2020 Liberal Democrats Leadership Election

[EastAnglianLefty]

That strikes me as a transcendentally terrible strategy.

[Coldstream]

Well there's the countryside and the countryside isn't there. I think the party as a whole needs to accept most of the old south western base isn't coming back - it suffered a terminal blow in May 2010 and finally bit the dust in June 2016. But there are regions where a rural recovery could be very feasible - if B&R was winnable in August 2019 there's no reason why it shouldn't be in May 2024 for instance.

If I was a party strategist however, I think in 2024 I would concentrate the vast vast majority of resources on the following seats:

East Dunbartonshire
Wimbledon
Cheltenham
Winchester
Cheadle
Cambridgeshire South
Esher & Walton
Lewes
Guildford
St Ives
Hazel Grove
Hitchin & Harpenden
Wokingham
Surrey SW
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Brecon & Radnorshire

Unless there's a long-shot that becomes very promising during the campaign, don't bother outside of these seats (Tory/SNP facing seats where Labour even under Starmer will go nowhere). And obviously throw the kitchen sink at holding Caithness and Westmorland.

Overall, I think concentrating on a set of local campaigns can begin the rebuild. As for what leader will be best at that... well, dull might be the order of the day, might it not?

I’d agree with this list minus Wimbledon, which I’d say is more likely to swing back to Labour with Starmer in charge. Though probably will still go Tory due to a split vote again.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Hitchin and Harpenden is a waste of time too - Labour voters in Hitchin might have been willing to lend their votes in 2019, but in an even year the squeeze is much more likely to be on the Lib Dems than Labour.

[DaWN]

Surrendering winnable seats so Labour can get useless second places is not a plan I'd personally go for. Basically every seat we want depends on tactical voting, the reason I think a small list of target seats is a good thing is that it makes it very clear where we're the tactical option and where we aren't, rather than taking the piss like we admittedly did in 2019.

[Kyng]

Surrendering winnable seats so Labour can get useless second places is not a plan I'd personally go for. Basically every seat we want depends on tactical voting, the reason I think a small list of target seats is a good thing is that it makes it very clear where we're the tactical option and where we aren't, rather than taking the piss like we admittedly did in 2019.

Absolutely agreed that the Lib Dems shouldn't be surrendering their 2017-19 gains back to Labour. I get that they'll be competing more against the Tories than against Labour in the short- to medium-term; however, if they make no effort whatsoever to hold onto their Labour/Lib Dem swing voters, then at that point they might as well just merge with Labour.

Sure, the voters they gained in 2017-19 aren't going to be as loyal, since they have no long-term history of voting Lib Dem. However, the Lib Dems are going to have to cater to these voters, and cultivate that loyalty over time. Otherwise, all they'll be left with is their 2017 playbook, i.e. "Run hyper-localised campaigns in a slowly-shrinking list of seats where we have residual historical strength, and/or popular incumbents with personal votes". That's not a viable long-term strategy at all.

To be honest, I think the 2019 Lib Dem campaign had to be a national one, and not a targeted one. It was the only way they were going to put new targets on the board for future elections (which they did do - even if it was pretty much the only thing they succeeded at doing). Now that they've put those targets on the board, I believe they need to invest in every single one - at least, for the time being.

The other thing to consider is: the 2024 election is four years away. A heck of a lot can change in the space of four years (I mean, how much has changed in the last four years?). We have no idea what the national environment will look like; we have no idea who the Lib Dem leader will be (and who they'll be popular with); and we don't even know which groups of swing voters Starmer will lock down (and which ones he'll turn off). All of these will impact the Lib Dems' list of viable targets - so it's way too early to be deciding which targets to focus on, and which to write off. I wouldn't even begin to think about that until 2023 at the very earliest, probably even early 2024.

In my opinion, the Liberal Democrats should have three goals working forwards, in descending order of importance:

1) Invest heavily in every seat that they have even a slightly realistic chance of winning in 2024. It doesn't have to be all 102 seats where they finished in the top two (some of those second places are very distant); however, it should be a fairly broad range (maybe 50-60). Then, once the 2024 election campaign begins, they'll need to pay close attention to polling and MRP. Then, midway through the election campaign, they can pick about 20-30 seats to throw the kitchen sink at, and triage the rest.

2) Build up a base in safe Tory seats where Labour are never going to win. This will involve investment at the local level, over the course of the next five years and beyond. They won't win these seats in 2024; however, they might be able to put new targets on the board for future election campaigns (and, even if they don't, they could at least get more people on board, to donate and campaign in neighbouring constituencies!)

3) Build (or rebuild) their base in safe Labour seats where the Tories are never going to win. This is the most long-term of the three goals. These seats aren't even going to become remotely competitive until Labour are back in power - so, over the next five years, the Lib Dems should only invest minimally in them (if at all).

As for who is best placed to carry out this strategy? Ugh. I guess I'll pick Ed Davey - albeit with the level of 'enthusiasm' that's normally reserved for eating Brussels sprouts.

[CumbrianLefty]

Quite a few Corbynistas on social media are getting *very* excited over Moran.

Are these the same people who spent the previous five years quipping (often with full justification tbf) about centrists regularly having their wallets inspected by the next "big hope"?

Amazingly enough, in some cases they are.

[DaWN]

Quite a few Corbynistas on social media are getting *very* excited over Moran.

That sounds... very ridiculous yet very plausible.

Safe to say the Member for Oxford West & Abingdon is not doing a brilliant job of endearing herself to me.

[CumbrianLefty]

I mean, she made some fairly bland "nice" comments about the Colston statue business yesterday and some people all but squealed in delight - "sHe'S oUtFlAnKeD sTaRmEr AgAiN!!??11??!!". One said that Labour would instantly drop to 25% in the polls if she was elected leader, another that if she won an alliance of the LibDems and Galloway's (yet to be launched) Workers Party could "replace" Labour.

Seriously, it IS the same sort of brain worms that caused certain centrists to beautify Rory Stewart.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The problem with prioritising their 2019 targets is that the next election is highly unlikely to be a Brexit election. They won votes in a lot of those seats from people whose political inclinations are down the line moderate Tory, except that they hated Brexit. Any strategy that relies upon winning the likes of Esher falls down upon the problem that a majority of the electorate in Esher are Tories, and it's much harder to persuade Tories to vote LD than it is to persuade floating voters.

The Lib Dems need to target the way they've always targeted - based on where they have a decent local government base; a weak local Labour Party (not necessarily the same as a seat Labour can't win - we aren't ever going to win Hitchin and Harpenden, but we're well organised enough in Hitchin itself that the Lib Dems won't be able to squeeze our vote enough); and where Lib Dem priorities play well.

The bits of the 2019 list it makes sense to keep targeting are the seats they held 1997-2015 and those places that are definitely trending away from the Tories (South Cambridgeshire probably the most prominent example there.) Unless the 2021 and 2023 locals are an absolute massacre for the Tories (in which case targeting matters much less anyway), the stockbroker belt is a much worse bet.

Incidentally, looking at the LD target list, they're going to have problems in a decade's time when prominent members of their youth wing (who are vocally YIMBY) start running for Parliament, given that their target seats are some of the most vocally NIMBY areas of the country.

[Gary J]

As to targeting, the Liberal Democrats will have to wait for the proposed 2021 boundary review to report before they can start firming up a target list. If the current Parliamentary Constituencies Bill gets into law and unless something completely unexpected cuts the present Parliament short, the next general election will be fought on different boundaries from the last few.

[CumbrianLefty]

The problem with prioritising their 2019 targets is that the next election is highly unlikely to be a Brexit election. They won votes in a lot of those seats from people whose political inclinations are down the line moderate Tory, except that they hated Brexit. Any strategy that relies upon winning the likes of Esher falls down upon the problem that a majority of the electorate in Esher are Tories, and it's much harder to persuade Tories to vote LD than it is to persuade floating voters.

Whilst of course I know what you are saying here and indeed don't disagree, I do wonder if you picked the best example there. For one thing, E & W borders on those SW London seats where the LibDems have been so successful in recent years (and prior to 1997 let's not forget, the general assessment of
*those* would have been "despite some Liberal/LibDem success at local level, still fundamentally Tory") and there is also some evidence of people moving into the seat with less deeply ingrained Tory attitudes. Last year's result was to a fair extent about Raab's unpopularity, but maybe not just that.

[Blair]

The two central challenges facing the Liberal Democrats with an approach that focuses on those seats is their membership & the stupid degree of power they have over setting party policy.

It's hilarous that mountains of words that were written about Labours members & how out of touch they were with  real labour voters when in the end the only people pissed off about Labour members led policies were BJP Hindu voters & private school parents.

However as the Liberal Democrat report made clear the members lumbered them with an awful policy (revoke A50) that killed their chances both on the national stage & in key target seats- I'm sure it won't be as big an issue but there could easily be similar problems with the 2024 Manifesto especialy if Moran gets in charge- as she seems to chase policies around without a grand plan.

A point not mentioned is money.

I'm no expert on how the Liberals were funded before but a lot of the money they received (and wasted) in 2019 was from anti-Brexit & anti-Corbyn donors; some of whom are already donating to Keir Starmer. They faced a big problem between 2010-2015 in that there progressive donors & even long standing members ditched them for Labour.

Add in the coronavirus (which funnily enough will swell Labours trade unions levy) & they'll face a 2024 election with a challenging set of choices about money.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Prior to the 2015 wipeout, they were overwhelmingly dependent on Short Money.

[CumbrianLefty]

Prior to the 2015 wipeout, they were overwhelmingly dependent on Short Money.

Though since then they have had a significant upturn in membership.

[Coldstream]

Prior to the 2015 wipeout, they were overwhelmingly dependent on Short Money.

Though since then they have had a significant upturn in membership.

True, though you have to wonder how many will drift away/(back) to Labour without Brexit or Corbyn to rally against.

[Kingpoleon]

Well there's the countryside and the countryside isn't there. I think the party as a whole needs to accept most of the old south western base isn't coming back - it suffered a terminal blow in May 2010 and finally bit the dust in June 2016. But there are regions where a rural recovery could be very feasible - if B&R was winnable in August 2019 there's no reason why it shouldn't be in May 2024 for instance.

If I was a party strategist however, I think in 2024 I would concentrate the vast vast majority of resources on the following seats:

East Dunbartonshire
Wimbledon
Cheltenham
Winchester
Cheadle
Cambridgeshire South
Esher & Walton
Lewes
Guildford
St Ives
Hazel Grove
Hitchin & Harpenden
Wokingham
Surrey SW
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Brecon & Radnorshire

Unless there's a long-shot that becomes very promising during the campaign, don't bother outside of these seats (Tory/SNP facing seats where Labour even under Starmer will go nowhere). And obviously throw the kitchen sink at holding Caithness and Westmorland.

Overall, I think concentrating on a set of local campaigns can begin the rebuild. As for what leader will be best at that... well, dull might be the order of the day, might it not?

Under Ashdown, Kennedy, and Clegg, from 1997-2010, they got the most seats in seventy years. Southwest England, Wales, Scotland, and London will have to become competitive for the Liberal Democrats, like they were then. Certainly the greatest challenge there is Scotland.

[vileplume]

Well there's the countryside and the countryside isn't there. I think the party as a whole needs to accept most of the old south western base isn't coming back - it suffered a terminal blow in May 2010 and finally bit the dust in June 2016. But there are regions where a rural recovery could be very feasible - if B&R was winnable in August 2019 there's no reason why it shouldn't be in May 2024 for instance.

If I was a party strategist however, I think in 2024 I would concentrate the vast vast majority of resources on the following seats:

East Dunbartonshire
Wimbledon
Cheltenham
Winchester
Cheadle
Cambridgeshire South
Esher & Walton
Lewes
Guildford
St Ives
Hazel Grove
Hitchin & Harpenden
Wokingham
Surrey SW
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Brecon & Radnorshire

Unless there's a long-shot that becomes very promising during the campaign, don't bother outside of these seats (Tory/SNP facing seats where Labour even under Starmer will go nowhere). And obviously throw the kitchen sink at holding Caithness and Westmorland.

Overall, I think concentrating on a set of local campaigns can begin the rebuild. As for what leader will be best at that... well, dull might be the order of the day, might it not?

I agree these should be their primary focus though it really depends on the situation at the time of the election. If the Tories allow Britain to crash out of the single market/customs union without a deal at the end of this year it's very possible they could be headed for a full scale collapse not only in wealthy suburbs but in agricultural areas as well. The Lib Dems would be well placed (both due to  second places in many of these places at last years general as well strong local government presences) to take advantage of it.

Swinson was mad to be too ambitious (future PM candidate etc.) with the Tories polling in the 40s alongside Corbyn's utter toxicity with the type of Tory voter she was trying to appeal to. However if the Tories have fallen into the low 30s by 2024 (and presuming Starmer hasn't somehow been replaced by a radical leftist) the Lib Dems would be mad not to be at least somewhat more ambitious than this limited list. Though of course it really depends on what the political situation is at the time.

The one note of caution though which could trip the Lib Dems up is whilst the constituencies on this list are socially liberal they are not socially radical. There is a real danger that parties of the centre and centre-left may go 'too far' in an attempt to rise to the current cultural moment (censorship, whitewashing history, being seen to condone violence/criminal activity etc.) which would give the right a big opening. Admittedly I haven't really been following the Lib Dem response but there is a non-negligible chance they will fall into the sounding 'extreme/radical' trap just like they did with their disastrous 'revoke' messaging at the last election. This, I imagine, will be a particular danger if Moran wins the leadership over Davey.

As for Labour, Keir Starmer does appear to be handling the situation well so far, but the 'Corbynista' wing of the party is not at all happy with him. So whether this continues or whether he bows to internal pressure to take more radical stances I'm not entirely sure.

[vileplume]

Oh and I don't know if it's just me, but Layla Moran sounds really like Lena Headey! Every time I hear her being interviewed all I can think is Cersei Lannister (not sure if that's a good thing or not lol ).

[EastAnglianLefty]

Well there's the countryside and the countryside isn't there. I think the party as a whole needs to accept most of the old south western base isn't coming back - it suffered a terminal blow in May 2010 and finally bit the dust in June 2016. But there are regions where a rural recovery could be very feasible - if B&R was winnable in August 2019 there's no reason why it shouldn't be in May 2024 for instance.

If I was a party strategist however, I think in 2024 I would concentrate the vast vast majority of resources on the following seats:

East Dunbartonshire
Wimbledon
Cheltenham
Winchester
Cheadle
Cambridgeshire South
Esher & Walton
Lewes
Guildford
St Ives
Hazel Grove
Hitchin & Harpenden
Wokingham
Surrey SW
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Brecon & Radnorshire

Unless there's a long-shot that becomes very promising during the campaign, don't bother outside of these seats (Tory/SNP facing seats where Labour even under Starmer will go nowhere). And obviously throw the kitchen sink at holding Caithness and Westmorland.

Overall, I think concentrating on a set of local campaigns can begin the rebuild. As for what leader will be best at that... well, dull might be the order of the day, might it not?

Under Ashdown, Kennedy, and Clegg, from 1997-2010, they got the most seats in seventy years. Southwest England, Wales, Scotland, and London will have to become competitive for the Liberal Democrats, like they were then. Certainly the greatest challenge there is Scotland.

Actually, Scotland isn't - they've done just fine there at hoovering up Unionist votes, meaning they don't have to ask those awkward questions of what sort of party they are. In a couple of their former seats the non-Nat vote has coalesced round the Tories, but they either hold or are competitive in a much larger share of their previous seats than is the case elsewhere.

[KaiserDave]

Is there anyone suggesting the LDs dissolve given their recent disasters, 2015, 2019, leadership switches by the day?

[IceAgeComing]

I think East Dunbartonshire is gone for them personally - or at least much trickier for them to win.  They were competitive entirely because they won it in 2005 at the height of Labour unpopularity on the back of strong local government presence; they lost it in 2015 because of coalition unpopularity but regained it in 2017 because Swinson stood again which, even if she didn't have a personal vote, put the impression in the eyes on anti-SNP voters that the Lib Dems were the leaders and so they got a lot of tactical votes.  They'd only need a small swing to get it back in 2024 but its a long way away: any personal vote that Swinson does have slowly evaporates even if she does stand again (which I think is unlikely); their local government presence is less than it was and in both Scottish Parliament seats that cover the East Dunbartonshire constituency the Lib Dems aren't competitive - fourth in both Strathkelvin and Bearsden (12.5%) and Clydebank and Milngavie (8.9%) and while the latter is a cross-border seat the result does demonstrate weakness there.

They are the party best placed to benefit from unionist tactical voting, and in 2019 they were the only party where you can point to evidence of that being a thing - in the rest of the country the main pattern was a strong Labour -> SNP swing - but with a four and a half year term likely the historic evidence is that the Lib Dems fall backwards in that sort of situation in a seat like this: where they don't have a massive, deep history of success.  Of course we're talking about an election four years away and a lot could have changed by then (SNP government could be very unpopular; perhaps we've had another independence referendum, anything could happen) but basing any tactics purely off of the 2019 result would be silly there with those Scottish Parliament results showing that its not exactly an area of core strength.

I think the Lib Dems knew in 2015 that any rebuilding would be long, painful and for a while at least result in a lot more pain than actual success.  Focusing on the countryside would be sensible for all the reasons given by others; the other thing they ought to do is really go back to their old strategy of grinding away in local government elections, regaining that councillor base they lost (and perhaps building new areas of strength) before, in many years time probably, turning that into seats at Westminster.  The Brexit debate and their rating improving in 2019 gave them false confidence that Brexit was the only issue they needed but the average Lib Dem voter has always been very different from the party, and focusing on voters in places where outside of perhaps the occasional by-election they've not been successful rather than places where they had a base not too long ago and which has a history of Liberal voting was a folly.  I moved up north mid-campaign but before that I lived in North London (actually in Hornsey and Wood Green which the Lib Dems put a lot of resources into to finish a distant second with 26% of the vote: and that's a seat they held five years ago) and there was sign of the Lib Dems spending a lot of time and money across North London in some places where they surely knew they didn't have a hope in hell and while their vote share went up it delivered them  all: perhaps if they'd targeted those resources better they'd have actually won some seats.

The Lib Dems were always a party of protest for voters: if you didn't like your party but hated the guts of the other side; you voted Lib Dem to send a message.  Going into the coalition killed that and those protest voters went to other places - right wing voters got UKIP and the Brexit Party for a while, left wing voters got the Greens: there's been an increase in Independent and Residents Association councillors and I'm pretty sure that most of that support would have gone Liberal in the past.  There isn't a strong base of dedicated Liberals in the UK to really run as that sort of party if you want to win a lot of seats: they need to rebuilt that protest party reputation to get any meaningful success under FPTP.  Its long and its boring to get that back but, hey, that's what politics is at the end of the day: a long boring slog that, at times, is ultimately futile.

[Gary J]

Is there anyone suggesting the LDs dissolve given their recent disasters, 2015, 2019, leadership switches by the day?

No. The Liberal Democrats are far stronger now than the Liberal Party was in the 1950s.

[Blair]

London is not coming back to them- they wasted vast sums of time & money during both 2017 & 2019 on seats in London- whether that was Vauxhall & Bermondsey in 2017 or Two Cities & Kesington in 2019; it's a complete waste & London Labour is one of the most effective politcal machines when it gets its act together.

I always wonder if it's because political staffers all live in London or if I'm just projecting myself as a Londonder but the seats always get a much higher mark up in strategy discussions.

Of course we are going to get boundary changes; but even off the top of my head the Lib Dems only had what 3-4 more London seats in 2010 than they do now?

[IceAgeComing]

In 2010 they had seven seats: Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Brent Central, Carshalton and Wallington, Horney and Wood Green, Kingston and Surbiton, Sutton and Cheam and Twickenham.  In 2019 they had three seats: Kingston and Surbiton, Richmond Park and Twickenham.

Three of those 2010 seats are very unlikely to go back: Brent Central was the remnants of a Lib Dem by-election gain right after the Iraq War started and in 2017 they lost their deposit there (although they recovered to just under 10% in 2019); Horney and Wood Green was a seat gained in 2005 when Labour wasn't very popular locally and despite the Lib Dems throwing a lot of money into it they only got 26% in 2019 while Labour cleared 50 and without Simon Hughes the Lib Dems went backwards in Bermondsey despite the London-wide pattern and are now 28% behind Labour.

The other seats are in that South West London area which is where they've always been strongest, and where they have Local Government strength which is important.  Even then they've gone backwards there recently: they actually lost Carshalton in 2019 (where their Brexit policy probably hurt them, and might have cost them the seat); Sutton and Cheam is a long way away for them now as well.  Richmond has always been a target for them but I think that 2016 by-election helped them there: by winning it in 2016 it gave Olney a bit of name recognition and helped with morale since even after losing it in 2017 they knew they could get it back.

The issue with that is that their peak there is limited to the seats they currently hold, Carshalton and Sutton and Cheam realistically.  Sure the Lib Dems were close in 2019 but Labour are the stronger party locally, they held it between 1997 and 2001 and I believe they are the strongest party on local government there which gives them the better organisation and base to start from.  There's no sign anywhere else in London of a Lib Dem breakthrough: and realistically unless there's a by-election in a Tory seat with a strange result there's not likely to be another one outside that bit of London any time soon.

[EastAnglianLefty]

To that extent, Wimbledon makes sense as a target, since it neighbours that block of seats. However, the issue there is that Labour are probably better-positioned long-term, based on local government presence and the fact that the east of the seat has a non-negligible non-white population, whilst a lot of the Tory vote is simply too rich to be swayed by the Lib Dems.

In the past they've had some success in Bromley, but failing to get second in any of the seats there in 2019 suggests it's not on the cards any time soon. They really ought to do better in Croydon South, but for some reason Croydon has always been a dead zone for them. North of the river, there are very slim pickings for them.