The question is whether any of the Liberal Democrats really believe in classical liberalism. In the last Parliament, they voted for statutory regulation of the press, for the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (control orders-lite), for the Justice and Security Act 2013 (closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests), for the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (temporary extension of interception powers under RIPA) and for the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (power of exile for the executive, full reintroduction of control orders, reduction in free speech in the universities). They look a firm part of the authoritarian centre to everyone who does believe in classical liberalism, and that was why their demise was so welcome. At least the Conservatives and the Labour Party do not seriously pretend to be in favour of civil liberties.
What you are overlooking, Mr Town, is that there was a coalition government, so there inevitably going to be some compromise on certain issues.
However, the compromise was at the level of the MPs (especially the payroll vote), not of the ordinary members - and that means not of the Party. I think a distinction has to be made in this case. And in lots of other cases!
The more authoritarian this Tory government is, the faster the Lib Dems will revive.
Mr. Charles, perhaps. The Byzantine Empire survived around two centuries after Byzantium fell [retaking it but inexorably losing practically all territory beyond the walls]. Rome bounced back from the Crisis of the Third Century.
The Lib Dems could return to success, but they need above all else a competent leader. They may be assisted by the inevitable (at some point) decline in SNP/Conservative fortunes, a collapse in UKIP's vote and the possibility of Labour's leadership contest resembling Alien Versus Predator (Whoever Wins, We Lose).
'We had that conversation in the eighties, but within a decade of the Lib SDP merger the Tories were under 200 seats and out for a generation.'
But there's no merger on the cards this time.
It took the old Liberal party 23 years to get from the 6 seats it had in 1959 to 23 seats in 1983.
I mean the formation of the SDP in the eighties, which turned out to be a cul de sac. I cannot see a big breakaway from Labour again. They have had their Foot.
I'd delightedly vote for a true libertarian party. Trouble is there is none. The LibDems never stood for individual liberty and always appeared to be Labour lite. I like the Tory economic competence and am generally happy with their stewardship - but Cameron's recent 'it's not enough to obey the law' makes we want to reach for my shotgun. I want the state out of my face as far as humanly possible. A crying shame the liberals have destroyed their liberal credibility by allying themselves utterly and unthinkingly to the least liberal institution of all. Yes that one. Labour is 100% authoritarian central control both economically and socially. They deserve to die. For the life of me I can't work out how the Tories manage to be so liberal economically but occasionally so statist on crime and social issues.
My biggest worry about this government is their moves on the snoopers charter. I do worry about their commitment to civil liberties.
The other possibility is a merger between the Liberal Democrats and the Blairite wing of the Labour Party to provide a single centre-left English party, that's divorced from the unions and identity politics, to compete with the Conservatives in the 2020s.
The Progressive party?
Maybe. Perhaps that was behind Chuka's change of heart - he and Shirley Williams are already in talks.
I think it's the only way back for the Left once EVEL passes. The right has a 20% lead in vote share over the left in England at the moment, and the Tories over a 100 seat majority.
It's just a question of how long it takes Labour and erstwhile social democrats elsewhere to realise this.
We had that conversation in the eighties, but within a decade of the Lib SDP merger the Tories were under 200 seats and out for a generation.
Things change in politics.
Indeed. And the circumstances are very different this time, and will be more so in 10 years time.
When resigning in 2001 Henry Mcleish famously said that it "was a muddle not a fiddle". Now Murphy has achieved a failed fiddle in attempting to rig the Executive vote by importing a peeress, a muddle by delaying his resignation for a month just to attempt another fiddle by changing the election rules. The result will be legal action and civil war.
The man totally lacks even a semblence of class.
The McLeish Taxi Receipt always seemed so insignificant, so not worth the media time or the Labour knife plunging.
But in 50 years when Scotland is Independent, when historians look back, perhaps that will be the moment, the one single point in time when EVERYTHING changed. He would have been a great and very popular first minister, I think. In the end, if that does become the reason, it will be Labour that killed itself (and the Union).
Er, are you not confusing the little unfortunateness over the taxi receipts (Tory leader) with the ditto over office rent (Labour)? It does seem an awful long time ago (admittedly on account of precisely the changes you adduce).
Sorry yes. BUt it's still a trifle (especially compared to what happened in Westminster a decade later. £950 that changed the UK forever.
That is certainly a thought (and not just because the sum was so pathetic by the standards to which they were used at Westminster - look at those taxi fares). I think that was one of the key things that made folk realise that Holyrood was set on its own distinctive trajectory divergent from Westminster. During the big expenses scandal there was a lot of attempted smearing of Holyrood collectively by Westminster denizens and their media chums to try and deflect the blame, but the presence of stuffed heads such as those on the wall made it very hard for the ordure to stick. (That wasn't party political BTW but pertained to the institution as a whole.)
'Yes, soon we'll be hearing, 'If the voters knew the Tories were going to be like this they would never have done it. If only we could have another election now...'
Reminds me of Benn & co in the 80's claiming that either the electorate didn't understand Foot's manifesto or that Labour hadn't explained it clearly enough to the electorate.
'We had that conversation in the eighties, but within a decade of the Lib SDP merger the Tories were under 200 seats and out for a generation.'
But there's no merger on the cards this time.
It took the old Liberal party 23 years to get from the 6 seats it had in 1959 to 23 seats in 1983.
I mean the formation of the SDP in the eighties, which turned out to be a cul de sac. I cannot see a big breakaway from Labour again. They have had their Foot.
The LibDems will be well thought of soon enough.
It seems there is a new myth about the Liberals coming to the fore.
Now that the myth about "our huge personal votes will keep our MPs in" has been shown to be a hollow shell, it's shifted to "the Liberals will rise again". Nothing says they will, in other countries, it is not uncommon for political parties, even ones of majority government to vanish without trace within a few elections.
'We had that conversation in the eighties, but within a decade of the Lib SDP merger the Tories were under 200 seats and out for a generation.'
But there's no merger on the cards this time.
It took the old Liberal party 23 years to get from the 6 seats it had in 1959 to 23 seats in 1983.
I mean the formation of the SDP in the eighties, which turned out to be a cul de sac. I cannot see a big breakaway from Labour again. They have had their Foot.
The LibDems will be well thought of soon enough.
It seems there is a new myth about the Liberals coming to the fore.
Now that the myth about "our huge personal votes will keep our MPs in" has been shown to be a hollow shell, it's shifted to "the Liberals will rise again". Nothing says they will, in other countries, it is not uncommon for political parties, even ones of majority government to vanish without trace within a few elections.
A possibility, to be sure. Although the 'will rise again' refrain is usually pulled out in response to definitive statements that they absolutely will not rise again, which is not a certainty either.
'Yes, soon we'll be hearing, 'If the voters knew the Tories were going to be like this they would never have done it. If only we could have another election now...'
Reminds me of Benn & co in the 80's claiming that either the electorate didn't understand Foot's manifesto or that Labour hadn't explained it clearly enough to the electorate.
The mob that's left in Labour are largely the disciples of the discredited and fiscally loony Gordon Brown.
They are in denial because they cannot bring themselves to admit they screwed the economy. If Yvette or any of the other deniers gets elected, Labour are totally fecked for at least 10 yrs.
I think the Lib Dems would always have suffered in this election. But the reason they suffered so badly is that they really misplayed the hand they were dealt, IMHO.
the tuition fee debacle was their Ratner moment. You can't court the votes of young people and students for such a large part of the last decade and then turn around and do something so apparently contrary to their interests so shortly after coming to power. This was the big mistake from which they would never recover.
Aside from that, I think in hindsight they should have left the government in May 2014 on the pledge of confidence and supply. It would have given them a year to differentiate themselves, without bringing the government down, and I think they could also have had a leadership election in that time. A cleaner break that would have given them more of a stage to set out their stall, which wouldn't have ruled out a future coalition either or burned too many bridges with the Tory leadership.
Mr. Royale, I share that concern. The degree of ignorance about the internet is a related problem (destroying encryption's security is as valid a method to disrupt terrorist communication as writing down the contents of every letter, sticking it in a database and saying "We'll only check it if we have good reason").
David Davis is an arse. If he'd stayed in place instead of throwing a hissyfit with a needless by-election I'd like to think he could actually make the case for civil liberties in the Cabinet.
I'd delightedly vote for a true libertarian party. Trouble is there is none. The LibDems never stood for individual liberty and always appeared to be Labour lite. I like the Tory economic competence and am generally happy with their stewardship - but Cameron's recent 'it's not enough to obey the law' makes we want to reach for my shotgun. I want the state out of my face as far as humanly possible. A crying shame the liberals have destroyed their liberal credibility by allying themselves utterly and unthinkingly to the least liberal institution of all. Yes that one. Labour is 100% authoritarian central control both economically and socially. They deserve to die. For the life of me I can't work out how the Tories manage to be so liberal economically but occasionally so statist on crime and social issues.
My biggest worry about this government is their moves on the snoopers charter. I do worry about their commitment to civil liberties.
Snoopers charter is heavily opposed by the LibDems...
That is certainly a thought (and not just because the sum was so pathetic by the standards to which they were used at Westminster - look at those taxi fares). I think that was one of the key things that made folk realise that Holyrood was set on its own distinctive trajectory divergent from Westminster. During the big expenses scandal there was a lot of attempted smearing of Holyrood collectively by Westminster denizens and their media chums to try and deflect the blame, but the presence of stuffed heads such as those on the wall made it very hard for the ordure to stick. (That wasn't party political BTW but pertained to the institution as a whole.)
This is another less considered but still likely very important outcome of devolution.
To a greater extent the success of the SNP and the public perception of Holyrood are inextricably linked. Because Holyrood has been set up in a way that makes expense fraud both much harder and much less consequential, it has developed to be relatively free of the audacity of fraud found at Westminster.
Clearly there are other factors in play, like it's consensual nature due to PR etc. But the very fact that you can't hire your wife and three pals on £30k a year and have to use staff centrally hired makes a huge difference to how the whole thing works and this has clearly had an impact on the public's mood.
It's funny, but it does seem that every check and balance that Labour imposed on Holyrood from the limits on expenses to the need to get close to 50% of the vote for a majority have only ever benefited the SNP in the long term.
Holyrood created an SNP government which is legitimate and liked. And it's due to the way Labour designed it.
The mob that's left in Labour are largely the disciples of the discredited and fiscally loony Gordon Brown.
They are in denial because they cannot bring themselves to admit they screwed the economy. If Yvette or any of the other deniers gets elected, Labour are totally fecked for at least 10 yrs.
Labour actually have an additional problem (which the promoters of "it has to be someone from the 2010 intake" brigade seem to miss.
Labour is now filled with careerists who would be Natural Tories but only joined Labour because while they were students and aspiring career politicians, only the Labour Party appears to be a natural government. If you were looking to become a career politician in 2005 and were of a right wing bent, the only rational choice would be the Labour Party.
To an extent Labour has moved on from the Primrose HIll set to the Blue Labour set.
either really. Yvette is fiscally incontinent and wont apologise for overspending and as for Bryant, the less said the better
Can we really expect poor Yvette (listen carefully I will only say this one hundred times) Cooper to admit labour overspent? Will she condemn the man responsible? It all makes for wonderful sit-com but hardly sane politics.
I think the Lib Dems would always have suffered in this election. But the reason they suffered so badly is that they really misplayed the hand they were dealt, IMHO.
the tuition fee debacle was their Ratner moment. You can't court the votes of young people and students for such a large part of the last decade and then turn around and do something so apparently contrary to their interests so shortly after coming to power. This was the big mistake from which they would never recover.
Aside from that, I think in hindsight they should have left the government in May 2014 on the pledge of confidence and supply. It would have given them a year to differentiate themselves, without bringing the government down, and I think they could also have had a leadership election in that time. A cleaner break that would have given them more of a stage to set out their stall, which wouldn't have ruled out a future coalition either or burned too many bridges with the Tory leadership.
I would have supported such a plan, but that is history.
Kendall price shortening, now not far behind Cooper.
Burnham 2.9 Cooper 4.5 Kendall 4.9
Hard to know why.
I think a lot depends upon how many affiliated members the Unions sign up. But all ballot papers will go out from the party centrally so no opportunity to put ballot paper with one candidate's leaflet.
Possibility affiliated members turnout could be very, very low so maybe full members will have the majority influence? Hard to tell.
Kendall price shortening, now not far behind Cooper.
Burnham 2.9 Cooper 4.5 Kendall 4.9
Hard to know why.
I think a lot depends upon how many affiliated members the Unions sign up. But all ballot papers will go out from the party centrally so no opportunity to put ballot paper with one candidate's leaflet.
Possibility affiliated members turnout could be very, very low so maybe full members will have the majority influence? Hard to tell.
She performed well in the lunchtime hustings. Creagh and Cooper were poor.
It's seems to me that the problem for those in Labour pushing the "we didn't overspend" line is that it appears that they have failed to even understand the charge against them. They think that the accusation is that the level of spending caused the financial crisis, when actually the charge is that the level of spending left the country appalling ill-equipped to deal with the financial crisis. Hence they seem to think a defence to the charge of overspending is that "the banks caused the crisis". Which is a complete non-sequitur.
The debate about whether they hold partial responsibility for the financial crisis failing to take action to reign in the banking sector is different, and it is not directly linked to the question of spending levels (of course it is indirectly linked, because of the charge that they were quite content to give the banks free reign whilst they were providing bumper levels of tax receipts which fuelled high levels of spending etc)
either really. Yvette is fiscally incontinent and wont apologise for overspending and as for Bryant, the less said the better
Can we really expect poor Yvette (listen carefully I will only say this one hundred times) Cooper to admit labour overspent? Will she condemn the man responsible? It all makes for wonderful sit-com but hardly sane politics.
Well yes domestically.
But publicy she is conforming she is Mrs Balls and not Ms Cooper.. - which is a disaster.
If she wants to be seen as indendent of her husband, it's an ideal opportunity.. She couls agree it with Ed before hand nd joke about it when she said it publicly..
It's seems to me that the problem for those in Labour pushing the "we didn't overspend" line is that they have failed to even understand the charge against them. They think that the accusation is that the level of spending caused the financial crisis, when actually the charge is that the level of spending left the country appalling ill-equipped to deal with the financial crisis. Hence they seem to think a defence to the charge of overspending is that "the banks caused the crisis". Which is a complete non-sequitur.
The debate about whether they hold partial responsibility for the financial crisis failing to take action to reign in the banking sector is valid, but it is not directly linked to the question of spending levels (of course it is indirectly linked, because of the charge that they were quite content to give the banks free reign whilst they were providing bumper levels of tax receipts etc)
Good post....It isn't just Labour, all the lefty wallys on twitter push the same flawed thinking that the attack is overspend = crisis, rather than overspend left UK in bad position say compared to the likes of Canada, Australia, even Denmark, all of whom had put some money aside and / or had scaled back public spending because they were getting worried about things getting out of control.
As a result those countries had many more options when the crisis hit and managed to get through in pretty good shape. In fact, Canada has been too successful in a way.
It is the same flawed bollocks about how we should be following Keynesian economics, ignoring the crucial bit about having paid down debt in the good times, when from 2002 onwards Brown did exact opposite.
It's seems to me that the problem for those in Labour pushing the "we didn't overspend" line is that it appears that they have failed to even understand the charge against them. They think that the accusation is that the level of spending caused the financial crisis, when actually the charge is that the level of spending left the country appalling ill-equipped to deal with the financial crisis. Hence they seem to think a defence to the charge of overspending is that "the banks caused the crisis". Which is a complete non-sequitur.
The debate about whether they hold partial responsibility for the financial crisis failing to take action to reign in the banking sector is different, and it is not directly linked to the question of spending levels (of course it is indirectly linked, because of the charge that they were quite content to give the banks free reign whilst they were providing bumper levels of tax receipts which fuelled high levels of spending etc)
It's very simple - they don't want to answer the accusation - so they deliberately misinterpret the accusation and give a boiler plate statement instead.
When resigning in 2001 Henry Mcleish famously said that it "was a muddle not a fiddle". Now Murphy has achieved a failed fiddle in attempting to rig the Executive vote by importing a peeress, a muddle by delaying his resignation for a month just to attempt another fiddle by changing the election rules. The result will be legal action and civil war.
The man totally lacks even a semblence of class.
The McLeish Taxi Receipt always seemed so insignificant, so not worth the media time or the Labour knife plunging.
But in 50 years when Scotland is Independent, when historians look back, perhaps that will be the moment, the one single point in time when EVERYTHING changed. He would have been a great and very popular first minister, I think. In the end, if that does become the reason, it will be Labour that killed itself (and the Union).
McLetchie wasn't it? I had totally forgotten it all. He did refuse the official car he was entitled to according to this report at the time. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/taxigate-mcletchie-bill-hits-163-10k-1-1391133 Still all pretty stupid, but again it would seem MSPs of all colours used taxies all the time - there was an official contract. Again the taxi drivers all seemed to quite enjoy the opportunity to corner their prey - er customers... '' Rating the various members, one driver commented: "I have had George Reid in the back a few times. He's okay, very jovial. Alex Salmond is good fun. Even if you don't vote for him, he'll always chat and he's very convincing. The only one I have ever found aloof was that Nicola Sturgeon, I wasn't surprised when she didn't win the seat she was going for."
It's seems to me that the problem for those in Labour pushing the "we didn't overspend" line is that they have failed to even understand the charge against them. They think that the accusation is that the level of spending caused the financial crisis, when actually the charge is that the level of spending left the country appalling ill-equipped to deal with the financial crisis. Hence they seem to think a defence to the charge of overspending is that "the banks caused the crisis". Which is a complete non-sequitur.
The debate about whether they hold partial responsibility for the financial crisis failing to take action to reign in the banking sector is valid, but it is not directly linked to the question of spending levels (of course it is indirectly linked, because of the charge that they were quite content to give the banks free reign whilst they were providing bumper levels of tax receipts etc)
Good post....It isn't just Labour, all the lefty wallys on twitter push the same flawed thinking that the attack is overspend = crisis, rather than overspend left UK in bad position say compared to the likes of Canada, Australia, even Denmark, all of whom had put some money aside and / or had scaled back public spending because they were getting worried about things getting out of control.
As a result those countries had many more options when the crisis hit and managed to get through in pretty good shape. In fact, Canada has been too successful in a way.
Yeah. And in doing so they fail to recognise that they are directly responsible for austerity. They witter on about Keynesian policy responses, wanting to have their cake and eat it. Spend in the good times, spend in the bad, spend for ever more.
snip I think the LibDems were the biggest casualties of the entire commentariat unequivocally talking down the possibility of anything other than a hung parliament. The electorate thought they could punish them because there would be somebody else available to keep the Conservatives in check
There is as much logic to that as chopping your left hand off and complimenting yourself that you were able to do it with the other one. (I've lost count - how many seats did the tories capture from the LDs?)
snip Labour is now filled with careerists who would be Natural Tories but only joined Labour because while they were students and aspiring career politicians, only the Labour Party appears to be a natural government. If you were looking to become a career politician in 2005 and were of a right wing bent, the only rational choice would be the Labour Party. To an extent Labour has moved on from the Primrose HIll set to the Blue Labour set.
Ah, look whose being too clever by half for his own good.
Cheers Mr Herdson, grim reading indeed for the LDs, but with perhaps a little hope for the future.
Speaking of which; "a return to a more classical liberalism" - Agree with that, but is that possible while the SDP element is still present? And I speak of the Dame Shirley Williams’ of the party and not just the MPs ( of which Vince was the last I believe)
Cheers Mr Herdson, grim reading indeed for the LDs, but with perhaps a little hope for the future.
Speaking of which; "a return to a more classical liberalism" - Agree with that, but is that possible while the SDP element is still present? And I speak of the Dame Shirley Williams’ of the party and not just the MPs ( of which Vince was the last I believe)
Lib Dems are still a coalition of Social Democrats and Liberals with the SDs keen on government intervention and less free markets but the Liberals not so keen on intervention or big government and in favour of free markets and competition. Now is the time for Lib Dems to decide which way to go and then re-build on a consistent philosophy.
' Now is the time for Lib Dems to decide which way to go and then re-build on a consistent philosophy'
They also need new branding away from the toxic Lib Dem brand.
They could call themselves the Conservative party.
In fact, by continuing and extending Lib Dem policies, David Cameron seems to be trying to turn the Conservatives into the Lib Dems - so no need for the Lib Dems to do anything other than join the existing Conservative party.
In fact, by continuing and extending Lib Dem policies, David Cameron seems to be trying to turn the Conservatives into the Lib Dems - so no need for the Lib Dems to do anything other than join the existing Conservative party.
The problem that Mr Cameron has is that not all the Tory loons, nuts and fuitcakes (or whatever his phrase was) have decamped to UKIP. Until they have all been cleared out of the Conservative Party, it is no fit place for a Lib Dem even to think about, let alone to be seen in.
Speaking as a Lib Dem, I don't think the position that the party finds itself in is as bad as 1970. There are enough seats where the Lib Dems are in a reasonably close second place to either the Tories or the SNP for the party to end up with a tally in the mid-twenties in the next parliament. The membership is already almost back up to the pre-Cleggmania position and we've got strong organisations where we need them.
Part of the reason why we ended up with only eight seats is that a chunk of moderate voters in England were unwilling to risk us letting in Miliband and the SNP and a chunk of otherwise supportive Scottish voters were unwilling to risk us letting the Tories back in. As a result we got run over from both sides.
The next Westminster election is unlikely to be as close a contest - I don't think Labour are going to be in contention to form an alternative government. The media will frame our likely post-election role as being to moderate the Conservatives. It's up to the Lib Dems to ensure that we've got a clear, liberal message to put forward and we don't repeat the mistakes of the early part of the last Coalition.
In Scotland, I think there's a good chance of making some gains in Holyrood next year, but we could have real problems when it comes to the next General election. The tactic of trying to unite the unionist vote against the SNP actually worked to an extent in East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West and Fife North East. Persevering with that and mixing in a more radical liberal message looks like the best way to make progress.
David is entitled to write whatsoever he likes but he doesn't write from a friendly perspective and most of the regular contributors on here are not exactly sympathetic to the LD party. Indeed, there are some who consider eight seats eight too many.
You'll forgive me then, as an LD, if I ignore most of what has been said and you can all ignore what I'm going to write because, at the moment, the victors are not willing to engage with the vanquished. That will change with time of course.
There is a lot of debate on other forums about the future of the LDs, the bulk of it highly constructive and positive and I've contributed to that and will continue to do so.
There are those who steadfastly blame Nick Clegg and going into Coalition with the Conservatives for the 2015 disaster but no one has come up with a coherent answer to the "what else could we or should we have done in 2010 ?" question. The logical conclusion of our entire political strategy from Paddy Ashdown onwards was some form of joint working with either the Conservative or Labour parties in Government.
The corollary of that was while we were able to get some of the things we wanted enacted we were compelled to vote through some measures which were profoundly illiberal and were forced to sacrifice our principles of free speech and freedom of expression on the altar of national security.
All parties are defined relative to the other parties around them and to the events to which they have to respond. Yet the principles of a free, open, fair and internationalist society remain for us and our policies in opposition will or should be shaped around those but it's too early for that.
The one short-term requirement for the Party is not to pick the leader it wants but to pick the candidate best equipped to go out and engage with those who didn't vote for us (and there are plenty of them). Both the Conservatives with Hague and then IDS and Labour with Ed Miliband chose the leader the party wanted but at this stage that may not seem important. It will become important when the Government runs into trouble (as it will, whether of its own making or not) and the disillusioned Conservatives start considering other options.
I only managed 3 out of 4 in my LD decapitation yankee-Clegg let me down but Laws,Hughes and Alexander paid out well. The LDs could get back some of those who supported them on the centre-left should Labour decide to pitch to the centre-right.It needs to develop its distinctive drug policy on Holland's D66 European Liberal ally and go further than the Portuguese model.STV for local government in England would be a step forward.The problem for them will be the Greens,especially the student vote.
Speaking as a Lib Dem, I don't think the position that the party finds itself in is as bad as 1970. There are enough seats where the Lib Dems are in a reasonably close second place to either the Tories or the SNP for the party to end up with a tally in the mid-twenties in the next parliament. The membership is already almost back up to the pre-Cleggmania position and we've got strong organisations where we need them.
Part of the reason why we ended up with only eight seats is that a chunk of moderate voters in England were unwilling to risk us letting in Miliband and the SNP and a chunk of otherwise supportive Scottish voters were unwilling to risk us letting the Tories back in. As a result we got run over from both sides.
The next Westminster election is unlikely to be as close a contest - I don't think Labour are going to be in contention to form an alternative government. The media will frame our likely post-election role as being to moderate the Conservatives. It's up to the Lib Dems to ensure that we've got a clear, liberal message to put forward and we don't repeat the mistakes of the early part of the last Coalition.
In Scotland, I think there's a good chance of making some gains in Holyrood next year, but we could have real problems when it comes to the next General election. The tactic of trying to unite the unionist vote against the SNP actually worked to an extent in East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West and Fife North East. Persevering with that and mixing in a more radical liberal message looks like the best way to make progress.
Speaking as a Lib Dem, I don't think the position that the party finds itself in is as bad as 1970. There are enough seats where the Lib Dems are in a reasonably close second place to either the Tories or the SNP for the party to end up with a tally in the mid-twenties in the next parliament. The membership is already almost back up to the pre-Cleggmania position and we've got strong organisations where we need them.
Part of the reason why we ended up with only eight seats is that a chunk of moderate voters in England were unwilling to risk us letting in Miliband and the SNP and a chunk of otherwise supportive Scottish voters were unwilling to risk us letting the Tories back in. As a result we got run over from both sides.
The next Westminster election is unlikely to be as close a contest - I don't think Labour are going to be in contention to form an alternative government. The media will frame our likely post-election role as being to moderate the Conservatives. It's up to the Lib Dems to ensure that we've got a clear, liberal message to put forward and we don't repeat the mistakes of the early part of the last Coalition.
In Scotland, I think there's a good chance of making some gains in Holyrood next year, but we could have real problems when it comes to the next General election. The tactic of trying to unite the unionist vote against the SNP actually worked to an extent in East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West and Fife North East. Persevering with that and mixing in a more radical liberal message looks like the best way to make progress.
I have voted Lib Dem in the past but did not this time. This was mainly because, in the constituency where I now live, they had no chance of winning. I think how they do from now on will depend on how they will position themselves and also what Labour does as well. It's all very well people recommending a return to classic liberalism, especially economic liberalism but the party in recent times has tended to be slightly to the left of centre. I remember one of their policies being an extra penny on income tax to fund education spending for example. I am not sure if a party offering classic liberalism is going to offer much appeal to those who supported this type of state intervention. It does depend though on how Labour respond to their defeat. If they pitch their policies more towards the centre ground, the field is going to be very crowded. Will the Lib Dem/Labour waverers be attracted to the Lib Dems, who will have such a small base when Labour is also offering an agenda more to the centre with a less state intervention.
I think there is quite a good chance though that Labour will be in a position to form an alternative government, even if this is a coalition. If they are not then the Liberals are not going to be able to do much on their own, presuming people are fed up with the Tories by then. That's a big if though. I don't think whoever replaces Cameron is going to have the same appeal.
Comments
'We had that conversation in the eighties, but within a decade of the Lib SDP merger the Tories were under 200 seats and out for a generation.'
But there's no merger on the cards this time.
It took the old Liberal party 23 years to get from the 6 seats it had in 1959 to 23 seats in 1983.
However, the compromise was at the level of the MPs (especially the payroll vote), not of the ordinary members - and that means not of the Party. I think a distinction has to be made in this case. And in lots of other cases!
The more authoritarian this Tory government is, the faster the Lib Dems will revive.
Mr. Charles, perhaps. The Byzantine Empire survived around two centuries after Byzantium fell [retaking it but inexorably losing practically all territory beyond the walls]. Rome bounced back from the Crisis of the Third Century.
The Lib Dems could return to success, but they need above all else a competent leader. They may be assisted by the inevitable (at some point) decline in SNP/Conservative fortunes, a collapse in UKIP's vote and the possibility of Labour's leadership contest resembling Alien Versus Predator (Whoever Wins, We Lose).
The LibDems will be well thought of soon enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32762858
'Yes, soon we'll be hearing, 'If the voters knew the Tories were going to be like this they would never have done it. If only we could have another election now...'
Reminds me of Benn & co in the 80's claiming that either the electorate didn't understand Foot's manifesto or that Labour hadn't explained it clearly enough to the electorate.
Now that the myth about "our huge personal votes will keep our MPs in" has been shown to be a hollow shell, it's shifted to "the Liberals will rise again". Nothing says they will, in other countries, it is not uncommon for political parties, even ones of majority government to vanish without trace within a few elections.
They are in denial because they cannot bring themselves to admit they screwed the economy.
If Yvette or any of the other deniers gets elected, Labour are totally fecked for at least 10 yrs.
the tuition fee debacle was their Ratner moment. You can't court the votes of young people and students for such a large part of the last decade and then turn around and do something so apparently contrary to their interests so shortly after coming to power. This was the big mistake from which they would never recover.
Aside from that, I think in hindsight they should have left the government in May 2014 on the pledge of confidence and supply. It would have given them a year to differentiate themselves, without bringing the government down, and I think they could also have had a leadership election in that time. A cleaner break that would have given them more of a stage to set out their stall, which wouldn't have ruled out a future coalition either or burned too many bridges with the Tory leadership.
David Davis is an arse. If he'd stayed in place instead of throwing a hissyfit with a needless by-election I'd like to think he could actually make the case for civil liberties in the Cabinet.
To a greater extent the success of the SNP and the public perception of Holyrood are inextricably linked. Because Holyrood has been set up in a way that makes expense fraud both much harder and much less consequential, it has developed to be relatively free of the audacity of fraud found at Westminster.
Clearly there are other factors in play, like it's consensual nature due to PR etc. But the very fact that you can't hire your wife and three pals on £30k a year and have to use staff centrally hired makes a huge difference to how the whole thing works and this has clearly had an impact on the public's mood.
It's funny, but it does seem that every check and balance that Labour imposed on Holyrood from the limits on expenses to the need to get close to 50% of the vote for a majority have only ever benefited the SNP in the long term.
Holyrood created an SNP government which is legitimate and liked. And it's due to the way Labour designed it.
Labour is now filled with careerists who would be Natural Tories but only joined Labour because while they were students and aspiring career politicians, only the Labour Party appears to be a natural government. If you were looking to become a career politician in 2005 and were of a right wing bent, the only rational choice would be the Labour Party.
To an extent Labour has moved on from the Primrose HIll set to the Blue Labour set.
Burnham 2.9
Cooper 4.5
Kendall 4.9
Hard to know why.
I think a lot depends upon how many affiliated members the Unions sign up. But all ballot papers will go out from the party centrally so no opportunity to put ballot paper with one candidate's leaflet.
Possibility affiliated members turnout could be very, very low so maybe full members will have the majority influence? Hard to tell.
The debate about whether they hold partial responsibility for the financial crisis failing to take action to reign in the banking sector is different, and it is not directly linked to the question of spending levels (of course it is indirectly linked, because of the charge that they were quite content to give the banks free reign whilst they were providing bumper levels of tax receipts which fuelled high levels of spending etc)
But publicy she is conforming she is Mrs Balls and not Ms Cooper.. - which is a disaster.
If she wants to be seen as indendent of her husband, it's an ideal opportunity.. She couls agree it with Ed before hand nd joke about it when she said it publicly..
Errrrrr she does not do jokes.. oh well..
As a result those countries had many more options when the crisis hit and managed to get through in pretty good shape. In fact, Canada has been too successful in a way.
It is the same flawed bollocks about how we should be following Keynesian economics, ignoring the crucial bit about having paid down debt in the good times, when from 2002 onwards Brown did exact opposite.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/taxigate-mcletchie-bill-hits-163-10k-1-1391133
Still all pretty stupid, but again it would seem MSPs of all colours used taxies all the time - there was an official contract.
Again the taxi drivers all seemed to quite enjoy the opportunity to corner their prey - er customers...
'' Rating the various members, one driver commented: "I have had George Reid in the back a few times. He's okay, very jovial. Alex Salmond is good fun. Even if you don't vote for him, he'll always chat and he's very convincing. The only one I have ever found aloof was that Nicola Sturgeon, I wasn't surprised when she didn't win the seat she was going for."
(I've lost count - how many seats did the tories capture from the LDs?)
Speaking of which; "a return to a more classical liberalism" - Agree with that, but is that possible while the SDP element is still present? And I speak of the Dame Shirley Williams’ of the party and not just the MPs ( of which Vince was the last I believe)
[edit: Oh! I see he's just unresigned himself
Lib Dems are still a coalition of Social Democrats and Liberals with the SDs keen on government intervention and less free markets but the Liberals not so keen on intervention or big government and in favour of free markets and competition. Now is the time for Lib Dems to decide which way to go and then re-build on a consistent philosophy.
' Now is the time for Lib Dems to decide which way to go and then re-build on a consistent philosophy'
They also need new branding away from the toxic Lib Dem brand.
In fact, by continuing and extending Lib Dem policies, David Cameron seems to be trying to turn the Conservatives into the Lib Dems - so no need for the Lib Dems to do anything other than join the existing Conservative party.
Part of the reason why we ended up with only eight seats is that a chunk of moderate voters in England were unwilling to risk us letting in Miliband and the SNP and a chunk of otherwise supportive Scottish voters were unwilling to risk us letting the Tories back in. As a result we got run over from both sides.
The next Westminster election is unlikely to be as close a contest - I don't think Labour are going to be in contention to form an alternative government. The media will frame our likely post-election role as being to moderate the Conservatives. It's up to the Lib Dems to ensure that we've got a clear, liberal message to put forward and we don't repeat the mistakes of the early part of the last Coalition.
In Scotland, I think there's a good chance of making some gains in Holyrood next year, but we could have real problems when it comes to the next General election. The tactic of trying to unite the unionist vote against the SNP actually worked to an extent in East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West and Fife North East. Persevering with that and mixing in a more radical liberal message looks like the best way to make progress.
David is entitled to write whatsoever he likes but he doesn't write from a friendly perspective and most of the regular contributors on here are not exactly sympathetic to the LD party. Indeed, there are some who consider eight seats eight too many.
You'll forgive me then, as an LD, if I ignore most of what has been said and you can all ignore what I'm going to write because, at the moment, the victors are not willing to engage with the vanquished. That will change with time of course.
There is a lot of debate on other forums about the future of the LDs, the bulk of it highly constructive and positive and I've contributed to that and will continue to do so.
There are those who steadfastly blame Nick Clegg and going into Coalition with the Conservatives for the 2015 disaster but no one has come up with a coherent answer to the "what else could we or should we have done in 2010 ?" question. The logical conclusion of our entire political strategy from Paddy Ashdown onwards was some form of joint working with either the Conservative or Labour parties in Government.
The corollary of that was while we were able to get some of the things we wanted enacted we were compelled to vote through some measures which were profoundly illiberal and were forced to sacrifice our principles of free speech and freedom of expression on the altar of national security.
All parties are defined relative to the other parties around them and to the events to which they have to respond. Yet the principles of a free, open, fair and internationalist society remain for us and our policies in opposition will or should be shaped around those but it's too early for that.
The one short-term requirement for the Party is not to pick the leader it wants but to pick the candidate best equipped to go out and engage with those who didn't vote for us (and there are plenty of them). Both the Conservatives with Hague and then IDS and Labour with Ed Miliband chose the leader the party wanted but at this stage that may not seem important. It will become important when the Government runs into trouble (as it will, whether of its own making or not) and the disillusioned Conservatives start considering other options.
The LDs could get back some of those who supported them on the centre-left should Labour decide to pitch to the centre-right.It needs to develop its distinctive drug policy on Holland's D66 European Liberal ally and go further than the Portuguese model.STV for local government in England would be a step forward.The problem for them will be the Greens,especially the student vote.
It does depend though on how Labour respond to their defeat. If they pitch their policies more towards the centre ground, the field is going to be very crowded. Will the Lib Dem/Labour waverers be attracted to the Lib Dems, who will have such a small base when Labour is also offering an agenda more to the centre with a less state intervention.