|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 19, 2021 15:41:35 GMT
Outside of Westminster elections (which is a bit "Mrs Lincoln" admittedly) there's maybe not that much evidence that FPTP favours the Tories especially. Which points to this being more another little bit of culture war crap. Or maybe it is just getting rid of a rubbish electoral system. While I don't support their use I can see the case for AV, STV or AMS but I see SV as being a genuinely terrible system. If you want a preferential system use a proper one. Quite so. Every time there has been an election for the Mayor of London, I have explained to people how SV works. It usually ends up being more complicated than explaining how AV works, because there is more tactical guesswork involved. When the whole thing was introduced, the procedure was as follows: 1. Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour MP / geek) invents a new system (SV) which will supposedly train the voter to concentrate on the choice of top-two candidates. 2. Labour government decides to use SV. 3. Public consultation process. 4. Public says they want AV. Minority of public says they want FPTP. Nobody says they want SV; lots of people say SV is rubbish. 5. Government says SV is a sensible compromise between AV and FPTP, and adopts SV. SV has been used in various local elections in the USA and Australia and a few other places decades ago, and it usually didn't last long. As far as I can tell it has been invented independently each time rather than being consciously copied. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 23, 2021 11:50:12 GMT
Surprising figure for LDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Apr 23, 2021 21:14:26 GMT
Surprising figure for LDs. Doesn't exactly surprise me, though. I was (and for that matter, still am) in an outer London Tory-Labour marginal, with an LD candidate whose Twitter account showed no indication that she had even heard of the constituency until within 24 hours of when the election was called. I got more LD leaflets through my letterbox than Tory and Labour ones combined - all commercially delivered, only a couple of them specific to the constituency. The LDs managed a stunning advance from about 5% of the vote... to about 10%. Therefore, presumably deemed legal because it was counted as "national" rather than constituency campaigning - but quite apart from that, rather a lot of money to spend so as to get that level of increase in their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Apr 23, 2021 21:30:39 GMT
Altrincham & Sale West. We had the very second-rate parachute candidate of Angela Smith. I received 20 items from them, all either (private) commercial deliveries or Royal Mail. I think three of them were addressed to the elector. Most treated Jo Swinson as some kind of superstar.
They went from 8% to 11%.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 23, 2021 21:32:50 GMT
Surprising figure for LDs. Doesn't exactly surprise me, though. I was (and for that matter, still am) in an outer London Tory-Labour marginal, with an LD candidate whose Twitter account showed no indication that she had even heard of the constituency until within 24 hours of when the election was called. I got more LD leaflets through my letterbox than Tory and Labour ones combined - all commercially delivered, only a couple of them specific to the constituency. The LDs managed a stunning advance from about 5% of the vote... to about 10%. Therefore, presumably deemed legal because it was counted as "national" rather than constituency campaigning - but quite apart from that, rather a lot of money to spend so as to get that level of increase in their vote. A rise they probably would have got even if they hadn't spent any money at all. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Apr 23, 2021 21:34:46 GMT
Riiiight, a referendum 10 years ago when the main issue wasn't actually the electoral system at all, but how hard voters wanted to kick Nick Clegg? Sure, sound basis for action now. Not that SV as a system does anything other than stink to high heaven, but reform in this direction seems needless and arbitrary.
Of greater relevance (and even more recent) was the public consultation process in which the vast majority of respondents said that the Mayor of London should be elected by AV, not FPTP. That was only 22 years ago. There was a party that fully endorsed STV, but compromised on a referendum on AV vs FPTP. That was only 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 23, 2021 23:02:53 GMT
Surprising figure for LDs. They spent nearly £2.4 million more than Labour and made a net loss of one seat. What a phenomenal waste. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 23, 2021 23:50:26 GMT
Surprising figure for LDs. They spent nearly £2.4 million more than Labour and made a net loss of one seat. What a phenomenal waste. The figures don't surprise me, I was aware that unprecedented funds were available. I'm not sure it was a "waste" as such in that the money was donated for that purpose and had to be used or refused. I think a lot of it was badly spent - as has been alluded, repeated generic leaflets in places where the candidate did not have the local presence and history, wasn't likely to yield much of a result. Even in places where we had a good chance - I spent most of the GE in Cheltenham - I was reminded of the accusation that the Lib Dems are " a leafletting cult." But overall it is an interesting illustration of the limits to throwing money at elections. The same spend and even tactics might have been effective given (a) some sort of take-up by national media - which was non-existent to hostile - and (b) a message that resonated*. Just a few months earlier "Bollocks to Brexit" + strong ground game on local politics had resonated in the locals and the European elections, "Swinson for PM and revoke" bombed. 21% of Remain voters voted LD, 20% voted Tory. "Boris is a c*nt" would have been better if you could turn it into something printable but as pithy. * Thinking about it, the second part to that would have influenced the first. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Apr 24, 2021 8:52:13 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned.
Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around.
I can only assume the following:
1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that.
2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls).
3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse.
4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it.
5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry.
As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 24, 2021 9:21:26 GMT
But overall it is an interesting illustration of the limits to throwing money at elections. The same spend and even tactics might have been effective given (a) some sort of take-up by national media - which was non-existent to hostile - and (b) a message that resonated*. Just a few months earlier "Bollocks to Brexit" + strong ground game on local politics had resonated in the locals and the European elections, "Swinson for PM and revoke" bombed. 21% of Remain voters voted LD, 20% voted Tory. "Boris is a c*nt" would have been better if you could turn it into something printable but as pithy. "Bollocks to Brexit" wasn't printable. I had my HQ-provided leaflet drafts refused by the Royal Mail. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 24, 2021 9:28:46 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. The biggest issue was there was no plan B. When the media went out of their way to ignore/be actively hostile (and our entire campaign plan was clearly predicated by us having a fair hearing & being in all the debates) we ploughed the same furrow after our initial, very real, on the ground promise, evaporated when faced with an election that was portrayed as a complete binary choice between the big two (which ironically, as the campaign went on, it actually became less of a binary choice because Labour under Corbyn didn't stand a chance). Having said that, all the campaigning nous in the world would have struggled to come up with a message to combat the abject fear that Lib Dem/Tory switchers had about a prospect of a Corbyn led government (an offshoot of the obsession of the media to make the election, outside Scotland, a binary Red/Blue battle) that ultimately cost us several seats. But yes, overall, the money spent was mostly wasted and activists and members on the ground were hardly impressed. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Apr 24, 2021 10:15:49 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. The biggest issue was there was no plan B. When the media went out of their way to ignore/be actively hostile (and our entire campaign plan was clearly predicated by us having a fair hearing & being in all the debates) we ploughed the same furrow after our initial, very real, on the ground promise, evaporated when faced with an election that was portrayed as a complete binary choice between the big two (which ironically, as the campaign went on, it actually became less of a binary choice because Labour under Corbyn didn't stand a chance). Having said that, all the campaigning nous in the world would have struggled to come up with a message to combat the abject fear that Lib Dem/Tory switchers had about a prospect of a Corbyn led government (an offshoot of the obsession of the media to make the election, outside Scotland, a binary Red/Blue battle) that ultimately cost us several seats. But yes, overall, the money spent was mostly wasted and activists and members on the ground were hardly impressed. Did they really believe it might be otherwise (bold section)? I suppose the Clegg 2010 experience might have encouraged some idea that the media would give some space but the run up to 2010 was so different to 2019.
I buy your point about Corbyn-fear simplifying voter choice. It was, and is, a facile view of politics but most people both give limited time to the exercise and welcome simplification. One factor you miss: I'd repeat my admiration for the simplicity of the Tory message and the rigour, even ruthlessness with which it was pursued. Misleading certainly, but extremely effective. With Farage (perfectly understandably) folding, a Tory victory of some scale was certain and the clunky misdirected Lib Dem campaign (and a slew of Labour errors) only made it a bit bigger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 24, 2021 10:48:40 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. The biggest issue was there was no plan B. When the media went out of their way to ignore/be actively hostile (and our entire campaign plan was clearly predicated by us having a fair hearing & being in all the debates) we ploughed the same furrow after our initial, very real, on the ground promise, evaporated when faced with an election that was portrayed as a complete binary choice between the big two (which ironically, as the campaign went on, it actually became less of a binary choice because Labour under Corbyn didn't stand a chance). Having said that, all the campaigning nous in the world would have struggled to come up with a message to combat the abject fear that Lib Dem/Tory switchers had about a prospect of a Corbyn led government (an offshoot of the obsession of the media to make the election, outside Scotland, a binary Red/Blue battle) that ultimately cost us several seats. But yes, overall, the money spent was mostly wasted and activists and members on the ground were hardly impressed. Is it not also the simple lack of obvious seats to target, given the LD collapse of 2015 and barely reviving in 2017? Obviously the easiest option would have been to target the seats won before, but very few of them were likely to be winnable. Swinson (to me) was by far the least appealing of any of the party leaders, and that includes both Johnson and Farage. The LibDems are essentially a dogshit and potholes take-the-politics-out-of-politics localist party. Nationally, they tend to act as a dumping ground for the dissatisfied and disillusioned, and when they have managed to break through, its down to making more of their local campaigning, and having a profile as they did under Kennedy and Ashdown which was distinct. They could actually have been, over the past year, the pro-civil liberties, anti-lockdown party, which would have been distinctive and fitted in with a personal freedom element within liberalism, but they have joined that party much too late for those of us who have been sceptics since the beginning. In 2019, though, they jumped on the Revoke bandwagon, and that didn't chime with many. Not only ignoring the referendum but actually removing its existence from memory didn't convince. They need to decide where they are heading, and soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 24, 2021 11:24:15 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. The biggest issue was there was no plan B. When the media went out of their way to ignore/be actively hostile (and our entire campaign plan was clearly predicated by us having a fair hearing & being in all the debates) we ploughed the same furrow after our initial, very real, on the ground promise, evaporated when faced with an election that was portrayed as a complete binary choice between the big two (which ironically, as the campaign went on, it actually became less of a binary choice because Labour under Corbyn didn't stand a chance). Having said that, all the campaigning nous in the world would have struggled to come up with a message to combat the abject fear that Lib Dem/Tory switchers had about a prospect of a Corbyn led government (an offshoot of the obsession of the media to make the election, outside Scotland, a binary Red/Blue battle) that ultimately cost us several seats. But yes, overall, the money spent was mostly wasted and activists and members on the ground were hardly impressed.
Did they?
You got derision, for sure, but that was down to the crassly poor decision to lead with the line Jo Swinson is your next Prime Minister. After that why would anyone take anything the Liberal Democrats said during the election campaign seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 24, 2021 15:29:26 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. Although ironically in some cases it prevented the Conservatives gaining certain seats, such as Enfield Southgate and Warwick & Leamington. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Apr 24, 2021 16:17:04 GMT
But overall it is an interesting illustration of the limits to throwing money at elections. The same spend and even tactics might have been effective given (a) some sort of take-up by national media - which was non-existent to hostile - and (b) a message that resonated*. Just a few months earlier "Bollocks to Brexit" + strong ground game on local politics had resonated in the locals and the European elections, "Swinson for PM and revoke" bombed. 21% of Remain voters voted LD, 20% voted Tory. "Boris is a c*nt" would have been better if you could turn it into something printable but as pithy. "Bollocks to Brexit" wasn't printable. I had my HQ-provided leaflet drafts refused by the Royal Mail. That's extremely concerning. The Royal Mail isn't a censor. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Apr 24, 2021 16:26:36 GMT
That's extremely concerning. The Royal Mail isn't a censor. The Royal Mail has had rules as to what is acceptable content for since I have been dealing with General Elections (first stood as candidate in 1983) and almost certainly before. Although prior to the point at which they allowed unaddressed leaflets or leaflets not in envelopes they were unable to check. (which I think is after 1983) |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Apr 24, 2021 16:52:42 GMT
That's extremely concerning. The Royal Mail isn't a censor. The Royal Mail has had rules as to what is acceptable content for since I have been dealing with General Elections (first stood as candidate in 1983) and almost certainly before. Although prior to the point at which they allowed unaddressed leaflets or leaflets not in envelopes they were unable to check. (which I think is after 1983) Well, it is still disturbing, especially since it has been privatised. What stops them to censor leaflets that major shareholders don't like? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 24, 2021 16:53:30 GMT
The figures don't surprise me, I was aware that unprecedented funds were available. I'm not sure it was a "waste" as such in that the money was donated for that purpose and had to be used or refused. This does make me wonder to what extent the Lib Dems were... "infiltrated" may not be the right term if it put the party's existing EUphile position on steroids but there seems to have been a lot of anti-Brexit types wandering around the party and making decisions with no real interest in the advancement of the broader cause of the Liberal Democrats. Was there perhaps too much funding driving some of the disastrous decisions? More recently I remember the Lib Dems getting outraged during the period of easing when paid delivery was available but activist delivery was not and crying about other parties' funding. These figures will weigh heavily against such Lib Dem cries. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 24, 2021 16:55:32 GMT
"Bollocks to Brexit" wasn't printable. I had my HQ-provided leaflet drafts refused by the Royal Mail. That's extremely concerning. The Royal Mail isn't a censor. It's also concerning if it means Lib Dem HQ wasn't working with Royal Mail to ensure that freepost templates & drafts were compliant. Especially given the history of freeposts failures and Lib Dem causes you'd have thought someone would have prioritised this. |
|
