Why I'm backing Libdems4change (despite the use of a '4')

Last Thursday's election results were a disaster for the Liberal Democrats.  But they were no isolated event.  They come on top of almost equally disasterous results (particularly in the big cities) over the previous four years.  In fact the party's losing streak began as soon as Clegg took over the leadership and before the party joined a coalition government in 2010.

The scale of that disaster is huge - no councillors in Manchester, Southampton, Islington, Lambeth or Lewisham (where just a few years ago we either ran the council or had high hopes of doing so), replaced as the official opposition in Liverpool by the Greens with a mere four councillors and returning just 118 councillors across all of London - more than half in just two boroughs: Sutton and Kingston.  And that's before you get to the utterly disasterous Euro results, after a campaign fronted by Clegg and promoting his European vision.

The leadership's initial reaction to this was crass and patronising - implying those losing candidates (of which I was one) didn't work hard enough.

And then Nick Clegg gave his view, saying in a 'lady's not for turning' moment:

I don’t begrudge anyone for raising searching questions, for asking challenging questions about strategy and about leadership, all of it. It’s the most natural thing in the world after the electoral losses of the last few very very difficult days. But the question is, is that really a shortcut to doing what the Liberal Democrats want to do for Great Britain. And I think that losing our nerve, buckling down, washing our hands of all the decisions, exactly at the point that our decisions are being proved right, would be the wrong thing to do. 

But unlike Clegg I believe it is clear the party cannot go on as it is.  The party's strategy of essentially rejecting most of its previous support base in favour of a new centrist electorate who vote for governing parties has been tested to destruction.

It is perfectly possible to govern as radical outsiders trying to change the system - but this has been repeatedly rejected by Clegg and his team.  Instead Clegg argues that the Lib Dems can be either a party of protest or party of government - a line he has used ever since he was being advised by the world's worst political strategist - Richard Reeves.

So, Clegg gives me no choice.  He's not prepared to change a strategy and direction that can only end one way.  If he was, I would have no qualms about backing him - this battle is not, and should not, be about personalities.  But Clegg and his advisors are now wedded to a strategy that plainly is not working and if he won't change, he needs to go and be replaced by someone else who will make that change.

You can sign the Lib Dems for change petition here.

So who's voting UKIP?

Well if you believe the media it is disenchated Tories demanding the sort of nonsense announced in the 'alternative Queen's speech' by Peter 'Sven' Bone.

Well the Liberton and Gilmerton by-election last night in Edinburgh for once provides some hard facts about the nature of their (albeit still small) support north of border.  Thanks to the Lib Dems introduction of STV for local council elections we can see how votes transfer between parties - rather than just speculate.  So here's how real UKIP votes transferred:

The table doesn't show parties - but their votes transferred as follows:
Con = 67
Lab = 35
SNP = 31
Green = 31
Lib Dem = 9

While it being just one small sample what this suggests to me is that clearly the Tories are currently losing most from UKIP's surge (as the mainstream view suggests) but not as much as we are being told to expect.

Instead, what I find significant is the derisory UKIP - Lib Dem transfer.  What this says is the Lib Dems have completely lost the radical 'none of the above' vote, from those who have been disillusioned long term by the political system.  This is a direct result of the political 'strategy' adopted by the party since 2010 influenced by the world's worst political strategist - Richard Reeves - and still implicit in the current strategy which although sharpens the messaging still believes there's votes to be gained by proving you've become a 'serious party of government' (whatever that is).

Clegg's Cornish pasty conference speech

There's an old saying about budgets that prove popular on the day, become unpopular in time.  And that was certainly true of this year's offering - shredding the credibilty of the Chancellor with every Cornish pasty sold in bakeries.  Sadly, the various economic and presentational gaffes also meant that its one big liberal success - the increasing of the personal allowance - was buried in an avalanche of negative headlines.

It looks like the same unravelling could be happening with Wednesday's Clegg speech.  Lord Bonker's estimable confidant - Jonathan Calder - being the first to break cover with some measured (and valid) criticisms of Clegg's position.

My problem with the speech was that the dead hand of the world's worst political strategist - Richard Reeves -  was clearly behind it.  Clegg's view is still there are votes to be gained by being 'a party of government' - despite the idea being tested to destruction by the last two and half years of coalition.

Clegg's assertion that, "...The past is gone and it isn’t coming back. If voters want a party of opposition – a “stop the world I want to get off” party – they’ve got plenty of options, but we are not one of them..." conveniently ignores the long term political dissillusionment with party politics - and particularly governments.

In 1951 the two 'parties of government' got 95% of all the votes cast in the UK - in 2010 it was just 65%.  Clegg now wants the party to ignore this growing third of the electorate, in favour of focussing on a shrinking two thirds of the electorate - many of whom have long held partisan loyalties.

It's a crazy strategy.  Many of the people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 (and before) didn't want to 'stop the world' - they wanted a strong Liberal voice to speak up for them in government.  They wanted to take on the vested interests - in politics, business, the media and organised labour - who are responsible for the economic and political crisis in this country.

The reason why these voters have turned against the Lib Dems is that they appear to have joined the vested interests instead of attacking them from a position of power.  Unless Clegg sees the error of his ways they will find other - no doubt more illiberal voices - to take up the mantle of fighting for the little guy against the powerful.

Edit 29.9.12 - the ever excellent Andrew Page has also waded into the debate in similar terms.

ComRes poll exposes Clegg's strategy

In all the discussion over the future (or lack thererof) of Nick Clegg in this week's Lib Dem Voice poll, one bit of opinion research has been somewhat glossed over.

Earlier this week ComRes published the results of a poll which asked:

'Do you agree or disagree that being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government?'

This is in essence the strategy oft annunciated by Clegg and devised by his former adviser Richard Reeves.  Their argument is that years of opposition has meant that the voting public simply see the party as a repository of protest votes and a period in government is a the key to breaking the glass ceiling of around 25% support that the party has struggled to overcome.  The strategy is somewhat silent on what the party should do in its time in government - simply being in government is supposed to do the trick.

Well the voting public have sent Messers Clegg and Reeves a rather big rasberry.  ComRes found that just 18% of the voting public agreed that the Lib Dems are a credible party of government with 61% disagreeing.  Among those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, 33% agreed and 49% disagreed.

Being in government was never going to be enough - it's what the party does there that is vital.  The party needs a coherent message about what it is doing in government and why people should vote for more of it in 2015.  If it can't do that it will deservedly lose next time round. 

But the problem is when your so called strategist confuses means (being in government) with ends (what you do) it is impossible to answer the question.  Let's hope whoever replaces the hapless Mr Reeves does actually understand political strategy - but given the party's predisposition to employing policy wonks I fear it will simply carry on being in government until an ungrateful electorate throws it out in 2015.

A history of Kingston by-elections in one clipboard...

Had a reasonably enjoyable evening canvassing in the Grove ward by-election (the third one in my time in Kingston).  It's pretty clear that it's going to be a close run thing between the Lib Dems and the Tories, with a chunk of previous Lib Dem voters looking at Labour and the Greens as alternatives because of their dissatisfaction with the government.  Sadly for them - given the Greens are more than 1,300 votes behind the Lib Dems and Labour 1,400 - the only impact an improved vote for these parties can have is to hand the seat to the Tories.

But I did get my favourite clipboard to hold my canvass sheets in.  It has stickers from a variety of historic local elections Kingston - going all the way back to 1981 when the late Jean Godden won St James's ward from the Tories.  The Janke in the 'Harris, Janke, Tilley' sticker is Barbara Janke - who recently stood down as leader of Bristol City Council and the 'Oates' in the top right sticker is the Jonny Oates who is now Nick Clegg's chief of staff. 

But the most interesting thing is the change of emphasis from 'Focus' and 'Action' to party labelling and logos.  No doubt encouraged in the late 1980s by some ex-SDP suit with a mission to turn a campaigning party of local interests into a 'serious party of government'.  A mission tested to destruction by the actions of their likeminded successors - like Richard Reeves - who have failed to understand that being in government is not an end, but a means to an end.