J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 19, 2016 13:22:59 GMT
True of all parties. Look at Labour now where the PLP is at a disjunct from the Membership. The Conservatives members are socially way to the right of the party leadership and far more Eurosceptic. I seem to remember reading somewhere that political parties the elected members tend to be more moderate than the mass membership, even if the elected members presented themselves as being close to their non-moderate membership in order to get selected to get elected. A result of having to deal with the realities of administration when elected instead of the ideal vision of the world as held by the membership. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 13:24:58 GMT
True of all parties. Look at Labour now where the PLP is at a disjunct from the Membership. The Conservatives members are socially way to the right of the party leadership and far more Eurosceptic. We had a referendum debate in Putney Conservatives. 2 to 1 in. (I voted out). I don't really see our activists as remotely socially Conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jan 19, 2016 13:25:30 GMT
I will freely admit that my prior assumptions about Lib Dem voters were too simplistic. I simply assumed that a majority were left-leaning, including many refugees from New Labour such as myself, anti-Tory tactical voters, and left leaning social democrats originally from the SDP. I recognised that there were right supporters too, some voting tactically against Labour in some places, and a minority who were economic liberal Orange Book types. But I tended to assume that about three quarters of their voters were ideologically left wing.
Not that simple.
There were significant numbers of ideologically left wing refugees from New Labour, left leaning social democrats, and supporters of other left leaning parties voting Lib Dem for tactical reasons. But in reality we were probably little more than about a third of their voters.
Because there was another large group whom I assumed to be fellow travellers ideologically - the anti-politics voters who wanted straight talking honest politics, politicians who said what they thought and thought what they said, who did not break promises as it suited them, who were not all in it for themselves or in the pockets of these media moguls or those business tycoons, who wanted real change and to do things differently. But - and here is where I got it wrong - insofar as they were ideological at all because they mostly were not - they tended to be ideologically all over the place. They were as anti-Labour as they were anti-Tory, and not - as I rather satisfyingly assumed - because Labour was too right wing, but simply because it was too Westminster politics as usual, full stop.
And whereas those such as myself did actually break for Labour or - to a lesser extent - the Greens, and to the SNP in Scotland, the natural place for the anti-politics-as-usual ones to break to was actually UKIP! Except in Scotland where these too mostly went SNP.
I think I also under-estimated how many Lib Dem voters were actually economic liberals who were naturally sympathetic towards Tory style economics, but also social liberals who favoured gay rights, gay marriage, gender equality, anti-discrimination, and so on. With the Tories also having become a much more socially liberal party of late, and with the Lib Dems obviously staring collapse in the face, more of these broke for the Tories than I'd thought likely beforehand.
And of course - something I and many politically interested people often under-estimate - is the fact of just how many voters out there vote for all parties with no ideological leanings or assumptions at all, and relatively little political knowledge at all, who vote for a variety of barely predictable reasons. Thes can range from the way someone looks, to a dislike or like of one little thing that affected them personally, to someone's background, to something they read in a tabloid, to a dislike or approval of how they dress, or any number of things that barely matter to us. Any of these who'd previously voted Lib Dem could have broke in absolutely any direction.
I think the way the Lib Dem vote scattered has taught to think much more deeply about who votes for what and why, and not to see fellow-travellers where they are not, just because they appear to have superficial similarities.
Because of my simplistic assumptions, I never for a single moment anticipated or expected quite so many Lib Dem voters to break for UKIP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 13:27:20 GMT
The Lib Dems most fundamental problem is that they simply don't have a core vote. Even in Twickenham, I found plenty of people who could vote Lib or Con, quite a few Lab or Lib, plenty of core Tory voters, a few core Labour, but almost nobody told me clearly and confidently "Lib Dem". Same in Sutton. They do have a core vote - it's just very, very small. Even the 6% or so they are currently registering in the polls probably overestimates the people who actually care about the things that Lib Dem activists do. ADDENDUM The Lib Dems indeed do not have a passive core of natural supporters as the Conservatives and Labour do (though in both cases this is declining). If that is what you meant I apologise. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 13:40:10 GMT
True of all parties. Look at Labour now where the PLP is at a disjunct from the Membership. The Conservatives members are socially way to the right of the party leadership and far more Eurosceptic. We had a referendum debate in Putney Conservatives. 2 to 1 in. (I voted out). I don't really see our activists as remotely socially Conservative. Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 13:44:01 GMT
I will freely admit that my prior assumptions about Lib Dem voters were too simplistic. I simply assumed that a majority were left-leaning, including many refugees from New Labour such as myself, anti-Tory tactical voters, and left leaning social democrats originally from the SDP. I recognised that there were right supporters too, some voting tactically against Labour in some places, and a minority who were economic liberal Orange Book types. But I tended to assume that about three quarters of their voters were ideologically left wing. Not that simple. There were significant numbers of ideologically left wing refugees from New Labour, left leaning social democrats, and supporters of other left leaning parties voting Lib Dem for tactical reasons. But in reality we were probably little more than about a third of their voters. Because there was another large group whom I assumed to be fellow travellers ideologically - the anti-politics voters who wanted straight talking honest politics, politicians who said what they thought and thought what they said, who did not break promises as it suited them, who were not all in it for themselves or in the pockets of these media moguls or those business tycoons, who wanted real change and to do things differently. But - and here is where I got it wrong - insofar as they were ideological at all because they mostly were not - they tended to be ideologically all over the place. They were as anti-Labour as they were anti-Tory, and not - as I rather satisfyingly assumed - because Labour was too right wing, but simply because it was too Westminster politics as usual, full stop. And whereas those such as myself did actually break for Labour or - to a lesser extent - the Greens, and to the SNP in Scotland, the natural place for the anti-politics-as-usual ones to break to was actually UKIP! Except in Scotland where these too mostly went SNP. I think I also under-estimated how many Lib Dem voters were actually economic liberals who were naturally sympathetic towards Tory style economics, but also social liberals who favoured gay rights, gay marriage, gender equality, anti-discrimination, and so on. With the Tories also having become a much more socially liberal party of late, and with the Lib Dems obviously staring collapse in the face, more of these broke for the Tories than I'd thought likely beforehand. And of course - something I and many politically interested people often under-estimate - is the fact of just how many voters out there vote for all parties with no ideological leanings or assumptions at all, and relatively little political knowledge at all, who vote for a variety of barely predictable reasons. Thes can range from the way someone looks, to a dislike or like of one little thing that affected them personally, to someone's background, to something they read in a tabloid, to a dislike or approval of how they dress, or any number of things that barely matter to us. Any of these who'd previously voted Lib Dem could have broke in absolutely any direction. I think the way the Lib Dem vote scattered has taught to think much more deeply about who votes for what and why, and not to see fellow-travellers where they are not, just because they appear to have superficial similarities. Because of my simplistic assumptions, I never for a single moment anticipated or expected quite so many Lib Dem voters to break for UKIP. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 19, 2016 13:45:40 GMT
We had a referendum debate in Putney Conservatives. 2 to 1 in. (I voted out). I don't really see our activists as remotely socially Conservative. Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! Putney was of course Labour held by Hugh Jenkins from 1964 - 1979 - though I recognise that there has been demographic change over more recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 13:51:21 GMT
True of all parties. Look at Labour now where the PLP is at a disjunct from the Membership. The Conservatives members are socially way to the right of the party leadership and far more Eurosceptic. I seem to remember reading somewhere that political parties the elected members tend to be more moderate than the mass membership, even if the elected members presented themselves as being close to their non-moderate membership in order to get selected to get elected. A result of having to deal with the realities of administration when elected instead of the ideal vision of the world as held by the membership. I don't think it is duplicity, more a case of knowing that whilst the members are important and must be tended and appeased, the far greater numbers of ordinary electors are the ones that must be convinced if they are to be elected at all. Cameron irritates me and is often wrong on foreign policy, but I acknowledge that he has the capability of winning elections, for which much can be forgiven. The temporizing over policy when facing the hard choices in office really only affect senior ministers and not the average back-bencher. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2016 14:44:33 GMT
Did Joe really just posit the Putney Conservatives as representative of the wider membership?  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 19, 2016 16:34:01 GMT
Did Joe really just posit the Putney Conservatives as representative of the wider membership? You noticed too!! As Mrs. T might have said "I wonder if he's one of us"? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 19, 2016 17:12:58 GMT
And of course - something I and many politically interested people often under-estimate - is the fact of just how many voters out there vote for all parties with no ideological leanings or assumptions at all, and relatively little political knowledge at all, who vote for a variety of barely predictable reasons. Thes can range from the way someone looks, to a dislike or like of one little thing that affected them personally, to someone's background, to something they read in a tabloid, to a dislike or approval of how they dress, or any number of things that barely matter to us. Any of these who'd previously voted Lib Dem could have broke in absolutely any direction. I think this comment illustrates that many politically interested people have done very little - if any - canvassing. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 19, 2016 17:16:43 GMT
Pah!! Putney? Sort of seat that goes Labour at the drop of a Goldsmith! Hardly representative of conservatism...any more than you are! Putney was of course Labour held by Hugh Jenkins from 1964 - 1979 - though I recognise that there has been demographic change over more recent years. Not to mention boundary changes in 1974 which were more favourable to the Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jan 19, 2016 17:27:20 GMT
And of course - something I and many politically interested people often under-estimate - is the fact of just how many voters out there vote for all parties with no ideological leanings or assumptions at all, and relatively little political knowledge at all, who vote for a variety of barely predictable reasons. Thes can range from the way someone looks, to a dislike or like of one little thing that affected them personally, to someone's background, to something they read in a tabloid, to a dislike or approval of how they dress, or any number of things that barely matter to us. Any of these who'd previously voted Lib Dem could have broke in absolutely any direction. I think this comment illustrates that many politically interested people have done very little - if any - canvassing. Fair point. And sadly true in my case, too. I am someone who joined the Labour Party less than three months ago, before which I was not a member of any party so did no canvassing. And most of the canvassing seems to be done on a Saturday morning, which is most convenient for most people - but I am contracted to work all day on a Saturday so have been unable to participate in that. As the May elections approach, more will be happening on this front on other days too, and then I will get my chance. But as yet I still haven't canvassed. Most of my political interactions have been with people I volunteer with at the red cross, people I work with, people I live amongst, my own friends and relatives, and then all the denizens of politics forums. I feel that I am likely missing out on quite a lot of insight that canvassing could give me. The denizens of politics forums are hardly a representative bunch. The people I live amongst largely hail from a similar social stata to myself. And I have no way of knowing how representative are those I work with. And politics as a subject only comes up fleetingly in work anyway. So yeah, you got me. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 19, 2016 17:28:20 GMT
Putney's electoral history is a nice example that what demographic change giveth it can just as easily taketh away.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 19, 2016 17:30:32 GMT
The consequence of Labour's latest round of constitutional reforms, by contrast, has been the creation of an insoluble vacuum of authority. Which is the traditional state of affairs within Labour (well... from the 1931 crisis until Kinnock anyway) of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 17:33:43 GMT
The mistake politically-minded people often make is in assuming that the voters' minds work in the same way as theirs, and that the choices made in the voting booth are somehow explicable in ideological terms. The Liberals, and then Liberal Democrats, spent two generations patiently stitching together an electoral patchwork quilt comprising a minority of true believers in their ideosyncratic political vision, ethical Leftists who saw them as an acceptable alternative to Labour (or a more electable alternative to the Greens), tactical voters of both Left and Right, and people who wanted to "punish" Labour, the Conservatives, or both. The objective was to put the party in a position where it could exercise power, either alone or in coalition with others. At local government level this approach was quite successful, as in the real world hardly anybody knows anything about local government, or cares. However, at national level, maintenance of the Lib Dem coalition was completely dependent on their remaining in opposition, where they could continue to be a blank canvas onto which the public could project whatever they wanted to see. Actually sharing in power at Westminster, being subject to scrutiny and held accountable for real decisions, proved fatal. This is the Lib Dem tragedy - like Midas, or Semele or Tithonus in Greek myth, the granting of their hearts' desire has destroyed them. The ethical leftists and Left-leaning tactical voters went back to Labour. The anti-politics voters went to UKIP (which was a more logical home for most of them in any case). The Right-leaning tactical voters began to drift back to the Conservatives, as years of dismal opinion poll ratings began to suggest that voting tactically for the Lib Dems was a gamble, while the choice between Cameron and Miliband (plus the SNP) was all too real. Despite Labour's current travails, the opinion polls suggest no meaningful recovery. None of the lost voters are coming back. I predicted in 2012 that the Lib Dem's position was terminal, but that annihilation would take two full election cycles. In the first they lose the majority of their parliamentary seats. However, hope of a comeback, plus their focused organisation, keeps them alive at local level. In the second cycle, they continue to get some good results at local elections, but nationally no bounceback materialises, and they gradually realise that new constituency boundries will do for most - or even all - of their remaining MPs. How long do the activists keep up the fight after that? And where do they go when they give up? I believe there is a lot of force in what you say and certainly Farron has not made much impact to date.He is going to continue to face the problem that there is now so much competition around for the 'pissed off' vote. In the SouthWest I wonder whether Labour might seek to capitalise on LibDem weakness in a number of seats where former Labour voters have for a generation been content to vote LibDem on a tactical basis. Bath comes to mind - a constituency which Labour in 1966 only failed to win by a few hundred votes and where they remained competitive in both 1974 elections. The Labour vote did recover there a fair bit in 2015 but I am sure the LibDem vote remains artificially high as a result of tactical voting - albeit on a reduced scale. The potential for further Labour recovery is surely there - particularly as the LibDems lost there decisively - and might also be found in places such as Taunton and the former Truro seat where it has performed quite well in the more distant past. Slightly on a tangent, in June I posted this on the general election thread: I don't think there's a great deal of Labour potential in any of these seats with the possible exception of Sheffield Hallam (probable boundary changes aside). I think Southport, where Labour came a reasonably strong third, will be particularly interesting (though not in a happy way from my point of view) to observe in this respect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 17:43:41 GMT
And of course - something I and many politically interested people often under-estimate - is the fact of just how many voters out there vote for all parties with no ideological leanings or assumptions at all, and relatively little political knowledge at all, who vote for a variety of barely predictable reasons. Thes can range from the way someone looks, to a dislike or like of one little thing that affected them personally, to someone's background, to something they read in a tabloid, to a dislike or approval of how they dress, or any number of things that barely matter to us. Any of these who'd previously voted Lib Dem could have broke in absolutely any direction. I think this comment illustrates that many politically interested people have done very little - if any - canvassing. I have been a candidate in local elections on six occasions, as well as participating in other people's campaigns across London and beyond. I also worked as a canvasser on the electoral register when I was young. Although no stranger to canvassing, I am naturally shy and reserved, so never greatly enjoyed it. On the whole, though, I'm glad to have done it, as canvassing forced me to confront the endless diversity and baffling reality of other people. Most of us live in comfortable, self-created worlds of the like-minded. Meeting people who have completely different backgrounds or ways of reasoning and expressing themselves, is actually good for us. It challenges our assumptions, forces us to acknowledge the fact that such things exist, and to ponder what they may mean. Occasionally meeting vile or crazy people who appear to agree with us is salutory too.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 18:19:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 18:28:46 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 19, 2016 18:32:35 GMT
Isn't that, pretty much, what the pollsters are now doing anyway?
|
|
