Peter Riddell writes today,
If you want to understand what the Liberal Democrats are up to, look outside London. Over the past fortnight several local papers have published almost identical stories in which the Lib Dems say that they are shifting resources to target Labour seats in their area. Nick Clegg is quoted as saying that if only x voters shift from Labour to the Lib Dems (usually less than 10 per cent), they will win Swansea West, Derby North, Hull North, Norwich South, Liverpool Wavertree, Warrington South, City of Durham, Blaydon, Newcastle North etc.
These are the visible signs of a big shift in strategy. In 1997 and 2001 most of the party’s gains were in southern England from the Conservatives. In 2005 there was a slight shift as the party lost five seats to the Tories while gaining three. This was dwarfed by nine gains from Labour. In subsequent local elections the Lib Dems have been badly squeezed by the Tories in the South, though the pattern has been patchy, with the party holding on in many places where there is an incumbent MP. Three months ago the Lib Dems achieved gains from Labour in northern industrial cities and towns, taking control of Burnley, Hull and Sheffield, and advancing elsewhere, notably in Derby and Oldham …
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
4 Comments
Interesting, not that we are targetting Labour, but that anyone could consider that what Labour has been doing over the last decade could be described with the term “fairness”. Encouraging people to get massively into debt to keep the economy going! Engaging in massive off balance sheet finance to hide public sector debt through PPI!! War in Iraq!!! Pointedly not tackling taxation of the mega rich!!!! Don’t make me laugh.
LDV might run a competition to find the most unfair New Labour policy. My runner is the complcation of benefits and tax credits – the consequent levels of error, failure to claim and clawing back of over-payments are horrifically unfair.
Read Peter Ridell’s article with interest. He is a commentator who tends to catch on first, but he will still have much to learn from Conference.
The other parties will try to ignore the Lib Dems as being irrelevant, but if the party does start to threaten the Labour vote, then they will challenge us to be more specific about our tax plans.
I too am curious to know what public spending we can cut now that we could not propose cutting at the last general election. The feedback I have go back from Clegg supporters is that after the increases of public spending by Labour on the NHS, there is a “collosal” waste that can now be cut.
Well I think the electorate will be non-plussed to say the least if we propose cutting the NHS. Maybe that won’t happpen, but given the state of the public finances, made worse by increasing inflation, I think it was an irresponsible committment to make, usually something we attack the Tories for.
For the Lib Dems to challenge in Labour areas we need more members, and active members. I am doubtful that offering cuts in public services, which those on low incomes benefit from more than anyone else, is going to galvinise Labour supporters to start supporting us.
I’ve always liked Peter Riddell (he quoted me once, very early in my blogging career, and I’m a sucker for flattery).
Seriously, though, two things have always struck me about him:
1) He is a very reasoned and unimpassioned writer who balances his own unique analysis with political impartiality;
2) I suspect that – even if possibly a Conservative sympathiser in the present climate – he was once a Liberal and would certainly still be one if the Lib Dems were the party the Liberals were half a century ago.
The last line of the above is utterly correct, but I suspect that despite some boldness the current fashion for political caution will stop us taking a clearer and more classically-liberal stand.