As it happened the First War shattered the Liberals – many of whom such as the great R.B. Haldane, Charles Trevelyan, Morel, and Ponsonby (CB’s successor in Stirling) all joining the Labour Party post 1918.
As to Martin’s comment, I wouldn’t take that particular individual’s word on anything. His quote sums the man up.
What Tim Oliver said. Everyone should have a chance to vote Liberal Democrat. It is deeply disrespectful to assume we could funnel our voters to a particular other party even if we wanted to.
Of course like every other party we should target our efforts at our most winnable seats, and accept that that may mean doing less in less winnable seats. But that is a different matter entirely from standing down.
We need to give every voter a chance to vote Lib Dem. It’s incredibly arrogant of any party to assume they can move voters around like chess pieces. Please don’t talk down the efforts of the local parties actively pursuing the #libdemfightback.
No, definitely not. The Greens’ “magnanimous” offer to stand aside is rather self-serving. They are looking to put pressure on us to stand aside in a few seats and appear to be playing politics to do this. The last thing our party needs at the moment is to be seen to be ganging up with our opponents – as others have said, it just feeds the Tory “coalition of chaos narrative. I would suggest Brighton Pavilion and no more – as a simple gesture towards the Greens standing aside in Richmond Park. Brighton is far from safe for the greens so this is a good offer. They are nowhere near winning anywhere else, even if they may have placed well in places in 2015 when our vote crashed.
This is on a hiding to nothing. I’ve had chats with local Greens – two weeks they were saying “oh we’d seriously consider standing down if you folks stood down in Brighton Pavilion”.
The day after we stood down in Brighton Pavilion they changed their tune to staying “oh well for us to seriously consider standing down we really need you to stand down in the Isle of Wight”.
The Greens have no hope of winning the Isle of Wight and even if we did stand down there they’d just pick another seat which they would make the condition for standing down instead – they’ll just keep moving the goal posts again and again and again.
I really do not get this “coalition of chaos” narrative. I thought we were better governed (*) between 2010 and 2015 than we had been for some time, and I lost count of the number of soft Tory voters who told me that they thought a continuation of the Coalition would be the best result.
(*) not necessarily the same as having the best policies put into effect.
The Greens are behaving like a small dog that thinks it’s a big dog, making demands that are disproportionate to their influence.
It’s very fair to say that if we were to stand down at some of these suggested seats, there’s no reason our voters would automatically think to vote Green, not least because they aren’t obvious contenders. An exception is Brighton, where I would argue that many natural LibDems were already voting Green, and it’s quite easy to make the argument that Lucas is the best option for most Libdems who are concerned about the current government’s approach to Brexit, plus if you believe in PR, as we do, then the Greens really do deserve at least one seat. There’s no point in worrying about their “extreme left-wing” economic policies, because they are so far away from having the powers to implement them, that it’s a purely academic thought exercise. We can, however, rely on them for support on a lot of environmental, health and human right’s issues.
The rational for either party standing down doesn’t hold up in so many of those other seats, and I suspect that George is right, and they’d just be demanding another seat. There’s clearly a strategy from the Greens to get members using social media to behave as if they are making huge sacrifices, and why isn’t anyone else joining in?
But we’ve always targeted seats, so let’s not kid ourselves that we’ll be campaigning hard to split the Labour vote in certain constituencies where there is a good local Labour candidate up against a Brexiteering Tory. This is all because we have a flawed voting system, and we should take care not to fall out with potential allies, never mind ourselves. I’m like David. One of the things that always appealed to me about the LibDems was that it didn’t usually come across as tribal. I accept that elections require electioneering, and we need to stand up for ourselves, but refusing to see the good in our rivals can be off-putting.
There is a difference between progressives in all parties and none working together, and propping up a minority Labour government led by Corbyn.
If we are never to do anything that leads to the Tories attacking us, then we really should give up being a political party.
Not standing candidates should be the exception rather than the rule, but we did it in Tatton and Kidderminster, and we didn’t stand candidates against John Cartwright and Rosie Barnes. There are precedents.
I know how important it is that everyone has the opportunity to vote Liberal Democrat. I was denied that opportunity last week and was forced to put my cross by the name of the Labour candidate, which I would rather not have done. I understand all that. But there are times when sacrifices have to be made, and this is one such time.
What we are faced with is a rampaging Tory Party led by Maygalomaniac, which is isolationist, xenophobic, crudely populist, is opposed to opposition, is opposed to scrutiny, tries to bypass Parliament, insults judges who get in its way, and would dismantle what remains of public services (including the NHS) given half a chance. Maygalomaniac and her minions are about to win an electoral landslide and impose an elected dictatorship. If we are to be an opposition worthy of the name, then we must do everything possible to stop this happening. Yes, even to the extent of standing down in a few seats.
Nice to be able to after much disagreement, agree so very strongly with David Raw, any quoting of Cyril Smith needs to be strangled at birth , of the quote !
George talks sense here as does Fiona. I crave a sensible united party or coalition of the radical centre and moderate centre left. The Greens are not in the tradition or of the size or significance politically, of the two parties, David Raw so rightly describes as having some history together, however good Caroline Lucas and one or two others might be.Tribalism is the monster of all politics .
I was not tribal in Labour and was very keen on the possibility of PR and pacts with this party, then.
I would like a pluralistic politics, Gaitskell and Grimond saw the merit it it before I was born, those for whom they were role models tried to do it in the eighties.
This party is the result, before that , arguably , New Labour too.
Until the Labour party gets with the project it cannot happen without mayhem.
Instead we get Mayhem !
@Bruce Meredeen
I agree. @Chris Bowers is right to say we shouldn’t be doing deals with a Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn. Association with Corbyn would be seriously damaging.
However, the Greens are not toxic. And if they stand down in a some of our key seats, it is possible that the few votes gained could make a difference to whether there is are Lib Dem or Tory MPs in those seats.
Will this mean that those who would have voted Lib Dem will, instead, vote Green? Certainly not. Indeed, it may not help them much at all. However, if the Greens stand down in a number of our key seats, I think it is very likely many of those Green voters will switch to supporting us.
@Tim Oliver
I agree that Vince’s comments were unhelpful, in that they provide ammunition to the Tory narrative of a Coalition of Chaos. However, I don’t think discussions with the Greens carry the same danger.
Prominent members of our party should avoid making statements that can be quoted out of context by the Tories. And we should also not be rude about Tory voters, if they choose to switch to us, we definitely want their votes!
We should also avoid being rude about those who have supported Corbyn. I strongly oppose Corbyn and his close advisors, but many of his supporters are decent people. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/08/15/love-your-local-corbynista/ What we need to do is provide them with an alternative that presents a programme to reduce poverty, but obviously also one that will work.
We should also avoid putting any pressure on local parties on how they make their decisions. As Chris Bowers says, the motives of the Isle of Wight Lib Dems are entirely honourable, and at the end of the day, this decision should be theirs. I hope, however, they consider what Chris is suggesting.
As some of you will know, I was very supportive of the Coalition. But the Coalition in is the past. The great challenge now is the prospect of twenty years of unchallenged Tory rule.
They are almost certain to achieve a large majority in the coming General Election. But anything that can be done to reduce that majority, to increase the number of Lib Dems who will hold them to account, should be done. There are more important things we should also do, such as travelling to places like Twickenham, Cambridge, and Southport, so that our work in the General Election gets us MPs, rather than just second places. But the Greens standing down in some of our key seats will also help.
It’s a pity that our presence in seats like Isle of Wight and Surrey SW has declined so greatly (and cannot all be blamed on the coalition). Failing to stand candidates in these seats would only emphasise our insignificance. An understanding of what has gone wrong, and the formation of plans to rebuild the local parties would be better than boosting the Greens, or one-off protest candidates.
Locally in one Division we agreed with the Greens not to put any literature out in the County Elections. The result? We got our usual level of vote and the Greens didn’t bother to put any literature out at all. I am not sure they have the capacity/energy to fight elections and I’d be very reluctant to do the same thing again.
Where on earth does the idea that the Isle of Wight is a promising seat for the Green Party come from? Other than the fact that the Green Party clearly want the Isle of Wight to be winnable, I can see little to justify this idea.
The Tories got 40.7% in 2015, UKIP 21.2, the Greens 13.4%, Labour 12.8% and Lib Dems 7.5%. That doesn’t immediately look like a good prospect for anyone except the Tories to win this time.
There were elections in the Isle of Wight last Thursday. I’ve not seen a brake down of the vote share, but the Green Party won just a single seat. That is not what one would expect of a party which has a prospect of making an electoral brake through.
If (and it’s a big if) we stand down for other parties, surely it should be where they have a chance of winning. The Isle of Wight does not seem to be such a seat.
What happens in real elections when voters have preferential voting (last week’s “metro mayors” elections):
West of England
First round: Tories 53,796 (27.30%), Lab+LD+Grn 105,475 (53.60%)
Second round: Tories 70,300 (51.61%) Lab 65,923 (48.39%)
Tees Valley
First round: Tories 40,278 (39.45%), Lab+LD 52,347 (51.27%)
Second round: Tories 48,578 (51.15%) Lab 46,400 (48.85%)
West Midlands
First round: Tories 216,280 (41.92%) Lab/LD/Grn 264,897 (51.34%)
Second round: Tories 238,628 (50.40%) Lab 234,862 (49.60%)
My conclusion: the voters don’t agree that you’re either a Tory or a not-Tory and that we not-Tories should all band together to defeat the common enemy. (And incidentally, it’s a bit bizarre that the people who throw around accusations of “tribalism” seem not to notice that they’re just seeing themselves – and all the rest of us – as part of a bigger “tribe”, to which we should apparently show allegiance…)
Ironically the Tory party kept the post war Liberal parliamentary party alive in it’s darkest hours by standing aside in Huddersfield West for Donald Wade, and Bolton East for Arthur Holt. A lesson from history perhaps.
Malcolm Todd’
I agree. As long as we don’t have to support the Judeans People’s Front.
It’s tremendously arrogant of political parties to try to tell people how to vote by these sorts of deals. It’s also demeaning the political process to one akin to “winner stays on” the pool table down the pub.
We have to accept that there was a referendum on the electoral system only a few years ago – and we lost the argument (whether it was a good argument or about the best possible electoral system are irrelevant) – so we either campaign as we are, work for some form of realignment or give up.
The best chance of a realignment starts with the decimation of Labour at the forthcoming election – anything else and they’ll believe in the one last push school of politics and wait for the political weather to change. More to the point, the media framing the debate will think that too. A massive Tory majority will cause them problems too – especially because they appear to be running as Theresa May’s team – once she starts to run into trouble, those large hidden cracks will start to re-appear there too.
Post-election, we have to be clear about what we stand for too, whether realignment happens or not – specifically, whatever form Brexit takes, it shouldn’t be a transfer of more powers to Downing Street.
Splitters!
This is a time of upheaval in politics around Europe and the world and I don’t believe we will attract the majority of voters we need by doing the same old thing as before and expecting different results. In my experience the majority of general voters – not party members – are open to a new type of politics and are keen to see an end to endless arguing between parties. Both party members and the public deserve to be treated as adults and get an explanation about why parties might stand down in certain seats; if this clarifies the need at this election to reduce the Tory landslide by electing more LibDems OR others who will oppose the Tories, then that can surely be understood and is quite likely to be welcomed by many.
If we are serious about PR for electoral reform we will anyway need to build good relationships with the other parties who could be in coalition government with us in future.
I also don’t believe that standing down a local candidate in certain seats to ensure a Tory defeat equates to any electoral ‘alliance’ with the Greens or anyone else. Its just a question of being ‘smart’ about targeting key seats, as @chrisbowers has pointed out in the past. The experience of local elections shows us clearly that even paper candidates attract enough votes to let the Tories through – so it seems the time has come to grasp the nettle of standing candidates down to promote a non-Tory (often LibDem!) win in key seats, or sitting back, doing what we did before, and watching Tories get elected..
It’s too late now for 8 June. The telling time will come when the Lib Dems, Greens and especially Labour rake through the ashes after the election. Corbyn will probably go… what comes next in the cold light of day will be interesting.
@ Kevin Maher Yes, I worked for Donald Wade in Huddersfield and got to know Arthur Holt very well at that time. I remember both with great affection.
Both were on the radical side of the party (Arthur maybe a tad more than Donald) and they owed their situation originally to a personal arrangement between Winston Churchill and Lady Violet Bonham Carter (Asquith’s daughter) in Colne Valley in 1951.
Donald was a kind very generous man with great integrity in a quiet way. Arthur was great company with a lively sense of humour (he had suffered greatly as a POW in Burma when he defied the Japanese to try to protect his men). I remember Arthur being suspended from the Commons by the Speaker for telling the Tory MP for Cheadle that he was “All p… and wind with nothing substantial to offer”.
Great Liberals, Great Men. Great fond memories.
El Sid
The other alternative is to be a liberal party that doesn’t do deals because the other parties are not liberals.
That is a completely illiberal approach. It says we are only interested in absolute power for ourselves, and suggests we must have some rigid political line that all party members are forced to obey unconditionally, because we couldn’t accept anyone who differed from that line.
No, the liberal approach to politics is to accept that there are a great variety of views, and that politics must be about working out what is the most satisfactory outcome for those views, accepting that this must inevitably mean making a compromise and hence deals. Political assemblies must be truly representative, hence proportional representation by STV, so that whatever compromises they produce would reflect what the wider population would produce if they had the time to sit down together and work them out.
The coalition is what came from an unrepresentative assembly. The Conservatives had many more seats than their share of votes, the Liberal Democrats many less, hence inevitably it was far more biased towards Conservative views than it would have been had representation been proportional. Why should we apologise for something caused by what we rigorously oppose?
The distortion ruled out the possibility of a Labour-LibDem coalition, so the idea that we voluntarily formed the coalition and could have chosen something different with very different policies is wrong. Labour throws that at us, yet the alternative would have had to be led by them, so have they ever said what it would be and what they would have offered us to make it work? No. Have they said how they would pay for university tuition and other things that the coalition cut. No.
By supposing all they needed to do was throw abuse at us without offering a real workable alternative, Labour managed to destroy themselves as well as us. Remember the pitiful “Ed Stone”?
I understand that a former Liberal Democrat MP for the Isle of Wight was very keen on euthanasia – perhaps not the mosy popular policy in a seat where there are many elderly retired people. He was defeated. Until relatively recent times the Liberals never fought all the seats, perhaps because of the cost in, for example, lost deposits. I do not want my hard earned money wasted on hopeless ventures. It should be used where good results can be expected. At the local elections in Bristol West the Greens topped the poll, Labour second and the Liberal Democrats third. It is a bit absurd for a party with 9 MPs and about 10% of the vote to get all high and mighty about giving voters a choice which will probably mean the election of another Conservative MP to swell their majority. Is that what you want – it almost seems like it.
This is all rather academic nominations close on Thursday .Your time would be better spent assisting your local candidate helping them fund a freepost leaflet through every letter box .Voters decide to tactically vote or not it should not be engineered by party hacks.
It would be wise to remember that electoral reform, if achieved some time, would, by definition, lead to greater co-operation between parties. Sometimes, this may simply be an arrangement to sustain a governing party or it could be a coalition. As Lib Dems we surely accept that working with other parties would be part and parcel of a reformed electoral system.
Therefore, we should be ready to embrace such co-operation now and who better to start the process with than the Greens and parts of the Labour party. I agree that it is a great pity that the Lib Dems have been so opposed to discussing electoral arrangements in some seats and it is now difficult to make some arrangements because of the timing. But we will need to pick up the pieces after this general election and work out how we will work with others to resist Tory programmes over the next five years. Such resistance must not just be in parliament but in the development of a major extra parliamentary campaigning movement.
It is depressing to see that so many Lib Dems seem to feel that we are closer to the Supreme Leader than we are to the centre left. If their views prvail, then we shall simply be lackeys of an increasingly right wing Toryism.
I’m from the Isle of Wight and stood as a Green Councillor for one of the wards. I have read with admiration many of the comments posted above and hope my offering will not be taken remiss.
Of the two wards Liberals won on the island, one was contested by all party’s but the Liberal standing there has had the post for many years and has the trust of his community, the second was only contested by Labour and Conservative. I admit that Green not standing there was pure luck (I dont mean to imply Green standing there would have changed the result, just that very little was done to organise the needed and effective 2 horse race that FPTP demands from the opposition in any of the Council elections on the IOW).
Although Greens only stood in 25 wards, which was certainly less than the 34 Labour stood, they did win more votes than Labour or Liberal. There is a strong independent movement on the island and they did perhaps better than any party but conservative.
The Green Party on the IOW has two advantages over any other opposition party. The first is Vix, the island’s candidate for MP, she has worked well since before the last election to maintain and promote her political profile. Out of all the island candidates this election, (to date) she is the one most recognizable to the vast majority.
Second to this is the fact that Greens have been surging, their has been a consistent and comparable growth in votes in every election since 2015.
I joined the Green Party literally three days before I confirmed my standing as a candidate in the Council elections, I mention this to indicate that I, as a person who has voted tactically in almost every General Election, felt strongly enough about ousting the conservative I matched my words with action and chose the party I felt most confident in winning the seat this election from conservative.
I am not unique as a number of other people with the same motives as myself joined Labour or Liberal believing them the best for winning…
I fear unless the island finds a Unity Candidate we… the majority who do not want conservative policies implemented, will lose
Louise Irvine stood for the National Health Action Party in South West Surrey in 2015. I’m sure she is a very lady, but her “party” demonstrated zero campaigning skills and she came fourth with less than 5,000 votes.
I see no reason to expect her to do any better this time and it makes absolutely no sense for other parties to stand down to give her a “clear run”.
I expect David LG is correct that the Isle of Wight is a difficult seat as a target because of the difficulty and reluctance of people to travel there to help out. Plus I think it has the largest electorate in the UK.
I was surprised to see Caroline Lucas on South Today yesterday launching the Green campaign on the Isle of Wight and it being called one of their targets. I was hoping we could return to second place in this election. We were 15% behind in 2010.
Until a few weeks ago the Isle of Wight council was controlled by independents and there is a long history of independents being elected on the Isle of Wight. In the local election I think the Greens achieved 12.6% of the vote, us 6.25%, the Conservatives 41.36%, the Independents 21.7% and non-aligned 6.5% (https://i.gyazo.com/a48f795981f210c69a2435609af7dce1.png). Neither us nor the Greens stood in every seat.
The case for a few deals with the Greens in this election against the Conservatives is strong, but the problem is which seats we should stand down in. It is problematic because their top target seats against the Conservatives are: Isle of Wight, Portsmouth South, Truro and Falmouth, Bath, Canterbury, Camborne and Redruth and St Austell and Newquay.
“As Cyril Smith MP would have put it, “the Greens should have been strangled at birth “. By the way is it still ok to quote him?”
No.
Smith also said “Always tell the truth, but not always before the election.” That too has been requoted since his death. It should not have been. We should repudiate Smith’s political attitudes alongside his personal life.
@Patrick Barry. The one problem with Patrick’s analysis is that even a progressive alliance will not kick the Tories out on the IOW. There are a lot of UKIPers on the island, many of whom will drift back to the Tories. In the EU referendum 62% of IOW voted leave. That gives you some idea of the political climate on the Island. It’s just not a very progressive place.
So why are the Greens so keen we should stand aside ? There are virtually no seats where the Greens are threatening to overturn the Conservatives. At least in the IOW they were in a respectable third place last time, so if we stand back they can establish themselves as the only credible non Tory party and virtually kill off the lib dems in the Island in the process. It suits their long term ambitions, but (unless we are going to fold the party in areas where we are not particularly strong) I’m not sure it suits us.
In 2013 there were 4 LD candidates in the council elections, last week there were 18. A deal might suit the arm chair strategists out there, but it clearly doesn’t suit the activists on the Island who have pulled the party away from almost total collapse over the past two years.
Yes the Isle of Wight Party deserves support. This election is a fine opportunity to see off the Greens, I would not be suprised to see Caroline Lucas lose to the Conservatives, Green voters are attracted by Corbyn and the left left Labour party, which could just let the blues in.
@ Chris Cory And how did you get on in the local elections last week ? Did any Lib Dem get into three figures ?
@David Raw. Yes. Including our win in Parkhurst which, I am told, was one of only 3 conservative loses in the whole country. I am glad you are following events on the Island so closely. You will know of the historic problems the party has faced on IOW, compounded by our national unpopularity. It is not simply tribal to want to argue the Liberal cause and your fraternal support for the efforts of the IOW party are much appreciated.
In a free society there is nothing stopping anyone from quoting anyone including Cyril Smith. However if a person quotes someone in a favourable way they should be judged on the quotation.
“the Greens should have been strangled at birth”
The person means that setting up this new political parties is wrong and should in some way be stopped; perhaps they would like to see a law banning new political parties? Clearly not a liberal attitude.
“Always tell the truth, but not always before the election.”
It is OK to lie to the electorate especially to get their vote. This person does not hold democracy and political honesty as being important.
Cyril Smith between 1952 and 1966 was a Labour councillor. I have not studied his political thinking, but I don’t think anyone would classify him as a deep liberal thinker.
I think picking our policy battles is far more relevant than which seats we might agree to cede. That just looks so weak. People will vote for a relevant message that resonates with them. Although the media was dismissive about Labour’s leaked manifesto – aren’t they always when it comes to Labour? – I was impressed with the policy depth. I was tempted!
I want cheaper transport, I want to get rid of, or to reduce, tuition fees etc etc. Our 1p in the pound on the NHS was well reported because it’s a good policy. If we present good policies ideas, that’s what will make most people vote Lib Dem. Talking about backroom deals is a complete turn off.
I think picking our policy battles is far more relevant than which seats we might agree to cede. That just looks so weak. People will vote for a relevant message that resonates with them. Although the media was dismissive about Labour’s leaked manifesto – aren’t they always when it comes to Labour? – I was impressed with the policy depth. I was tempted!
I want cheaper transport, I want to get rid of, or to reduce, tuition fees etc etc. Our 1p in the pound on the NHS was well reported because it’s a good policy. If we present good policies ideas, that’s what will make most people vote Lib Dem. Talking about backroom deals is a complete turn off.
My reaction to Chris Bowers’ original piece was “Great, someone is trying to stop us defining ourselves in relation to other parties.” Alas what followed was rather different!
Progressive? Radical? Many in the North respond to talk of Labour as a progressive force with a hollow laugh. They can of course look rather different in places south of Watford Gap where they are not controlling things. “Progressive” is of course a slippery term. Conservatives used the label in some places during the 20th century. As for “Radical,” people who wore it as a badge of honour were a driving force in local government advances by the Liberals in the 70s and 80s – a tradition which of course continues in Radical Bulletin, known to some only as the only begetter of the Glee Club.