2020 Liberal Democrats Leadership Election

[EastAnglianLefty]

Swinson only lost narrowly in 2019 and it's clear that a non-negligible number of voters in the seat were more hostile to her than they were to the LDs in general. And it's a very middle-class seat. If the LDs are in a healthier state than the SNP come the next election and if the Tories aren't surging in Scotland, they've got a decent chance.

The only caveat is that boundary changes are likely to make things slightly harder for the LDs and there's a non-negligible chance it could make things significantly harder.

[CumbrianLefty]

Moran evidently on manoeuvres, making some leftish noises on Twitter yesterday.

[CumbrianLefty]

The "official" LibDem report into their 2019 election failure has been published. In parts it is amusing, in others almost horrifying, but that they have released such a thing is still to their credit.

(the contrast with my own party is indeed a fair one to make)

Though rarely actually referred to by name, it makes clear what a poisonous delusional grandiloquent s*** the former MP for Streatham was. Well, some of us did try to warn you......

[Former President tack50]

The "official" LibDem report into their 2019 election failure has been published. In parts it is amusing, in others almost horrifying, but that they have released such a thing is still to their credit.

(the contrast with my own party is indeed a fair one to make)

Though rarely actually referred to by name, it makes clear what a poisonous delusional grandiloquent s*** the former MP for Streatham was. Well, some of us did try to warn you......

What is the basic summary of the Lib Dem "autopsy report"?

[CumbrianLefty]

"Our strategy of being solely about 'STOP BREXIT!' had a logic to it, but was still ultimately a mistake" would be a pretty good summary I think. Also that the "centralisation" of the party since the Clegg years bought short term benefits, but is now working against them.

[Pericles]

In such a Remain vs Leave election, a two-way race was always pretty likely and most people had one outcome they feared way more than the other. So it's not too surprising that the LibDems got squeezed. Swinson did run a bad campaign and worsened the effect, but the LibDem hype was always unrealistic. They also had so few seats in which they were actually within striking distance of flipping them going into the election. That makes the decision to support a general election a bit dumber, as they were on 21 MPs I think and it was hard for them to do much better or have more influence (due to the likelihood of a Tory majority). It is understandable though that they would have thought a pre-Brexit election was the least worst option though. No one party was solely responsible for giving Boris a general election on his terms, as both the SNP and Labour supported it too.

The thing that mystifies me is how they increased their share of the vote by 4% but actually lost a seat. It seems like the LibDem seat targeting went really wrong, with some pretty winnable seats being lost. The hubris about getting way over 40 seats must be part of that. For 2024 the LibDems probably need to slim down their target list, avoid hubris about getting 200 seats or even back to where they were in 2010 in one election, and then achieve their achievable goal (so getting up into the 20s seat wise should be achievable, but the swings needed to extend into the 30s are pretty daunting). A concern for them is that Starmer is a lot more appealing to their voters than Corbyn was, so maybe their vote just gets squeezed further.

[CumbrianLefty]

Re your last point, maybe that is a reason to target Tories more? Little doubt in hindsight that another mistake of the Swinson era was to concentrate their attacks so heavily on Labour (despite which, they ultimately couldn't even win Hallam back - one of their most ridiculous failures)

[Lumine]

It should be noted at least one big factor - the BXP withdrawal in Conservative seats - was very much outside their control, and that allegedly kept several winnable seats out of reach.

But yes, the number of winnable Labour seats for the Lib Dems is basically negligible other than Sheffield Hallam. Swinson's seat aside (SNP v. Lib Dem), all the potential Lib Dem gains in a future election under the current map are Conservative seats (and it's generally been that way since the Alliance, I think), so the expansion of the Lib Dems will require the Tories to start losing again.

[Blair]

The reason why the Liberal Democrat vote share went up is because they attracted more of the anti-corbyn vote than they did in 2017; whether that was because of anti-semitism (see Finchley) Brexit (Kesington) or just general 'a plague on both your houses' (see every seat where the Labour/Tory vote went down)

Much like in 2010 they didn't actually benefit from this increase because it was laregly in seats where it made little to no difference. Besides even on the most optimistic of actually polling/data you could get them to around 30-40 seats...

Having read the report (well I skimmed it) it correctly identifies the main problem; a stupid god awful message (make Jo PM), a boring, bland & decidely average leader (who had the baggage of coalition without the political clout that comes from being important enough to defend it) and a stupid policy which they didn't want (revoke A50)

These three things baked in the problems of the campaign; as the small third party it's virtually impossible to overturn them. The report rightly notes too that a lot of money was wasted in the defector seats-Sam Gyimah for example handed Keningston to the Tories & ran a foul campaign accusing the sitting Labour MP of being responsible for the Grenfell fire. (see more below re coupons)

Funnily enough after years & miles of columns about Labour members ruining the party it was the Liberal members who did so by putting this policy on the party- Labour quite rightly stop conference from writing the manifesto.

The major problem was going for an early election; the Liberal Democrats bolted before the SNP & the SNP were always expected to eventually back one eventually so they were happy to wait- it was  a leap in the dark to hope that Bojo would lose a december one & thus Brexit would be stopped. There was no good date for an election but December was clearly an awful one & they were warned by both their own MPs & by Labour MPs.

And to follow up earlier- this was a brexit election which frankly would have only deprived Johnson of a majority if there was much like in 1918 a coupon for the 2nd referedum candidate; Labour wouldn't stand in the 50 or so Liberal/Tory targets & the Lib Dems would pull out of Tory/Lab marginals. It's extremely unlikely but this is the only way that 2019 produces anything close to a hung parliament.

However a lot of the above is known- what is interesting is the future of the Lib Dems. As Stephen Bush from the NS put in a good piece the Liberal Democrats use to win running hyper-local campaigns which led to them having a group of MPs with very little in common.

The only other alternative is a party for progressives in seats Labour can't win; if they can't win Sheffield Hallam, Bermondsey or other former Liberal-Lab urban marginals against Corbyn in a low-turnout election they're not coming for a while...

Starmer imo is extremely well suited to at the least take votes, if not outright threaten some the new Liberal-Tory marginals (Wimbledon for example)

[CumbrianLefty]

Now reported that moves are afoot to install a new permanent leader by the autumn.

[Blair]

I very much look forward to & expect they'll pick Moran but I have quite serious doubts about her suitability for the job.

Now reported that moves are afoot to install a new permanent leader by the autumn.

I do wonder if they would benefit from the SNP's approach of having Davey as the Westminister Leader (who is quite respected across the house) & someone like Moran as the Party Leader- the obvious drawback is the lack of publicity but they only get one question at PMQs every few weeks...

The above made me realise that one major reason for their lack of success is no longer being the third-party at Westminster; you lose a fair bit of funding, you lose coverage and you're reliant on a tiny pool of talent.

[CumbrianLefty]

The only poll of LibDem members I am aware of (by YouGov, which does have a creditable record in these things) gave Davey a stonking lead over Moran. But that was a bit ago now.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I very much look forward to & expect they'll pick Moran but I have quite serious doubts about her suitability for the job.

Now reported that moves are afoot to install a new permanent leader by the autumn.

I do wonder if they would benefit from the SNP's approach of having Davey as the Westminister Leader (who is quite respected across the house) & someone like Moran as the Party Leader- the obvious drawback is the lack of publicity but they only get one question at PMQs every few weeks...

The above made me realise that one major reason for their lack of success is no longer being the third-party at Westminster; you lose a fair bit of funding, you lose coverage and you're reliant on a tiny pool of talent.

That only works for the SNP because Holyrood is more important to them than Westminster. If the Lib Dems did it, it'd just be an admission that they don't rate Moran.

[CumbrianLefty]

Tomorrow, the "world famous" Mark Pack will have been acting co-leader of the LibDems for longer than Jo Swinson was actually leader. That's got to sting a bit

[DaWN]

As an actual Lib Dem member, i.e someone with an interest and stakes in, and perhaps more importantly, a vote in, this contest, I think there are a few bases I'd like to touch and give my view on the whole situation. God knows I don't want to be posting on Atlas right now but right now he doesn't have much choice in the matter so sod it.

The "official" LibDem report into their 2019 election failure has been published. In parts it is amusing, in others almost horrifying, but that they have released such a thing is still to their credit.

I read (alright, skimmed through) said report when it came out. It was indeed a useful excercise for the party and hopefully a lot of advice from it is taken, but the response of many of Twitter's more obnoxious dwellers was profoundly unhelpful. Otherwise, yes, its a step in the right direction.

It seems like the LibDem seat targeting went really wrong, with some pretty winnable seats being lost.

a) is partly responsible for b) but not entirely - had the election as a whole been more successful for a party (the message less garbled, the campaign less off-putting) then the easily winnable seats would have fallen. People raising their eyebrows and tut-tutting the moment the Lib Dems look at a seat that might be a bit of a long shot is not helpful to the overall discourse. Yes, mistakes were made (a Kensington-shaped one being very prominent) and targeting decisions need to be made much better next time, but that doesn't mean it has to be as narrowed down as some people think. Particularly if the government is unpopular. Which we'll get to.

A concern for them is that Starmer is a lot more appealing to their voters than Corbyn was, so maybe their vote just gets squeezed further.

It's certainly a concern I have. It's nice Labour have a leader who isn't a reprehensible twat but that doesn't mean the cultures or ideas that shaped Labour throughout the Corbyn years have gone. I am not of the opinion that Labour deserves votes from our potential voter base yet - yes, Starmer has been impressive but his party has not. You cannot separate one from the other. I doubt many like-minded people agree with me though.

Maybe that is a reason to target Tories more? Little doubt in hindsight that another mistake of the Swinson era was to concentrate their attacks so heavily on Labour (despite which, they ultimately couldn't even win Hallam back - one of their most ridiculous failures)

In hindsight, yes, quite possibly, but at the time, with Corbyn the least popular politician in the country and Labour brand about as popular as dysentry? I fail to see how anyone else wouldn't have reached the same conclusion Swinson did. And it's not like your party covered themselves with glory regarding us either. With Corbyn gone, yes, to attack Labour would be very foolish. There will be plenty of opportunities to take votes and seats from Labour - the next time they are in government. Before then it's a fool's errand outside Hallam and as you said, the miserable failure there means even that's looking unlikely for now.

Swinson's seat aside (SNP v. Lib Dem), all the potential Lib Dem gains in a future election under the current map are Conservative seats (and it's generally been that way since the Alliance, I think), so the expansion of the Lib Dems will require the Tories to start losing again.

Blackford's seat is another target from the SNP (and a very rewarding one as to rid Parliament of that tosser) but yes, this is the key point, especially regarding the more educated suburban seats where we already went up quite a bit and Brexit could possibly result in even more of a backlash.

The report rightly notes too that a lot of money was wasted in the defector seats-Sam Gyimah for example handed Keningston to the Tories

Kensington was a mistake yes. Regarding the defectors, I think moving them from seat to seat was mostly a mistake. They either should have stayed and fought their own seats - Gyimah and Umunna certainly - or been given a safe or at least very winnable seat. As this won't be a problem next time its academic of course.

this was a brexit election which frankly would have only deprived Johnson of a majority if there was much like in 1918 a coupon for the 2nd referedum candidate; Labour wouldn't stand in the 50 or so Liberal/Tory targets & the Lib Dems would pull out of Tory/Lab marginals. It's extremely unlikely but this is the only way that 2019 produces anything close to a hung parliament.

I don't want to refight the arguments from the 2019 election but to be blunt Corbyn would never have let this happen. Despite the events of the election and its aftermath, Corbyn's flag was attached to a very clear mast and it wasn't that one.

However a lot of the above is known- what is interesting is the future of the Lib Dems. As Stephen Bush from the NS put in a good piece the Liberal Democrats use to win running hyper-local campaigns which led to them having a group of MPs with very little in common.

This is not a good idea in this day and age - the advent of social media and the marked shift in both the Tory and Labour approaches essentially rule this out as a strategy. Plus it took the better part of 20 years to build that up in the first place - to be blunt, nobody wants to wait that long to get above 20 seats. For instance, those seats in the south west built on personalities are never coming back, apart from maybe St Ives.

Starmer imo is extremely well suited to at the least take votes, if not outright threaten some the new Liberal-Tory marginals (Wimbledon for example)

Well that's on Labour to back off and let us take the tactical votes in seats like that. Starmer doesn't seem like the petty arsehole type so let's hope that doesn't happen. And yes, I'm aware that may have been the case in reverse in Kensington last year, but I've said that was a mistake, and one that neither side should repeat.

Now I've responded to a few ideas put out, two questions remain - who's the leader and what's the approach?

Jardine backing out was a shame, but on reflection, I think we need a leader with a safe seat. Farron nearly losing then Swinson actually losing meant embarrassment, but also the leader spending time and resources they shouldn't need to. Jardine would have been an effective leader but the Tartan Bastards never seem to get what's coming to them and I think she would have suffered from that as well. Luckily, Davey, Moran and Hobhouse are all in functionally safe seats at this point, so that's okay.

bants when alistair carmichael declares and wins lmao

Anyway, had RLB actually won the Labour contest I think I would have plumped for Davey - dull and boring, but also unlikely to make any major mistakes and very capable at letting the idiots at the top embarass themselves. But with Starmer? I don't see how that approach would work. He would compare unfavourably with Starmer who is frankly just the more impressive of the two.

But I really doubt Moran's capability to be leader - she's a risk that could pay off big time or she could crash and burn. On the other hand, no stink of coalition, which finally removes a wedge that Labour have been beating with for what feels like decades at this point. Genuinely undecided. Will have to see how the campaign plays out, but err, not exactly bristling with choices here am I.

Hobhouse seems to be taking the 'rejoin' route, (albeit in a very 'lets take our time about it' manner) which I think is a mistake, plus I just cannot bear to think about four years of red roses on twitter yelling the 'ex-Tory!!!' line. So I guess that's that ruled out.

So I don't know. Will have to pay attention to the campaign. Hurrah.

As for the approach to take? Well, for now, this

a party for progressives in seats Labour can't win

sounds about right, particularly if there's a Brexit-based backlash among educated suburban Conservatives. It's not the ideal situation but if the government loses ground,  Labour isn't led by someone who actively repulses them and Brexit doesn't go swimmingly then I think its a viable approach to get into the 20s next time.

I'm not enthused about the future of this party - a party I joined out of utter repulsion at the big two, let's not forget, and Labour making its first good decision in a decade is not a sign that's going to change. But with four years to rebuild and a government that's probably about to make itself rather unpopular, who knows what the future might hold. Probably more disappointment.

[Blair]

you're a Lib-Dem!

The point about Moran is quite interesting; the problem I have is that there are a group of politicians I find extremely annoying & I completely lose any sensible ability to judge/analysis them- Moran falls into that category.

It's interesting that you raised the same concerns; I don't usually like to become one of those people but her personal relationships & her handling of them as a frontline politician certainly raises alarm bells about her overall suitability.

She also comes across as a parody of what Liberal Democrats use to be in the pre-coalition days; but frankly most of the Lib Dem parliamentary party does (the eccentric rural MP, the party staffer, the random local etc etc)

The point about Chuka is interesting; we heard locally he was going to get Twickenham (along with stupid rumours he might go for Ealing & Acton or Brentford- the two local labour seats to his home with largish FBPE tendancies) and it was a bit surpise he went for Two cities- although he was actually the favourite for a while.

The party frankly didn't lose anything by him well losing- beyond another talking head for newsnight. He's an idiot who if he wanted a career in politics should have stayed in Labour; he isn't a Lib-Dem by any mark of the word & his colleagues are pretty close to getting what he wanted back (an electable, centre-left, crank free labour party)

On this point I do wonder what people's thoughts are on the ideological implications of the Lib-Dems taking in the defectors- I always thought it was perfectly sensible to take whoever was offered but I do wonder if the party contributed to the idea it had no driving liberal identity because it took people like Umunna, Gyimah, Philip Lee & Angela Smith.

[VPH]

Can the Lib Dems take back any rural seats? I know the Southwest has some Lib Dem history to it. It seems their support is now confined to well-off areas and university towns most receptive to their message. I personally would like to see a bold yet pragmatic vision from the new leadership.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The point about Chuka is interesting; we heard locally he was going to get Twickenham (along with stupid rumours he might go for Ealing & Acton or Brentford- the two local labour seats to his home with largish FBPE tendancies) and it was a bit surpise he went for Two cities- although he was actually the favourite for a while.

The party frankly didn't lose anything by him well losing- beyond another talking head for newsnight. He's an idiot who if he wanted a career in politics should have stayed in Labour; he isn't a Lib-Dem by any mark of the word & his colleagues are pretty close to getting what he wanted back (an electable, centre-left, crank free labour party)

On this point I do wonder what people's thoughts are on the ideological implications of the Lib-Dems taking in the defectors- I always thought it was perfectly sensible to take whoever was offered but I do wonder if the party contributed to the idea it had no driving liberal identity because it took people like Umunna, Gyimah, Philip Lee & Angela Smith.

Honestly, they got close enough in Cities that it might have fallen if the campaign had been less disastrous, and it's the only London seat where trying to run without any local government presence or workable voter ID records was actually plausible.

My problem with the idea that the Lib Dems' ideological coherence was harmed by taking in the defectors is that they weren't that coherent beforehand - people are criticising the old Lib Dem model of wanting more housing nationally but none in their constituencies, but that continues to be exactly the line of their local government brigade.

Interestingly, judging by their social media presences Lee seems to be the only one with much interest in hanging around the LDs now, despite having been the one who caused most ructions in the membership.

[CumbrianLefty]

Can the Lib Dems take back any rural seats? I know the Southwest has some Lib Dem history to it. It seems their support is now confined to well-off areas and university towns most receptive to their message. I personally would like to see a bold yet pragmatic vision from the new leadership.

If the Tories become unpopular, surely a few possibilities should open up for them. Unless they persist in staying as the "rejoin" party and pretty much nothing else.

[Blair]

The point about Chuka is interesting; we heard locally he was going to get Twickenham (along with stupid rumours he might go for Ealing & Acton or Brentford- the two local labour seats to his home with largish FBPE tendancies) and it was a bit surpise he went for Two cities- although he was actually the favourite for a while.

The party frankly didn't lose anything by him well losing- beyond another talking head for newsnight. He's an idiot who if he wanted a career in politics should have stayed in Labour; he isn't a Lib-Dem by any mark of the word & his colleagues are pretty close to getting what he wanted back (an electable, centre-left, crank free labour party)

On this point I do wonder what people's thoughts are on the ideological implications of the Lib-Dems taking in the defectors- I always thought it was perfectly sensible to take whoever was offered but I do wonder if the party contributed to the idea it had no driving liberal identity because it took people like Umunna, Gyimah, Philip Lee & Angela Smith.

Honestly, they got close enough in Cities that it might have fallen if the campaign had been less disastrous, and it's the only London seat where trying to run without any local government presence or workable voter ID records was actually plausible.

My problem with the idea that the Lib Dems' ideological coherence was harmed by taking in the defectors is that they weren't that coherent beforehand - people are criticising the old Lib Dem model of wanting more housing nationally but none in their constituencies, but that continues to be exactly the line of their local government brigade.

Interestingly, judging by their social media presences Lee seems to be the only one with much interest in hanging around the LDs now, despite having been the one who caused most ructions in the membership.

Yeah; I'll save my rant for why Change-UK should have stayed as a Parliamentary grouping another day but none of the people who joined the Lib Dems did themselves any good. I think it actively contributed internally to the idea that they were a 'stop Brexit at any-cost' party.

The thing about cities is that I didn't realise there was quite a large BAME (I assume laregely afro-carribean) vote which Labour always manages to pull out- it was sh**tty of Labour to target the seat as they knew it would hand it to the Tories still a cynic says it means they've got a shot at the seat in 2024 (I mean what difference did it actually make?)

[Former President tack50]

Something interesting I just noticed is that the Lib Dems (not too unlike Labour actually) came very close but not wuite enough in a lot of seats.

The Lib Dems lost a whopping 6 seats with majorities under 1000 or 1%; which would increase the Lib Dem sests by 50% by itself. A swing of 3% to the Lib Dems would outright double the Lib Dem seats.

Granted the Lib Dems seem to be going down, not up, but if they could even just hold steady at 2019 levels they would probably flip several seats and get into yhe mid-high teens

[CumbrianLefty]

The point about Chuka is interesting; we heard locally he was going to get Twickenham (along with stupid rumours he might go for Ealing & Acton or Brentford- the two local labour seats to his home with largish FBPE tendancies) and it was a bit surpise he went for Two cities- although he was actually the favourite for a while.

The party frankly didn't lose anything by him well losing- beyond another talking head for newsnight. He's an idiot who if he wanted a career in politics should have stayed in Labour; he isn't a Lib-Dem by any mark of the word & his colleagues are pretty close to getting what he wanted back (an electable, centre-left, crank free labour party)

On this point I do wonder what people's thoughts are on the ideological implications of the Lib-Dems taking in the defectors- I always thought it was perfectly sensible to take whoever was offered but I do wonder if the party contributed to the idea it had no driving liberal identity because it took people like Umunna, Gyimah, Philip Lee & Angela Smith.

Honestly, they got close enough in Cities that it might have fallen if the campaign had been less disastrous, and it's the only London seat where trying to run without any local government presence or workable voter ID records was actually plausible.

My problem with the idea that the Lib Dems' ideological coherence was harmed by taking in the defectors is that they weren't that coherent beforehand - people are criticising the old Lib Dem model of wanting more housing nationally but none in their constituencies, but that continues to be exactly the line of their local government brigade.

Interestingly, judging by their social media presences Lee seems to be the only one with much interest in hanging around the LDs now, despite having been the one who caused most ructions in the membership.

Yeah; I'll save my rant for why Change-UK should have stayed as a Parliamentary grouping another day but none of the people who joined the Lib Dems did themselves any good. I think it actively contributed internally to the idea that they were a 'stop Brexit at any-cost' party.

The thing about cities is that I didn't realise there was quite a large BAME (I assume laregely afro-carribean) vote which Labour always manages to pull out- it was sh**tty of Labour to target the seat as they knew it would hand it to the Tories still a cynic says it means they've got a shot at the seat in 2024 (I mean what difference did it actually make?)

Of course, Labour might have made less of an effort had the LibDem candidate been someone else.

[vileplume]

Re your last point, maybe that is a reason to target Tories more? Little doubt in hindsight that another mistake of the Swinson era was to concentrate their attacks so heavily on Labour (despite which, they ultimately couldn't even win Hallam back - one of their most ridiculous failures)

The reason why they attacked Labour/Corbyn as hard as they did was because the primary type of seat they were targeting (wealthy, suburban strongly remain), the key to winning was flipping Tory Remain voters. Being perceived to be going soft on Corbyn (who was actively despised amongst this demographic) would just have ensured these people would have held their nose and voted for the Tories. In the end fear/dislike of Corbyn was too strong and enough of these people reluctantly returned to the Tories in the final weeks to stop him, which ensured narrow Lib Dem losses in the likes of Guildford and Esher.

If on the other hand they'd openly aligned themselves with Corbyn's Labour I doubt any of these seats would've been at all close and they would still have stonking Tory majorities.

Now I do agree that maybe they didn't attack the Tories enough, however the best way to attack them would be along the lines of: 'they've thrown business under the bus', 'they're no longer the party of 'sensible' economic management' etc. whilst at the same time defending their record in coalition. Taking this line however would of course be deeply uncomfortable for the left of the party.

This is why I believe their electoral prospects would be far best served by electing Ed Davey, who comes closest to this way of thinking and thus would appeal to key demographics in most of their target seats. Layla Moran on the other hand, whilst I do think she is at least a reasonably talented politician, would appeal most to inner city Guardianista-types and would repel Tory-Lib Dem swing voters in the suburbs. The effect of this would be to make the Lib Dem vote even less efficient by going backwards in the seats they're currently close in whilst making strong gains in the Islingtons of this world but falling short there too due to Labour's vote being too strong on the council estates. Wera Hobhouse would very likely be a disaster but her winning is, I would have thought, rather unlikely.  

[vileplume]

These three things baked in the problems of the campaign; as the small third party it's virtually impossible to overturn them. The report rightly notes too that a lot of money was wasted in the defector seats-Sam Gyimah for example handed Keningston to the Tories & ran a foul campaign accusing the sitting Labour MP of being responsible for the Grenfell fire. (see more below re coupons)

I don't think you can say this at all. The Lib Dem vote in Kensington would've almost certainly come primarily from the very wealthy southern half of the constituency, whilst I think it's highly likely they did pretty poorly in the much poorer north (location of Grenfell). So it's not at all unreasonable to assume most of their voters were ex-Tories. Now who these people would have voted for if it was just a choice between Tory and Labour is another question entirely, but if you look at the available evidence (the Deltapoll) the same % of Lib Dem voters preferred the Tories to Labour as preferred the Labour to the Tories. Thus it is possible that Labour would've held Kensington narrowly without the Lib Dems trying to win but equally the Tories could've won it with a larger majority.

The idea that Lib Dem voters at the last election would've overwhelmingly preferred Labour to the Tories in a binary choice is a myth that needs dispelling (along with the myth that all Brexit Party voters would have voted Tory if the party didn't exist).

[CumbrianLefty]

Given how narrow the margin in Kensington was, that Gyimah almost exclusively targeted the Labour incumbent to the extent of actually libelling her, and that (in one of their most execrable actions) the Observer told anti-Tory voters to support him - whilst "LibDems handed seat x to the Tories" is on the whole a much over-used and often baseless accusation, there is reason to actually believe it here.